• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
Both of the buoys were recovered from the sea. They were in working order but had not been activated.
When they were they worked as they were designed to.

What else is there to investigate?
Click to expand...

No, they did not work as they were designed to in that they failed to automatically emit signals to the nearest COSPAS-SARSAT station which in the case of the Estonia's location would have been Bödo's in Norway.

As there was no fault with the buoys themselves as tested by Tursas and Russia picking up the signal then the question should revolve around why they did not automatically activate having been hydrostatically released after immersion on over 240 feet of water, as they were designed to do when set up.
 
Vixen said:
No, they did not work as they were designed to in that they failed to automatically emit signals to the nearest COSPAS-SARSAT station which in the case of the Estonia's location would have been Bödo's in Norway.

As there was no fault with the buoys themselves as tested by Tursas and Russia picking up the signal then the question should revolve around why they did not automatically activate having been hydrostatically released after immersion on over 240 feet of water, as they were designed to do when set up.
Click to expand...

They did not automatically activate as they were not of a model that activated automatically.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Indeed. Now kindly quote any of them saying the EPIRBs were either sabotaged, tampered with or failed to work as they were designed.



He was right. It would not have expedited rescue. What part of that do you disagree with and why?
Click to expand...

As scientists, all they did was present their objective results. The JAIC whose job it was to interpret them, simply didn't bother and brushed the whole issue aside with 'There were no signals from EPIRB's'.

Nowhere do they claim they were 'manually-activated only' epirbs.
 
Vixen said:
No, they did not work as they were designed to in that they failed to automatically emit signals to the nearest COSPAS-SARSAT station which in the case of the Estonia's location would have been Bödo's in Norway.



As there was no fault with the buoys themselves as tested by Tursas and Russia picking up the signal then the question should revolve around why they did not automatically activate having been hydrostatically released after immersion on over 240 feet of water, as they were designed to do when set up.
Click to expand...
The question is answered. They required manual activation, contrary to your ignorant belief. Simply repeating that belief for 50 pages doesn't change fact.
 
Vixen said:
As scientists, all they did was present their objective results. The JAIC whose job it was to interpret them, simply didn't bother and brushed the whole issue aside with 'There were no signals from EPIRB's'.

Nowhere do they claim they were 'manually-activated only' epirbs.
Click to expand...
We know what model they were. We know what features that model had. Your attempt to paint JAIC as derelict is just them not investigating something that to them was not a mystery. And we know why it's not a mystery. Occam's Razor is not your friend.
 
BazBear said:
I see, early reports are fine if you think they fit your your CT Gish gallop non-narrative. The ones that don't, not so much.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Early reports are useful for the historian or sociologist. A report into the cause of an accident that killed 832 at least - probably more as passenger lists don't include those without tickets (children and guests of staff) - is completely different from 'developing news' and should be carried out thoroughly and properly. Then PM Carl Bildt immediately blaming the bow visor and car ramp is actually highly noteworthy, together with the JAIC's anxiety 'not to blame anybody for it', when common sense tells you that at that stage you do not know whether it was a criminal act or not.

In the case of The Herald of Free Enterprise a criminal charge of corporate manslaughter was brought against Townsend Thoreson so don't try to make out that such accidents are 'perfectly natural and that if you think otherwise you are a dirty conspiracy theorist'.
 
GlennB said:
"8.11 The EPIRB beacons

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 he 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 Ior 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.

...

17.2 The distress traffic

As noted in 8.11 the ESTONIA s emergency beacons (EPIRBs) were not switched on when put in their housings. The only reason that they were found switched off is that they were not properly activated. "

Who's dissembling?
Click to expand...

Where does it say they were 'manual-operation-only' buoys?
 
Vixen said:
Do not twist my words. The context of my post was in response to Abaddon saying, 'they got the mayday, they got the coordinates, so there were no communications problems'.
Click to expand...
Since you are concerned that posters should not twist each others words I'll just note that Abaddon did not say 'so there were no communication problems'.

The whole point of rescue is to save the passengers and crew. There was no way they were going to rescue the 852 who went down with the ship unless rescue could commence before they went down. Getting the coordinates six minutes before 852 people (at least) perished and putting out the official mayday exactly when they are doomed to perish at 0148 is not in any sensible person's mind 'satisfactory telecommunications on the night'.
Click to expand...
Plainly the people who could not get out of the Estonia were not going to be rescued by other ships no matter how soon they arrived, but no other rescuers would arrive any sooner than the nearby ships. So it is they who needed to know the Estonia's location with the greatest urgency and the Estonia took until about 01:29 to report it to them. No mystery blackout is needed to explain this, only the Estonia's crew failing to grasp soon enough what terrible danger they were in and not reacting appropriately for several crucial minutes.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
They did not automatically activate as they were not of a model that activated automatically.
Click to expand...

Not that canard again or should it be kannad?

You have been given numerous citations they were automatically-activated EPIRB's and compliant with SOLAS regulations which said such vessels must have automatically activated EPIRB's by August 1993. Nowhere does Koivisto or the JAIC claim Estonia was non-compliant.

In fact, JAIC tasked Koivisto with investigating why the automatically-activated buoys did not automatically activate as they should have done.

If they were 'manual-operation-only'* buoys only there would be zero point using an automatically activated hydrostatic release mechanism which activates in 1 - 4 metres of water.

*All buoys can be manually activated if so desired. Estonia's were presumed HRU released and thus should have emitted the location signal.
 
Vixen said:
Not that canard again or should it be kannad?



You have been given numerous citations they were automatically-activated EPIRB's and compliant with SOLAS regulations which said such vessels must have automatically activated EPIRB's by August 1993. Nowhere does Koivisto or the JAIC claim Estonia was non-compliant.



In fact, JAIC tasked Koivisto with investigating why the automatically-activated buoys did not automatically activate as they should have done.



If they were 'manual-operation-only'* buoys only there would be zero point using an automatically activated hydrostatic release mechanism which activates in 1 - 4 metres of water.



*All buoys can be manually activated if so desired. Estonia's were presumed HRU released and thus should have emitted the location signal.
Click to expand...
Your "citations" are secondary sources, some of which you admit are faulty. You've been shown the primary source: the manufacturer. And you demonstrate you can't read your sources without reading things into them that aren't there.
 
Vixen said:
You are just being contrary for the sake of it. You think it is amusing.



It reflects on your ignorance not mine.
Click to expand...
No, I'm being contrary because the facts don't support your beliefs. My ignorance? How many emergency beacons have you personally handled or operated? How many forensic engineering investigations have you participated in? This is what I do for a living. What is the basis of your knowledge and expertise in this area?
 
Vixen said:
Exactly. Ask yourself why JAIC circumvents the whole issue. JAIC thought that by simply not mentioning something, people would not notice the omission, which is still lying, if only lying by omission.
Click to expand...
Because it's a non-issue, as automatic activation was not a possibility. The beacons failed to transmit because no one turned them on. Your conclusion that JAIC should have investigated further is based on your misconception. They are not responsible for allaying your decades-later ignorance.
 
Vixen said:
As scientists, all they did was present their objective results. The JAIC whose job it was to interpret them, simply didn't bother and brushed the whole issue aside with 'There were no signals from EPIRB's'.

Nowhere do they claim they were 'manually-activated only' epirbs.
Click to expand...

The JAIC is not the only body which cares if emergency equipment works or not. You are proposing an "everyone is in on it" conspiracy.

Quote any scientists noting the buoys failed to work as designed. Quote the manufacturer explaining their product's failure to its customers or regulatory authorities. Quote all such authorities removing type approval from this model pending investigation.

It's the dog which did not bark in the night time, Vixen. None of this happened.

The only reason the buoys did not transmit is they were not switched on by the crew when disaster struck.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom