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

[LondonJohn]

I could not work that out. One side of a ship can capsize while the other does not? No idea what that is about.

Well, Vixen talked of the starboard side being "the side that capsized".

And that showed that she had a poor understanding of terminology in this matter.

What she should have written was something like "...the starboard side, which was the side to which the ship heeled as it (the ship) capsized"

 

[abaddon]

Well, Vixen talked of the starboard side being "the side that capsized".

And that showed that she had a poor understanding of terminology in this matter.

What she should have written was something like "...the starboard side, which was the side to which the ship heeled as it (the ship) capsized"

Not explicatory. How can only one side of a ship capsize? Vixen claimed it. It is up to her to explain it.

 

[junkshop]

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.

Absolutely. This site may not be affiliated with the JREF anymore, but there are still a significant number of members that one can learn a thing or two from.

ETA: I really want to make a Sex Pistols joke about now, but can't quite make it work. Feel free to assume that I succeeded, and that it was hilarious.

 

[abaddon]

Absolutely. This site may not be affiliated with the JREF anymore, but there are still a significant number of members that one can learn a thing or two from.

ETA: I really want to make a Sex Pistols joke about now, but can't quite make it work.

Sure. Captain Swoop has variously posted things that made me go "I never knew that" on plenty of naval matters. He knows his stuff. I know he knows his stuff because I have an interest in nautical stuff. I can tell he knows what he is talking about.

Currently, I am researching tea clippers. Those vessels are interesting, but irrelevant to this thread.

Captain Swoop was quite happy to say "I did not know that" Fair enough. OTOH Vixen refuses to acknowledge any error ever.

We would all likely to forgive an error were it not for towering arrogance.

So make your choice. Who should I trust? A demonstrable subject expert? Or a demonstrable wingnut? You decide.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Sure. Captain Swoop has variously posted things that made me go "I never knew that" on plenty of naval matters. He knows his stuff. I know he knows his stuff because I have an interest in nautical stuff. I can tell he knows what he is talking about.

Currently, I am researching tea clippers. Those vessels are interesting, but irrelevant to this thread.

Captain Swoop was quite happy to say "I did not know that" Fair enough. OTOH Vixen refuses to acknowledge any error ever.

We would all likely to forgive an error were it not for towering arrogance.

So make your choice. Who should I trust? A demonstrable subject expert? Or a demonstrable wingnut? You decide.

When I lived in Greenwich I had a look aboard the Cutty Sark.

As it happens there was a Tea Clipper question in the quiz at the pub last night.

Who was 'Nanny Dee? and for a bonus point what was her Sark?

 

[Vixen]

The 'massive breach' was in the bow - you know, where the visor should have been.

Also, the whole ship capsized, not just one side of it.

There was a breach at the bow and also, it seems, at the starboard side, coinciding* with the car deck platform.


*I think not.

 

[Andy_Ross]

There was a breach at the bow and also, it seems, at the starboard side, coinciding* with the car deck platform.


*I think not.

'coinciding'? 'car deck platform'?

It was above the waterline.

It's just the car deck, no need for the 'platform'

 

[Vixen]

Where is my error?

Once 'switched on' a signal is emitted to the relevant receiving satellite.


The tests indicate that the buoys did not automatically activate as they should have.

 

[Vixen]

The EPIRBs had a switch which would turn the transmitter on.

Show us the model of EPIRB you propose had automatic activation on immersion and a second switch which would deactivate that.

Herewith.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Once 'switched on' a signal is emitted to the relevant receiving satellite.


The tests indicate that the buoys did not automatically activate as they should have.

The signal is just broadcast, it is picked up by anything tuned to that frequency, not just satellites.

If there had been an automatic activation function and they were in working order they would have transmitted as designed and it would have been received.

They were found to be in working order.
When they were switched on they worked exactly as they were designed to do.
They were not automatic activation as they were found to be in working order with full batteries and they worked as they were designed.

 

[Vixen]

So there was no reason to consider that maybe the fishermen who found them might have switched them off, or they could have a broken switch, or if the battery was flat, or if the transmitter had a fault or if seawater had leaked in and caused a short circuit or anything like that. All they had to do was confirm what they already knew about the model carried and ignore their anomalous failure to activate. Is that what you would have done?

No, if they had been 'switched on' - whether manually or automatically - then switching it off doesn't recall the signal the epirb would have sent.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No, if they had been 'switched on' - whether manually or automatically - then switching it off doesn't recall the signal the epirb would have sent.

As no signal was sent then they were never switched on.

When they are switched on there is a pause before they start transmitting, this is to allow them to be switched off in case of accidental activation and to allow the battery to be checked.
Modern units have a separate battery check button to reduce the chance of accidental activation.

 

[abaddon]

When I lived in Greenwich I had a look aboard the Cutty Sark.

As it happens there was a Tea Clipper question in the quiz at the pub last night.

Who was 'Nanny Dee? and for a bonus point what was her Sark?

Burns. It doesn't have to make sense.

 

[Vixen]

The Estonia sank on September 28. They located the wreckage on September 30.

I've never been to England, are days longer than they are here in the US?

While I'm asking questions, does the ocean behave differently in Europe than it does in the rest of the world, wherein currents, wind, and waves can push massive objects a good distance with ease? Only reason I ask is because the coordinates Estonia gave were correct at the time they passed them along, but without power, and engines stopped, she would have drifted quiet a way in the high winds, and heavy seas...I mean if the same laws of nature apply in the Baltic Sea.

The accident happened on a Wednesday and the wreck not discovered until Friday, 30.9.1994.

The exact location of estonia, which sank on the night before Wednesday, is still unknown. On Thursday morning, the Maritime Administration's Suunta vessel drove into the waters of Utön in search of the wreck, but the intensified wind prevented the work. The wreck lies at a depth of 60-90 meters about 35 kilometers from Utö to the south of the city. With two sonars, locating the wreckage should be quite easy. When estonia is found, it can be examined with a coast guard robotic camera.

HS 30.9.1994

Strangely, initial sonar imaging taken at the time reported the bow visor was with the wreck.

According to the echo image, Estonia did not break

Salmi Hannu 2.10.1994 2:00

According to the first sonar images taken from the wreck of Estonia, the ship is in one piece, ie it did not break when sinking on Wednesday night. The image taken diagonally from above on the north side of the wreck shows the right side of the ship as the darkest area. To the right is a bow pointing west. The propeller is shown in black on the left.

HS

Question: how on earth did Lehtola decide the 'bow visor had not been found after all' the very next day, when divers had yet to go down?


Obviously, Lehtola had special psychic ability. Firstly, to know that the sonar image of the bow visor was not the bow visor and secondly the clairvoyant ability to know that the divers who had not yet dived would discover...the bow visor would not be there.

 

[abaddon]

As no signal was sent then they were never switched on.

When they are switched on there is a pause before they start transmitting, this is to allow them to be switched off in case of accidental activation and to allow the battery to be checked.
Modern units have a separate battery check button to reduce the chance of accidental activation.

That is something Vixen has not ever understood. Switch it on and it runs through a self test. It doesn't immediately transmit anything. A time delay is involved to allow for that self test procedure. Vixen refuses to understand that. Because reasons.

 

[Vixen]

Which one of those would you say you are, Vixen? (Or perhaps you'd say you're both?).

And if you're correct in that assertion (which you're not), then the "early reports" of Bildt's understanding about the cause of the disaster must be "useful" too, right? Oh no, wrong! Silly me! Only CT-worthy "early reports" are "useful".......

Look, if a huge cruise car ferry liner suddenly sinks like a stone killing up to a thousand people within minutes, how glib is it for Sweden's then [outgoing] Prime Minister to announce to the Swedish people, of whom one in five of the Swedish population had a relative, friend or colleague brutally killed in the accident - including 70 Stockholm policemen and policewomen - that the cause of the surprisingly rapid sinking was 'just an accident caused by the bow visor falling off because of a wave' before an accident committee had even been appointed. He announced this, a joint three-country committee was appointed shortly after, including his own appointment for the Swedish side.

How does Bildt know better than marine experts such as Johansson and Laar who openly said they suspected possible sabotage and many survivors reporting a series of what sounded like explosions? Why was he so quick to deny there had been any crime or atrocity?

 

[abaddon]

Look, if a huge cruise car ferry liner suddenly sinks like a stone killing up to a thousand people within minutes, how glib is it for Sweden's then [outgoing] Prime Minister to announce to the Swedish people, of whom one in five of the Swedish population had a relative, friend or colleague brutally killed in the accident - including 70 Stockholm policemen and policewomen - that the cause of the surprisingly rapid sinking was 'just an accident caused by the bow visor falling off because of a wave' before an accident committee had even been appointed. He announced this, a joint three-country committee was appointed shortly after, including his own appointment for the Swedish side.

How does Bildt know better than marine experts such as Johansson and Laar who openly said they suspected possible sabotage and many survivors reporting a series of what sounded like explosions? Why was he so quick to deny there had been any crime or atrocity?

Sweden has a population 4,620, then? Do you even read what you post?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The accident happened on a Wednesday and the wreck not discovered until Friday, 30.9.1994.

Two whole days!
I think that is pretty good going.

Strangely, initial sonar imaging taken at the time reported the bow visor was with the wreck.


HS

Question: how on earth did Lehtola decide the 'bow visor had not been found after all' the very next day, when divers had yet to go down?

Because he realised he made a mistake and changed his opinion?

Those sonar images are not photographs. they have to be interpreted.

Obviously, Lehtola had special psychic ability. Firstly, to know that the sonar image of the bow visor was not the bow visor and secondly the clairvoyant ability to know that the divers who had not yet dived would discover...the bow visor would not be there.

So what is your theory?

That the bow visor was moved by the divers?

 

[Vixen]

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.

For the umpteenth time, the fact the automatic buoys failed to automatically activate (which they still would have done had they been automatically switched on by a quick thinking member of crew, so that rules a manual switch on out).

From a quality broadsheet at of the time (I actually used to pop down to Covent Garden every day in order to get this newspaper from a vendor which sold quality international newspapers, including Herald Tribune and El Mondo, et al., albeit a day behind):

25.1.1995 2:00 TALLINNA - The Estonian EPIRB satellite buoys were in working order, although the message they automatically sent did not progress to the alarm system for some reason. Estonian and Finnish experts experimented with buoys detached from sunken Estonia on Tuesday with icebreaker Tarmo. According to Estonian radio, the buoys sent four hours of radio communications, which should come via satellite to the ground station. The next step is to study the operation of the ground stations to find out where the automatically triggered alert message disappeared.

HS


And 13.12.1994

Experts are now investigating why the buoys were not working at the time of the accident. After entering the water, the radio transmitters in the buoys should have automatically indicated the exact position of the vessel via satellites. The satellite buoys were found as early as Saturday and transported to the Estonian Maritime Administration. The telegram from the Estonian news agency ETA did not mention where the buoys were found.

HS

And

Nor has it been yet been able to investigate the breach of the ship's distress signal lines. Estonia's aforesaid epirb buoy signal was totally not received. The investigation has not confirmed whether the buoys came off the ship at all or whether the bad list prevented them from coming off. The visor will be searched and lifted The bow ramp was hit hard Helsingin Sanomat

HS

 

[Andy_Ross]

that the cause of the surprisingly rapid sinking was 'just an accident caused by the bow visor falling off because of a wave'

Who, apart from you has every claimed this?