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

[Vixen]

During the Q&A phase of the press conference, Jonas Bäckstrand say that based on the Stockholm University report, it's likely that the holes in the side are caused by the exposed bedrock that Estonia is resting on, but that there is no firm conclusion until more studies have been completed.

They are planning for laser and photography survey to create a detailed 3D model of the wreck. They will run a public tender for that, so it will take some time before the work can be completed.

They also point to the following web site as the place will publish videos, photos and reports: https://www.estonia1994.ee/en

I missed the news conference itself due to work commitments. A good source is the following technical newspaper which is better written IMV than the standard news report written in simplified language:

IN A NEWS CONFERENCE at Stockholm University Marine Geology and -geofysiikan talked to Professor Martin Jakobsson widely presented studies of Estonian wreck the environment.

According to Jakobsson, the seabed near the holes in Estonia's hull would appear to be bedrock, either granite or syenite, instead of clay. In addition, a beam belonging to the ship's structures had fallen on the seabed nearby, leaving no trace on the bottom, i.e. it is an apparently strong material.

Tekniikkatalous

One expects the officers of such an investigation to exercise caution and restraint in their initial findings. The work is about 25% done re modelling. Survivors have already been extensively re-interviewed in Sweden and the same process will start in Estonia shortly. This is because survivors have complained the original investigation seemed to disregard their accounts.

There will also be further investigations in Spring of the structures detached from the vessel lying on the seabed.

Scientists also plan to conduct ferromagnetic studies to look for small metal parts that have fallen from the ship. These allow scientists to work out the exact route of the ship during the sinking process.

“The parts are small, and maybe buried in the seabed, so we may not find them. However, they would help us figure out the exact point in time when the Atlantic lock on the [bow gate mechanism] was broken, ”says Arikas.

ibid

For the science and geography boffins:

In the coming months, researchers will also investigate sea currents and visibility conditions at the bottom; the latter helps to assess the usefulness of laser scanning and photogrammetry for further studies. To date, sonar and imaging robots have been used in the study.

The origin of the interference signals heard during the investigations is also open. According to scientists, they cannot be sourced from transponders laid in the 1990s, which have studied the possible movements of the wreck and whose batteries have run out some time ago.

ibid

I am so glad the survivors' testimonies are to be heard as there was a lot of anger from many that they were not.

 

[Vixen]

Where did I make out I was 'correcting' you?
I was confirming your guess.

OK, my bad.

 

[Vixen]

Just as we have been saying since the start.

Whoa! It would be totally irresponsible of them to say anything else at this stage.

 

[Vixen]

Which does not mean automatic, they were not made mandatory until the 1995 conference was enacted.

I was merely replying to phiwum on an information-sharing basis. I already said you can have the last word so I am not rehashing this again. We shall just have to agree to differ.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I was merely replying to phiwum on an information-sharing basis. I already said you can have the last word so I am not rehashing this again. We shall just have to agree to differ.

No, I don't agree to differ when you have been repeatedly shown to be wrong with regards to the legislation at the time of the sinking and the type of buoys involved

 

[Andy_Ross]

Whoa! It would be totally irresponsible of them to say anything else at this stage.

Yes it would. It would be contrary to what the evidence shows

 

[JayUtah]

...who knows better than a quality broadsheet and a marine communications expert.

The facts know better than any newspaper, regardless of its reputation, and better than any owner of a small company that makes irrelevant equipment. The end user cannot tune an emergency buoy in the sense of adjusting the frequency on which it transmits. Numerous easily-documented statements attest to this. Widespread personal experience attests to this. None of that goes away simply because you understand someone to have claimed differently. Either your understanding is wrong -- which has proven to be a serviceable explanation in most of this thread -- or the source is mistaken. Yes, we do know better than your take on your sources. But as usual, you are completely averse to any expertise or knowledge you didn't bring to the table, and unwilling to admit error.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No, I don't agree to differ when you have been repeatedly shown to be wrong with regards to the legislation at the time of the sinking and the type of buoys involved

Sounded like "I'm not going to admit I was wrong so let's call it a draw".

 

[Here_to_learn]

I missed the news conference itself due to work commitments. A good source is the following technical newspaper which is better written IMV than the standard news report written in simplified language

I didn't quote any news reports or secondary sources. I quoted directly from the scientific report from Stockholm university, and reported directly from the press conference. The site I linked to was described as the official site for information from the investigation.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Regarding Thörnroos. I have revisited his interview (2008) . The youtube clips begins with the Mayday messages and Thörnroos describes jumping out of bed and getting dressed quickly. He asks deputy where Estonia was and he is directed towards abeam of Mariella, with Europa just ahead. So presumably he had some signals then to know where Estonia was, unless it was in some kind of chart, as these three passenger ferries often arrived in Stockholm together, one after the other. Then the clip fades from their being nine kilometres away on progressing towards her and now they are about four to five km away and that is when he becomes visibly surprised he cannot see Estonia on the radar, but he could see Europa and Isabelle. If they had Estonia on the radar all the time then why would they have needed to keep asking her for her coordinates. Radio Helsinki had to contact Europa iirc to ask for them. By the time the official Mayday on behalf of Estonia went out at 01:54 - half an hour after Ainsalu's/Tammes' pleas - the ship had sunk 01:48.

Of course he wouldn't use the term 'blackout' (he is a Swedish-speaking Finn who lives in the Ålands); that was my shorthand to sum up his problems making contact with Estonia and MRCC Turku on that night. All of this has already been well documented so I shan't repeat as people can easily search.

Sad note: in May 2021 Mariella was sold to Corsica Ferries and is now known as Mega Regina.

 

[Vixen]

Sounded like "I'm not going to admit I was wrong so let's call it a draw".

Not at all. I stand by my certainty Estonia had float-free - hydrostatically released by an HRU - automatically activated EPIRB's, as evidenced by Rockwater not only retrieving the HRU but Koivisto explaining they were switched off when at land but need to be activated by the ship's electrician at the start of a journey. He says they correctly bobbed free when immersed in water but bafflingly failed to emit the expected signals despite being in full working order, having been checked just a week before and with full batteries. Because of these latter two aspects he concluded they had not been properly installed on the ship.

That is my position.

 

[JayUtah]

but Koivisto explaining they were switched off when at land but need to be activated by the ship's electrician at the start of a journey. He says they correctly bobbed free when immersed in water but bafflingly failed to emit the expected signals despite being in full working order, having been checked just a week before and with full batteries. Because of these latter two aspects he concluded they had not been properly installed on the ship.

Does Koivisto's small company make EPIRBs? Have they ever made EPIRBs? Does his company in fact design or manufacture any equipment meant to be used with COSPAS-SARSAT?

 

[Vixen]

I didn't quote any news reports or secondary sources. I quoted directly from the scientific report from Stockholm university, and reported directly from the press conference. The site I linked to was described as the official site for information from the investigation.

Your quote said:

"During the Q&A phase of the press conference, Jonas Bäckstrand say that based on the Stockholm University report, it's likely that the holes in the side are caused by the exposed bedrock that Estonia is resting on, but that there is no firm conclusion until more studies have been completed,"

whereas the report I read in a Swedish newspaper had Bäckstrand saying only it was "somewhat likely" and adding a disclaimer, whereas the version above appears to claims an outcome.

Maybe something was lost in the translation.

 

[The Man]

I was merely replying to phiwum on an information-sharing basis. I already said you can have the last word so I am not rehashing this again. We shall just have to agree to differ.

No, I don't agree to differ when you have been repeatedly shown to be wrong with regards to the legislation at the time of the sinking and the type of buoys involved

Ah the old 'agree to disagree' ploy. As if someone simply being in disagreement with demonstrable facts is in any way agreeable. No, one does not have to agree that it is simply you and they that are in disagreement. In order for just two people to be in disagreement both must hold positions supportable by facts. Failing that one or both are simply in disagreement with the facts at hand.

A guy here at work always says that, most of the time he doesn't even have a self consistent position to even assert. Basically he just agrees to disagree with himself. I tell him, 'No, I can't agree to disagree with you until you can actually and accurately assert what the position is that I'd be disagreeing with.'

 

[The Man]

Your quote said:

"During the Q&A phase of the press conference, Jonas Bäckstrand say that based on the Stockholm University report, it's likely that the holes in the side are caused by the exposed bedrock that Estonia is resting on, but that there is no firm conclusion until more studies have been completed,"

whereas the report I read in a Swedish newspaper had Bäckstrand saying only it was "somewhat likely" and adding a disclaimer, whereas the version above appears to claims an outcome.

Maybe something was lost in the translation.

Exactly how likely is something that isn't "somewhat likely"?

ETA: Isn't "but that there is no firm conclusion until more studies have been completed," also a disclaimer?

 

[JesseCuster]

Your quote said:

"During the Q&A phase of the press conference, Jonas Bäckstrand say that based on the Stockholm University report, it's likely that the holes in the side are caused by the exposed bedrock that Estonia is resting on, but that there is no firm conclusion until more studies have been completed,"

whereas the report I read in a Swedish newspaper had Bäckstrand saying only it was "somewhat likely" and adding a disclaimer, whereas the version above appears to claims an outcome.

The version above "claims an outcome"?

It says that their hypothesis of where the hull damage came from is likely and that there is no firm conclusion.

In what way does offering a likely explanation with no firm conclusion mean "claiming an outcome"?

How does that qualify as "claiming an outcome"? They've made sure to explain that they're offering a likely explanation for the holes in the hull, not offering any sort of firm conclusion.

 

[phiwum]

Did you not see:



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

I'll let others discuss that. I'll just note you said specifically that ONE of two EPIRBs must be automatic, not two of two. Did you make that up?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Vixen]

Does Koivisto's small company make EPIRBs? Have they ever made EPIRBs? Does his company in fact design or manufacture any equipment meant to be used with COSPAS-SARSAT?

He is a marine communications expert and with wide contacts.

PCIMA's expert in navigation electronics, Asser Koivisto, has met some Russians. They reported that a NAVISAILOR 2000 ECDIS chart system of Russian make had been installed on "Estonia" which registers the covered route, speed and the like. It is possible to take out data from the installation even after it has been in sea water for sometime. In case Sweden should decide for reasons of ship-technical investigations or for other reasons to have the wreck examined by divers, the above-mentioned installation should be brought up, according to Koivisto, the matter should be given a relatively high priority and should be speeded up. The Swedish pilot Benny Pettersson, who frequently piloted "Estonia" knows the exact location of the installation on the bridge.

You don't need to make the widgets to be an expert in them. Jotron, a Norwegian company was first in the marine EPIRB AFAIAA, founded 1967.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Not at all. I stand by my certainty Estonia had float-free - hydrostatically released by an HRU - automatically activated EPIRB's, as evidenced by Rockwater not only retrieving the HRU but Koivisto explaining they were switched off when at land but need to be activated by the ship's electrician at the start of a journey. He says they correctly bobbed free when immersed in water but bafflingly failed to emit the expected signals despite being in full working order, having been checked just a week before and with full batteries. Because of these latter two aspects he concluded they had not been properly installed on the ship.

That is my position.

I know that's what you think he said, but the translation of a secondary source telling its version of what he said is not unambiguously saying that at all. Far from it.

You think he meant there is a switch on the EPIRB which disables automatic activation on immersion, to be used during transportation. Since the Kannad EPIRB service manual that's been linked to multiple times shows no such switch existing in their designs, it's reasonable to infer that your interpretation of their interpretation must be wrong.

A more plausible explanation is that he was referring to manual switching on of the beacon in an emergency and either the journalist got it wrong or the translation got it wrong or you got it wrong.

 

[junkshop]

Does Koivisto's small company make EPIRBs? Have they ever made EPIRBs? Does his company in fact design or manufacture any equipment meant to be used with COSPAS-SARSAT?

He is a marine communications expert and with wide contacts.

PCIMA's expert in navigation electronics, Asser Koivisto, has met some Russians. They reported that a NAVISAILOR 2000 ECDIS chart system of Russian make had been installed on "Estonia" which registers the covered route, speed and the like. It is possible to take out data from the installation even after it has been in sea water for sometime. In case Sweden should decide for reasons of ship-technical investigations or for other reasons to have the wreck examined by divers, the above-mentioned installation should be brought up, according to Koivisto, the matter should be given a relatively high priority and should be speeded up. The Swedish pilot Benny Pettersson, who frequently piloted "Estonia" knows the exact location of the installation on the bridge.

You don't need to make the widgets to be an expert in them. Jotron, a Norwegian company was first in the marine EPIRB AFAIAA, founded 1967.

That'd be a 'no', then?