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

[Andy_Ross]

The Estonian service electricians inspected the buoys' activities about a week before the accident and by then those had been operating normally. Those Kannad 406-F (=free-floating) were tested as follows: the buoy's "cage" was carefully opened and the buoy was raised. When the indicator light started flashing, the cap was opened and the switch was turned to the OFF position. In that case, the signal would not yet have emitted. At the time there was no test button.

Both EPIRBs in Estonia were turned off when found, would the buoys have been left untuned after the test?

That is the implication: either the ship's electricians omitted to tune the buoys or they were tuned but were removed.

They are not 'tuned' they are sealed units. The users can't do anything to them apart from turn them on and off.

They were HRU-triggered so the puzzle is why they did not activate on being hydrostatically released? Asser Koivisto* says they were not 'tuned'.

They can not be 'tuned' they are sealed units. There is nothing to tune unless you are the manufacturer or the service centre.

Please note: it is not possible to switch it on and then switch it off without having emitted a signal, unless this is done immediately.

There is a delay between switching on and switching off on the old buoys to allow them to be tested without transmitting or to allow them to be turned off if they are accidentally activated.

If the epirb was manually activated only, it would not have been in an HRU and there would have been no call for an investigation by JAIC.

If there are automatic buoys in the product range then only automatic release systems are made for that range so that an automatic buoys can't be put in to a manual frame by mistake.

There was definitely a mysterious communications blackout surrounding the Estonia. If you look at this interview in in 2008 with Captain Jan-Tore Thörnroos, then Captain of the MS Mariella - which was just nine kilometres away so there should not have been a problem with Channel 16, but there was - he also highlights problems with the radar. Mariella had just had a new system fitted, running parallel with the old yet Thörnroos could not get an image (cf MRCC Turku who had the sonar image of Mariella, Europa and Isabelle, but could not capture Estonia, except later very momentarily, an image almost off screen where she was later found to have been located).

See 2:17 minutes in.

There was no communications blackout. Distress signals were received by ships and shore stations in the area expected for the transmitter used which was a low powered hand held unit.

Why did the JAIC not treat this as suspicious? Because information was classified and withheld from them. JAIC understood this so played along with the 'safe explanation' and stuck rigidly to the The Herald of Free Enterprise framework. One only has to read their treatment of the mayday and epirbs to realise they did not treat these as an important facet of the investigation as they steered well clear of any suggestion of sabotage. There is zero mention of the 'nine Estonian crew survivors, including senior officers of the crew' when one would have expected at least a couple of sentences explaining how they came to be erroneously considered 'survivors'.

There was nothing suspicious. The transmissions were received and acted on quickly.

The buoys were not activated, they were found floating in the sea in working order.

It is clear the JAIC rather than explain any of the communications problems other than in a superficial descriptive narrative way avoided it completely rather than draw attention to the possibility of intentional sinking.

There were no communications problems caused by any tampering or interference.

*In Finland, once a year, we have a national 'jealousy day', when all the top tax payers are listed (= rich list). Every citizen's taxable earnings are listed for those who care to look. In Finland Proper yesterday, we saw Asser Koivisto in 13th place and his wife in 10th place, having paid something like €1m in tax between them (the really big earners are centred around Helsinki). So much for the claim Koivisto is no marine expert when his marine communications business is flourishing.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Nope, he is an expert because he is a marine expert in marine telecommunications and intelligence. He supplies the Finnish Defence forces with AIS systems. Merit=money (as in profit).

You were the one who claimed he was no expert.

Do you know what an AIS system is?

 

[Vixen]

I doubt this will happen, but it would be nice if the CURRENT Estonia investigation set aside resources to evaluate the original investigation and the actions of the Swedish Government in this matter in order to help future disaster investigations be more transparent, and avoid the emergence of CTs.

I understand that there are always unanswered questions, most of which are not worth the time and or effort to address, but at the very least the easier ones should be put to bed by the experts as soon as they pop up before they can faster into a CT soup.

I wasn't knowledgeable about the Estonia disaster, but in the months this subject has been on this board I have taken the time to read the report, news paper stories, and hours of YouTube videos of which the most important being the original diver/ROV footage. The damage at the bow is OBVIOUS, there is zero evidence of the use of explosives of any kind. The modeling of the sinking using both computers and scale models is consistent with what we know happened. The fracture of the hull came after the ship sank, the fact that it has opened up directly along a seem in the hull plating indicates (from my untrained eye) a stress fracture. The fracture is directly above a rocky outcrop which shows evidence of grinding as the hull has shifted on the bottom over the almost three decades, and Marine Geology is my thing.

Estonia sank due to the negligence of the captain and crew who made poor choices at every step of the final voyage. I suppose if I lost family on the ship I'd want better answers, but that would mean I live in a country where Ro-Ro ferries are common, and something I personally use from time to time, and the idea that those nice people working the boat might not be of any help during a disaster is a tough pill top swallow. For some it is easier to put blame on shadowy spies, and faceless government entities than it is to accept that sometimes the wrong people are put in charge of the safety of human life.

The JAIC doesn't blame the Captain or the crew. It criticises them, sure, but do you not think it at all strange the JAIC have made no attempt to explain where was the Captain in all this. Especially as the Rockwater divers specifically went to the bridge to retrieve the logbook and GPS navigational equipment. Rockwater's remit was to advise whether it was feasible to salvage the vessel and/or bring up the bodies (it said yes).

So what did the logbook have to say? Was Captain Andresson at the helm? This is important, surely even to the most avid fawning sycophant of 'authority', just as the situation of a pilot in an air disaster would be to an air disaster investigation.

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.

Don't you think it at least reasonable to try to identify the bodies in the Bridge. AIUI, the divers were taking shots of each of the deceased faces for identification, although obviously many will have been inaccessible. So we can assume they took facial shots of those on the bridge, or identifying features, such as clothing (the bodies after three months were said to be remarkably well preserved in the near freezing temperatures).

So, no mention as to whether Andresson was there or not, and why not? If he shot himself - as he may well have done, facing a watery grave - then don't you think this should all be included in the report?

 

[Vixen]

Do you know what an AIS system is?

Wikipedia is your friend.

 

[Axxman300]

What a worthless hill to die on.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You and several others previously linked to a 2006 maintenance manual for Kannad EPIRBs. Here's a link again in case you need it: https://manualzz.com/doc/7067387/kannad-406-epirbs-maintenance-procedure

Please show us where it describes a procedure for the users to "tune" any of these devices. Of course there isn't one. No such procedure exists. The users do not have any such control over the circuitry inside the buoy.

They can't even change the battery, the units are returned to the supplier on an exchange basis after a set period of time.

 

[junkshop]

...Asser Koivisto* says they were not 'tuned'...

Well, then either Koivisto doesn't know what he's talking about, or the translation of what he actually said is no good.

 

[Vixen]

Straw man. Are there other antecedents to wealth besides merit? Does his 15-person company make EPIRBs? Did it make the EPIRBs fitted on Estonia?

By the way, the company of which I am part owner has several times employees than his, has global sales presence, and is considerably profitable. But I am not even remotely a millionaire. Does that make me not a subject-matter expert? Are you very wealthy? If not, are you not a subject-matter expert in accountancy?

We know Koivisto is an expert as the JAIC appointed him to report on the EPIRBs and he also did a presentation in January 1995.

 

[Andy_Ross]

We know Koivisto is an expert as the JAIC appointed him to report on the EPIRBs and he also did a presentation in January 1995.

So why does he say they have to be 'tuned'?

They do not have to be tuned, they are sealed units. There is nothing to tune unless you are the manufacturer or a service engineer in a workshop.

If he is such an expert why does not know this?

 

[Vixen]

What's your source for "F" = free-floating? They all float, and floating free is due to the design of the holder rather than the buoy itself. Are you sure the F in the model name doesn't mean it's fitted with a flashing beacon?

From Kannad itself:

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).

As it was fitted with an HRU within the container, it will be the latter.

F refers to Float free

Its Survival version has an S suffix.

The survival type:
• KANNAD 406 S (manual activation),
• KANNAD 406 WS (manual activation and water activation).

How many times before it sinks in?


Do keep up.

 

[JayUtah]

We know Koivisto is an expert as the JAIC appointed him to report on the EPIRBs and he also did a presentation in January 1995.

That's an inference. What is his actual expertise in EPIRBs? Does his small company make them? Did it make the EPIRBs fitted to Estonia? Does the company, in fact, make any equipment for use with COSPAS-SARSAT? I know the answers to some of these questions. Do you?

 

[Here_to_learn]

There was definitely a mysterious communications blackout surrounding the Estonia. If you look at this interview in in 2008 with Captain Jan-Tore Thörnroos, then Captain of the MS Mariella - which was just nine kilometres away so there should not have been a problem with Channel 16, but there was - he also highlights problems with the radar. Mariella had just had a new system fitted, running parallel with the old yet Thörnroos could not get an image (cf MRCC Turku who had the sonar image of Mariella, Europa and Isabelle, but could not capture Estonia, except later very momentarily, an image almost off screen where she was later found to have been located).

See 2:17 minutes in.

What?

That is not what he is saying. How dare you disrespect him by totally misrepresenting what he is saying? That is an interview with a great man and a great captain, that did all that he could during that night.

First of all - the clip starts with the radio traffic from time of the accident. We can hear it - no "blackout".
When he comes running to the bridge, half dressed, he asked abut Estonias position, and they pointed hem towards Estonias position, no trouble there.
There is no part of the clip where he talks about trouble with communications.
When he talks about the radar, he describes the time when Estona sank - the reason they couldn't get a radar echo was because she wasn't there anymore.

And MRCC definitely did not have a SONAR image of Estonia.

Let's end with a quote, starting at 8:13 (my translation):

"There are many, now in hindsight, that say why did you do this, why did you do that. Of course those that sit at a desk and try to analyse the situation will of course come to different conclusions compared to those that stand in the reality of 10-15 meter waves, rain with no visibility, high winds and a 1000 people in the water about to drown. Of course there will be different conclusions."

 

[Vixen]

What a worthless hill to die on.

At least it's not a clichéd one.

 

[JayUtah]

So why does he say they have to be 'tuned'?

They do not have to be tuned, they are sealed units. There is nothing to tune unless you are the manufacturer or a service engineer in a workshop.

If he is such an expert why does not know this?

Indeed. If by the word translated as "tune" he intends to say that the end user can change the frequency on which the buoys transmit, then he is simply wrong.

The U.S. Coast Guard, for example, offers a service by which it will test your EPIRB to see whether it is functioning and compliant. But any adjustments required have to be made by the manufacturer. All they offer is the precisely-tuned radio receiver required to determine whether the buoy transmits appropriately in the narrow band required for SARSAT compliance, and a Faraday cage to keep the test invisible from the operational receivers.

 

[Andy_Ross]

From Kannad itself:

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).

As it was fitted with an HRU within the container, it will be the latter.

F refers to Float free

Its Survival version has an S suffix.

The survival type:
• KANNAD 406 S (manual activation),
• KANNAD 406 WS (manual activation and water activation).

How many times before it sinks in?


Do keep up.

That is again from the 2006 service manual.

We know the units on the Estonia were manual operation, they did not activate and were found floating in the sea.
When they were inspected they were in the off position. When activated they broadcast a signal that was detected and the batteries lasted for over 4 hours.

 

[Vixen]

What?

That is not what he is saying. How dare you disrespect him by totally misrepresenting what he is saying? That is an interview with a great man and a great captain, that did all that he could during that night.

First of all - the clip starts with the radio traffic from time of the accident. We can hear it - no "blackout".
When he comes running to the bridge, half dressed, he asked abut Estonias position, and they pointed hem towards Estonias position, no trouble there.
There is no part of the clip where he talks about trouble with communications.
When he talks about the radar, he describes the time when Estona sank - the reason they couldn't get a radar echo was because she wasn't there anymore.

And MRCC definitely did not have a SONAR image of Estonia.

Let's end with a quote, starting at 8:13 (my translation):

"There are many, now in hindsight, that say whey did you do this, why did you do that. Of course those that sit at a desk and try to analyse the situation will of course come to different conclusions compared to those that stand in the reality of 10-15 meter waves, rain with no visibility, high winds and a 1000 people in the water about to drown. Of course there will be different conclusions."

Oh please. Do read Captain Thornroos' statement to the Stockholm police:

SILJA EUROPA came about 1/2 hour after us and we reported to them what we saw .....

SYMPHONY and ISABELLA arrived somewhat later.

Another matter is, I believe, worth mentioning and which should be remembered by you, who are investigating this here, it concerns the alerting. After they had called out the emergency messages it was only EUROPA and we who confirmed to them, and we really had big problems establishing contact with the coastal stations. It is not as they told the media that they picked up the emergency messages. They did not do that. They did not do that before we called them over mobile phone. EUROPA phoned Turku by mobile phone and we phoned Helsinki by mobile phone. After they had sent out the emergency messages it was just EUROPA and we who replied to them.

A: Does this mean that the Rescue Services ashore never confirmed the receipt?

T: They never confirmed anything.

A: Not the receipt of the messages?

Edited by Agatha: 

Trimmed for rule 4. Please limit copy&paste to one or two paragraphs and provide a link.

T: No, they never did so before we stirred them up by mobile phone. At first we didn't even know whom to call.

EFD

Given you don't call mayday unless you are in trouble, it almost certainly was Estonia up to half an hour earlier.

Whether or not this happened has absolutely nothing at all to do with Captain Thornroos' greatness.

 

[Vixen]

That is again from the 2006 service manual.

We know the units on the Estonia were manual operation, they did not activate and were found floating in the sea.
When they were inspected they were in the off position. When activated they broadcast a signal that was detected and the batteries lasted for over 4 hours.

"Just the place for a Snark! ... Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true." ~ Lewis Carroll

No, it doesn't become true just because you wish it so.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Oh please. Do read Captain Thornroos' statement to the Stockholm police:

You posted a clip of him, claiming that it does support you position. It doesn't. And now you show your true self by not owning up to your error, and ignoring the for example the point about the radar.

Embarrassing.

Of course the quote from the interview with Stockholm police say absolutely nothing about any "blackouts" - it just says that the couldn't reach them using radio, so they used other communication means.

He ensures that he states facts, and does not try to make any assumptions on the possible causes that could lead to radio communications not working between the ship and coastal radion stations. You are the one that is making assumptions.

 

[JayUtah]

"Just the place for a Snark! ... Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true." ~ Lewis Carroll

No, it doesn't become true just because you wish it so.

It becomes true because that's what contemporary documents say, and what the collectively knowledge of the industry says. It doesn't matter how many times you try to distract people with cutesy posts.

 

[Axxman300]

The JAIC doesn't blame the Captain or the crew.

It should put more blame on them.

Again, I'm no expert, but if I'm a crew member and especially a member of the engineering team, and I hear a report of water coming in on the car deck I'm hauling butt down there to: 1 - assess the situation to see if it can be mitigated, or 2 - sound an alarm to get people to the lifeboats.

Buoyancy is dependent on water staying on the outside of the hull.

It criticises them, sure, but do you not think it at all strange the JAIC have made no attempt to explain where was the Captain in all this. Especially as the Rockwater divers specifically went to the bridge to retrieve the logbook and GPS navigational equipment. Rockwater's remit was to advise whether it was feasible to salvage the vessel and/or bring up the bodies (it said yes).

This is a weak attempt a misdirection.

We know the captain left the bridge - in the middle of a storm and after reports of water coming in at the bow - because his "shift was over". Quality seamanship right there. Hey, my ship might be in trouble, but I gotta get some sleep.

Estonia sank because he sailed at flank speed into high waves during a storm with an already bad list to starboard. If you're looking for sabotage it's right there - his actions sank the ship.

So what did the logbook have to say? Was Captain Andresson at the helm? This is important, surely even to the most avid fawning sycophant of 'authority', just as the situation of a pilot in an air disaster would be to an air disaster investigation.

This may come as a shock to you but I doubt anyone was taking notes in that last hour.

Don't you think it at least reasonable to try to identify the bodies in the Bridge. AIUI, the divers were taking shots of each of the deceased faces for identification, although obviously many will have been inaccessible. So we can assume they took facial shots of those on the bridge, or identifying features, such as clothing (the bodies after three months were said to be remarkably well preserved in the near freezing temperatures).

No, I don't see the need, and neither did they.

So, no mention as to whether Andresson was there or not, and why not? If he shot himself - as he may well have done, facing a watery grave - then don't you think this should all be included in the report?

Official reports do not and should not include speculation. Andresson had a family too, and there is no need to publish gory details to satisfy CTists. He was not on the bridge when things went terminal for the ship. The fact there was anyone still on the bridge for the divers to find speaks to the bravery of those men, and how fast the situation deteriorated, depriving them of an exit.

Nobody here would have been against body recovery and salvage of Estonia, but it wasn't our call. As I said in my post, part of the new investigation should include the reasoning behind such decisions.