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

[Andy_Ross]

That list took a lot of compiling!!
I have searched through a lot of PDF files from retailers, service agents and certifying authorities to compile it.

As far as I can discover the first auto model was the Kannad 406 ATP
This got Cospas-Sarsat type approval on 05 November 1997.
It was therefore impossible for the Eastonia to be equipped with an automatic buoy if it was a Kannad unit.

 

[Myriad]

That list took a lot of compiling!!
I have searched through a lot of PDF files from retailers, service agents and certifying authorities to compile it.

And whoever came up with all those model numbers probably went on to have a long career naming models of digital camera. Good luck making any sense out of those.

 

[Andy_Ross]

And whoever came up with all those model numbers probably went on to have a long career naming models of digital camera. Good luck making any sense out of those.

It's not too bad the 'S' refers to the compact 'survival' model. 'A' is automatic 'F' is float free.

I am assuming other letters included are to differentiate subsequent models of the same unit.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Marine models dropped the designation '406' with a letter combination to avoid confusion with the aviation models which still use the number-letter combinations but are completely different units.
Marine models are now either 'Safelink' for professional units for commercial and big yacht application or 'Sportpro' for small boat users.

 

[Mojo]

It's not too bad the 'S' refers to the compact 'survival' model. 'A' is automatic 'F' is float free.

I am assuming other letters included are to differentiate subsequent models of the same unit.

I thought I’d seen some in which the A seemed to stand for “aviation”.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I thought I’d seen some in which the A seemed to stand for “aviation”.

Yes, that's a confusion, the aviation models still use the 406 followed by a letter combination.
marine versions are named differently now.

 

[abaddon]

Yes, that's a confusion, the aviation models still use the 406 followed by a letter combination.
marine versions are named differently now.

Sure. Vixen simply cannot work out that companies can ever change their naming conventions. It's just not in her wheelhouse.

 

[Axxman300]

Not EU mandates, they are International Maritime Organisation mandates through the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)

It is an international maritime treaty that sets minimum safety standards in the construction, equipment and operation of merchant ships.

Following the changes to Roro ferry requirements brought about by the Estonia disaster the Baltic states added their won requirements on top of the SOLAS changes for ferries operating between the Baltic states.

Chapter 19 of the report covers regulatory changes.
https://onse.fi/estonia/chapt19.html

Chapter 22 covers recommendations made by the investigation.
https://onse.fi/estonia/chapt22.html

Thanks, I couldn't recall who instituted the mandate, and I really didn't feel like doing yet another search.

I'm posting less in this thread because it's obvious someone doesn't want to do their homework on any level, or admit they're wrong about aspects of this event. The dive videos from the original survey, and the new ones from the current investigations are clear. The Estonia sank in rough seas when the bow visor was knocked loose, and then detached from the ship, and wrenched open the ramp, flooding the car deck.

The holes found in the wreck are, in my opinion, stress fractures in the hull made after the ship sank.

The footage from all three expeditions does not show damage from a collision or explosives used internally nor externally. This is a CT pushed by a single German journalist who has since had her credentials yanked due to unprofessional conduct. The others who have bought into her CT have ulterior motives that have nothing to do with the truth. I support the new investigation because the more they can learn the safer everyone can be in the future.

 

[Vixen]

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.




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.



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



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



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.

Citation please, of how 'we know the captain left the bridge'?

Captain Andresson's shift was not 'over'. It was his watch commencing as from 01:00.

A.B. Seaman Silver Linde testified to police that as he was returning to the bridge at circa 12:58, from the lower decks, he saw Capt. Andresson walking ahead of him up the stairs to the bridge .

What do you mean by 'gory details'? This is a public inquiry accident investigation. The public is entitled to know where the Captain was as of the time of the accident, as master of the ship, in the same way 9/11 investigators went to great pains to discover who was in the pilot seat when one of the planes crash-landed on its way to the Pentagon (it was the hijacker's voice). Who was at the helm of the Estonia as of the time of the accident is essential public information, and if not Captain Andresson, then who? Well, we know Kaunasaar, Ainsalu and Tammes were there (second, third and fourth mates, with Piht who was there to shadow for the morning arrival to Stockholm in preparation for his charting exams [to prove he knew his way around the 25-thousand island archipelago] and thus, he went to bed early and was not there [presumably]).

What's with all the fake compassion for the family of the Captain?

You are the one who avers the captain was near-criminally negligent, belting along at 18knots in a storm, and now you are shamelessly claiming it is good the JAIC do not mention his whereabouts as of the time of the accident, apparently - we are expected to now believe - to spare the feelings of his family.

Sorry, I can see no discernable reasoning skills in your post.

 

[Vixen]

The Facts re EPIRB Safety at Sea Regulations

As I stated, the regulations regarding Float Free Emergency Position Radio Beacons (EPIRB's) came into force in 1993, and as a consequence of the The Herald of Free Enterprise et al disasters from 1987 and in the interim.

From the Safety at Sea official resolutions:

CHAPTER III Reg 6 Section 2.3

NOTING that the Conference of Contracting Governments to the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS),
on the global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS Conference, 1988)
adopted regulation IV/7.1.6 of the 1988 SOLAS amendments, applicable not
later than 1 August 1993, requiring the carriage of a float-free satellite
EPIRB on every ship as part of the global maritime distress and safety system,

<snip>
RECOMMENDS Governments: (a) to ensure, as part of national type approval procedures, that any new type of 406 MHz satellite EPIRB to be deployed on board ships' h tested to confirm that it is in accordance with the IMO performance standards for 406 MHz EPIRBs (resolution A.695(17)); confirmation that the satellite EPIRB meets part B of that performance standard can be achieved by either: (i) performing, or having performed, under national procedures, all appropriate tests; or (ii) accepting type approval test results obtained through the COSPAS-SARSAT type approval procedure (C/S T.007) and confirmed by the delivery o{ a COSPAS-SARSAT Type Approval Certificate; and (b) to encourage national type approval authorities to develop test procedures compatible, to the extent possible, with C/S T.007, if necessary in consultation with the COSPAS-SARSAT Secretariat.

https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresourc...MOResolutions/AssemblyDocuments/A.695(17).pdf


applicable not later than 1 August 1993, requiring the carriage of a float-free satellite EPIRB on every ship
What is a float-free EPIRB?

Float-free Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (FF EPIRBs) are water-activated distress beacons fitted in a float-free bracket. They are designed to activate when a vessel capsizes to a depth of 1–4 metres. They use a hydrostatic release function and a water activated switch.

The Estonia was fitted with a Kannad 406F, with a hydrostatically released unit and was thus - in accordance with SOLAS - and as described in the brochure:

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).

And as backed up by the Rockwater Report of Dec 1994:

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."

It is also clear that each EPIRB should be installed on the wing of either side of the ship in a suitable location.

That is the end of the matter.

Conclusion: The JAIC fails to explain why the Estonia emergency position indicating radio beacons failed to operate as they should have done.

 

[Vixen]

Thanks, I couldn't recall who instituted the mandate, and I really didn't feel like doing yet another search.

[qimg]https://media.giphy.com/media/xKy2w6LehxxHa/giphy.gif[/qimg]

I'm posting less in this thread because it's obvious someone doesn't want to do their homework on any level, or admit they're wrong about aspects of this event. The dive videos from the original survey, and the new ones from the current investigations are clear. The Estonia sank in rough seas when the bow visor was knocked loose, and then detached from the ship, and wrenched open the ramp, flooding the car deck.

The holes found in the wreck are, in my opinion, stress fractures in the hull made after the ship sank.

The footage from all three expeditions does not show damage from a collision or explosives used internally nor externally. This is a CT pushed by a single German journalist who has since had her credentials yanked due to unprofessional conduct. The others who have bought into her CT have ulterior motives that have nothing to do with the truth. I support the new investigation because the more they can learn the safer everyone can be in the future.

Calling drawing attention to a defective accident investigation report 'a conspiracy theory' does not make it so.

 

[Andy_Ross]

As I stated, the regulations regarding Float Free Emergency Position Radio Beacons (EPIRB's) came into force in 1993, and as a consequence of the The Herald of Free Enterprise et al disasters from 1987 and in the interim.

From the Safety at Sea official resolutions:

CHAPTER III Reg 6 Section 2.3


https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresourc...MOResolutions/AssemblyDocuments/A.695(17).pdf


applicable not later than 1 August 1993, requiring the carriage of a float-free satellite EPIRB on every ship
What is a float-free EPIRB?

Float-free Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (FF EPIRBs) are water-activated distress beacons fitted in a float-free bracket. They are designed to activate when a vessel capsizes to a depth of 1–4 metres. They use a hydrostatic release function and a water activated switch.

The Estonia was fitted with a Kannad 406F, with a hydrostatically released unit and was thus - in accordance with SOLAS - and as described in the brochure:

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).

And as backed up by the Rockwater Report of Dec 1994:

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."

It is also clear that each EPIRB should be installed on the wing of either side of the ship in a suitable location.

That is the end of the matter.

Conclusion: The JAIC fails to explain why the Estonia emergency position indicating radio beacons failed to operate as they should have done.

Free floating beacons are not automatic beacons.
They can be automatic.

Their main characteristic is that they are free floating and separate from the ship.

Automatic buoys were not mandated until after the Estonia sinking.
You have had the relevent SOLAS regulations quoted and linked.

Again you are quoting from the service manual from the 2006 range and referencing the brackets not the buoys themselves.

I have listed all the models in the Kannad from their introduction to their name change to avoid confusion with the aircraft units.
You will see that the F units are listed as float free but not automatic.

The Kannad 406 ATP is the first automatic unit in the range.

The units failed to operate as they should have done because they were manual activation units that were not turned on. They were found floating in the sea turned off.
When they were turned on they operated correctly and transmitted a signal for over four hours.
Each buoy has a unique ID code that it transmits. This code is registered to the individual ship carrying the buoy so that it's identity is known when they buoy is activated.

 

[GlennB]

...
That is the end of the matter.
...

** giggle **

 

[zooterkin]

As I stated, the regulations regarding Float Free Emergency Position Radio Beacons (EPIRB's) came into force in 1993, and as a consequence of the The Herald of Free Enterprise et al disasters from 1987 and in the interim.

From the Safety at Sea official resolutions:

CHAPTER III Reg 6 Section 2.3


https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresourc...MOResolutions/AssemblyDocuments/A.695(17).pdf


applicable not later than 1 August 1993, requiring the carriage of a float-free satellite EPIRB on every ship

Where are you quoting the highlighted text from, because it's not in the document you linked to?

 

[zooterkin]

The units failed to operate as they should have done because they were manual activation units that were not turned on. They were found floating in the sea turned off.
When they were turned on they operated correctly and transmitted a signal for over four hours.

To avoid giving Vixen the wrong impression, it would be better to say the units operated exactly as designed.

 

[Steve]

Conclusion: The JAIC fails to explain why the Estonia emergency position indicating radio beacons failed to operate as they should have done.

Your conclusion is, how shall I put this?, ill considered and wrong. You should try again.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

< the much repeated blah blah snipped for brevity >

That is the end of the matter.

Conclusion: The JAIC fails to explain why the Estonia emergency position indicating radio beacons failed to operate as they should have done.

No. If you had drawn a correct inference from the stuff you have found that would be the beginning of the matter.

There would be the huge glaring issue of emergency equipment which failed to operate correctly in a disaster. There would be the immediate urgent need to establish whether that model of beacon was unreliable and ought to be withdrawn from all ships carrying it. This would be a much wider issue than the JAIC investigating what happened to the Estonia itself. Every maritime authority, every ship owner and every insurer which allowed that Kannad model to be used would demand answers. The manufacturer would be dealing with a crisis.

None of that happened. As in the Sherlock Holmes story, the dog did not bark in the night, and that is the point. That is the end of the matter.

 

[Vixen]

Where are you quoting the highlighted text from, because it's not in the document you linked to?

https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresourc...MOResolutions/AssemblyDocuments/A.696(17).pdf

RESOLUTION A.696,(17)
adopted on 6 November 1991
TYPE APPROVAL OF SATELLITE EMERGENCY POSITION-INDICATING RADIO
BEACONS (EPIRBs) OPERATING IN THE COSPAS-SARSAT SYSTEM
THE ASSEMBLY,
RECALLING Article 15(j) of the Convention on the International Maritime
Organization concerning the functions of the Assembly in relation to
regulations and guidelines concerning maritime safety,
NOTING that the Conference of Contracting Governments to the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS),
on the global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS Conference, 1988)
adopted regulation IV/7.1.6 of the 1988 SOLAS amendments, applicable not
later than 1 August 1993, requiring the carriage of a float-free satellite
EPIRB on every ship as part of the global maritime distress and safety system,
You can have the last word because I am not sure what level of proof you require beyond SOLAS itself.

 

[Vixen]

Where are you getting this information?

From Safety Legislation Shipboard Operations
By H I Lavery Google Books.

This was the position up to July 1991: one EPIRB on each side of the ship. (So much for Captain_Swoop's erroneous claim they had to be together.)

Notandum: the SOLAS regulations were updated November 1991 to take effect by 1 Aug 1993 to be 'float free' models.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

This was the position up to July 1991: one EPIRB on each side of the ship. (So much for Captain_Swoop's erroneous claim they had to be together.)

I don't remember his making any such a claim.