Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part III

[Vixen]

And it's beyond a moot point if the conspiracy theory says saboteurs wanted the ship to sink to destroy part of its cargo. Disabling the buoys is pointless.

The buoys wouldn't be activated if the sinking didn't happen. Once the ship has sunk, their evil mission is accomplished and they can go down with the ship, happy in the knowledge that they've killed themselves doing their duty for Mother Russia and it no longer matters whether the ship's location is known or not. In the event, distress calls worked faster than the EPIRB system would have worked anyway, even if it was operating. The saboteurs did nothing to secure all the radios. The storyline of the evil plot falls apart.

More hypothetical nonsense.

 

[Vixen]

I think we gotta hand it to the saboteurs. Not only did they steal the EPIRBs in order to deposit them on a beach[1], they grabbed a bunch of life jackets and other floating stuff and dropped it all in the same area, thereby ensuring even more deaths. That's planning ahead.

Except for the part where they dropped it on a beach that actual floating stuff would never, ever drift to[2]. That's a bit of an oversight.

[1] Yes, yes, I know they were found by fishing boats.

[2] Again, just parroting what I've learned from Vixen.

Erm, the EPIRB's were covered in sand. The EPIRB's were discovered 2 Oct 1994, yet the Rockwater divers 2 Dec 1994 were not informed. However, thanks to this glaring omission, we get confirmation from Rockwater's report that the EPIRB's were of the hydrostatically-operated type, as they were in um, a hydrostatic case, which only fits the standard hydrostatic model.

 

[Vixen]

All of Chapter 19 is about the Estonia.

It is titled 'CHAPTER 19 DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS AFTER THE ACCIDENT'

Based on Herald of Free Enterprise. Says nothing at all about the ultra-rapid sinking or the hole in the hull. Or what happened to the Captain.

 

[Vixen]

Yes. And irrespective of either the EPIRBs or any Mayday calls, even if these evil conspirators had managed to engineer it so that the Estonia sank with nobody else knowing at that time that it was sinking/had sunk....

..... it wouldn't have taken the authorities very long to a) realise that the ship must have sunk, and b) locate the wreck. The Estonia was sailing in a pretty tightly-defined shipping lane, and even its erratic final moments afloat kept it within that lane. And there would have been plenty of bits of evidence narrowing down the Estonia's most likely point of sinking.

This would never have been a Titanic or MH370 scenario. (To take the Titanic comparator, 1912 technology meant that it was immediately extremely hard to put any kind of decent fix upon the area of the wreck. And, very importantly, the area of the ocean floor where she sank was/is extremely deep and undulating - the Titanic wreck is something like 3,500m deep. By contrast, the deepest point of the entire Baltic Sea is something like 450m, and the Estonia lies at a depth of around 80m-90m)

Oh dear, here comes Captain Hindsight. The Titanic took almost three hours to sink, despite [we now know] splitting in two and the six watertight bulkhead compartments for'ard of the ship filling with water causing it to sink even faster, when had they been high enough there might have been time for rescue by a nearby vessel on its way. Likewise, it did not have sufficient life boats.

Let it sink in: Titanic for all of its splitting in two and its hull breached via damage from scraping the iceberg at its side took almost three hours to sink.


The Estonia sank in half an hour. It had plenty of life boats. All the personnel on the bridge had to do was press a green button and they would have been released.

Yet another strange omission.

 

[zooterkin]

Hypothetical question. Let's just stick to what did or did not happen, shall we?

 

[Andy_Ross]

For the umpty-ninth time, they were not 'switched off'. They had never been 'switched on'. You cannot switch them off, if never switched on. The inspection the week before established they were in good working order. The Rockwater divers confirm the hydrostatic release capsule was empty. IOW they/it would have automatically floated to the surface to transmit a beam to the satellite system. The hydrostatic release system ensures the beacon buoys are automatically release on contact with ne to four metres of water. These can also be operated by switching the thing on manually by a button. Once switched on the signal is sent. There was never any signal sent, so was never switched on.

The JAIC only mentions the EPIRB on the following occasions. You are flat out lying when you claim they could only be switched on by a crew member who then had to throw it overboard rather than place it in a hydrostatic cage.



If the beacons were not activated, that simply means they were not programmed to the GDMSS which is hard to believe given they had been tested and inspected the week before. This involves green lights flashing for battery power, circuit connection and connectivity by the sound of a beep. Four green lights at the end means all is AOK.

See from 4:00" onwards.



The only conclusion is that they were removed manually from the ship. Had the EPIRB been released all right via the hydrostatic trigger but never floated to the surface to let off a signal, then it should surely have emitted a signal when it finally surfaced, so that is ruled out.

they are just stored in the 'cage'. To operate they have to be removed and turned on with a manual switch.
What are you on about being 'programmed'?
They come from the supplier ready set up to go. Nothing can be changed or set by the user, they are sealed units.
After a fixed period of time they are returned to the supplier and swapped for new units.
If they are turned on by accident even for just a few seconds they are supposed to be returned to the supplier for replacement.

Do we have to keep repeating this? if they were not turned on by a member of the crew they would not transmit.
Floating to the surface would not make them transmit anything at all.

 

[abaddon]

Oh dear, here comes Captain Hindsight. The Titanic took almost three hours to sink, despite [we now know] splitting in two and the six watertight bulkhead compartments for'ard of the ship filling with water causing it to sink even faster, when had they been high enough there might have been time for rescue by a nearby vessel on its way. Likewise, it did not have sufficient life boats.

Let it sink in: Titanic for all of its splitting in two and its hull breached via damage from scraping the iceberg at its side took almost three hours to sink.


The Estonia sank in half an hour. It had plenty of life boats. All the personnel on the bridge had to do was press a green button and they would have been released.

Yet another strange omission.

How many car decks did the Titanic have?

 

[Andy_Ross]

For the umpty-ninth time, if it takes four metres of water to automatically detach the buoy then of course it is not one operated "manually only", as if one has to dive two fathoms under the sea to turn it on.

Are you doing this deliberately?

The units on the Estonia have to be turned on and put in to the water.
If they were still in the brackets when the ship sank it was too late to turn them on.
That is why the regulations were changed to make carrying automatic buoys compulsory.
It is now difficult to even find a manual activation only buoy for sale.

The brackets in use on the Estonia were for use by manual buoys and automatic activation buoys if they were carried.

What are you failing to understand here?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oh dear. Not one of the hundreds of rescue vessels, helicopters and aircraft who surveyed the entire scene until late into the night the next day spotted these 'dumb buoys' floating around.

No because they are tiny and the sea is very big.

 

[Andy_Ross]

As confirmed by the Rockwater divers, they were hydrostatically triggered. These buoys of course can also be switched on manually. However, once switched on, they will have sent a signal. No signal was ever sent, so they were not switched on manually. However, Rockwater confirms the hydrostatically-operated case it/they were in was open, implying either they had been triggered by up to twelve feet of seawater and thus should have floated up to the surface and signalled accordingly, or they/it had been removed.

They were not automatic buoys, they had manual activation only.
Read the ******* report.

 

[junkshop]

For the umpty-ninth time, they were not 'switched off'. They had never been 'switched on'...

You seem to have reversed your position here...

...were found washed up by some Norwegian fishermen many miles away switched off...

 

[Andy_Ross]

Hypothetical question. Let's just stick to what did or did not happen, shall we?

OK, the buoys were not turned on and put overboard by any member of the bridge crew. They sank with the ship and eventually floated to the surface where they were recovered later by fishing boats.

They were never activated so no signal was received. When they were tested they were found to be in working order.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Erm, the EPIRB's were covered in sand. The EPIRB's were discovered 2 Oct 1994, yet the Rockwater divers 2 Dec 1994 were not informed. However, thanks to this glaring omission, we get confirmation from Rockwater's report that the EPIRB's were of the hydrostatically-operated type, as they were in um, a hydrostatic case, which only fits the standard hydrostatic model.

They were recovered by fishing boats. It is in the report.

They were not the hydrostatically operated type.

What the brackets are is not important.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Based on Herald of Free Enterprise. Says nothing at all about the ultra-rapid sinking or the hole in the hull. Or what happened to the Captain.

It is about the regulations that were changed and developed following the Estonia disaster.

Have you even looked at it?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oh dear, here comes Captain Hindsight. The Titanic took almost three hours to sink, despite [we now know] splitting in two and the six watertight bulkhead compartments for'ard of the ship filling with water causing it to sink even faster, when had they been high enough there might have been time for rescue by a nearby vessel on its way. Likewise, it did not have sufficient life boats.

Let it sink in: Titanic for all of its splitting in two and its hull breached via damage from scraping the iceberg at its side took almost three hours to sink.


The Estonia sank in half an hour. It had plenty of life boats. All the personnel on the bridge had to do was press a green button and they would have been released.

Yet another strange omission.

What 'green button' releases the lifeboats?

Where are you getting that from?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Boats are not launched by pressing a 'green button' on the bridge.

Each one has to be readied and launched by trained crew at the individual boat davits. From the report.

The crew did not manage to launch any of the ten lifeboats. Nine broke loose when the vessel sank, and the tenth is still attached to its davits. The rapidly increasing list and the lack of time for organising the crew are considered to be the main reasons for this shortcoming. The lifeboats found drifting during the rescue operation had either capsized or were waterlogged.

Three lifeboats were found near the place where the ESTONIA sank. A crew member had managed to climb into one of them and on each of the other two, which were floating upside down, six persons were hanging onto the bottom. One person from each was later washed away by the sea.
Once again traditional lifeboats proved to be useless in distress.

Similarly liferafts are not launched by pressing a 'green button' on the bridge there are several methods for launching but it is done individually at each raft by crew members or by an automatic hydrostatic system after the ship sinks.
From the report

The liferafts were launched partly by crew members and passengers and partly by automatically release and inflation when the vessel sank. The rafts were found very difficult to use in the severe sea conditions partly for the following reasons:

Many rafts capsized due to the wind pressure and drifted upside down, and many did not fully inflate.
Some of the upside-down drifting rafts were later righted by the waves . When this happened, however, those who were on the raft were again thrown into the sea and had great difficulties in climbing back.
Capsized rafts with the canopy under water provided no shelter for those on board.
The canopies of the rafts did not raise themselves automatically, and the openings could not be closed properly.
Much water accumulated on the bottom of the rafts. In the worst case reported, there was 20 cm of water on the bottom of the raft. The bale scoops were so small that they were ineffective, and many survivors used their shoes to bale with.
The knives on board the rafts proved to be useless.
When the rafts were drifting the various lines for inflation and for keeping the raft in position for boarding constituted obstacles for people trying to board. The rope ladder went underneath the raft, swinging the feet of those who were trying to climb on, and thus affording practically no help.
The operating head was not properly tightened to the CO2 pressure cylinder in many rafts found after the accident. This may be a reason why many rafts were not fully inflated.
Entangled painter lines were also found around the operating heads.
As mentioned earlier the liferafts had no individual identification and were therefore not distinguishable. The helicopter crews and the mariners were unable to keep track of which rafts had already been searched. Many are believed to have been searched many times, thereby delaying the search of others.
Another problem was that the black colour of the liferafts' bottoms made the rafts difficult to detect when floating upside down.
Examination of the recovered liferafts shows that almost all the drift anchors and their ropes were missing. Likewise, many emergency packs were missing. The missing equipment may have been lost during the rescue operation or later.
Liferafts were under these circumstances useful rescue equipment but the serious deficiencies listed above diminish their value in heavy seas and when people have to climb into them from the water.

It seems to me that the main problem with the liferafts fitted to the Eastonia is that they were crap and of poor quality.

 

[LondonJohn]

That article is dated 2019. Something written twenty four years in retrospect. That is not a proper citation. That is just an assumption by the author.

So you're claiming..... what exactly? That because this article was written in 2019, that somehow invalidates it from a reliability PoV? That because it was written 24 years after the event, the author must therefore be assuming stuff rather than relying on facts plus his knowledge & experience?

Is that what you're claiming here, Vixen? Really?

 

[LondonJohn]

London John is getting abusive again... a clear sign he has lost it.

Uhmmmmm, what's that?

(And by the way, my pointing out that almost all of your posts are irrational, the product of low intelligence (about this topic), bereft of any proper analysis, and stultefyingly ill-informed...... is not abuse, Vixen. It's a statement of fact.)

 

[Stamuel]

For the umpty-ninth time, they were not 'switched off'. They had never been 'switched on'. You cannot switch them off, if never switched on. The inspection the week before established they were in good working order. The Rockwater divers confirm the hydrostatic release capsule was empty. IOW they/it would have automatically floated to the surface to transmit a beam to the satellite system. The hydrostatic release system ensures the beacon buoys are automatically release on contact with ne to four metres of water. These can also be operated by switching the thing on manually by a button. Once switched on the signal is sent. There was never any signal sent, so was never switched on.

The JAIC only mentions the EPIRB on the following occasions. You are flat out lying when you claim they could only be switched on by a crew member who then had to throw it overboard rather than place it in a hydrostatic cage.



If the beacons were not activated, that simply means they were not programmed to the GDMSS which is hard to believe given they had been tested and inspected the week before. This involves green lights flashing for battery power, circuit connection and connectivity by the sound of a beep. Four green lights at the end means all is AOK.

See from 4:00" onwards.



The only conclusion is that they were removed manually from the ship. Had the EPIRB been released all right via the hydrostatic trigger but never floated to the surface to let off a signal, then it should surely have emitted a signal when it finally surfaced, so that is ruled out.

Let's take a look at part of what you quoted:

8.11 The EPIRB beacons

The EPIRB beacons along with some liferafts and lifejackets were found on 2 October 1994 by two Estonian fishing vessels in the vicinity of Dirhami on the north coast of Estonia. The beacons were switched off when found. On 28 December 1994 the condition of the above EPIRBs was tested by the Finnish experts. The radio beacons proved to he in full working order when switched on.

On 24 January 1995 both EPIRBs were activated on board the Estonian icebreaker TARMO, when they worked without interval for four hours. According to the Russian COSPAS Mission control centre, whose area of responsibility includes the Estonian waters, the radio beacons were transmitting the signal in the normal way throughout the test period.

It sounds like the EPIRBs were found in the water, switched off, but in perfect working order. Therefore, they were not water activated.

Even if they were found on the beach and not the water (the wording suggests they were found in the water, but it is not completely unequivocal), obviously, they floated there in the water. After being in the water all that time, they were switched off and in perfect working order, and thus were not water activated.

So we have a bunch of references for the claim that they were only manually activated, and the circumstances of their discovery and subsequent inspection only fit if they were only manually activated.

What is the alternative? First, everyone is wrong and the EPIRBs were actually water activated, not manual-only. The conspirators removed them from the ship and got them to shore without them ever landing in the water, where they would have activated. I'm guessing they had to do this while the ship was docked, because removal at sea would have ended with the EPRIBs going down with the ship and activating in the water. Then they planted the stolen EPIRBs (or maybe replacements) on the shore somewhere, but the ones they planted worked fine. They didn't try to fake any kind of damage or malfunction to explain why they never activated and nobody received a signal from them.

Especially given that there is no benefit to the conspirators to remove the EPIRBs, I'd say this is another "suspicious anomaly" that is not suspicious, not anomalous and leads absolutely nowhere.

 

[LondonJohn]

For the umpty-ninth time, they were not 'switched off'. They had never been 'switched on'. You cannot switch them off, if never switched on.

Ah, see: you've half figured this out.

What you've written above is totally correct. So well done on that.

But where you're still (astonishingly) coming unstuck is your (mis)understanding of what "switched on" means in this specific context (Hint: it doesn't mean what you think it means, and you've been told what it actually means.... many more than a handful of times now.)