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

[JayUtah]

Koivisto was referring to the installation phase.

No phase of operation available to the end user of an emergency locator beacon includes or allows the adjustment of the frequency on which the beacon transmits. If "tune" is intended to convey that, it is simply a wrong concept regardless of translation issues.

 

[abaddon]

No, two separate fishing boats recovered the buoys.

Vixen's error. She wont even admit that error. Although notably, she now avoids the claim she made. I would not be surprised if she denies ever making that claim.

 

[Vixen]

What is your evidence for this?

Are you now backing away from the reliability of the team that you were pushing as being the ones that were going to find the truth?

Just take a look at the mass media who use AP News as their press agency and they all have the same headline, 'HELSINKI (AP) — The Estonian and Swedish accident investigation boards said Tuesday that a research expedition earlier this year to the wreck of a ferry that sank in the Baltic Sea 27 years ago hasn’t provided new evidence contradicting the official accident investigation report.'

Which I don't think is strictly accurate at this stage, as it is yet to be fully analysed and more evidence/pictures still to be collected.

I am all for Arikas and Kurm's expeditions. If I were in charge, I, too, would follow a scientific basis and start by looking at the seabed and assessing whether the damage to the hull and to what extent it was caused by the bedrock. Granite and boulders are very much part of the post-glacial landscape around here. It would be a shock if there were no boulders!

It is good that they are keen to avoid announcing any conclusion at the start, as I think this caused a lot of mistrust towards the JAIC when the conclusion was announced by then PM Bildt on Day One and thus only the bow visor was looked at in great depth, yet the rapid sinking, timing, communications problems were not investigated. A lot of it was guess work and estimates as to wave height amount of water, speed of ingress, etc. IOW they seemed to have worked backwards 'How can we demonstrate that the bow visor and car ramp could have caused the sinking?' and fit the calculations around that to achieve it.

 

[The Man]

Man, all this buoy stuff is kind of sad considering that even had they been switched on they wouldn't have changed the outcome. The responding ships had Estonia on their radars, they converged as fast as they could in those rough seas, and arrived as fast as was possible in those conditions.

The buoys would have been worthless in this specific event.

"worthless in this specific event" seems to be the modus operandi of the arguer who claims to have no need to argue. Heck, are claims still at secondarily worthless or have they slid into tertiarily worthless?

 

[Vixen]

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.

For the umpty-ninth time, being automatically hydrostatically activated does not preclude such an EPIRB from being switched on manually. All of them can be switched on manually.

The issue here was, how did the float free automatically hydrostatically activated Kannad F (with a Hammar type HRU, which was retrieved by Rockwater) float up to the surface as designed when triggered by 1 - 4m of water and yet not emit a signal. That was the issue. It was always capable of being manually switched on and they can also be turned off. If the things were thrown out by one of the crew then do you really believe that crew member would not have switched them on knowing what they were for. In addition, how did they both end up in Dirhami by 2 Oct 1994 just three days later with a whole load of life vests and rafts - Koivisto said the epirbs were sandy - as though someone had just dumped the lot together wholesale.

 

[abaddon]

No phase of operation available to the end user of an emergency locator beacon includes or allows the adjustment of the frequency on which the beacon transmits. If "tune" is intended to convey that, it is simply a wrong concept regardless of translation issues.

It is odd. An EPIRB transmits on a set frequency, 460.25 IIRC. This is set at a lab with appropriate facilities both as new and/or refurbed/serviced. Somehow, Vixen thinks that a ships electrician has those kind of facilities aboard ship to utilise at will.

 

[Vixen]

That's not an answer.

You originally said that they "claimed an outcome" and when it's pointed out to you that anyone with basic reading skills can see that they're specifically adding qualifiers like "likely" and "not a firm conclusion".

So when that's pointed out to you you simply shrug and say that those qualifiers are just an "after-thought".

How do you read the minds of whoever wrote that and know why they used the language they did? "Context is all"

It's like earlier in this thread when I asked how what made you think the crew had on their persons their mobile phones throughout the ordeal, from abandoning ship, to getting onto lifeboats, to being rescued, to being taken to hospital, etc. and your answer was that it was "common knowledge".

Seriously, can't you do better than that? How do you know that stating in plain English that they are not offering a "firm conclusion" actually is stating a firm conclusion and that the words saying otherwise are just an "after-thought"? This is pathetic.

Context is all as can be evidenced in some posters here believing that the JAIC report is vindicated by the preliminary work.

Even though Backstrand said (the obvious) that the hard rock bed could have caused some of the damage to the hull but that it was not a conclusion a lot of people seem to think that was the same thing as a conclusion.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen, why do you continue to claim knowledge in subjects you clearly do not understand?

I don't get it. I know you throw a hissy fit when I say that you're making claims of expertise (even though that's what you're doing) but you're clearly making declarative statements in this instance as to how a piece of technology works. I do not understand how you feel you are able to make such statements given that you not only do not work in the area or with the object(s) in question and have, as far as anyone can tell, no first hand experience with them. Indeed, you fail to understand it to such a degree that you attempted to base your claims on a supposed "expert" who turned out to be nothing of the sort, although you did try to keep that line of argument going with a transparent dog-and-pony show.

Why do you make claims about something that you do not comprehend?

Don't get me wrong, I don't comprehend it either, but I'm not making direct claims about it that contradict the knowledge of those who do know what they're talking about.

 

[Andy_Ross]

For the umpty-ninth time, being automatically hydrostatically activated does not preclude such an EPIRB from being switched on manually. All of them can be switched on manually.

The issue here was, how did the float free automatically hydrostatically activated Kannad F (with a Hammar type HRU, which was retrieved by Rockwater) float up to the surface as designed when triggered by 1 - 4m of water and yet not emit a signal. That was the issue. It was always capable of being manually switched on and they can also be turned off. If the things were thrown out by one of the crew then do you really believe that crew member would not have switched them on knowing what they were for. In addition, how did they both end up in Dirhami by 2 Oct 1994 just three days later with a whole load of life vests and rafts - Koivisto said the epirbs were sandy - as though someone had just dumped the lot together wholesale.

It only had a manual switch. It was not an automatic activation buoy.
It has no water activated switch or circuit.

It did not emit a signal because it could not do so if it was not switched on manually.

They brackets they were in were designed to release the buoys using hydrostatic latches. That is how they floated free.
They were not thrown in to the water by crewmen, if they were he would have turned them on.

The buoys were picked up by fishing boats along with other floating debris from the sinking.

Who cares what Koivisto says about sand. He did not recover the buoys. He did not test the buoys.

 

[Vixen]

Man, all this buoy stuff is kind of sad considering that even had they been switched on they wouldn't have changed the outcome. The responding ships had Estonia on their radars, they converged as fast as they could in those rough seas, and arrived as fast as was possible in those conditions.

The buoys would have been worthless in this specific event.

The issue here was that if the EPIRBs were removed or tampered with, then an attempt should have been made to bring that person to justice, or if a technical fault to spell out what that fault was. Fact is, the Estonia was rocked by an event at circa 01:00 yet Radio Helsinki could not get out a Mayday until 01:54 and Sweden operations not successfully contacted until 0202.

Not one Russian vessel came to the rescue, yet had there been a COPSAS-SASART response they could have been quite effective. If a man is drowning every second makes a difference.

 

[JayUtah]

For the umpty-ninth time, being automatically hydrostatically activated does not preclude such an EPIRB from being switched on manually. All of them can be switched on manually.

But some models must be switched on manually, as they have no automatic immersion activation. That's independent of whether the thing that holds them releases them using a hydrostatic mechanism.

The issue here was, how did the float free automatically hydrostatically activated Kannad F (with a Hammar type HRU, which was retrieved by Rockwater) float up to the surface as designed when triggered by 1 - 4m of water and yet not emit a signal. That was the issue.

Because despite your insistence page after page to the contrary, the model of buoy in question had to be switched on manually.

What the divers recovered was the release bracket, not the buoy. Hydrostatically-activated releases have nothing to do with whether the buoy that is released also has a hydrostatic on-switch.

It was always capable of being manually switched on and they can also be turned off.

Asked and answered dozens of times over the past several dozen pages. Repeating your misconceptions doesn't suddenly give them the authority of fact.

If the things were thrown out by one of the crew then do you really believe that crew member would not have switched them on knowing what they were for.

Because they were released hydrostatically from their brackets without any action required on the part of the crew. But if they are released automatically before they are ever turned on, they will simply sit there on the surface of the ocean doing absolutely nothing. The crew doesn't have to do anything in order for the buoys to be released. The crew does have to do something with the buoy before it is released in order for it to transmit a distress signal. All your questions are answered simply by crew inaction.

Koivisto said...

Koivisto was not there when the buoys were recovered. You have not established that Koivisto has any foundation whatsoever for any part of his presentation.

 

[abaddon]

For the umpty-ninth time, being automatically hydrostatically activated does not preclude such an EPIRB from being switched on manually. All of them can be switched on manually.

The issue here was, how did the float free automatically hydrostatically activated Kannad F (with a Hammar type HRU, which was retrieved by Rockwater) float up to the surface as designed when triggered by 1 - 4m of water and yet not emit a signal. That was the issue. It was always capable of being manually switched on and they can also be turned off. If the things were thrown out by one of the crew then do you really believe that crew member would not have switched them on knowing what they were for. In addition, how did they both end up in Dirhami by 2 Oct 1994 just three days later with a whole load of life vests and rafts - Koivisto said the epirbs were sandy - as though someone had just dumped the lot together wholesale.

Sweet Noshabkemming, how can you not understand this already? The release mechanism and the activation mechanism are TWO SEPARATE THINGS. You could have a rock in a HRU. Sure it will be release upon sinking. But it wont do much.

 

[JayUtah]

The issue here was that if the EPIRBs were removed or tampered with, then an attempt should have been made to bring that person to justice, or if a technical fault to spell out what that fault was.

Then it's a good idea that the EPIRBs were tested in exactly the right way to determine whether they were in good working order. Since they were, there was no reason to further suspect failure or sabotage. There's no corpus delicti for the crime you're desperately trying to pin on... someone.

The buoys were found separated from the ship because that's what the hydrostatic release mechanism is designed to do, which is the default behavior if no crewman does anything. The buoys did not broadcast because the were not switched on, which is the default behavior if no crewman does anything.

Not one Russian vessel came to the rescue, yet had there been a COPSAS-SASART response they could have been quite effective. If a man is drowning every second makes a difference.

So you have data on typical COSPAS response and recovery times? What evidence supports this conclusion?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The issue here was that if the EPIRBs were removed or tampered with, then an attempt should have been made to bring that person to justice, or if a technical fault to spell out what that fault was. Fact is, the Estonia was rocked by an event at circa 01:00 yet Radio Helsinki could not get out a Mayday until 01:54 and Sweden operations not successfully contacted until 0202.

Not one Russian vessel came to the rescue, yet had there been a COPSAS-SASART response they could have been quite effective. If a man is drowning every second makes a difference.

How close were any Russian vessels?
How long does it take for the position of the buoys to be triangulated and a response passed to the appropriate rescue services?

 

[The Man]

Context is all as can be evidenced in some posters here believing that the JAIC report is vindicated by the preliminary work.

"vindicated" from what?

Having been both reasonable and justified before, it simply remains so with no counterinitiative data coming from said "preliminary work".

Even though Backstrand said (the obvious) that the hard rock bed could have caused some of the damage to the hull but that it was not a conclusion a lot of people seem to think that was the same thing as a conclusion.

You mean like you...

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.

 

[Vixen]

LOL @ "the rest of us"!

(You do realise that "the rest of us" consists of you, plus a German shipyard with a strong vested interest, plus some relatives whose vulnerability is being exploited, plus a small sad cadre of conspiracy theorists? Don't you?)

I am an independent thinker. I don't believe in fake news or conspiracy theory. I can see the flaws in all the various arguments. I tend to naturally side with the underdog, which is why my sympathies here tend towards the survivors and the relatives and advocates of the deceased. I recall the day of the accident and of feeling utterly stunned by it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The issue here was that if the EPIRBs were removed or tampered with, then an attempt should have been made to bring that person to justice, or if a technical fault to spell out what that fault was. Fact is, the Estonia was rocked by an event at circa 01:00 yet Radio Helsinki could not get out a Mayday until 01:54 and Sweden operations not successfully contacted until 0202.

Not one Russian vessel came to the rescue, yet had there been a COPSAS-SASART response they could have been quite effective. If a man is drowning every second makes a difference.

They were not 'removed and tampered with'

they were found and worked exactly as they should when tested.

 

[abaddon]

The issue here was that if the EPIRBs were removed or tampered with, then an attempt should have been made to bring that person to justice, or if a technical fault to spell out what that fault was. Fact is, the Estonia was rocked by an event at circa 01:00 yet Radio Helsinki could not get out a Mayday until 01:54 and Sweden operations not successfully contacted until 0202.

Not one Russian vessel came to the rescue, yet had there been a COPSAS-SASART response they could have been quite effective. If a man is drowning every second makes a difference.

There were no Russian vessels proximate.

Except for your imaginary submarines/limpet mines/divers/special forces/Spetsnaz who were all over it on a suicide mission. Because reasons.

It's absurd.

 

[zooterkin]

I am an independent thinker. I don't believe in fake news or conspiracy theory. I can see the flaws in all the various arguments. I tend to naturally side with the underdog, which is why my sympathies here tend towards the survivors and the relatives and advocates of the deceased. I recall the day of the accident and of feeling utterly stunned by it.

So what's this thread about?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The issue here was, how did the float free automatically hydrostatically activated Kannad F (with a Hammar type HRU, which was retrieved by Rockwater)

Kannad F is not automatic activation, it is just a float free model.

Here is a list of all Kannad Marine models oldest to newest before model names changed to 'Safelink' and 'Sportpro' to avoid confusion with Aviation models.

Kannad 406 Non Float-Free
Kannad 406 F Float-Free
Kannad 406 S Non Float-Free
Kannad 406 FH or Kannad 406 PH Float-Free
Kannad 406 S or Kannad 406 SW or Rescuer 406 S Non Float-free
Kannad 406 FW or Kannad 406 PW Float-Free
Kannad 406 ATP Automatic
Kannad 406 ATP-M Automatic
Kannad 406 XS Non Float-Free EPIRB/Manual
Kannad 406 AP or Kannad 406 AF or Kannad 406 AF-H Automatic
Kannad 406 Survival Manual Non Float-free
Kannad 406 AP or Kannad 406 AF or Kannad 406 AF-H or Kannad 406 AP-H Automatic
Kannad 406 ATP TAC Automatic ELT/Portable
Kannad 406 AF-H Automatic
Kannad 406 XS-2, Kannad 406 XS-2 GPS Float-Free
Kannad 406 GPS PRO Float-Free
Kannad 406 SVW GPS, Kannad 406 SV GPS Non Float-Free
Kannad 406 PRO Float-Free
Kannad 406 SVW, Kannad 406 SV Non Float-Free
Kannad Auto GPS, Kannad Automatic Float-Free
Kannad Manual + GPS, Kannad Manual +, Kannad Manual GPS, Kannad Manual Float-Free
Kannad 406 AF-Compact, Kannad 406 AF-Compact(ER) Automatic

As you can see the F model is float free but not automatic.
First model listed as automatic is the Kannad 406 ATP