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

[JayUtah]

I never claimed to be an expert. Stop lying.

You have carefully avoided stating that you are an expert, except your ill-supported claim to be a scientist. I suspect this is because you know you would not be able to substantiate any such claim. However, you have constantly made arguments on a number of topics, arguments that require expertise on the topic to give them authority or evidentiary value because they rely on specialized knowledge or specialized skill. When tested, you have completely failed to establish a foundation for those arguments beyond your uninformed belief. But you have clearly expected those arguments -- from you -- to be treated as fact. This expectation rises to the level of you accusing others of outright lying if they do not agree with you, even in the most insignificant detail. While you are not an expert, and while you do not claim to be an expert, you're clearly pretending to be one and clearly (albeit tacitly) expecting others to agree to your purported expertise by accepting arguments from you, without question, that would otherwise require that expertise.

Trying to walk a thin line between admitting you're a lay person and on the other hand expecting to be respected in matters of judgment and experience on topics you clearly don't understand is likely to result only in more derision, not an advancement of your cause. Your apparent desire to be seen as entirely infallible won't earn you much beyond piteous laughter.

 

[phiwum]

*sigh*



1) You stated, wrt the people aboard the Estonia: "They had zero hope of rescue"



2) I responded to that statement of yours by pointing out that in fact 137 people had been rescued and survived.



3) My statement of fact therefore totally negates and nullifies your statement that there was zero hope of rescue.





I feel like we're in some sort of parallel universe by this point in time..........

I wonder if Vixen ever reads the context of a reply or just the reply.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[phiwum]

Suppose the damage to the ship was so intense the bridge had no time to make a Mayday and zero time to execute an evacuation of the passengers? The Bridge could hear all of the walkie-talkie messages and also see the same screen monitors as the engineers in the engine control rooms in the hull. The persons in the ECR saw the ramp was shut and claimed to have seen water coming in at the sides. Problem is, the sides constantly leaked in rainy weather so who knows whether that was due to the usual rainy weather or the bow visor off. Nobody saw the bow visor fall off. A couple of Estonian athletes claimed to have climbed down the car ramp, so it must have been shut. Linde had been in the car deck before doing his watch rouind to the upper deck. Unfortunately, he has changed his timeline so many times he cannot be held to be a credible witness.

You think that the hand drawn picture of water gushing in both sides of the ramp was normal? Did the witness who drew it say as much or was his point that I it was seriously abnormal?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[phiwum]

Citation please where they say this.

When one explains an accident without invoking sabotage, we can infer that there was no evidence of sabotage. Of course, they could be lying by omission, but we'd need evidence of that omission.

When I tell people my boat nearly sink due to a lightning strike, I never add that there was no evidence of minisubs in the area.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Vixen]

The buoys are nothing to do with navigation.
They were manual because that is all the operating company supplied to the ship.

They are never used for man overboard.
If an EPIRB was used for man overboard it would be a serious misuse of the system.

If the only cage or container supplied by the manufacturer for the model range is automatic then it has to be used.
.

Stop putting words in my mouth. As I said, the Rockwater divers retrieved the man-overboard beacon. If you do not like their wording, take it up with Rockwater.

 

[Vixen]

Why are you quoting journalists and not the actual report?

GPS is not a 'colloquialism' it is a term with a precise meaning.

You obviously didn't know what they meant and it seems, neither did they.

Unless your 'expert' told them that GPS was involved in which case he made a big mistake and his expertise has to be called in to question.

From your posts it is impossible to tell where the error was introduced.

That is why it is better to use primary sources, not newspaper reports.

OK so the term GPS was a silly error. It doesn't detract from the fact Estonia was fitted with hydrostatically operated automatically activated EPIRBS [which, of course, can also be switched on manually, as well]. Your trying to introduce obfuscation by quibbling over the type of satellite system involved doesn't change this fact.

 

[Vixen]

N. O.

Stop lying. (Oh look! I'm doing it now! )

The JAIC Report very plainly states that the EPIRBs carried on the Estonia that night required manual activation (and the report further states that this manual activation did not happen, meaning that the buoys never received and transmitted anything that night).

Stop lying. All the JAIC says about the Estonia EPIRB's is as follows:

3.4.4 Emergency beacons

The ESTONIA carried two emergency beacons (EPIRBs) of type Kannad 406F.
The last check of the radio beacons was reported to have been made about one week prior to the accident by the radio operator. The check confirmed that the EPIRBs were in full working order.

7.3.4 EPIRB beacons

No signals from the ESTONIA`s EPIRBs were received.

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 Ior 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.

CHAPTER 20 FINDINGS

• The ESTONIA's two EPIRBs were not activated and could therefore not transmit when released.


Stop 'blagging it'. It is very tiresome.

 

[JayUtah]

If a ship had GDMSS then it will have had no problems with automaitcally activated EPIRBs...

The point at hand was not whether Estonia's EPIRBs were immersion-activated, but whether they were GPS-enabled. You tried to argue that because a ship could use GPS to navigate in 1994, GPS-enabled EPIRBs were available in 1994 and that Estonia was or should have been equipped with them. You based this on the proposition that divers were instructed to obtain GPS-related information from the ship's bridge, and from a general unfamiliarity with satellite geolocation systems throughout history.

...and in fact manually operated ones would have been pointless, except as a man-overboard spare.

EPIRBs are not used to indicate a man overboard.

There is hardly any point having an HRU if the thing needs to be removed manually for it to work.

The mechanism by which the EPIRB is released from its holder is a different operation than switching on a manually-operated EPIRB. We have spent pages upon pages trying to get you to understand this simple fact, so much so that we have to conclude you're being deliberately obtuse.

 

[Vixen]

You think that the hand drawn picture of water gushing in both sides of the ramp was normal? Did the witness who drew it say as much or was his point that I it was seriously abnormal?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

The chap who drew it - on at least five different occasions - reported hearing a series of three bangs. He has steadfastly never claimed to have seen the car ramp open. The JAIC did get him to say - as they did the other handful of surviving ship's crew - he could 'see the bow visor was missing'. Presumably from his life raft.

Sillaste was an engineer and thus would not have had much to do with the car deck activities.

 

[Vixen]

When one explains an accident without invoking sabotage, we can infer that there was no evidence of sabotage. Of course, they could be lying by omission, but we'd need evidence of that omission.

When I tell people my boat nearly sink due to a lightning strike, I never add that there was no evidence of minisubs in the area.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

We were talking about a very serious accident investigation. A poster made a bald statement that the JAIC had ruled out sabotage. It is quite meet and proper for another poster to ask for said citation of same.

 

[GlennB]

... Estonia was fitted with hydrostatically operated automatically activated EPIRBS [which, of course, can also be switched on manually, as well]. Y

3.4.4 Emergency beacons
...
• The ESTONIA's two EPIRBs were not activated and could therefore not transmit when released.

Do you not see a problem with the two highlighted parts?

 

[JayUtah]

It doesn't detract from the fact Estonia was fitted with hydrostatically operated...

Hydrostatically released. Don't change the wording of the source.

...automatically activated EPIRBS...

No. There was no automatic activation on the model used on Estonia.

Your trying to introduce obfuscation by quibbling over the type of satellite system involved doesn't change this fact.

Correcting yet another one of your ignorant misconceptions, which you spent pages trying to defend, does not suddenly become an "obfuscation" simply because you were amply proven wrong.

 

[JayUtah]

A poster made a bald statement that the JAIC had ruled out sabotage.

No. He said they "did not see sabotage." The absence of evidence indicating some hypothesis is sufficient grounds not to consider it further.

It is quite meet and proper for another poster to ask for said citation of same.

The absence of further consideration in the report is sufficient citation.

 

[Vixen]

The point at hand was not whether Estonia's EPIRBs were immersion-activated, but whether they were GPS-enabled. You tried to argue that because a ship could use GPS to navigate in 1994, GPS-enabled EPIRBs were available in 1994 and that Estonia was or should have been equipped with them. You based this on the proposition that divers were instructed to obtain GPS-related information from the ship's bridge, and from a general unfamiliarity with satellite geolocation systems throughout history.



EPIRBs are not used to indicate a man overboard.



The mechanism by which the EPIRB is released from its holder is a different operation than switching on a manually-operated EPIRB. We have spent pages upon pages trying to get you to understand this simple fact, so much so that we have to conclude you're being deliberately obtuse.

What is a man-overboard beacon for if not for pinpointing...er...a man overboard. This was Rockwater's wording. They retrieved this beacon. They did not call it an EPIRB.

Rockwater Survey Report

Also under the direction of the authorities, divers accessed the Bridge of the vessel and retrieved a number of navigational aids, a man-overboard beacon and the hydrostatic release mechanism for one of the vessel’s EPIRB beacons. The bodies of 3 of the victims of the disaster were found on the Bridge.

FWIW from Helsingin Sanomat:

Estonian emergency buoys were a forgotten tuning

The two emergency buoys of the car ferry Estonia did not send a signal to the rescuers because they had not been tuned on board. Emergency buoys burst to the surface properly as the ship sank. Turma's International Commission of Inquiry has investigated the activities of the emergency buoys that drifted off the Estonian coast. The buoys' batteries were fully charged, but they could not send anything untuned, says Commissioner Kari Lehtola.

The committee closed the two-day meeting on Friday in Helsinki. The so-called EPIRB emergency buoys had been recently serviced and had been placed in place in accordance with the rules. However, during the installation phase, the activation of the buoys was forgotten: the protective cover must be opened and turned on the coupling head. In Estonia, the activation of the emergency buoy was one of the tasks of the radio electricians, of which there were two on board.

 

[JesseCuster]

They recovered the hydrostatic unit (HRU). This is automatically activated when immersed in a sufficient depth of water. You can see them putting it in their net bag.

The HRU is the release mechanism for the EPIRBs.

The divers recovered the release mechanism, which nobody disputes was of a type that automatically released the EPIRBs when they're submerged in water.

They did not recovered the EPIRBs themselves. What is in dispute (with you anyway) is what kind of activation, manual or automatic, the EPIRBs had.

How did recovering the release mechanism for the EPIRBs allow Rockwater divers to 'confirm' that the EPIRBs were of a type that were automatically activated, when Rockwater never recovered the actually EPIRBs?

 

[JayUtah]

What is a man-overboard beacon for if not for pinpointing...er...a man overboard. This was Rockwater's wording. They retrieved this beacon. They did not call it an EPIRB.

You're not even in the same ballpark as my argument. Stop typing and start reading.

 

[Axxman300]

Suppose the damage to the ship was so intense the bridge had no time to make a Mayday and zero time to execute an evacuation of the passengers?

No, let's focus on what actually happened.

The Bridge could hear all of the walkie-talkie messages and also see the same screen monitors as the engineers in the engine control rooms in the hull.

Not true, the video monitors on the bridge were not located in a place where the crew and captain could constantly see them. At no point was a damage control party sent to inspect the bow.

The persons in the ECR saw the ramp was shut and claimed to have seen water coming in at the sides. Problem is, the sides constantly leaked in rainy weather so who knows whether that was due to the usual rainy weather or the bow visor off.

It was obvious to the crewman who radioed in the report that the amount of water coming in was unusual.

Nobody saw the bow visor fall off.

And nobody looked either.

A couple of Estonian athletes claimed to have climbed down the car ramp, so it must have been shut.

Wrong, the only way to access the underside of the ramp in that situation is if the ramp is wide open...which it was. The flaring of the hull housing the bow visor would make it impossible were the ramp closed.

Linde had been in the car deck before doing his watch rouind to the upper deck. Unfortunately, he has changed his timeline so many times he cannot be held to be a credible witness.

Of course not, because he proves you're wrong.

Have you read his different testimonies? Obviously not.

The changes in his testimony relate to a single issue: Were the indicator lights for the bow visor all green?

In an early statement he said that one was red. It it was indeed red then it meant the corresponding visor lock had failed. He never told the bridge about the red light, and that MIGHT have been enough for the captain to slow down, and turn back, and save the ship.

He's changed his statement out of guilt. This doesn't make him unreliable, it means he was part of a poorly trained and motivated crew.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Stop putting words in my mouth. As I said, the Rockwater divers retrieved the man-overboard beacon. If you do not like their wording, take it up with Rockwater.

You posted

If a ship had GDMSS then it will have had no problems with automatically activated EPIRBs and [HILITEin fact manually operated ones would have been pointless, except as a man-overboard spare.][/HILITE]

An EPIRB would never be used for a man overboard.

 

[Andy_Ross]

OK so the term GPS was a silly error. It doesn't detract from the fact Estonia was fitted with hydrostatically operated automatically activated EPIRBS [which, of course, can also be switched on manually, as well]. Your trying to introduce obfuscation by quibbling over the type of satellite system involved doesn't change this fact.

The buoys on the Estonia were not automatic.

Again from the report

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.

 

[Axxman300]

It is not a CT site. It is merely an individual or individuals trying to make a scholarly attempt at understanding the disaster.

Pretty much a CT site.

The JAIC narrative is a descriptive one as far as it goes. However, what comes into your mind reading that? The vessel was out of control.

Sailing at flank speed into massive waves (the description I linked to suggests waves breaking over the bow, which is four stories (I think) above the water). That is insane.

Captain Andresson was Russian naval school trained. He was a stickler for discipline, not laissez-faire. What happened to Captain Andresson?

You keep saying that as if the Russians are masters of the sea or something. He went to a glorified truck-driving school, that's all. He broke almost every rule of maritime safety, and sank his ship in the process.

End of story.