Cont: The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI

[Steve]

Wheeled submarines.

Nuclear waste melting the bow visor lock.

Being unable to reach 700^oC outside a lab.

Any of your fanciful pulp spy novel level claims about how intelligence services work.

Any time you quoted Anders Bjorkman.

Your claims you made resulting from your inability to understand nautical engineering.

Your claim that muzzle velocity remains constant during projectile flight.

Your claim that you saw IRA bombs through a building.

Your claim that there was Soviet materiel being transported the night the Estonia sank despite that not being the case (because they had to log the times it was being transported, it wasn't "classified").

Your apparent belief that classifying something is basically magic that erases it from view completely.

Your ridiculous claims about time notation that fly in the face of...well reality quite frankly.

That's just off the top of my head.

Your debating method of: 'a thing is so because I say so' is incredibly boring to me. Your debating technique of employing ridicule and hostility is likewise not really my cup of tea and way below my debating standards. If you wish me to engage in further debate with you, please can you modify your tone and adopt gentlemanly language.

Every one of the items in MarkCorrigan's post you quoted are things that you have said are so. Those things are all ludicrous, and unevidenced, and speak to the lack of credibility in every post you make. You are quite simply wrong about almost everything you have posted regarding the sinking of the Estonia. Your persistently and repeatedly wrong claims and posts are certainly worthy of ridicule. If you are genuinely unable to comprehend the accurate information that has been provided by many other posters here I suppose some allowance must be made. Dunning-Kruger effect perhaps (look it up)? My own suspicion is that you understand perfectly well and continue to post fantasy for reasons that are against forum rules to point out.

 

[zooterkin]

The regulations relating to EPIRB's changed arising from the recommendation pursuant to the Herald of Free Enterprise accident. SOLAS in 1991 recommended that

"not
later than 1 August 1993, requiring the carriage of a float-free satellite
EPIRB on every ship as part of the global maritime distress and safety system".


So certainly Estonia conformed to this standard and as verified by Rockwater examining the EPIRB cages.

Yes, we did this, too, more than once. You're wrong. You would need to show when the change to the regulations actually came into effect (not when they were recommended to) and that this would have the effect of replacing all existing EPIRBs which did not conform to the new regulations. (Here's a clue: you won't be able to.). Not to mention, once again, that float-free is not the same as automatic activation.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The regulations relating to EPIRB's changed arising from the recommendation pursuant to the Herald of Free Enterprise accident. SOLAS in 1991 recommended that



"not

later than 1 August 1993, requiring the carriage of a float-free satellite

EPIRB on every ship as part of the global maritime distress and safety system".





So certainly Estonia conformed to this standard and as verified by Rockwater examining the EPIRB cages.

Float-free. The F model is indeed a float-free type. That does not help your claim about automatic activation.

 

[Mojo]

I very clearly wrote:

Half the survivors testified independently of each other in their signed statements to the police of having heard what sounded like an explosion or a series of explosions, together with a shudder and a violent list, the massive hole in the hull, the eye witnesses seeing a military truck being loaded at the last minute, delaying departure by fifteen minutes, the communications blackout...how does that qualify as 'no evidence'?

Indeed, so it was very clearly you, and not me, who had "suddenly started posting about explosions".

 

[JayUtah]

Indeed, so it was very clearly you, and not me, who had "suddenly started posting about explosions".

Just as it was she who suddenly resurrected the topic of EPIRBs which has historically garnered her the most attention from the grown-ups. Bearing in mind the forum rules, consider carefully whom we afford to be innocently deluded or honestly invested.

 

[Vixen]

Ok, I'll be less acerbic.

Vixen, do you still contend that you cannot reach 700^oC outside of a lab?

Do you still contend that muzzle velocity remains constant for the projectile?

Do you contend that there was Soviet materiel transported on the Estonia the night it sank?

Those are three yes/no questions. Please answer them.

1. OK, so most people don't use and oxy-acetyline flamer in their living room. I was wrong to assume you would be in protective surroundings.

2. Please provide the quote re 'muzzle velocity remains constant for the projectile'. I did not say anything of the kind. IIRC I mentioned a double-headed hammer shot in days of yore as illustrated at the Greenwich Maritime Museum had a velocity of 900mph. This was correct.

At Trafalgar, the 33 Franco-Spanish ships-of-the-line were engaged by 27 British. The action was decided by thousands of cannon firing round-shot (32lbs of cast iron travelling at up to 900 miles an hour and designed to smash ship’s timbers), bar-shot or double-headed hammer shot (spinning through the air to cut through sails and rigging), and tiered grapeshot (designed to cut down enemy crew).

3. Two respectable and independent eye-winesses saw the military truck being loaded and High Court Appeal Judge Jonathan Hirschfeld confirmed to the Rikstag this had been happening in Sept 1994. He would (obviously) only confirm the two dates the Customs Officer whistle-blower revealed to the media.

BTW I did witnesss the Downing Street bomb. Tough titties if it sticks in your craw. Yours, GlennB's and Mojo's claims it was impossible are pure malice designed to wind me up.

 

[phiwum]

I very clearly wrote:

Half the survivors testified independently of each other in their signed statements to the police of having heard what sounded like an explosion or a series of explosions, together with a shudder and a violent list, the massive hole in the hull, the eye witnesses seeing a military truck being loaded at the last minute, delaying departure by fifteen minutes, the communications blackout...how does that qualify as 'no evidence'?

Of course, that's just plumb false.

Here is your own list of summaries of passenger testimonies, to which I replied here. Not a single cited summary mentioned an explosion. Not one.[1]

Mind you, these English summaries of testimonies are not quotations. I don't recall the source at present, though I'm pretty sure we discussed the source at some point. Even the translation to "bangs" should be suspect as well as the summarizing itself, absent actual original testimony (and a trustworthy translator for most of us).

[1] I previously said that there was one who claimed to hear a sound like an explosion. Apologies. I didn't doublecheck before posting that from my phone and so I erred in your favor due to faulty memory.

ETA: The testimony is evidently out there. There's an article analyzing the testimony supporting the claim that the testimony was broadly similar and reasonably accurate. Note that they lump all reports of sounds prior to the list in one category, including those who reported hearing no sound at all. They do NOT claim anyone mentioned an explosion.

But this article, which I barely skimmed, doesn't quote the testimony. It does give two links as the source of their analysis: an invitation-only blog and a Swedish governmental (?) site. The latter might be useful to someone who can read and write Swedish.

NOTE TO VIXEN: Yes, the article claims that survivor reports were largely consistent. It does NOT claim any survivors reported an explosion, so it is not as useful to you as you may wish to pretend.

 

[Vixen]

That was not the thing you claimed. You claimed *only* automatic activation types get automatic release holders. You don't have a citation for that claim.

There is NO POINT having a manual EPIRB twinned with an HRU. This is because once the HRU activates the EPIRB, you are already four feet under water and nobody is going to be swimming to reach it. Especially not on a blustery night in the dark. The manual ones would be something you keep nearby or on a lifeboat or raft.

Think about it.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

1. OK, so most people don't use and oxy-acetyline flamer in their living room. I was wrong to assume you would be in protective surroundings.

No, what you said was that you couldn't reach a temperature of 700 outusde a lab. Those were your exact words.

2. Please provide the quote re 'muzzle velocity remains constant for the projectile'. I did not say anything of the kind. IIRC I mentioned a double-headed hammer shot in days of yore as illustrated at the Greenwich Maritime Museum had a velocity of 900mph. This was correct.

Muzzle velocity. When it was pointed out to you that this was not projectile velocity you insisted it was and that we were trying to claim to know more than the Maritime Museum.

3. Two respectable and independent eye-winesses saw the military truck being loaded and High Court Appeal Judge Jonathan Hirschfeld confirmed to the Rikstag this had been happening in Sept 1994. He would (obviously) only confirm the two dates the Customs Officer whistle-blower revealed to the media.

Except that there are no records for it, and there are records for the other two occasions. You do know that right? That there are records for the transportation on the other two dates?

BTW I did witnesss the Downing Street bomb. Tough titties if it sticks in your craw. Yours, GlennB's and Mojo's claims it was impossible are pure malice designed to wind me up.

Nope. We worked out the view from where you were. Unless you're superman you couldn't have seen it, there was a building in the way. It is literally impossible.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

There is NO POINT having a manual EPIRB twinned with an HRU. This is because once the HRU activates the EPIRB, you are already four feet under water and nobody is going to be swimming to reach it. Especially not on a blustery night in the dark. The manual ones would be something you keep nearby or on a lifeboat or raft.

Think about it.

Except that's not true, otherwise why would they have changed the regulations if it wasn't something that was happening?

Again, automatic release is not automatic activation. I actually agree with you that it's incredibly stupid to have a manual activation/automatic release module. It's monumentally short-sighted. But it is what happened.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, we did this, too, more than once. You're wrong. You would need to show when the change to the regulations actually came into effect (not when they were recommended to) and that this would have the effect of replacing all existing EPIRBs which did not conform to the new regulations. (Here's a clue: you won't be able to.). Not to mention, once again, that float-free is not the same as automatic activation.

A manual version needs to be activated by pressing a button. It doesn't need an HRU to auto-release it and activate the satellite signal.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

A manual version needs to be activated by pressing a button. It doesn't need an HRU to auto-release it and activate the satellite signal.

No, Vixen. Manual activation/auto release models existed.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Furthermore, Estonia’s distress beacons or EPIRBs had to be manually activated, something that did not happen. If they were activated, they would have made it immediately obvious that the ship had sunk and the location would have been clear. As a result, All EPIRBs were then required to be automatic, while it is considered that the accident played a key role to legislate Voyage Data Recorders

.

https://safety4sea.com/cm-ms-estonia-sinking-one-of-the-deadliest-accidents-in-european-waters/

8.4
Emergency Beacons (EPIRB)

The ESTONIA carried two emergency beacons (EPIRBs) of type Kannad 406F. The last check of the radio beacons was reported to have been made about one week prior to the accident by the radio operator. This check confirmed that the EPIRBs were in full working order.

https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia%20final%20report/chapter8.htm

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Oh look, they were auto release/manual activation beacons.

Want to try and claim that the sources are lying Vixen?

 

[Vixen]

No, what you said was that you couldn't reach a temperature of 700 outusde a lab. Those were your exact words.
Muzzle velocity. When it was pointed out to you that this was not projectile velocity you insisted it was and that we were trying to claim to know more than the Maritime Museum.



Except that there are no records for it, and there are records for the other two occasions. You do know that right? That there are records for the transportation on the other two dates?


Nope. We worked out the view from where you were. Unless you're superman you couldn't have seen it, there was a building in the way. It is literally impossible.

Please provide the quote about muzzle velocity. I am pretty sure I would not have claimed to know all about muzzle velocity. I do know that various people swore blind that 900mph was impossible.

I couldn't give a toss whether you believe me or not.

 

[Vixen]

No, Vixen. Manual activation/auto release models existed.

Riddle me this: I am sure a manual EPIRB would fit in the cage but how are you going to be able to activate it once the ship has capsized?

Answer the question.

This is a 15,000 tonne passenger ferry not a rowing boat.

 

[JayUtah]

Riddle me this: I am sure a manual EPIRB would fit in the cage but how are you going to be able to activate it once the ship has capsized?

Why do you assume the crew will wait until the ship actually sinks to activate an emergency beacon? Answer the question.

 

[Mojo]

There is NO POINT having a manual EPIRB twinned with an HRU. This is because once the HRU activates the EPIRB, you are already four feet under water and nobody is going to be swimming to reach it. Especially not on a blustery night in the dark. The manual ones would be something you keep nearby or on a lifeboat or raft.

Think about it.

I've thought about it. If a ship is in distress and still on the surface, an activated distress beacon will help locate the ship. If the ship is no longer in the surface, having the distress beacon detach from the ship and float will enable rescuers to locate the area where survivors from the ship are likely to be. OK, this is not ideal because it relies upon someone being able to activate the beacon, which is presumably the reason for the later change in the regulations.

Question for posters other than Vixen: for the automatically activated beacons, is it still possible to activate them manually before the ship sinks?

 

[Steve]

There is NO POINT having a manual EPIRB twinned with an HRU. This is because once the HRU activates the EPIRB, you are already four feet under water and nobody is going to be swimming to reach it. Especially not on a blustery night in the dark. The manual ones would be something you keep nearby or on a lifeboat or raft.

Think about it.

Is this sourced and cited? Or merely "in your opinion", "IMO", remember?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Except that's not true, otherwise why would they have changed the regulations if it wasn't something that was happening?

Again, automatic release is not automatic activation. I actually agree with you that it's incredibly stupid to have a manual activation/automatic release module. It's monumentally short-sighted. But it is what happened.

IIRC from the last turn around this particular mulberry bush, the point of having ma/ar was that the beacons can be activated in their housings if the ship is in critical trouble but not yet sunk keeping the beacons on it (rather than drifting seperately in the water) until the last moment when it does sink at which point they are released.