• 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:
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...

Unfortunately, as reported by Helsingin Sanomat, his report has completely disappeared from the archives and so have the buoys in question. Koivisto via his wife says he cannot talk about it as he signed a confidentiality agreement.
 
Vixen said:
This is not a conspiracy theory; the issue with the EPIRB's is a well-documented fact.
Click to expand...

Yes, they were found floating in the sea in a working condition and when tested worked as they were designed to do.

If they had been faulty in any way it would have been mentioned in the report and the manufacturer, the IMO and the regulating authorities of the countries that approved that model for use would have been involved.
 
Vixen said:
Your question is based on a false premise: the logical fallacy that one has to be a forensic expert in engineering to discuss this topic.
Click to expand...
You're presuming to lecture people about how proper investigations should be carried out. And on that basis you're claiming the JAIC investigation was improper. How many forensic engineering investigations have you participated in, such that you can lecture the professionals on how they should have done it?

And if you truly believe in the premise that no training or experience is necessary to make judgment calls in a highly technical field, then there should be no shame in you admitting publicly that you have no training or experience. Be honest.
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
The JAIC as quoted by GlennB above makes it clear that the reason the EPIRBs did not transmit a distress signal is because they weren't properly activated.

If the EPIRBs were automatically activated then they wouldn't need to beproperly activated, to transmit a distress signal, although I gather that even with automatic EPIRBs, the correct procedure is to manually activate them and throw them overboard, and the automatic activation is a failsafe.

Seem pretty obvious to me with bit of basic reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
I can discern no reasoning skills in your post.
Click to expand...
You're not even trying. What I wrote was pretty clear, if you disagree, then explain.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Hmm. A demonstrable failure to understand the logical consequences of evidence presented in expert testimony sounds like it might be grounds for appeal. But that's wandering off topic.

In this case there seems to be no hint of objection to the JAIC conclusion, nor any different conclusion from any other interested party.

If there were, perhaps you would like to list them.

"FX: strikes listening pose"
Click to expand...

Wow you must have been living on Plant X if you didn't know there was a massive outcry at the JAIC report. People took to the street to demonstrate. This is why the investigation has been reopened. The fact a massive breach in the starboard - the side that actually capsized - is mentioned nowhere in the JAIC report has been considered necessary to research this again, especially with the much improved imaging systems.


Kurm's expedition has already discovered that a couple doors to the car deck, hypotheised as having smashed to enable inflow of water, are actually intact.


A good analogy here is the number of people who can see the flaws of say, a totalitarian regime [think of one] and then you have a small number who are utterly outraged that anyone dares think that, not realising that they are actually the outliers, not the ones who've pointed out the flaws.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
They were found in working condition but turned off.
When they were activated they worked exactly as they should.
If they had been automatic activated buoys and were in working condition they would have been found with flat batteries as they would have been transmitting when immersed.
Click to expand...

Not if they were switched off _duh.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
You yourself have told us they were the Kanna 406 F model. this is listed as float free, the first auto activation model was the Kannad 406 ATP.

That they were found floating and turned off with full charge on their battery and when activated worked as they should.

If they had been auto activation and in working order then they would have transmitted and their batteries would be flat.
If they were auto and had been tampered with then they would not have been in working order when found.
Click to expand...

'If', 'would', 'could' and 'should'.
 
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'.



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...


*sigh*

If you're going to make dramatic accusations that I'm "twisting your words", maybe back that up with evidence? Or better still, make the accusation a correct one in the first place?

(Or perhaps you'd be able to tell me now quite how I was "twisting your words".....)
 
Vixen said:
Stop dissembling; the JAIC nowhere says anything of the kind.
Click to expand...


I suggest you read the JAIC Report properly. For comprehension, this time.

Pro tip: it really doesn't work, you know, to fling around empty accusations such as "don't twist my words" and "stop dissembling", when the evidence shows quite the opposite.

It is, I'm afraid, just one of the very many ways in which your posts in this thread demonstrate quite serious intellectual dishonesty. Dreadful. Stop doing it, OK?
 
Vixen said:
Wow you must have been living on Plant X if you didn't know there was a massive outcry at the JAIC report. People took to the street to demonstrate. This is why the investigation has been reopened. The fact a massive breach in the starboard - the side that actually capsized - is mentioned nowhere in the JAIC report has been considered necessary to research this again, especially with the much improved imaging systems.


Kurm's expedition has already discovered that a couple doors to the car deck, hypotheised as having smashed to enable inflow of water, are actually intact.


A good analogy here is the number of people who can see the flaws of say, a totalitarian regime [think of one] and then you have a small number who are utterly outraged that anyone dares think that, not realising that they are actually the outliers, not the ones who've pointed out the flaws.
Click to expand...

Where is this 'massive breach'?
Do you mean the hole above the waterline?

We went through the doors thing.
There are numerous opening to the lower decks, the biggest openings are the hatches, doors, vent, ducts and so on to the machinery spaces. We know the machinery spaces flooded.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Not if they were switched off _duh.
Click to expand...

If the were automatic activating they would have switched on as soon as they were submerged.

They could only be found switched off with full batteries if they were manual operation only.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Because he put his name to it and hasn't made any objection to the report or how his findings were used.
Click to expand...

The JAIC neither contradicts him nor supports him. It merely states there was no signals and that the buoys were found to be in working order but switched off. It makes no mention of Commander Montonen making a request to Bödo COSPAS-SASART station to search their record for a 'disappeared' signal. He certainly seems to think a signal should have been sent out when the buoy was automatically released from the HRU.

Koivisto explained the thing would be switched off whilst on land but needed to be coupled by ships' electricians and he planned to question them.


These guys know exactly what models the Estonia had and they aren't going to waste their time trying to work out why a manual-operation-only buoy was not switched on as the boat went down, as the answer would be self-evidentiary.
 
Vixen said:
'If', 'would', 'could' and 'should'.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

We know they were certainly found switched off, they certainly had full batteries and they certainly worked as designed when the manual switch was used.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom