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

[Andy_Ross]

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

it doesn't change what fact?

 

[Andy_Ross]

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

When will you comprehend that an automatic buoy submerged before release will automatically activate. It's signal will be received and when recovered it's battery will be run down.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

For one to not work would be a misfortune, for two not to work...

 

[Jack by the hedge]

it doesn't change what fact?

The "fact" that two supposedly automatically activated buoys were found far from the ship and yet not activated, and for some mysterious reason nobody appears to have thought this "fact" was in any way concerning.

Just one of those things. You win some, you lose some. I mean you don't expect these things to actually work reliably, do you? It's not like anyone's life depends on them.

 

[JayUtah]

The "fact" that two supposedly automatically activated buoys were found far from the ship and yet not activated, and for some mysterious reason nobody appears to have thought this "fact" was in any way concerning.

In the conspiracy theory mindset that becomes just one more reason why the official investigation should be suspect. Everyone "knows" that EPIRBs are all automatically activated, so if they didn't activate and the investigating body didn't follow up on that, then that just means the investigators were corrupt. It can't have anything at all to do with naive expectations on the part of conspiracy theorists.

Conspiracy theories are just celebrations of ignorance and mediocrity. Good thing Vixen is just reporting current news items and not at all engaged in promoting a conspiracy theory.

 

[LondonJohn]

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



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.

Yeah, LOL at the "I seem to recall....." prefix

And as you, and I, and almost everybody involved in this thread, can figure out: the reliable evidence we have about the EPIRBs carried by the Estonia that night leads inexorably to only one set of conclusions. They are:

1) The EPIRBs had a hydrostatic release function (in other words, water pressure would have enabled them to float free of the sinking ship, if they hadn't already been manually thrown in by a crew member previously);

2) The EPIRBs did not have any kind of automatic activation function (in other words, they needed to be manually activated - by way of operating a physical switch - by a crew member before the ship sank)

3) The EPIRBs did indeed float free from the sinking ship that night - very probably on account of the automatic hydrostatic release mechanism, rather than having been manually thrown in by a crew member (that supposition is linked to (4) below);

4) The EPIRBs were not (manually) activated that night - we know that because no signal from them was ever picked up, in spite of the fact that testing revealed they'd have worked perfectly if they'd been switched on. In other words, no crew member aboard the Estonia that night actually remembered to step outside the bridge and activate the two EPIRBs (and probably to throw them into the sea at the same time - see (3) above). And since these EPIRBs had no automatic activation mechanism, once the manual switch-on had failed to happen, there was no way they were ever going to be activated (which, of course, is exactly what happened: they were never activated).


It really doesn't take Holmes-level or Poirot-level deductive reasoning skills to figure this all out properly. Heck, even a fictional Finnish detective could probably have worked it all out.....

 

[JesseCuster]

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://archive.org/details/gov.law.un.imo.a.810.1995

IMO Resolution A.810: Performance Standards for Float-free Satellite Emergency Position-Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRBs) Operating on 406 MHz

2.3 The satellite EPIRB should:
.1 be fitted with adequate means to prevent inadvertent activation;
.2 be so designed that the electrical portions are watertight at a depth of 10 m for at least 5 min. Consideration should be given to a temperature variation of 45 degrees C during transitions from the mounted position to immersion. The harmful effects of a marine environment, condensation and water leakage should not affect the performance of the beacon;
.3 be automatically activated after floating free;.4 be capable of manual activation and manual deactivation;
.5 be provided with means to indicate that signals are being emitted;
.6 be capable of floating upright in calm water and have positive stability and sufficient buoyancy in all sea conditions;
.7 be capable of being dropped into the water without damage from a height of 20 m;
.8 be capable of being tested, without using the satellite system, to determine that the EPIRB is capable of operating properly;
.9 be of highly visible yellow/orange colour and be fitted with retroreflecting material;
.10 be equipped with a buoyant lanyard suitable for use as a tether, which should be so arranged as to prevent its being trapped in the ship's structure when floating free;
.11 be provided with a low duty cycle light (0.75 cd), active during darkness, to indicate its position to nearby survivors and to rescue units;
.12 not be unduly affected by seawater, or oil, or both;
.13 be resistant to deterioration in prolonged exposure to sunlight; and
.14 be provided with a 121.5 MHz beacon primarily for homing by aircraft.

You're welcome.

 

[Vixen]

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



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.

Oh dear. If the automatically activated HRU compatible EPIRBs were removed then that is why they did not activate.

Postimees apparently had an article 8 Oct 1994 that claimed early Finnish divers discovered the EPIRBS caught up in the roof structure of the bridge.


Instead of brushing it aside and shrugging their shoulders, JAIC should have put more effort in understanding what happened to the epirbs: where they in place as of the time of the accident, what did the ship's electrician have to say (if he or she survived), how did they end up in Dirhami unactivated.

Instead we get a bald statement: there were no signals from Estonia's epirbs.

 

[Vixen]

When will you comprehend that an automatic buoy submerged before release will automatically activate. It's signal will be received and when recovered it's battery will be run down.

It didn't did it, despite being so, and it wasn't was it?

 

[Vixen]

Re the thriving post-Former Soviet Union arms trading. The huge military base in Estonia which was decommissioned was at Paldiksi, from whence brisk trading of FSU submarines, uranium, caesium and decommissioned nuclear rods was taking place against the background of Estonia's sinking in 1994, having been independent just three years. Sweden was under instructions from the USA to requisition FSU military secrets and this it did in part by using the Estonia passenger ferry to transport FSU materiel out. This happened at least twice in September 1994, and as confirmed by the Swedish Rikstag in 2005 after years of denial.


This gem of youtube video from Feb 2021 takes a tour round Paldinksi by 'Daily Bald', an intrepid Englishman, who really knows his stuff about the Soviet Union. He's quite addictive as well and I can recommend his other videos of his adventures around Estonia, Belarus and Russia. Part irreverential in true Brit-style but actually very informative.



Paldiski is 75km from Dirhami.

 

[Vixen]

https://archive.org/details/gov.law.un.imo.a.810.1995




You're welcome.

That is dated 1995. Can you show that that edict was not already enacted in 1993?

AIUI
Passengers ships had to have two of which at least one had to be automatically activated.

 

[JesseCuster]

Oh dear. If the automatically activated HRU compatible EPIRBs were removed then that is why they did not activate.

They weren't automatically activated EPIRBs.

 

[JesseCuster]

That is dated 1995. Can you show that that edict was not already enacted in 1993?

IMO Resolution A.810(19) was adopted in 1995.

You asked for a citation about how regulations about EPIRBs were changed in the wake of the Estonia disaster.

You have been provided with an answer.

Do you own damn homework and provide evidence that those regulations were adopted 2 years before the evidence says they were.

"I seem to recall..." and "AIUI..." is weak sauce.

I can Google, can't you?

 

[JesseCuster]

That is dated 1995. Can you show that that edict was not already enacted in 1993?

https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/presentations/files/feb05/Pt_80_EPIRBS_AND_ELTS_AL.pdf

(i) IMO Resolution A.810(19), “Performance Standards for
Float-free Satellite Emergency Position-indicating Radio
Beacons (EPIRBs) Operating on 406 MHz,” with Annex,
adopted 23 November 1995, and IMO Resolution A.812(19),
“Performance Standards for Float-free Satellite Emergency
Position-indicating Radio Beacons Operating Through the
Geostationary INMARSAT Satellite System on 1.6 GHz,” with
Annex, adopted 23 November 1995.

I can show that it was adopted in 1995.

Can you show it was adopted earlier?

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh dear. If the automatically activated HRU compatible EPIRBs were removed then that is why they did not activate.

Postimees apparently had an article 8 Oct 1994 that claimed early Finnish divers discovered the EPIRBS caught up in the roof structure of the bridge.


Instead of brushing it aside and shrugging their shoulders, JAIC should have put more effort in understanding what happened to the epirbs: where they in place as of the time of the accident, what did the ship's electrician have to say (if he or she survived), how did they end up in Dirhami unactivated.

Instead we get a bald statement: there were no signals from Estonia's epirbs.

You truly must be (metaphorically) putting your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALALALALA wrt all the factually-accurate corrections to your ignorance.

The JAIC knew exactly what happened - and what didn't happen - to the EPIRBs on the Estonia that night. The JAIC know with certainty that:

a) these particular EPIRBs were only capable of circuit/transceiver activation via a manual switch on - there was no automatic activation mechanism on these EPIRBs;

b) these particular EPIRBs did not transmit any distress signals that night;

c) these particular EPIRBs were released as designed from the ship that night (almost certainly on account of the automatic release mechanism);

d) these particular EPIRBs, when they were ultimately traced and recovered, were in perfect working condition - meaning that had they been manually switched on by a crew member before the ship sank, they've have broadcast their distress signals and location data as intended;

and, from all of the above information,

e) was unequivocally must have happened was that nobody among the crew of the Estonia remembered to manually switch on the EPIRBs - as they were required to do wrt these particular EPIRBs - in the time period between the crew realising the ship was going to sink, and the time the ship actually sank.


Seriously, Vixen: are you incapable of processing this information?

 

[LondonJohn]

It didn't did it, despite being so, and it wasn't was it?

What?

The point Captain_Swoop was making was that if the EPIRBs had been automatically activated (in addition to being automatically released), then 1) they'd have broadcast their distress signals as intended (which they didn't do), and 2) their batteries would have been fully discharged by the time they were found (on account of (1) above).

So his point is that since the EPIRBs didn't in fact broadcast anything that night, and since their batteries were still fully charged when they were ultimately recovered, and since the EPIRBs, when tested after recovery, were in proper working condition (according to their specific spec)....

..... this in itself is clear evidence that these particular EPIRBs never had any form of auto-activation mechanism.


Bear in mind also, that if these particular EPIRBs had contained an auto-activation mechanism, then the fact that this auto-activation hadn't worked (no signals broadcast, no battery usage) would have been of major concern not only to the JAIC, but also to the likes of SOLAS, ship owners whose ships used this particular model of EPIRB, and sailors who used this particular model of EPIRB.

And if that had been the case (which it wasn't, remember), then without doubt it would have been flagged prominently within the JAIC Report, and there would be plenty of information available online regarding the reactions of SOLAS and ship owners/operators. After all, if there was an auto-activating model of EPIRB which hadn't in fact auto-activated when needed (re the Estonia sinking), that would constitute a major safety issue, and a major recall.


Fortunately, all of the previous two paragraphs is entirely moot, since we know for certain that the particular EPIRBs carried on the Estonia that night didn't have any form of auto-activation mechanism.

 

[LondonJohn]

That is dated 1995. Can you show that that edict was not already enacted in 1993?

AIUI
Passengers ships had to have two of which at least one had to be automatically activated.

Your AIUI fu (AKA "guesswork") is fundamentally faulty.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oh dear. If the automatically activated HRU compatible EPIRBs were removed then that is why they did not activate.

Postimees apparently had an article 8 Oct 1994 that claimed early Finnish divers discovered the EPIRBS caught up in the roof structure of the bridge.


Instead of brushing it aside and shrugging their shoulders, JAIC should have put more effort in understanding what happened to the epirbs: where they in place as of the time of the accident, what did the ship's electrician have to say (if he or she survived), how did they end up in Dirhami unactivated.

Instead we get a bald statement: there were no signals from Estonia's epirbs.

Where is this Postimees article?

Which Finnish divers?

Where are the supposed buoys they found?

Who did they inform?

Is it now your claim that the buoys were removed from the ship?

 

[LondonJohn]

IMO Resolution A.810(19) was adopted in 1995.

You asked for a citation about how regulations about EPIRBs were changed in the wake of the Estonia disaster.

You have been provided with an answer.

Do you own damn homework and provide evidence that those regulations were adopted 2 years before the evidence says they were.

"I seem to recall..." and "AIUI..." is weak sauce.

I can Google, can't you?

Ahhh, this is where Vixen's attack-as-a-form-of-defence stratagem usually kicks in with some form of disparaging attack on "people getting their information from google".

 

[Andy_Ross]

Re the thriving post-Former Soviet Union arms trading. The huge military base in Estonia which was decommissioned was at Paldiksi, from whence brisk trading of FSU submarines, uranium, caesium and decommissioned nuclear rods was taking place against the background of Estonia's sinking in 1994, having been independent just three years. Sweden was under instructions from the USA to requisition FSU military secrets and this it did in part by using the Estonia passenger ferry to transport FSU materiel out. This happened at least twice in September 1994, and as confirmed by the Swedish Rikstag in 2005 after years of denial.


This gem of youtube video from Feb 2021 takes a tour round Paldinksi by 'Daily Bald', an intrepid Englishman, who really knows his stuff about the Soviet Union. He's quite addictive as well and I can recommend his other videos of his adventures around Estonia, Belarus and Russia. Part irreverential in true Brit-style but actually very informative.



Paldiski is 75km from Dirhami.

Squirrel!