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

[LondonJohn]

Yes, the digging I've done around SOLAS suggest automatic activation models were already recommended.

e.g. A 1993 resolution on recommended standards here: https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresourc...MOResolutions/AssemblyDocuments/A.763(18).pdf

Yes, they were available and recommended at that time - because clearly an EPIRB that will automatically switch on its transmission once its lower portion becomes immersed in water is vastly preferable to one which requires a manual switch-on of its transmitter.

But they're fairly pricey bits of kit, and the thinking in 1994 would have been along the lines of: "The automatic-activation EPIRBs are preferred and recommended, but ship owners are not being ordered to replace their manual-switch-on EPIRBs with the expensive new immersion-sensor-activated ones." The thinking would also have been that as old ships got taken out of service, there'd be a natural process of superseding the "old" EPIRBs with the "new" ones anyhow.

However, the Estonia disaster brought home to regulators and legislators that - even though it would have made no difference to the outcome in the case of the Estonia itself - the fact that no crewmember had manually switched on the EPIRB transmitters showed that these manual-activation EPIRBs really were not fit for purpose. And that they weren't prepared to risk another catastrophe in which activated EPIRB transmitters would have made a significant difference to the outcome, but they'd remained silent because no crewmember had switched them on.

And thus the regulation went from "recommended" to "mandatory".

 

[Axxman300]

Round in circles like the Bismark after its rudder got mangled.

Can some mod put it out of its misery (and ours!) by torpedoing it?

Maybe ram it with a submarine.

 

[Axxman300]

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.

For the love of God, please stop with the Titanic stuff. You are bad at it.

 

[Axxman300]

Now you are trolling. Had The Herald of Free Enterprise been in open sea, you don't know how long it would have taken to sink.

A very similar car ro-ro ferry, the MS Jan Heweliusz took five days to sink fully.

Were either one sailing in stormy conditions?

No.

 

[junkshop]

For the love of God, please stop with the Titanic stuff. You are bad at it.

If I may (ever so 'umbley) suggest an edit, that may fix that for you - not that I'm sayin' it's broke, mind. I would never be so bold as to presume, it's not as if were a chartered accountant or somesuch! Perish the thought!

I'll just crawl back under me rock like the worm I 'ssurredly am, sir. Pay me no mind, sir, pay me no mind.




Sorry, I got a little carried away there.

 

[whoanellie]

Oh, for ****'s sake, a hydrostatic release mechanism doesn't tell you the EPIRBs were hydrostatically activated. It just tells you how they were released.



As far as whether it was manual or not, someone here claimed to have found a technical manual covering this model, though I don't think I've seen a link to it. Moreover, if the EPIRBs were found floating and were not transmitting despite being in good working order, that's pretty good evidence they were not a hydrostatically activated model, ain't it?

Devil's advocate here, what evidence is there that the epirb on Estonia had a 'hydrostatic release mechanism' as opposed to being able to float free from their cages? It really doesn't make any sense to have a pressure triggered 'mechanism' releasing a manually activated epirb. The wikipedia page on epirb refers to different classes of epirbs including float-free manually activated devices.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Devil's advocate here, what evidence is there that the epirb on Estonia had a 'hydrostatic release mechanism' as opposed to being able to float free from their cages? It really doesn't make any sense to have a pressure triggered 'mechanism' releasing a manually activated epirb. The wikipedia page on epirb refers to different classes of epirbs including float-free manually activated devices.

Brackets or holders are a lot cheaper than the actual buoys.

 

[whoanellie]

Brackets or holders are a lot cheaper than the actual buoys.

I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Axxman300]

If I may (ever so 'umbley) suggest an edit, that may fix that for you - not that I'm sayin' it's broke, mind. I would never be so bold as to presume, it's not as if were a chartered accountant or somesuch! Perish the thought!

I'll just crawl back under me rock like the worm I 'ssurredly am, sir. Pay me no mind, sir, pay me no mind.




Sorry, I got a little carried away there.

 

[Here_to_learn]

From an early newspaper report - Helsinki Sanomat 15 Oct 1994, two weeks after the accident.

So that confirms what we have been saying then.

The Russian transmitter at Hogland did interfere with some coastal radio in Finland and Estonia (the country). Most specifically close to Hogland, so that would be for example Espoo and Kotka. However, ships near Estonia (the ship) could communicate via VHF CH16, as could Turku radio, using their remote masts (links) at Utö or Hangö.

https://www.fintraffic.fi/sites/default/files/2021-09/Turku radio_2021.png

 

[Andy_Ross]

I'm not sure what your point is.

A common holder could be used for several models of buoy.

 

[LondonJohn]

So that confirms what we have been saying then.

The Russian transmitter at Hogland did interfere with some coastal radio in Finland and Estonia (the country). Most specifically close to Hogland, so that would be for example Espoo and Kotka. However, ships near Estonia (the ship) could communicate via VHF CH16, as could Turku radio, using their remote masts (links) at Utö or Hangö.

https://www.fintraffic.fi/sites/default/files/2021-09/Turku radio_2021.png

And it's not even as if the Russians were intentionally jamming Channel 16 (or any other area of the spectrum) - as the conspiracy theorists would like to believe. It's just that the strength of that one Hogland transmitter caused problems in that particular area.

 

[whoanellie]

A common holder could be used for several models of buoy.

Of course. But if the EPIRBs on the Estonia were sitting in a common holder that allowed them to float away as the ship sank I would not describe that as a "hydrostatic release mechanism'". Would you?

 

[Here_to_learn]

And it's not even as if the Russians were intentionally jamming Channel 16 (or any other area of the spectrum) - as the conspiracy theorists would like to believe. It's just that the strength of that one Hogland transmitter caused problems in that particular area.

I'm not sure about that - I think it has been previously posted that the Hogland transmitter from time to time continuously broadcasted a carrier wave on CH16. Now if that was intentional or some kind of broken equipment doesn't really matter, it would be pretty irritating for anyone in the local area.

It not uncommon in the area I live in - I'd say that a couple of times every year we have someone broadcasting noise on CH16, and with triangulation the offending transmitter is identified.

But regardless, the accident wasn't in the Hogland local area.

 

[Mojo]

Devil's advocate here, what evidence is there that the epirb on Estonia had a 'hydrostatic release mechanism' as opposed to being able to float free from their cages?

Isn’t “hydrostatic release mechanism” just a fancy way to say that they float free from their cages?

 

[Here_to_learn]

Isn’t “hydrostatic release mechanism” just a fancy way to say that they float free from their cages?

That is not how I would use it.

Float free from a cage for me would mean that the unit floats, and just by its own force would break free from a holder.

A hydrostatic release mechanism is something that when it reaches a specified water depth cuts a strap or a rope that holds the unit in the holder.

The main difference would be - a float free unit could be dislodged by a wave, while a unit held by a strap with a hydrostatic release mechanism would not release the unit until the water pressure is at certain level (depth).


ETA - but I may be wrong here - It's just that I've seen solutions, for example for for lights that just float out of their holder. While hyrdostatic releases are used for example on life rafts.

 

[whoanellie]

Isn’t “hydrostatic release mechanism” just a fancy way to say that they float free from their cages?

This is exactly what Vixen is doing and it is misleading. She should not be allowed to frame the argument that way. I believe that more recent EPIRBs do have a more sophisticated mechanism that releases the unit when a certain hydrostatic pressure is reached.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Isn’t “hydrostatic release mechanism” just a fancy way to say that they float free from their cages?

No, because if an automatic buoy just floats free there won't be any pressure to activate them. They need to be retained until they are deep enough to turn, they tend to have a latch that is released either manually or by a pressure switch.

If you have a range that has both auto and manual only models they will both come with the same bracket.

 

[whoanellie]

No, because if an automatic buoy just floats free there won't be any pressure to activate them. They need to be retained until they are deep enough to turn, they tend to have a latch that is released either manually or by a pressure switch.

If you have a range that has both auto and manual only models they will both come with the same bracket.

Have I missed something? What evidence is there that the EPIRBs on the ESTONIA had a hydrostatic release mechanism beyond Vixen's claim that the Rockwell divers confirmed it?

It makes sense to have a hydrostatic release mechanism on a automatically activated EPIRB. It makes no sense to have an automatic hydrostatic release mechanism on manually activated EPRIB. Surely they would have developed a cheaper version of the bracket.

 

[Vixen]

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.)

Almost all of your posts are irrational. the product of low intelligence (about this topic), bereft of any proper analysis, and stultefyingly ill-informed......you certainly ain't no quadruple nine that's for sure (about this topic, of course) . It's a statement of fact.