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

[abaddon]

SOLAS rules are international.

AMSA is not. Linking current regulations is irrelevant to Estonia or the regulations in place at that time. The page you linked is reccomendations, not regulations. Australia can do whatever it likes in regard to regulations. That does not automagically transfer to the Baltic.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

Whatever.

It isn't the captain that buys the equipment for the ship.

We know they were manually activated models because they were recovered and were turned off.

When they were turned on and tested they worked correctly for over 4 hours, showing that they had full batteries and hadn't been previously turned on.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Vixen why do you keep posting that imbecile idea that manual EPIRBs are intended to be activated by someone diving into the sea after them? I mean, I know you started it to mock the crazy idea that manual EPIRBs might even exist, but now you've been told for the millionth time how wrong you are, you're still doing it. Is it so you can pretend that wasn't the reason why you said it at first? That's rather sad.

 

[Andy_Ross]

SOLAS rules are international.

AMSA is not SOLAS.

regulations now are not the same as they were in 1994.

We know SOLAS regulations were changed after the Estonia sinking.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Vixen why do you keep posting that imbecile idea that manual EPIRBs are intended to be activated by someone diving into the sea after them? I mean, I know you started it to mock the crazy idea that manual EPIRBs might even exist, but now you've been told for the millionth time how wrong you are, you're still doing it. Is it so you can pretend that wasn't the reason why you said it at first? That's rather sad.

Even automatic units are supposed to be turned on manually and thrown clear of the ship.

Automatic activations is a fallback, it is not to be relied on as the buoys may become entangled or trapped by the sinking ship and not reach the surface.

 

[JayUtah]

Even automatic units are supposed to be turned on manually and thrown clear of the ship.

Automatic activations is a fallback, it is not to be relied on as the buoys may become entangled or trapped by the sinking ship and not reach the surface.

Sure, and that makes sense. What doesn't make sense is for a person of presumably at least average intelligence thinking that you throw it into the sea and then somehow turn it on afterwards. The concept of "turn it on, then throw it into the sea" is something I feel even a moderately attentive child could grasp.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Even automatic units are supposed to be turned on manually and thrown clear of the ship.



Automatic activations is a fallback, it is not to be relied on as the buoys may become entangled or trapped by the sinking ship and not reach the surface.

Eventually Vixen will read and comprehend this.

 

[GlennB]

Eventually Vixen will read and comprehend this.

Nice one

 

[Mojo]

Eventually Vixen will read and comprehend this.

Evidence?

 

[Metullus]

Eventually Vixen will read and comprehend this.

Assumes facts not in evidence...

 

[Vixen]

AMSA is not SOLAS.

regulations now are not the same as they were in 1994.

We know SOLAS regulations were changed after the Estonia sinking.

Citation please as to how they changed specifically with respect to Epirbs, because I seem to recall automatic epirbs became mandatory for passenger ships 1993.

In any case, I am satisfied that the Estonia were HRU automatically activated as I consider Asser Koivisto (as appointed by the JAIC to present his report on the epirbs) and Helsingin Sanomat to be reliable sources.

All this endless arguing as to whether The Herald of Free Enterprise sank is also pointless as the picture of it resting on its side when it capsized speaks for itself. Seeing is believing.

I have come to realise that people are determined to believe something that is untrue if they put their mind to it.

 

[Vixen]

Even automatic units are supposed to be turned on manually and thrown clear of the ship.

Automatic activations is a fallback, it is not to be relied on as the buoys may become entangled or trapped by the sinking ship and not reach the surface.

That might be true but it doesn't change the fact.

 

[Vixen]

Sure, and that makes sense. What doesn't make sense is for a person of presumably at least average intelligence thinking that you throw it into the sea and then somehow turn it on afterwards. The concept of "turn it on, then throw it into the sea" is something I feel even a moderately attentive child could grasp.

Nobody disputes that so you are arguing at your hand.

 

[Vixen]

Eventually Vixen will read and comprehend this.

Eventually Jack by the hedge will comprehend that an automatically activated EPIRB can be used both manually and automatically.

 

[zooterkin]

All this endless arguing as to whether The Herald of Free Enterprise sank is also pointless as the picture of it resting on its side when it capsized speaks for itself. Seeing is believing.

Did you ever hear of tides?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

That might be true but it doesn't change the fact.

Doesn't change which fact?

We agree, then, that the buoys on the Estonia must have had manual activation switches (since both manual and automatic buoys have manual switches). Great.

So there is no reason to think that the JAIC is lying when they say that the buoys were recovered unactivated, that they activated them via the manual switches, and that they worked.

Where does that leave the suggestion that they were sabotaged?

 

[abaddon]

Citation please as to how they changed specifically with respect to Epirbs, because I seem to recall automatic epirbs became mandatory for passenger ships 1993.

https://www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/Pages/MSC-1994-96.aspx

Enjoy yourself.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Eventually Jack by the hedge will comprehend that an automatically activated EPIRB can be used both manually and automatically.

Eventually Vixen will realise that an automatically activated buoy which did not activate automatically is the dog that did not bark in the night.

It would very obviously have warranted a considerably more rigorous examination than a simple check to see that it worked when switched on if it had been found either floating in the sea or washed up yet for some reason not activated.

At the very least, every maritime authority who permitted that model to be carried would have wanted an explanation and probably a withdrawal of the model until it was resolved. The manufacturer would have wanted to examine it to discover why it didn't activate and obviously the accident investigators would want to know too.

Your stubborn refusal to believe sources who tell us the buoys were manually activated clashes with any notion of reality. And may I remind you that you have yet to show us any model of EPIRB which has a "transport" switch which disables automatic activation.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Nobody disputes that so you are arguing at your hand.

How many times so far have you mocked the idea of a manually activated EPIRB by saying how ridiculous it would be to expect anyone to dive in after it to switch it on underwater? It's three times at least but I may have lost count.

So do tell us again about how you don't dispute that the obvious procedure is to switch it on and then throw it into the sea. Maybe you'll convince somebody.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Citation please as to how they changed specifically with respect to Epirbs, because I seem to recall automatic epirbs became mandatory for passenger ships 1993.

In any case, I am satisfied that the Estonia were HRU automatically activated as I consider Asser Koivisto (as appointed by the JAIC to present his report on the epirbs) and Helsingin Sanomat to be reliable sources.

All this endless arguing as to whether The Herald of Free Enterprise sank is also pointless as the picture of it resting on its side when it capsized speaks for itself. Seeing is believing.

I have come to realise that people are determined to believe something that is untrue if they put their mind to it.

Instead of trying to 'recall' why don't you check before you decide.
What is your evidence for automatic buoys becoming mandatory in 1993?

Again from the report

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.

If they were automatic they would have activated when submerged, the signal would have been picked up and the batteries would be dead when they were recovered.