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

[Andy_Ross]

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

No, you have claimed it is an automatic model but you have not been able to support this.

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].

If his report is missing how do you know what it says?
Where does he say they are automatic buoys?
Who do the official reports say they were switched off and had to be switched on to test them?

 

[Vixen]

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

Assar Koivisto, marine expert appointed by JAIC bod said it was in January 1995 just four months after the wreckage for an official presentation.

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.

According to Koivisto, the emergency buoys were tested and serviced in Stockholm a week before the disaster, but the crew had forgotten to put the buoys in on-position again. The buoys are usually switched off during land transport, to avoid false alarms.

ibid

You do know JAIC got its information about the beacon buoys from Asser Koivisto, himself?

 

[Vixen]

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.

So Asser Koivsito appointed by JAIC at the time is a liar and Captain_Swoop "Swoopers" McSwoop on a chat forum knows better.

 

[Vixen]

No, you have claimed it is an automatic model but you have not been able to support this.




If his report is missing how do you know what it says?
Where does he say they are automatic buoys?
Who do the official reports say they were switched off and had to be switched on to test them?

Now you are just being obtuse.

 

[Andy_Ross]

From Government of the Republic of Estonia, Final report on the MV ESTONIA disaster Section 7.3 The maritime radio distress and safety systems and the distress traffic.

Full detail of distress traffic with all timings and all the ships and stations involved are included in tables 7.2 and 7.3

At least five radio stations, including MRCC Turku, logged the 2nd Mayday call as received at 0124 hrs. Counting backwards in tape recordings from this moment, the most probable time of the 1st Mayday call was just before 0122 hrs. However, this time is uncertain, the margin of error being plus/minus two minutes. Despite the imprecision of this timing, the transcript in Table 7.3 is given second-by-second so that the time difference between different messages can be seen; the relative precision of the timing is good up to the time the tape was turned over.

https://onse.fi/estonia/chapt07_1.html#3

 

[Andy_Ross]

Assar Koivisto, marine expert appointed by JAIC bod said it was in January 1995 just four months after the wreckage for an official presentation.


ibid

You do know JAIC got its information about the beacon buoys from Asser Koivisto, himself?

An EPIRB with an Integral GPS navigation receiver didn't become available until 1998

 

[Andy_Ross]

So Asser Koivsito appointed by JAIC at the time is a liar and Captain_Swoop "Swoopers" McSwoop on a chat forum knows better.

The Government of the Republic of Estonia, Final report on the MV ESTONIA

Chapter 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 be 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.

 

[junkshop]

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.

No Vixen, it is you that has misunderstood.

You posted that

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.

I countered with the information (sourced from the US Coastguard's website) that GPS enabled EPIRBs were not available until 1998. That is after 1994.

The part of your post I have struck through has no relevance to what I posted, so I have no idea why you included it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Even when a GPS position is transmitted by the EPIRB it has to be triangulated by the Cospas-Sarsat system.

But, as repeatedly pointed out GPS enabled buoys were not available until 1998

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

Once again you fail to understand or wish to obfuscate and so gallop off in another direction. This point has nothing whatsoever to do with activation.

The EPIRBs fitted on Estonia were absolutely not GPS equipped models. Such models were not yet available in 1994.

The type used on Estonia do not know where they are. They transmit a 406MHz distress call, picked up by a satellite network called COSPAS-SARSAT (which is not the GPS satellite network). That system triangulates the beacon's position to within a few kilometres in a process that can take up to two hours. The signal from the beacon contains an identity code and checking the records will reveal which ship that beacon was fitted to.

The GPS types have a GPS receiver. Stop and think for a moment about the difference between a receiver and a transmitter. The GPS models have a GPS receiver as well as a 406MHz transmitter. They listen to GPS satellites using their receiver and work out their own position. They add that position info to the identity code which they transmit to COSPAS-SARSAT. This is faster and more accurate than the older models but was not available in 1994.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You do know JAIC got its information about the beacon buoys from Asser Koivisto, himself?

Whereas you got info about what he said from a newspaper and that suggested he said the buoys had been switched off for transportation and accidentally left switched off. The buoys don't appear to have transport switches to disable them, nor should they need them, so either the journalist got confused or the expert isn't an expert. Take your pick.

Edit to add:

The scenario you want to be true is that the EPIRBs were an automatically activated type which has a switch to disable automatic activation and that was used during transportation but negligently left switched off when the buoys were installed on the ship.

The scenario I think is true is that they were manually activated types which are switched off at all times unless you wish them to transmit a distress call. The crew did indeed neglect to switch them on but that happened at the point they should have done so - when the ship was in distress and sinking.

If you read the newspaper report you just re-quoted with care, you will see that both interpretations can fit with what was said. The implication of the wording favours your interpretation but one crucial thing does not - there does not appear to be any model of EPIRB with a switch which disables automatic activation. Indeed such a switch seems both pointless and dangerous. Bring us information on any such model and we'll happily read it.

 

[phiwum]

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

So? Does that require GPS capability?

Others have said GPS capable EPIRBs weren't on the market until 1998, ten years after that treaty.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Disbelief]

Just add GPS to the list of things that Vixen does not understand, yet tries to come off as an expert.

- Former Communication/Navigation Systems Specialist on C-130s

 

[JayUtah]

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

No.

Early satellite location for SAR purposes used satellites in low orbit and worked by Doppler processing of the signal received from a transmitter. Ground operators talking to the satellites could work out where the signal originated on Earth, but this information wasn't then retransmitted back to the original transmitter. It was forwarded to ground stations, which then had to use traditional methods of arriving at Earth coordinates.

GPS works by passive receivers of time-coded signals received from satellites in high orbits. In that system, the receiver can work out where it is with respect to the satellites, but the satellite does not know or care where any particular receiver is. For the receiver to transmit location information to someone else for SAR purposes requires a separate component. This can be, but doesn't have to be, a separate low-flying satellite network that itself does not have locating capability.

The two systems could not be any more different.

 

[phiwum]

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'.

I have highlighted a couple of different excerpts than you did. These excerpts point out that the interference could well have been unintentional and that, furthermore, if it were intended to prevent Estonia from issuing a Mayday when those bad ol' Russkies sunk it, then it would be a crap plan. Even when there was interference, the channel was usable (though impaired).

Which, of course, we know it was usable the night of the Estonia because it was used that night. Maybe the range wasn't as good as it otherwise would have been, but if the goal was to prevent a rescue by making communication impossible, them Russkies need to come up with a better plan.

So, have you actually considered the possibility, mentioned in your very own cited material, that the interference was not intentional?

 

[JayUtah]

Just add GPS to the list of things that Vixen does not understand, yet tries to come off as an expert.

- Former Communication/Navigation Systems Specialist on C-130s

Cool. One of my college buddies was navigator on an AC-130 Spectre back in the early 90s.

 

[phiwum]

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.

You have yet to cite a source that unambiguously claims the Estonia's EPIRBs are hydrostatically activated (rather than released). Perhaps you shouldn't call others liars.

 

[JayUtah]

Assar Koivisto, marine expert...

His expertise appears to consist of having founded a company that makes navigational equipment and other sea systems. As near as I can tell, his company does not make emergency systems. As near as I can tell, he has never himself navigated a ship or participated in sea rescues. As near as I can tell, he is a businessman, not a sailor.

Do you know him to be an expert? Or are you simply assuming he's an expert because he has been prominently quoted?

Yes, I will take Captain Swoop any day as an expert in marine systems based on his demonstrated personal, hands-on navy experience over someone who sits in an office and directs the possibly relevant activities of others. He may attract the attention of officials because of his prominence in the field, but that doesn't necessarily give his testimony special weight as an expert.

 

[Disbelief]

Cool. One of my college buddies was navigator on an AC-130 Spectre back in the early 90s.

I never got to work on those, but I had a friend who worked at the base they were from but he was on EF-111s.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... 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'.

Why did you highlight "via a link"? Did you not read the preceding paragraph which indicates that this is normal? I'm sure a picture has previously been posted, or at least linked, showing a chain of VHF stations along the Finnish coast which allow received VHF calls to be relayed on to the rescue centre.