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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Be that as it may, Asser Koivsito, Jan 1995, JAIC marine expert and adviser, together with Rockwater divers Dec 1994, confirms Estonia had automatically activated hydrostatic Kannad 406F EPIRBs, which were missing, with just the hydrostatically triggered cabinet/casing left behind.
Click to expand...

No he didn't.
How could the divers know what the buoys were? they never saw them.
Where does Koivsite 'confirm' the buoys were automiatic?

Why does the report confirm they were found switched off and that they worked as designed when switched on?
 
Vixen said:
Why do some posters think deliberate lying is an acceptable form of debate?

• The float free type (automatic activation):
• KANNAD 406 F/P: Container made of polyester with an internal membrane (CAL87).
• KANNAD 406 FH/PH: Container fitted with a HAMMAR release system (CAL 89).

Attached is the image of what it looks like. Compare and contrast with the one Koivisto has at his presentation.
Click to expand...

The containers are not the buoys.

That is a picture of the buoy not a container.
 
Vixen said:
A primary source are things such as the distress call transcripts and the police statements from crew and survivors taken at the time, together with the first news reports/broadcasts.

A secondary and tertiary source are later spin and 'revised history'. A final report three years later is not by any definition a primary source. Useful for factual information, yes, where that information is full and complete. Where it is modified, incomplete, omitted, dubiously interpretated, then it is as liable to being analysed and critiqued as is any such report.
Click to expand...

I have linked to the official reports that contain the transcripts of the distress calls, radio traffic, flight records of all the helicopters involved and survivor and police transcripts.
 
Vixen said:
That is not correct. The ship's electrician was responsible for ensuring their correct operation as a routine preliminary part at the commencement of journey.
Click to expand...

Yes, he made sure they were in an operating condition by doing a test.

He was not responsible for their operation, that would be delegated to one of the command crew on the bridge.
 
Vixen said:
Koivisto is highly expert. His company now has a contract to supply Ghana. When people across the globe want technological innovation, they look to Finland.

https://www.navielektro.fi/history.html


Still want to claim that "Swoopers" is more of an expert than Koivisto, who actually had the original specs of the epirbs and found an exact facsimile by which to do his presentation Jan1995? Someone who was actually 'there' and not sitting at a keyboard some 27 years later.
Click to expand...

How was he there?

We know that the buoys were recovered and that they were not activated.
 
LondonJohn said:
Ooh I have a related anecdote!! In 1986 I was still at (high) school but I was on a work experience placement in the Easter school holidays at an MOD facility just outside the town of Bicester.



While I was working there, regular aircraft noise was coming from the nearby RAF base at Upper Haywood, but it was low-level and from perhaps no more than three aircraft simultaneously. But I happened to be working late one evening, when the roar of many large jet engines started up, and just grew cumulatively louder and louder. We went outside and saw an enormous convoy of US aircraft - a mixture of large refuellers, F-111s and EF-111s (even in the dusk I could easily distinguish the EF-111s from the large receiver pod at the top of their vertical stabilisers) - taking off in very quick succession, grouping up, and heading south-east. We found out later that this had been the genesis of the US bombing attack on Libya.
Click to expand...
I suppose that today, such an event would be all over the internet hours before the strike.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Vixen said:
A primary source are things such as the distress call transcripts and the police statements from crew and survivors taken at the time, together with the first news reports/broadcasts.

A secondary and tertiary source are later spin and 'revised history'. A final report three years later is not by any definition a primary source. Useful for factual information, yes, where that information is full and complete. Where it is modified, incomplete, omitted, dubiously interpretated, then it is as liable to being analysed and critiqued as is any such report.
Click to expand...
When you're making claims about what the JAIC report says, that report is the primary source. Duh.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Why the obsession with the buoys though?
They weren't needed, the Estonia broadcast a mayday that was picked up and rescuers arrived very quickly.

The buoys are a sideshow.
 
I’d still like to know where Vixen claims they were missing from, when it was that they were missing, and how this fits with the claim that they had been deliberately turned off to prevent them being activated when the ship sank.
 
Mojo said:
I’d still like to know where Vixen claims they were missing from, when it was that they were missing, and how this fits with the claim that they had been deliberately turned off to prevent them being activated when the ship sank.
Click to expand...

In the context of that post and the divers, missing from their containers on the ship.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Why the obsession with the buoys though?
They weren't needed, the Estonia broadcast a mayday that was picked up and rescuers arrived very quickly.

The buoys are a sideshow.
Click to expand...

No points for stating the blatantly obvious. These entire threads on the topic are pretty much a long series of side shows, distractions, and fringe resets. The accusations, in total, are that every single aspect of the sinking is suspicious and involved a conspiracy of thousands, and absolutely nothing mundane or routine occurred. Still, the threads are quite fascinating in a bizarre way.
 
Vixen said:
Be that as it may, Asser Koivsito, Jan 1995, JAIC marine expert and adviser, together with Rockwater divers Dec 1994, confirms Estonia had automatically activated hydrostatic Kannad 406F EPIRBs, which were missing, with just the hydrostatically triggered cabinet/casing
​
left behind.
Click to expand...


You must be deliberately refusing to understand this (ludicrously simple to understand) concept now.

The EPIRBs on the Estonia had a hydrostatic release facility.

The EPIRBs on the Estonia did not have a hydrostatic activation facility.

The reason why the EPIRBs were "missing" was..... because they'd been hydrostatically released when the ship sank.



It's genuinely utterly astonishing that you're still either incapable of - or unwilling to - understand this.
 
Vixen said:
Why do some posters think deliberate lying is an acceptable form of debate?

• The float free type (automatic activation):
• KANNAD 406 F/P: Container made of polyester with an internal membrane (CAL87).
• KANNAD 406 FH/PH: Container fitted with a HAMMAR release system (CAL 89).

Attached is the image of what it looks like. Compare and contrast with the one Koivisto has at his presentation.
Click to expand...


Now look again - for comprehension this time - at the first photo you've posted. Pay particular attention to the bottom line of the text. The one that starts with the letter "S".

Truly extraordinary ignorance.
 
Vixen said:
I see. You are an inverted snob and have an irrational hatred of people who wear suits. Duly noted.
Click to expand...


No. Rather, I suspect he has a dislike (not "hatred") of people who arrogantly pretend they're experts on a subject, but who in fact are not only inexpert: they're actually utterly, embarrassingly ignorant.

FTFY (as they say).
 
Vixen said:
A primary source are things such as the distress call transcripts and the police statements from crew and survivors taken at the time, together with the first news reports/broadcasts.

A secondary and tertiary source are later spin and 'revised history'. A final report three years later is not by any definition a primary source. Useful for factual information, yes, where that information is full and complete. Where it is modified, incomplete, omitted, dubiously interpretated, then it is as liable to being analysed and critiqued as is any such report.
Click to expand...


Your research and analysis skills are up to their usual standard, I see.
 
Vixen said:
That is not correct. The ship's electrician was responsible for ensuring their correct operation as a routine preliminary part at the commencement of journey.
Click to expand...


What the hell has what you wrote got to do with anything in the post to which you were responding?

But to pick up on your point: everyone knows that the two EPIRBs on the Estonia were in perfect working order. That's not in dispute. And they would have done their job exactly as intended on the night of the sinking....

....if one of the crew had actually stepped out either side of the bridge and turned their damned transmitters on.

But no member of the crew carried out this vitally-important step. And as a result, the two EPIRBs - which were both in full working order - never sent out any distress signals.


(As an analogy: your TV might be examined by an electrician and be found to be in excellent working order. But if you neglected to actually switch on your TV, it wouldn't be able to be used for its intended purpose. You'd be staring at a blank, dark screen. And the failure of the TV would be nothing to do with whether or not it was in good working order (which it was). Instead, its failure would be entirely due to your not having switched it on.)
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Why the obsession with the buoys though?
They weren't needed, the Estonia broadcast a mayday that was picked up and rescuers arrived very quickly.

The buoys are a sideshow.
Click to expand...


Yes. In the context of the Estonia disaster, this is of course entirely correct. And as such, any discussion about the EPIRBs and their relevance/importance specifically to the Estonia disaster is entirely moot.

But the crew's failure to manually activate the EPIRBs' electronics - when protocol and training dictated that this would/should have been a very important process for them to carry out before the ship sank - did become important in a wider context beyond the Estonia disaster. The failure to manually switch on the EPIRBs showed regulators that people can do strange and irrational things (and fail to do things in a strange and irrational manner) when confronted with a genuine life-and-death emergency.

So if one good thing came out of the tragedy of the Estonia sinking, it was the mandating of auto-activation EPIRBs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom