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

[LondonJohn]

There you go then. Doesn't change the thrust of what I said about a highly theatrical high-RP rendition of a Phantom of the Opera allusion.

wiki

As for Christopher Lee, he was the epitome of evil Brit:

wiki

When a poster claimed that submarine was also an adjective I simply pointed out that few people today use that word in that way and accidentally thought of Wainwright's record about the subterranean river.

I hope that clears that up.

Jesus.

Beyond embarrassing.

Vixen: have you ever, ever, properly apologised for any of your multitude of crass factual & interpretational errors in this thread?

 

[Vixen]

Up until now in your post, what you describe are basically facts. But next comes your interpretation.


Yes, there were definitely communication problems. It's obvious from the transcripts, and from listening to the recorded traffic that M/S Estonia had trouble communicating with other ships. Simple explanations for that include factors such as:

• Stormy weather
• M/S Estonia not being able to use their high-powered VHF-set due to power failure onboard
• M/S Estonia transmitting with handheld low-powered devices
• A potential panic on the bridge of M/S Estonia, making them less effective.

But then you start mixing up VHF with MF, and saying things as "ringing manually on a mobile phone" - how else do you use a phone? And you pretend that the timline/transcript you presented have anything at all to do with Silja Europa communicating with MRCC, which it doesn't. So you post facts about one thing, and then pretend that it confirms something else.

So since the problem with communication was between M/S Estonia and other ships, it does make a lot of sense that the problem does not remain when all other communication is between other ships, and between ship and shore.

In the Gulf of Finland, to far away to have anything to do with communication between M/S Estonia and the nearby ships.

No, we reply with facts, based on our training and experience, and based on scientific facts of radio wave propagation.

You however pretend that you never have received any responses and corrections to your errors, and keep posting your conspiracy theories.

No, you don't get away with dismissing it as 'conspiracy theory' when the logged facts are self-evident. Estonia had no known contact with anybody until somehow second officer Ainsalu got through on some kind of hand held device, at 1:21:55. The JAIC have the disaster starting at 0115, which is totally contrary to the various witness statements of the survivors.

With four senior officers in addition to the captain, of whom any two out of the four would be on watch with the first or second captain, it simply is not credible that nobody on the bridge would have bothered with a Mayday until 1:21:55.


As JAIC never dealt with the issue of why the vessel sank so rapidly, then of course people will speculate. It is quite ethical.

 

[LondonJohn]

Erratum: soz, yes, Greta Scacchi, not Saatchi.

Performing the basic (and incredibly-easily checkable) courtesy of spelling public figures' names correctly is one of your (many, many) "anti-fortes", isn't it?

 

[Vixen]

On responding at 0123 hrs to the 1st Mayday call, the Silja Europa became the control station for the distress radio traffic.

Two minutes after receiving the 2nd Mayday call MRCC Turku began, at 0126 hrs, to alert the various groups involved.
MRCC Turku calls MRSC Turku to verify the ESTONIA's distress call and to alert coast guard patrol vessel TURSAS.

0129 The ESTONIA notifies the SILJA EUROPA of her position. Last radio contact with the ESTONIA.

0130 MRSC Mariehamn alerts the Åland coast guard area commander.

0132 The MARIELLA turns towards the scene of the accident.

7 minutes after the first mayday Europa has local command, Turku has alerted the groups involved and a ship is already on the way to the site.

Seems to me that communications were working fine.

Four rescue ships were on site within an hour and a half.

Margin of error on the timings is +/- 2 minutes due to differences in local timekeeping and logging.

Wrong already. Mariella was first to respond. Silja Europa did not become On Scene Commander (Esa Mäkelä) until 0205. These are the verifiable recorded logs.

No amount of obfuscation on your part can cancel out the facts.

 

[LondonJohn]

He looked at the JAIC report which merely said the master of Europa assumed command and from that asserted that this was because he was a good captain, first to make contact with Estonia and that this role was assigned at 1:24.


Pure conjecture on his part, when he ought to know there is a chain of command. People don't just toss a coin as to who will be captain for the day.

So you still haven't listened (intelligently and properly, that is) to the recording of the radio communications then.

Unsurprisingly, this is unsurprising.

 

[LondonJohn]

Pfft.

If you're nonplussed at that, maybe you could try concentrating on not making the subterranean mountain of mistakes you've been making so far in this thread?

By, y'know, actually doing intelligent and appropriate research, fact-checking, proper analysis and unambiguous presentation. The basics, in other words.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are so clever.

Comparatively speaking, most definitely.

 

[LondonJohn]

Fact remains there are what looks like submarine tracks around the wreckage.

Solely in the sense of "under the sea" tracks, yes.

Not in the sense of "submersible vessel".

 

[LondonJohn]

This entire shambolic digression is down to you failing to grasp that "submarine" in the original reference was used in it's original verb form meaning underwater and not to mean a submersible boat. There is nobody still unaware that this is the case so can we please for pity's sake cease to flog this dead horse?

It truly is pitiful, isn't it? But it's entirely emblematic of the entire CT bollocks being proposed by someone who clearly has neither the subject knowledge, the understanding, or the analytical abilities, to know what they are talking about.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No, you don't get away with dismissing it as 'conspiracy theory' when the logged facts are self-evident. Estonia had no known contact with anybody until somehow second officer Ainsalu got through on some kind of hand held device, at 1:21:55. The JAIC have the disaster starting at 0115, which is totally contrary to the various witness statements of the survivors.

With four senior officers in addition to the captain, of whom any two out of the four would be on watch with the first or second captain, it simply is not credible that nobody on the bridge would have bothered with a Mayday until 1:21:55.


As JAIC never dealt with the issue of why the vessel sank so rapidly, then of course people will speculate. It is quite ethical.

it sank so rapidly because the bow fell off.
The command crew did nothing until it was too late and the ship was already listing.
After power was lost they could not use the main radio.
If they had used it earlier than the mayday would have been picked up earlier.
There was no problem with the ships local to the area communicating.
After the mayday was received rescue ships were heading towards the Estonia within 10 minutes and shore resources were being alerted.


Power will be lost when a ship lists as the lube oil in the engines will pool to the lower side of the system and trigger low oil warnings shutting down the engines.

This happened to Viking Sky in 2019.
Engines started to shut down with low oil pressure warnings when the ship started pitching in a storm.
As soon as power was lost the captain issued a mayday call and readied the crew to start launching lifeboats.

Partial power was restored but the passengers were lifted off by helicopter as a precaution.
It was later found that the oil levels were low but adequate for normal conditions, pitching and rolling in the storm tripped the alarms and caused the shutdown.
Here is a link to the interim report.
It is a good example of how a captain and crew should respond to an emergency.

https://www.iims.org.uk/wp-content/...opulsion-and-near-grounding-of-viking-sky.pdf

 

[Andy_Ross]

Wrong already. Mariella was first to respond. Silja Europa did not become On Scene Commander (Esa Mäkelä) until 0205. These are the verifiable recorded logs.

No amount of obfuscation on your part can cancel out the facts.

From the Government of the Republic of Estonia Final report on the MV ESTONIA disaster of 28 September 1994

Chapter 7 The rescue Operation

7.4 Initiation of rescue actions
7.4.1 General

On responding at 0123 hrs to the 1st Mayday call, the Silja Europa became the control station for the distress radio traffic. The other ships and shore-based stations in the area that had received the Mayday calls understood and accepted the resulting situation. When the full importance of the distress messages was understood on board the vessels they began to contact the Silja Europa to verify information received, report their positions and inform her about measures being undertaken.

At least try.

 

[LondonJohn]

The disaster commenced by at least 0100 latest. A mayday was not picked up until 22 minutes later.

The nearest ships, Viking Mariella, Silja Europa, who were nine nautical miles away. It was Mariella who responded first (not Silja) at 1:22:14 and again 1:22:34. No reply, so Estonia did not get the message.

A whole minute and ten seconds later, Estonia called again: "Europa, Estonia, Silja Europa, Estonia" at 1:23:11, no sign she had heard Mariella at all.

At 1:23:19, Europa finally seems to have heard. She responds: "Estonia, this is Silja Europa replying on channel 16".

LMAO.

You're treating a delay of one minute and a handful of seconds as..... somehow reprehensible and problematic. You use the pejorative and inflammatory term "...finally seems to have heard" when that's wholly inappropriate and more than a little ignorant.

The rest of your post is bollocks too, but I can't be bothered at this stage to tear it apart. Pitiful.

 

[LondonJohn]

Look, had I inserted a comma after 'Greta Scachi' then that would indicate I was referring to her. However, as the subject was Jutta Rabe then it referred to her.

The Saachi character was playing investigative journalist Jutta Rabe.

Oh Christopher.

You don't know how to use the word "herself" correctly. In the way you used it originally, it unambiguously read (to someone who understands properly) that Scacchi was playing Scacchi.

What you might have written to signify what you actually meant would be something like "...who was playing her" (not "herself"). However this still would be open to a degree of ambiguity of meaning.

But of course the best way of accurately and unambiguously conveying what you meant would have been to write "...who was playing a character based on Rabe".

 

[Here_to_learn]

No, you don't get away with dismissing it as 'conspiracy theory' when the logged facts are self-evident. Estonia had no known contact with anybody until somehow second officer Ainsalu got through on some kind of hand held device, at 1:21:55. The JAIC have the disaster starting at 0115, which is totally contrary to the various witness statements of the survivors.



With four senior officers in addition to the captain, of whom any two out of the four would be on watch with the first or second captain, it simply is not credible that nobody on the bridge would have bothered with a Mayday until 1:21:55.





As JAIC never dealt with the issue of why the vessel sank so rapidly, then of course people will speculate. It is quite ethical.

The "self evident" is exactly what conspiracy theories are based on. You have absolutely no facts about what happened at the bridge before the transcripts started. There are many possible explanations, for example:
* the officers didn't think that there was an emergency
* the officers didn't think the emergency warranted a mayday call
* the officers tried to send a mayday call but the equipment on board didn't work
* the officers did send a mayday call but it wasn't received due to a weak signal
* the emergency hadn't started yes, the time estimates from eye witnesses could not be trusted

When you dismiss all possible explanations and instead focus on one thay assume external meddling as well as investigations on purpose ignoring some angels you are pushing a conspiracy theory. Especially when it is based on your lack of understanding of the subjects involved, and your total lack of interest in or ability to learn about the subject.

I've told you many times for example about VHF propagation, as have several other posters. You do not acknowledge this but just circle back and repeat the same incorrect statements.

 

[LondonJohn]

it sank so rapidly because the bow fell off.
The command crew did nothing until it was too late and the ship was already listing.
After power was lost they could not use the main radio.
If they had used it earlier than the mayday would have been picked up earlier.
There was no problem with the ships local to the area communicating.

Yes, indeed.

Frankly, it's somewhat baffling (though perhaps indicative) that Vixen has apparently totally ignored/overlooked the extremely germane and important fact that all the evidence points clearly to extreme incompetence and malpractice on the part of the Estonia's crew in waiting so long before first trying to communicate distress and summon assistance.

As you and I and many others in this thread have pointed out, had the first Mayday broadcasts been made at, say, 1.10am (by which point the crew definitely would/should have known that the ship was sinking), it's very likely that more lives would ultimately have been saved. That error is 100% on the crew of the Estonia.

 

[Mojo]

Yes, I did look at the closing credits but Scacchi played a character with a different name.

But what about Saatchi?

 

[LondonJohn]

With four senior officers in addition to the captain, of whom any two out of the four would be on watch with the first or second captain, it simply is not credible that nobody on the bridge would have bothered with a Mayday until 1:21:55.

It's here that your reasoning is fundamentally flawed.

As JAIC never dealt with the issue of why the vessel sank so rapidly, then of course people will speculate. It is quite ethical.

Ah, well, see: you're confusing a) well-informed and properly-reasoned speculation with b) the type of speculation in which you're indulging.

 

[LondonJohn]

But what about Saatchi?

Join the queue

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, I did look at the closing credits but Scacchi played a character with a different name. Could be a fictionalised version of the "herself" Vixen said she was playing but I'm not interested enough to find out.

The bigger mystery is why Vixen thinks it's wise or appropriate to continue lapping up the witterings of an ex-journalist who was discredited and disavowed by her own (former) profession......

 

[LondonJohn]

The "self evident" is exactly what conspiracy theories are based on. You have absolutely no facts about what happened at the bridge before the transcripts started. There are many possible explanations, for example:
* the officers didn't think that there was an emergency
* the officers didn't think the emergency warranted a mayday call
* the officers tried to send a mayday call but the equipment on board didn't work
* the officers did send a mayday call but it wasn't received due to a weak signal
* the emergency hadn't started yes, the time estimates from eye witnesses could not be trusted

When you dismiss all possible explanations and instead focus on one thay assume external meddling as well as investigations on purpose ignoring some angels you are pushing a conspiracy theory. Especially when it is based on your lack of understanding of the subjects involved, and your total lack of interest in or ability to learn about the subject.

I've told you many times for example about VHF propagation, as have several other posters. You do not acknowledge this but just circle back and repeat the same incorrect statements.

It seems fairly well-established that the bow visor had at the very least broken away from its bottom lock by 1.00am - there's plenty of independent corroborating evidence from survivors.

The time at which the bow visor separated totally from the ship is more open to conjecture.

But frankly, the bridge should have been sufficiently alerted at 1.00am - by the unmistakable loud banging, and by reports from crew on the vehicle deck - to know at that point that the ship was in great peril. A ship in rough seas with its bow visor hanging off is in an emergency situation, beyond doubt.

So I'd argue that even as soon as very shortly after 1.00am (say, 1.05am at worst) the bridge should have been issuing its first radio distress calls. I'd say it probably should have been a full Mayday at that point, but even if it was a Pan-Pan it would have initiated an assistance operation.

And moving forward from that point, it's hard to believe that the bow visor hadn't come away completely (damaging and fatally compromising the bow ramp in the process) by 1.10am at the latest. I make that assessment from the knowledge that by 1.22am, the ship was already past a 20-degree list to starboard. There must therefore have been a huge amount of water ingress by 1.22am.

So I'd further argue that within a minute or two of 1.10am, it should have been unequivocally clear to the bridge that the ship was uncontrollably taking in so much water that sinking was now inevitable. At this point, therefore, there should have been zero reason why one of the bridge officers wouldn't have been tied to the radio, making urgent Mayday calls.


And since there's absolutely no cause (or evidence) to suggest that for some (non-existent) reason the Estonia couldn't reach anyone over VHF over the entire time period between 1.00am and 1.22am, the only reasonable conclusion to reach (IMO) is that nobody on the Estonia even tried to broadcast over VHF until 1.20am onwards.


(It's perfectly reasonable to suppose that there might have been intermittent short-term outages in VHF communication, owing to the bad weather and the interruptions to line of sight in the ocean swells..... but not continuously over some 20 minutes. And given the peril the ship was very obviously in, a bridge officer should have been glued to the radio and trying/trying again in the event of a very-short-term outage.)