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

[Jack by the hedge]

Cospas-Sarsat was conceived and initiated by Canada, France, the United States, and the former Soviet Union in 1979.

1 July 1988 (definitive agreement signed; preceding memorandums of understanding signed 23 November 1979 and 5 October 1984)

The first rescue using the technology of Cospas-Sarsat occurred in September 1982.[7][8] The definitive agreement of the organization was signed on 1 July 1988. - Wikipedia

So yes, they were in use in 1994. It is a satellite system only, so the EPIRB beacons had inbuilt GPS.

"Satellite" does not equal "GPS".

A GPS EPIRB has a GPS receiver which lets it triangular its own location. It can then transmit that information in its 406MHz emergency signal which gets picked up by a different satellite network.

A regular EPIRB does not know where it is. It broadcasts a distress signal on 406MHz and the satellite system triangulates its position.

You seem to have done a lot of reading to get that wrong with such confidence.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

A Mayday should not take eight minutes to get through...

How long could COPAS-SARSAT take to triangulate the location of an EPIRB of the non-GPS type available in 1994?

It's been mentioned several times in this thread already, but on the assumption you didn't absorb the information I'll just tell you.

It's up to 1-2 hours.

 

[GlennB]

How long should an o/p take to absorb plain facts, that have been explained several times in great detail with documentary evidence, before they learn? In this case the answer is 'forever', it would seem.

 

[Steve]

How long should an o/p take to absorb plain facts, that have been explained several times in great detail with documentary evidence, before they learn? In this case the answer is 'forever', it would seem.

You are assuming that learning the actual facts of the sinking is the purpose of the thread.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Rude.

If you don't like the post, you know how to report it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

EPIRB:

"Strictly, they are radiobeacons that interface with worldwide offered service of Cospas-Sarsat, the international satellite system for search and rescue (SAR). When manually activated, or automatically activated upon immersion, such beacons send out a distress signal. The signals are monitored worldwide and the location of the distress is detected by non-geostationary satellites, and can be located by some combination of GPS trilateration and doppler triangulation.[1]" https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Distress_radiobeacon

GPS was not incorporated in to EPIRB until 1998 and then only one model. It did not become widespread until in to the 2000s

 

[Vixen]

Ahem:


https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=mtEpirb

You have misunderstood. The earlier system was still by satellite, except location was estimated according to whether the satellite position was before or after the beep. However, it is quite incorrect to say 'there was no GPS before 1998'.

Asser Koivisto, naval expert, confirmed definitely, as did the Rockwater divers, that Estonia had EPIRBs that were hydrostatically operated.

On 27 January 1995, the navigation expert Asser Koivisto in Helsinki presented his study of Estonia's EPIRB buoys: radio buoys on the command bridge which, in floating position, are to start transmitting an exact GPS position and trigger a major international alarm.

YLE

Asser Koivisto in TV news on January 27, 1995. The emergency buoy in the picture is obviously not Estonia's, but a brand new copy.

 

[Vixen]

Are you thinking that, because they could communicate with a SAR satellite, they must have been able to interpret GPS signals? Because as far as I can tell, Cospas-Sarsat is a wholly different system of satellites than GPS and sending signals that can be picked up by the former doesn't have much to do with receiving and interpreting signals from the latter.


ETA:
Oh, for goodness sake. I recommend you read more of the military.wikia.org page you cited. You might want to focus on the section titled "Beacon Operation", specifically the subsection titled "Location by Doppler (without GPS)". It gives pretty darned good evidence that some (early?) EPIRBs didn't use GPS and that communicating with Cospas-Sarsat and GPS capabilities are just two different things.

Estonia's EPIRB's were compliant with the COSPAS-SARSAT 1988 Treaty.

 

[GlennB]

You are assuming that learning the actual facts of the sinking is the purpose of the thread.

Well, I was just trying to avoid using the t-word

 

[Andy_Ross]

You have misunderstood. The earlier system was still by satellite, except location was estimated according to whether the satellite position was before or after the beep. However, it is quite incorrect to say 'there was no GPS before 1998'.

Asser Koivisto, naval expert, confirmed definitely, as did the Rockwater divers, that Estonia had EPIRBs that were hydrostatically operated.

YLE

Asser Koivisto in TV news on January 27, 1995. The emergency buoy in the picture is obviously not Estonia's, but a brand new copy.

We know GPS existed before 1998 but it was not part of EPIRB.
GPS is a separate function, it uses separate satellites.

How did he confirm they were hydrostatically operated?
Both of them were recovered, they were not hydrostatic and they were both switched off.

Where does he say they were hydrostatically operated?

What is the buoy in the picture??

 

[Andy_Ross]

Estonia's EPIRB's were compliant with the COSPAS-SARSAT 1988 Treaty.

What point are you making?

COSPAS-SARSAT has nothing to do with GPS.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Werner Hummel, the investigator for Meyer Werft shipbuilders, claims the entire network was down ...

You have said this several times now, but clearly your source does not tell you which "entire network" he was talking about. Still, you just fling the claim up here to try to imply a suspicious coincidence. Alas, with no way of identifying what the problem was that you are trying to describe, we can't begin to consider whether there might have been any real problem to imagine was suspicious.

 

[Vixen]

I really don't understand why you insist to repeat this kind of text, when you have been shown wrong so many times? I've tried to post information to educate you on how VHF works, but you don't seem interested in learning, since after some time, you just loop back and repeat the same old text.

We can listen to the VHF CH16 traffic. We can read the transcripts.

We know that Estonia didn't share their position. Strictly speaking, Estonia did not even send out a complete mayday message, since that has a structured format that includes the position. But after the confirmation that Estonia were in trouble, Silja and Viking ferries checked their radar, discussed which echo was Estona, and headed in that direction. So they had a pretty good idea on where to go.

The entire network of what? We are talking three different systems here. VHF, MF and NMT. Exacly what is is claiming was "down", and with it being "down", what could not happen that should have happened. Not that with the distances involved, and in a storm, VHF range is limited.

Why should we care about your opinion on what JAIC should have done? You have shown many times in this thread that you have no knowledge and understanding of marine radio traffic, mayday protocols and EPIRBs.

I will try to find out what Hummel was talking about. In the meantime no amount of denial or rationalisation overrides the reported fact of interference with marine broadcasting the night of the disaster. Captain Thornroos of Viking Mariella confirms it in his witness statement to the Swedish Police, at the time

On 15 October 1994 - within two weeks of the catastrophe - Helsingin Sanomat , the Finnish equivalent of the TIMES reported on this:

Noise from Russian transmitter interferes with emergency channel A carrier coming from the direction of Suursaari could interfere with an Estonian VHF call 10/15/1994 2:00 AM The carrier of the Russian radio transmitter has been interfering with the traffic of marine VHF telephones on the emergency channel 16 since the end of last month. The disturbance is worst in front of Kotka, but the channel is noisy all the way to Helsinki. The Telecommunications Administration Center has located the cause of the disturbance in the direction of Suursaari. An interference can occur when the frequency user is left "tangent down", i.e. the transmitter is turned on after the conversation. The same can happen if the transmitter is defective. The first observations of the noise were received on 23 September. Sometimes the noise has stopped to start again.

According to Jorma Karjalainen, the director of the radio administration, the Finnish Telecommunications Administration has pointed out the matter to the Russian authorities several times, but the disturbance has not ended. According to the Kotka Coast Guard, noise interferes with the listening of the emergency channel all the time, but the channel has nevertheless been able to be used so far. The disturbance is also heard on Helsinki-Radio, which is constantly on duty on the emergency channel. Helsinki-Radio listens to the entire coast from Tornio to St. Petersburg.

Although the coverage of the VHF is about one hundred kilometers in good conditions and a few tens of kilometers from one ship to another, coastal radio stations can hear distress calls via coastal link connections. Lifeguards use the same links.

For example, the accident ship Estonian 28.9. The distress call was issued to nearby passenger ships, but it was heard at the Turku Maritime Rescue Center via a link. According to Heimo Iivonen, a member of the investigation committee investigating the accident, the noise coming from Suursaari may have disturbed Estonia's first emergency channel call, which was extremely weak a couple of minutes before the actual mayday call. VHF is a licensed radio.

You can argue it is not possible or unlikely. However, I am going by what witnesses reported at the time, not by 'What should happen according to the textbooks and exam papers'.

 

[Vixen]

"Satellite" does not equal "GPS".

A GPS EPIRB has a GPS receiver which lets it triangular its own location. It can then transmit that information in its 406MHz emergency signal which gets picked up by a different satellite network.

A regular EPIRB does not know where it is. It broadcasts a distress signal on 406MHz and the satellite system triangulates its position.

You seem to have done a lot of reading to get that wrong with such confidence.

Stop trying to pretend Estonia had a PLB 'survival' type, designed for yachts and small ships. This type of beacon is totally irrelevant to this topic, as we know for a fact Estonia had a hydrostatically activated EPIRB of the automatic activation type.

What do you gain from trying to convey false information about Estonia's EPIRBs? Not even JAIC claim they were PLBs.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I will try to find out what Hummel was talking about. In the meantime no amount of denial or rationalisation overrides the reported fact of interference with marine broadcasting the night of the disaster. Captain Thornroos of Viking Mariella confirms it in his witness statement to the Swedish Police, at the time

On 15 October 1994 - within two weeks of the catastrophe - Helsingin Sanomat , the Finnish equivalent of the TIMES reported on this:





You can argue it is not possible or unlikely. However, I am going by what witnesses reported at the time, not by 'What should happen according to the textbooks and exam papers'.

And yet the Mayday messages from Estonia were picked up and communications between the ships and shore stations taking part was working OK.

 

[Vixen]

If you don't like the post, you know how to report it.

You were throwing your toys out of the pram because you failed miserably to try to wrongly convince people that Estonia had 'manually operated' buoys only.


Blatant lie, when the facts are available.

On 27 January 1995, the navigation expert Asser Koivisto in Helsinki presented his study of Estonia's EPIRB buoys: radio buoys on the command bridge which, in floating position, are to start transmitting an exact GPS position and trigger a major international alarm.

HS [ibid]

 

[Andy_Ross]

Stop trying to pretend Estonia had a PLB 'survival' type, designed for yachts and small ships. This type of beacon is totally irrelevant to this topic, as we know for a fact Estonia had a hydrostatically activated EPIRB of the automatic activation type.

What do you gain from trying to convey false information about Estonia's EPIRBs? Not even JAIC claim they were PLBs.

Who has done that?

GPS was not part of the system at the time of the sinking.

Where has anyone mentioned a Personal Locator Beacon?

It is a different thing entirely from an EPIRB buoy

 

[Andy_Ross]

You were throwing your toys out of the pram because you failed miserably to try to wrongly convince people that Estonia had 'manually operated' buoys only.


Blatant lie, when the facts are available.

HS [ibid]

They were manually activated buoys.
Release mechanisms are not the buoys.
They were recovered by fishing boats.
They were turned off.
They were not automatic buoys.
When they were turned on they functioned correctly.

 

[Vixen]

We know GPS existed before 1998 but it was not part of EPIRB.
GPS is a separate function, it uses separate satellites.

How did he confirm they were hydrostatically operated?
Both of them were recovered, they were not hydrostatic and they were both switched off.

Where does he say they were hydrostatically operated?

What is the buoy in the picture??

You have been told repeatedly it is a Kannad 406F - an automatically activated model.

Are you claiming Asser Koivisto, marine expert appointed by JAIC bods was making it all up in January 1995, when he had access to all of the specifications?


Mysteriously, the EPIRB's are now vanished, together with Koivisto's official report, according to YLE. [ibid].

 

[Vixen]

And yet the Mayday messages from Estonia were picked up and communications between the ships and shore stations taking part was working OK.

Radio Helsinki got the Mayday message at 1:48, exactly the same time Estonia disappeared from radar. What are you not understanding?

At 1:48 (the same time the Estonia disappeared from radar) MRCC Turku had contacted Helsinki Radio to instruct them to put out a Mayday call. This was now half an hour since Ainsalu made his first (received) Mayday at 1:21:55.

The JAIC states:

At 0142 hrs the MARIELLA informed Helsinki Radio about the accident. Instead of transmitting a Mayday Relay Helsinki Radio transmitted a Pan-Pan message at 0150 hrs.

As we see from the transcript of the messages conveyed what Radio Helsinki actually radioed Europa about was whether she had Estonia’s position yet.

From the transcript – which the JAIC must surely have had – the pan-pan message was at 1:54, not 1:50.

JAIC then relates:

Maritime Rescue Subcentre (MRSC) Mariehamn informed MRCC Stockholm of the accident at 0152 hrs, whereupon the alerting of Swedish maritime rescue helicopters was initiated. The first of these, stand-by$ helicopter Q 97, took off at 0250 hrs.

Kärppälä of Turku MRCC says he can’t remember who or when Sweden was called but according to an operations log in Sweden this was confirmed as 0202 and ETA 0300. (Expected arrival time: 3:00am)
Why does the JIAC rpeort fudge these details, when they more than anyone have the correct timeline. They had a transcript of the distress calls. Why did they change the time Helsinki Radio got the Mayday message (at least) by NMT mobile phone and the time it actually sent the pan-pan?

Was it too much of a coincidence it only happened as soon as Estonia went off the radar?


Maybe the 'target' seen by Kärppälä very briefly on his radar was actually another vessel. Otherwise he could not see Estonia on the radar at all but could see Mariella, Europa and Isabelle.

An accident investigation body worth its salt would have investigated this communications breakdown.