• 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.
Jack by the hedge said:
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'.


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.
Click to expand...

This is like wading through treacle. If a ship sinks with zero prospect of rescue, then do you not think sabotage should be investigate, especially with the highly surprising - to marine experts - lack of radio network and EPIRB's not automatically activating when triggered by two fathoms of water and the complete disappearance of the vessel when professional training and academic examinations has scientifically taught you (a) the time it takes for a capsized vessel to sink with its hull intact ceteris paribus and (b) the physics of sinking and floating, bearing in mind the Wilhelm Gustloff which was triple torpedoed in the hull took 45 minutes to sink completely and the Titanic, broken in two and having hit an iceberg, causing damage to its watertight bulkheads and weakening its rivets, took almost three hours to sink.
 
Vixen said:
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...

The JAIC is not the only body which cares if EPIRBs operate as designed or not. What about all the other interested parties? Are they all in on it?
 
JayUtah said:
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?
Click to expand...

If JAIC had appointed you to investigate the EPIRB's and you discover that actually they were automatically-activated models do you think it adequate for JAIC to say, 'ah well, it doesn't matter anyway'?

Or would you look at protocol and procedures as Koivisto did and conclude they had not been set up properly and report accordingly, as he did.
 
Vixen said:
This is like wading through treacle. If a ship sinks with zero prospect of rescue, then do you not think sabotage should be investigate, especially with the highly surprising - to marine experts - lack of radio network and EPIRB's not automatically activating when triggered by two fathoms of water and the complete disappearance of the vessel when professional training and academic examinations has scientifically taught you (a) the time it takes for a capsized vessel to sink with its hull intact ceteris paribus and (b) the physics of sinking and floating, bearing in mind the Wilhelm Gustloff which was triple torpedoed in the hull took 45 minutes to sink completely and the Titanic, broken in two and having hit an iceberg, causing damage to its watertight bulkheads and weakening its rivets, took almost three hours to sink.
Click to expand...

I think evidence should be investigated rather than hypotheses pursued. You just seek validation for your "official report is wrong" hypothesis and your "evidence" is smoke and mirrors which does not withstand inspection.
 
Vixen said:
If JAIC had appointed you to investigate the EPIRB's and you discover that actually they were automatically-activated models do you think it adequate for JAIC to say, 'ah well, it doesn't matter anyway'?



Or would you look at protocol and procedures as Koivisto did and conclude they had not been set up properly and report accordingly, as he did.
Click to expand...
Don't distract with hypotheticals. Answer my questions.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
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.
Click to expand...


You have been provided with numerous on-site and expert citations. So I am not going to argue any further. If they were 'manual-operation-only' buoys there would not be any mystery. You can have the last word.

Another oddity related to the alarm also occurred in connection with the accident. The ship had an alarm and position buoy for the sarsat-cospas system, which automatically transmits the alarm via satellite while sending the coordinates of its own position.
Kalle Pedak , the director general of the Estonian Maritime Administration , thinks that the buoy was not released into the water, but that it must have gone to the bottom with the ship.


Backman Nils-Eric
29.9.1994 2:00
Click to expand...
HS
 
Vixen said:
If JAIC had appointed you to investigate the EPIRB's and you discover that actually they were automatically-activated models do you think it adequate for JAIC to say, 'ah well, it doesn't matter anyway'?

Or would you look at protocol and procedures as Koivisto did and conclude they had not been set up properly and report accordingly, as he did.
Click to expand...

Quote Koivisto saying the JAIC failed to grasp the importance of his findings and no other authority will listen to him either.

Or consider the curious fact that he said no such thing.
 
Vixen said:
You have been provided with numerous on-site and expert citations. So I am not going to argue any further.
Click to expand...

You've quoted a bunch of sources saying automatic this or automatic that but somehow never automatic activation. We have all read the same thread, Vixen.
 
Vixen said:
You have been provided with numerous on-site and expert citations. So I am not going to argue any further. If they were 'manual-operation-only' buoys there would not be any mystery. You can have the last word.



HS
Click to expand...
Note how there isn't any mystery or controversy anywhere elsewhere in the industry except in your head. You can't cite to any marine expert who agrees with your interpretation of JAIC's handling of the beacons, or expressing concern that the beacons somehow malfunctioned.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
This is not a conspiracy theory; the issue with the EPIRB's is a well-documented fact.
Click to expand...

Yet the "well-documented fact" is not the failure of an automatic activation system. Otherwise you could show us just how well-documented it is and you have consistently failed to do so.

JAIC is not the only party which cares if emergency equipment works or not. How many parties have to be in on your conspiracy?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I think evidence should be investigated rather than hypotheses pursued. You just seek validation for your "official report is wrong" hypothesis and your "evidence" is smoke and mirrors which does not withstand inspection.
Click to expand...

The official report is simply a descriptive narrative with very little by way of analysis of the accident except in pages and pages of the bow visor sepcifications and its nuts and bolts. The calculations are all based on working backward. For example, taking the conclusion, 'it was the bow visor what done it'', it then carries out calculations to show the amount of water needed to fill te car deck. Houston, we have a problem! No amount of calculations can demonstrate that the ship would have capsized with water on the car deck. So it has to bring in another hypothesis: the windows and watertight doors on Decks 4 and 5 must have smashed and the superstructure was breached that way (not once hypothesizing, actually perhaps the breach was in the hull, that would explain the super-fast sinking perfectly!). Then we have loads of calculations on how strong the bolts and nuts were. The culprit is identified as the Atlantic lock but for some reason no-one physically tested it or examined it as it was thrown back onto the seabed (claims the guy who made the claim).

Not very confidence-inspiring for the relatives of the dead, is it?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Quote Koivisto saying the JAIC failed to grasp the importance of his findings and no other authority will listen to him either.

Or consider the curious fact that he said no such thing.
Click to expand...

He was the expert witness not a member of the JAIC. He presented his finding and even did a presentation with a duplicate model. At no point did he say it was a manually-operated-only buoy, as there would be nothing to investigate had it been.
 
Vixen said:
He was the expert witness not a member of the JAIC. He presented his finding and even did a presentation with a duplicate model. At no point did he say it was a manually-operated-only buoy, as there would be nothing to investigate had it been.
Click to expand...
You didn't address the point. Koivisto seems happy with how the JAIC concluded and why.
 
Vixen said:
He was the expert witness not a member of the JAIC. He presented his finding and even did a presentation with a duplicate model. At no point did he say it was a manually-operated-only buoy, as there would be nothing to investigate had it been.
Click to expand...

The matter to investigate was why no emergency signal had been received. The answer was mundane. It left no mystery.

Imagine what his report would have said otherwise. Imagine how the shipping industry would have reacted. Didn't happen.
 
Still loving this thread. For the properly researched and referenced useful and factual information provided by most posters, and for the ongoing entertainment and comedy provided by others.
 
JayUtah said:
What documentation concludes that JAIC was derelict on that point?
Click to expand...

The JAIC is the party that concludes.

The Commission meeting will continue on Friday. Today we will hear, among other things, an expert on the operation of Estonia's EPIRB satellite picks.

The buoys were found in the sea after the accident, and Estonians and Finns tried their activities on Tuesday. According to Estonian radio, the buoys were supposed to transmit a radio signal. However, on the night of the accident, the signal was not received anywhere for some reason.
Buoys had to signal the ship's position in emergencies.
Click to expand...
HS 29.1.1995


The JAIC concluded the lack of EPIRB signals was of no consequence and likewise the radio communications throughout the duration of the accident.

I have to say that for a top lawyer, Lehtola appears devoid of any critical thinking skills, or alternatively, more likely, he knows the background is all highly classified stuff, so his job is to present a report that seems logical to the little man in the street. Hence his airy patronising attitude in interviews.

No wonder Sweden sees Finland as its 'little brother'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom