• 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 Reopened Part VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Whilst your father was an honourable man it doesn't follow that the Chief Engineer on the Estonia, who was in handheld radio contact with the Bridge and the guys in the engine room had the same values. Treu and Linde do not mention anything about Lembik wanting to stay behind to make sure everyone was safe. In the world of a passenger ferry, the crew are supposed to assist the passengers by helping inflate life raft and handing out lift jackets, not jumping on the first life boat out of there. Of course, it is understandable they did this but that is not the protocol expected of them.
Click to expand...

You don't know what their assigned duty was
But I am certain engineers weren't involved in handing out lifejackets and wrangling passengers
By the time they abandoned the engine room power was gone and the ship was on its beam and on the way down.
By then it's too late to hand out lifejackets and it's everyone for themselves in to the water.
 
JayUtah said:
"Float-free," not "automatically activated." You still can't grasp the quite simple difference between the two.
Click to expand...

The excerpt is as follows:

"RECOMMENDS Governments: (a) to ensure, as part of national type approval procedures, that any new type of 406 MHz satellite EPIRB to be deployed on board ships' h tested to confirm that it is in accordance with the IMO performance standards for 406 MHz EPIRBs (resolution A.695(17))*; confirmation that the satellite EPIRB meets part B of that performance standard can be achieved by either: (i) performing, or having performed, under national procedures, all appropriate tests; or (ii) accepting type approval test results obtained through the COSPAS-SARSAT type approval procedure (C/S T.007) and confirmed by the delivery o{ a COSPAS-SARSAT Type Approval Certificate; and (b) to encourage national type approval authorities to develop test procedures compatible, to the extent possible, with C/S T.007, if necessary in consultation with the COSPAS-SARSAT Secretariat."

*Resolution A.695 (17) can be read here: https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresourc...MOResolutions/AssemblyDocuments/A.695(17).pdf

It was adopted on 6 Nov 1991 and came into force on 25 Nov 1991.


As George Orwell remarked the truth remains the truth no matter how much you deny it.
 
Recommends. Not orders. Recommends.

Even if it said what you claim, it's still only a recommendation.
 
JayUtah said:
Do you see the problem with your claim?
Click to expand...

IMO calls them 'requirements' and 'recommendations' because it doesn't have the force of statutory law, being global, although being marine law is enforceable by local authorities.

The current IMO Chapter 3 re life-saving equipment states:

Revised recommendation on testing of life-saving appliances (resolution MSC.81(70))

Recommendations on the testing of life-saving appliances were first adopted by the IMO Assembly in 1991, by resolution A.689(17). In 1998, the MSC, recognizing the need to introduce more precise requirements for the testing of life-saving appliances and recalling that it had amended the recommendations on several occasions since their adoption, adopted the Revised recommendation on testing of life-saving appliances (resolution MSC.81(70)), effectively replacing resolution A.689(17).
Click to expand...
https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Pages/historyofLSA-default.aspx

Doesn't say anything new about EPIRB's free-float automatics being a requirement on passenger ships because it was already in force in 1991, as it says above. Since then there have been amendments as to how precisely the life saving equipment is to be tested.
 
JayUtah said:
No. In the language of transportation regulation, "recommendation" and "requirement" are very different things. Thank you for playing.
Click to expand...

It is called CHAPTER III Regulation 6 section 2.3. Just because it uses genteel language such as 'recommends' doesn't mean it is not mandatory. All of their regulations are recommendations. They are intended as guidelines with the purpose of safety at sea.

It is a shame no-one is honourable enough to admit the requirement for free-floating automatic EPIRB's came into force at IMO/SOLAS in November 1991 which marine companies in the relevant category had to adopt by August 1993.

<shrug>
 
Vixen said:
It is called CHAPTER III Regulation 6 section 2.3. Just because it uses genteel language such as 'recommends' doesn't mean it is not mandatory. All of their regulations are recommendations. They are intended as guidelines with the purpose of safety at sea.
Click to expand...

No, "recommendations" and "requirements" are very different things, and each has a specific legal obligation with respect to compliance. None of your flailing changes that. This is my industry, not your armchair.

It is a shame no-one is honourable enough to admit...
Click to expand...

Oh, shut up.
 
Quite strange.

I pulled a few random SOLAS regulations up and see where they say this equipment or feature is mandatory on ships over this weight, or registered as this type, or having/lacking this other equipment. Yet then mentions it also being recommended at these other weights, classifications, or selection of other available devices/features.

Strange they would go to that trouble if "recommended" is merely "genteel language" for "required."
 
Vixen said:
The excerpt is as follows:

"RECOMMENDS Governments: (a) to ensure, as part of national type approval procedures, that any new type of 406 MHz satellite EPIRB to be deployed on board ships' h tested to confirm that it is in accordance with the IMO performance standards for 406 MHz EPIRBs (resolution A.695(17))*; confirmation that the satellite EPIRB meets part B of that performance standard can be achieved by either: (i) performing, or having performed, under national procedures, all appropriate tests; or (ii) accepting type approval test results obtained through the COSPAS-SARSAT type approval procedure (C/S T.007) and confirmed by the delivery o{ a COSPAS-SARSAT Type Approval Certificate; and (b) to encourage national type approval authorities to develop test procedures compatible, to the extent possible, with C/S T.007, if necessary in consultation with the COSPAS-SARSAT Secretariat."

*Resolution A.695 (17) can be read here: https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresourc...MOResolutions/AssemblyDocuments/A.695(17).pdf

It was adopted on 6 Nov 1991 and came into force on 25 Nov 1991.


As George Orwell remarked the truth remains the truth no matter how much you deny it.
Click to expand...

Recommends, it's there in caps.

This is just deliberate trolling now.
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for civility
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Delphic Oracle said:
Quite strange.

I pulled a few random SOLAS regulations up and see where they say this equipment or feature is mandatory on ships over this weight, or registered as this type, or having/lacking this other equipment. Yet then mentions it also being recommended at these other weights, classifications, or selection of other available devices/features.

Strange they would go to that trouble if "recommended" is merely "genteel language" for "required."
Click to expand...

The IMO call their regulations as follows:

"In this article, we will learn about 5 important instruments which IMO uses to ensure smooth operations at the sea, backed by highest standards of maritime safety.

The 5 important instruments of IMO are:

Conventions
Protocols
Amendments
Recommendations, codes, and guidelines
Resolutions" https://www.marineinsight.com/marit...-organization-imo-every-seafarer-should-know/

At the 1988 IMO convention pursuant to the Herald of Free Enterprise inquiry 1987, the CHAPTER III Reg 6 Section 2.3

NOTING that the Conference of Contracting Governments to the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS),
on the global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS Conference, 1988)
adopted regulation IV/7.1.6 of the 1988 SOLAS amendments, applicable 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,


did come into force in 25 Nov 1991 and went through the aforesaid steps one by one.

'RECOMMENDS Governments: (a) to ensure, as part of national type approval procedures, that any new type of 406 MHz satellite EPIRB to be deployed on board ships' h tested to confirm that it is in accordance with the IMO performance standards for 406 MHz EPIRBs (resolution A.695(17)); '

Resolution A.695 (17) does stipulate float-free automatic EPIRB's.


This is factual.
 
Last edited:
"And they'll tell you black is really white
The moon is just the sun at night"
 
Vixen said:
The IMO call their regulations as follows:

"In this article, we will learn about 5 important instruments which IMO uses to ensure smooth operations at the sea, backed by highest standards of maritime safety.

The 5 important instruments of IMO are:

Conventions
Protocols
Amendments
Recommendations, codes, and guidelines
Resolutions" https://www.marineinsight.com/marit...-organization-imo-every-seafarer-should-know/

At the 1988 IMO convention pursuant to the Herald of Free Enterprise inquiry 1987, the CHAPTER III Reg 6 Section 2.3

NOTING that the Conference of Contracting Governments to the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS),
on the global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS Conference, 1988)
adopted regulation IV/7.1.6 of the 1988 SOLAS amendments, applicable 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,


did come into force in 25 Nov 1991 and went through the aforesaid steps one by one.

RECOMMENDS Governments: (a) to ensure, as part of national type approval procedures, that any new type of 406 MHz satellite EPIRB to be deployed on board ships' h tested to confirm that it is in accordance with the IMO performance standards for 406 MHz EPIRBs (resolution A.695(17));

Resolution A.695 (17) does stipulate float-free automatic EPIRB's.
Click to expand...

Your doing your usual **** trick of quickly reading a document and quoting random bits you think support your trolling.

We see you
 
JayUtah said:
In this case that’s significant. In these documents, when a directive is in all caps it’s understood in its precise legal meaning, not some common or “genteel” connotation.
Click to expand...

I am surprised you are not familiar with the language of resolutions presented at conventions and AGM's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom