• 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.
junkshop said:
Random thought: is there some etymological between jetsam being jettisoned, and flotsam floating away?
Click to expand...
Yup. The difference is intention. The etymology is as you correctly surmise. This was important back in the age of sail and rampant smuggling. Back then it was common for a sailing ship to have to jettison cargo if they were in difficulty. Smugglers noticed that this would be jetsam and hence not subject to import taxes. Finders were not subject to import taxes since they merely found it on the beach. Handy loophole in the law.
 
JayUtah said:
My understanding is that it depends on the type of claim of ownership the original owner makes. The original owner has unequivocal title to it, but may relinquish it or lose it due to laches.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

For instance, if there was somebody who was importing a wooden crate-load of fine leather products by sea from China, and the ship sank, I'd imagine they (and their insurers) would relinquish title over the now seawater-steeped goods. Whoever found them and salvaged them would be welcome to them :p
 
LondonJohn said:
Exactly.

For instance, if there was somebody who was importing a wooden crate-load of fine leather products by sea from China, and the ship sank, I'd imagine they (and their insurers) would relinquish title over the now seawater-steeped goods. Whoever found them and salvaged them would be welcome to them :p
Click to expand...

When the container ship went aground on the Channel coast a few years ago the containers that washed ashore were cleared out. People were claiming cars and motorbikes, albeit a bit salty.
 
LondonJohn said:
Exactly.



For instance, if there was somebody who was importing a wooden crate-load of fine leather products by sea from China, and the ship sank, I'd imagine they (and their insurers) would relinquish title over the now seawater-steeped goods. Whoever found them and salvaged them would be welcome to them :p
Click to expand...
Conversely under U.S maritime law, the owner must make a claim to ownership within a reasonable time. If I recover the crate of soggy gloves and advertise my find, and then after some time I recondition the gloves and offer them for sale, laches may bar the original importer from then claiming ownership over the newly salable merchandise. The owner must make a timely claim of ownership or his claim may be barred.
 
abaddon said:
Flotsam and jetsam. Jetsam is stuff intentionally chucked overboard. Flotsam is stuff unintentionally chucked overboard. Under maritime law, flotsam legally belongs to the original owner. Jetsam belongs to whoever finds it.
Click to expand...

In the instance under discussion, I’m pretty sure we’re only talking about flotsam.
ETA: with the possible exception of the EPIRBs.
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
No, just trying to work out who owns the EPIRBs.
Click to expand...
By maritime law it would be EstLine. The fisherman simply handed them in.

zooterkin said:
In the instance under discussion, I’m pretty sure we’re only talking about flotsam.
ETA: with the possible exception of the EPIRBs.
Click to expand...
I suppose if they chucked them overboard they would technically be jetsam. OTOH if they were automatically ejected they technically would be flotsam.

But is this not a distraction from the topic at hand? And something that courts decide, not us?
 
zooterkin said:
In the instance under discussion, I’m pretty sure we’re only talking about flotsam.
ETA: with the possible exception of the EPIRBs.
Click to expand...


Personally, I'd say that given no crew member remembered to (manually) switch on either of the EPIRBs before the ship went down, it's very unlikely that any crew member manually threw either of the EPIRBs into the sea either.

In other words, I think the reason why the EPIRBs ended up floating around on the surface - useless because they hadn't been manually activated, of course - was that the hydrostatic release system had worked as designed and had automatically released the buoys to the surface once their holders were submerged by 2-3 metres as the ship began to sink.

So.......... flotsam :)
 
abaddon said:
By maritime law it would be EstLine. The fisherman simply handed them in.


I suppose if they chucked them overboard they would technically be jetsam. OTOH if they were automatically ejected they technically would be flotsam.

But is this not a distraction from the topic at hand? And something that courts decide, not us?
Click to expand...


I had surmised the Jack by the hedge was being somewhat flippant and humorous when he wrote "just trying to find out who owns the EPIRBs".

And that's why I responded in kind to his post (for clarity: I don't think the fishermen ever had any sort of claim on the EPIRBs!)
 
Captain_Swoop said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not much of a sabotage job if the only thing needed to thwart it was for a crew member to do his job and activate the beacon manually.
 
junkshop said:
Random thought: is there some etymological between jetsam being jettisoned, and flotsam floating away?
Click to expand...

JayUtah said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

abaddon said:
Yup. The difference is intention. The etymology is as you correctly surmise. This was important back in the age of sail and rampant smuggling. Back then it was common for a sailing ship to have to jettison cargo if they were in difficulty. Smugglers noticed that this would be jetsam and hence not subject to import taxes. Finders were not subject to import taxes since they merely found it on the beach. Handy loophole in the law.
Click to expand...

LondonJohn said:
Indeed there is. Precisely that.


ETA: Aghhh multi-ninja'd!
Click to expand...

Thank you all, I do like new (to me) knowledge.

abaddon said:
Are we derailing here?
Click to expand...

I would argue no. Given that maritime activities (for want of a better description) use some somewhat esoteric language, it is useful for, and encumbent upon, lay persons to learn unfamiliar terms, if they are going to weigh in on debate in that area.

You know, so you don't are less likely to make yourself look like an utter tool.
 
Last edited:
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...

Sides of a ship cannot capsize independently. A ship can only capsize as a single entity.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
It's not much of a sabotage job if the only thing needed to thwart it was for a crew member to do his job and activate the beacon manually.
Click to expand...

Let's speculate. Suppose the beacons really did automatically activate. That would happen exactly when? After the ship sank, that's when. So after the ship sank the beacons would broadcast....what exactly? They couldn't broadcast a location because they were not GPS equipped. Cospas satellites would have to receive the signal and it would be triangulated. This would only start AFTER the ship sank.

But look at the c16 traffic. 24 different stations received the Mayday from Estonia. Now unless we go with Vixen's mad subterranean mariners sending radio messages while underground, that has to have happened before Estonia sank and before any EPIRBs were released or activated, automatic or not. Estonia already identified it's name and location. That has to be before sinking. The ship had not sunk yet.

In summary, Vixen cannot identify how EPIRBs would have in any way made the slightest difference. Nor how they would have accelerated any rescue effort. Nor how they would report a position not having GPS. Nor how airports were closed to all traffic. Nor how short wave and VHF and UHF were all blocked at the same time.

Go look up JFK Steve. He is retired now, but he had little tolerance with idiots blocking channels with open carrier due to borked PTT switches.

Vixen seemingly cant work that out either.

Bottom line? I know Vixen is wrong. That is the end of it. Somehow, I am certain Vixen will argue the point. Because reasons.
 
junkshop said:
I would argue no. Given that maritime activities (for want of a better description) use some somewhat esoteric language, it is useful for, and encumbent upon, lay persons to learn unfamiliar terms, if they are going to weigh in on debate in that area.

You know, so you don't are less likely to make yourself look like an utter tool.
Click to expand...
Well, Captain learned a new thing from me. I have learned lots of stuff from him. It is a mutual exchange of information. I enjoy it.

The good captain has served at sea, he does not simply make this stuff up, as some would have you believe. In contrast, I lead a dull, boring uninteresting life. But when someone steps into my wheelhouse one can be sure that I will call out the bollocks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom