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

[Andy_Ross]

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.

Do you even read what you post?

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.



FWIW from Helsingin Sanomat:

No, but 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]

 

[zooterkin]

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.

The words came from your own mouth; own them.

If a ship had GDMSS then it will have had no problems with automaitcally activated EPIRBs and in fact manually operated ones would have been pointless, except as a man-overboard spare. There is hardly any point having an HRU if the thing needs to be removed manually for it to work.

It was pointed out that this is not something EPIRBs are used for.

 

[phiwum]

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.

You didn't answer my question.

Did he say it was normal to see water literally gushing like that? Because you said that the water reported might have been normal leakage.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[phiwum]

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.

By giving the cause of the incident, they implicitly ruled out sabotage.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

Not seeing the car ramp open is obviously moving the goalposts. The point is he saw water gushing in on either side of the ramp. It's absurd to imagine what he drew was normal. Instead of assuming he saw the visor missing from a lifeboat, what if he meant he could tell it was absent because of the sea gushing in around the ramp?

 

[Andy_Ross]

You didn't answer my question.

Did he say it was normal to see water literally gushing like that? Because you said that the water reported might have been normal leakage.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Any water entering the ship should not be regarded as 'normal'

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I see we're still attempting to rewrite the past to conformto whatever tortured husk of the truth is needed for Vixen to Never Be Wrong ^tm

 

[LondonJohn]

Any water entering the ship should not be regarded as 'normal'

Absolutely. After all: given the facts that a) the differential pressure (ie between the water outside the hull and the air inside the hull) can become extremely powerful under even a couple of metres' head of water; and b) water is vastly more dense than air, and can inflict great damage even in relatively small volumes (e.g. just one cubic metre of water has a mass of one ton)....

....even a small area of water ingress into the hull must be treated as an extremely serious matter, and one requiring immediate remedial attention. If the hull has already been compromised like this, even to a small extent, the working presumption must be that any such leak might well get significantly worse significantly quickly.

And in this particular instance, when one factors in the fact that the ingress was at the bow area of the ship, the need to act becomes more urgent still: the bow of the ship that night was being constantly subjected to the "double whammy" of 1) depth-related water pressure (the bow was digging in under water every time the ship rode into the trough of the swell) and 2) huge masses of water being constantly flung against the bow.


It's entirely obvious - and should have been entirely obvious at the time - that once the bridge received the first reports of the bow opening mechanism having failed in some way, with water coming in past the sides of the bow ramp, an immediate emergency should have been declared both internally and via radio to other ships and emergency services, and the ship's speed should have been greatly reduced. Furthermore, passengers should at that point have been ordered to go to muster stations immediately, to facilitate as speedy an evacuation as possible if the situation deteriorated (as of course it did...). That none of the above actually happened is a grossly negligent mistake on the part of the captain and the crew that night.

 

[gabeygoat]

COSPAS SARSAT was invented circa 1979 and the international treaty fully operative by 1988. Stop falsely claiming satellite signals were not available to pinpoint location and that there was no such thing as an automatically activated EPIRBs.

I know it's already been addressed, but this is just really bad. No one said that.

 

[JesseCuster]

Stop falsely claiming satellite signals were not available to pinpoint location and that there was no such thing as an automatically activated EPIRBs.

Quote the post(s) where someone said that in 1994, that either satellite signals weren't available to pinpoint location on EPIRBs or that there was no such thing as automatically activated EPIRBs.

You're either being deliberately dishonest or your reading comprehension is really just that bad.

Seriously, if anyone said those things, it would be trivial for you to quote where they did. What are you hoping to achieve by accusing people of saying things they never said? Like your claim that people in this thread were making callous jokes about the victims of the disaster.

 

[Vixen]

And where are you quoting that from? What year was that manual printed?

From the page quoted:

Activating a float-free EPIRB

A float-free EPIRB has both a water activated switch and a manual activation switch, resulting in two options for activation:

Option 1: Manual activation – Manually remove the float-free bracket lid then remove the EPIRB. Activate the EPIRB by pressing the ON switch or by placing it in water.

Option 2: Water activation – This will happen automatically when the vessel capsizes. See How Float-free EPIRBs work.
Once an EPIRB has been activated, it must be returned to the manufacturer for servicing. This will ensure the EPIRB is fit for purpose for the next journey. Read more about servicing requirements below.

Important notes:

You cannot fit a manual EPIRB in a float free bracket.You must ensure the EPIRB and bracket are the same brand to ensure it operates correctly.

Refer to the manufacturer’s instructions for activation details of particular models.

amsa

But then you knew that the container was model-type specific.

 

[zooterkin]

From the page quoted:

amsa

But then you knew that the container was model-type specific.

I notice you didn't actually answer the question.

Those appear to be current guidelines (very recent, at least, since I see the date 2019).

They are therefore completely irrelevant as information regarding the details of EPIRB models in 1995. But then you knew that, didn't you?

 

[abaddon]

From the page quoted:

amsa

But then you knew that the container was model-type specific.

That page is sometime post 2009 at least. By then, standards had changed. Besides, Australia does not rule the Baltic, does it?

Nope, you are madly scrambling for anything you can find online.

 

[Andy_Ross]

From the page quoted:

amsa

But then you knew that the container was model-type specific.

You cannot fit a manual EPIRB in a float free bracket.
You must ensure the EPIRB and bracket are the same brand to ensure it operates correctly.

You are quoting current documentation, not that of 1994.
We can see from the 2006 service manual that you posted that the buoys in that range all share a common chassis and shell.
They will all fit in to the same enclosures and all the enclosures in the range are automatic release.

Again, what point do you think you are trying to make?

Do you actually read your sources or just cherry pick a sentence you think fits?

 

[abaddon]

Also, note the following from your link

Cost

The cost of a float-free EPIRB will depend on the model. For instance, a float-free EPIRB without GPS can be purchased for approximately $700 AUD. GPS models cost approximately $100 more.

But you claimed that was impossible.

 

[Vixen]

I notice you didn't actually answer the question.

Those appear to be current guidelines (very recent, at least, since I see the date 2019).

They are therefore completely irrelevant as information regarding the details of EPIRB models in 1995. But then you knew that, didn't you?

Back in them thar old days, they be EPIRB beacons, arr, but only could be turned on when that thar boat be two metres below them thar waves. That be because there b'aint be no bracket what fit but those thar 'hydrostatic release unit' widgets. That be because Cap'n Andresson were somewhat of a tightwad, arr. They be called 'face saving beacons' so's not to hurt his them thar feelings when some whippersnapper try tellin' Cap'n they be automatically activated ones. This because every time anyone asked, he be telling 'em they be manually hoperated. So as time came to pass these here HRU free float Epirbs came to be known on Cap'n Andresson's ship as manually activated and because it involved sailors diving into the them thar sea he be putting a man-overboard beacon beside it in case them thar jacktar failed to resurface.

 

[Vixen]

Also, note the following from your link



But you claimed that was impossible.

Now you are confusing GPS with the older system.

 

[Vixen]

That page is sometime post 2009 at least. By then, standards had changed. Besides, Australia does not rule the Baltic, does it?

Nope, you are madly scrambling for anything you can find online.

SOLAS rules are international.

 

[abaddon]

Now you are confusing GPS with the older system.

Nope, just pointing out how you have no clue what the difference is.