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

[Mojo]

Reg. 1 § 5 provides a grandfather option for compliance for ships constructed prior to 1 Feb. 1995. At the operator's discretion, those ships may conform to the older SOLAS standard until 1999, when they must be brought into full compliance. This exempts MS Estonia from compliance with Reg. 7 § 1.6 (including the § 1.6.4 provision for float-free detachment and immersion activation).

"But it's not exempt now, is it? By the time the Egyptians were disappeared the wreck would have had to have its beacons replaced by automatic ones. Do keep up."

 

[MarkCorrigan]

"But it's not exempt now, is it? By the time the Egyptians were disappeared the wreck would have had to have its beacons replaced by automatic ones. Do keep up."

I dunno about that, it might have been classified.

 

[Myriad]

Given the engineers and watchmen from the lower (dangerous) decks all managed to escape and share a life raft together, complete with survival suits, passport and wallet, then it is a good bet the senior naval crew housed on deck 6 together with the 76-year-old ex-captain and his elderly wife and the medically unhealthy and overweight Voronin family with their two children, also managed to escape the ship. Their names appeared on the initial survivors list and as faxed to Estonian government officials. It's a lovely idea the thought of the captain going down with the ship, captain's cap in hand held across his chest, as the waves lap up around him but it is not a legal maritime requirement and there are numerous examples of captains abandoning ship and getting prosecuted.

Piht, who was in the cabin next to the Voronins, and may even have shared it, was last seen in Helsinki.

Given that of the survivors something like 40% of them were crew, or 47% if we include the 'missing nine', I think it does matter the crew's whereabouts before, during and after the sinking. It is key to understanding what happened.

Please stop trying to blame children for the deaths of over 850 people. That's vile.

The key to understanding what happened is that the Estonia sailed in disrepair and poor trim, into waters and conditions it was never designed to navigate, without so much as slowing down or changing course to reduce the wave impacts, while the commanders and crew utterly failed to be vigilant for signs of structural failure. What was the root cause of such depraved indifference to the lives of the souls in their care aboard their vessel? Maybe corruption, maybe arrogance, maybe stupidity. Why not all of the above? Who cares?

 

[Vixen]

More bollocks.
In each class, the medal can be awarded either for actions in battle or during war-like situations or for personal efforts in other circumstances.

From 1995 - 2009

The Armed Forces Merit Medal is a Swedish military award and medal instituted by the Armed Forces in 1995. The award is a combat award but is not included in the war decorations . It was awarded on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief .

[It then lists examples of combat action]

Gold medal can be awarded either for:

extraordinary personal courage which saved human life
repeated dangerous efforts to save human life or for
extraordinary contribution that decisively benefited the Armed Forces
extraordinary efforts that benefited the Armed Forces.


General description of the various medals:

Description The reverse side shows the heraldic coat of arms of the Swedish Armed Forces and around the outer edge the text "FOR GLORIOUS OPERATIONS". The front side shows a laurel wreath around the outer edge.

wiki


From 2007

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Armed_Forces_Medal_of_Merit

In gold with sword.
Type Military medal (Decoration)
Awarded for Actions during combat or during war-like situations

Swedish Armed Forces Medal of Merit (Swedish: Försvarsmaktens förtjänstmedalj, FMGM and FMSM[1]) is a Swedish reward medal established by the Swedish Armed Forces and is awarded for action during combat or during war-like situations.

Care needed.

 

[Vixen]

SpitfireIX I'm not sure that's all there is to it, and the broken clock did not in fact manage to get something right.

After point 4 (every ship shall comply by 1st Aug '93) there's point 5, which seems to provide temporary exemption for ships built before 1st Feb '95.

It's rather curious legalese and seems a very peculiar way to say what you mean it to say, but the text seems to me to amount to;
Ships built before 1st Feb '95 (like the Estonia), for the period from 1st Feb '92 to 1st Feb '99, must comply with this regulation or comply with the 1974 version. And after Feb '99 they must comply with this version.

It's an odd construction but <shrug> I guess it keeps the lawyers happy.

Anyway, the long and the short of it is that Estonia seemingly didn't have to comply with this new version until 1999, it was sufficient to comply with the 1974 regulation.

PS a quick search back reminds me two years ago I quoted the JAIC report noting the Estonia was indeed certified under the 1974 SOLAS Convention.

It might interest you to know that Estonia was completely refitted having formerly been Wasa King and Viking Sally. It was bought by an Estonian marine company and was also co-owned by the governments of Sweden and Estonia.

Given Sweden manufactured and developed EPIRB's and HRU's and is a highly developed country with one of the best navies in Europe [hush my mouth I am praising Sweden!], of course the vessel was fitted with free-float automatic EPIRB's together with the hydrostatic release unit. We know this for sure because Rockwater found one of the HRU and the auto-EPIRB cages. This is documented fact and as verified by reliable sources elsewhere.

 

[JayUtah]

Given Sweden manufactured and developed EPIRB's and HRU's and is a highly developed country with one of the best navies in Europe [hush my mouth I am praising Sweden!], of course the vessel was fitted with free-float automatic EPIRB's together with the hydrostatic release unit. We know this for sure because Rockwater found one of the HRU and the auto-EPIRB cages. This is documented fact and as verified by reliable sources elsewhere.

And as you've been told more times than Trump has been indicted, none of that has the slightest to do with whether the EPIRBs were immersion activated. This is why the regulation we've been discussing carefully distinguishes between the two features.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It might interest you to know <blather snipped for brevity>.

3.4.4 Emergency beacons
The ESTONIA carried two emergency beacons (EPIRBs) of type Kannad 406F

I absolutely don't care how many more deliberately uninformed essays you write about how it must be thus because <whatever>. None of that changes anything. The type was Kannad 406F. Deal with it.

 

[Vixen]

Please stop trying to blame children for the deaths of over 850 people. That's vile.

The key to understanding what happened is that the Estonia sailed in disrepair and poor trim, into waters and conditions it was never designed to navigate, without so much as slowing down or changing course to reduce the wave impacts, while the commanders and crew utterly failed to be vigilant for signs of structural failure. What was the root cause of such depraved indifference to the lives of the souls in their care aboard their vessel? Maybe corruption, maybe arrogance, maybe stupidity. Why not all of the above? Who cares?

What? I was pointing out that a highly unfit man (who had suffered strokes and heart attacks and was medically very obese) escaped with his two sons. He was in or near the same cabin as Piht who had just come off duty (thus was dressed). There was also a 76-year-old sea captain along the same vicinity. Most or all of the senior crew were in their late 30's and early 40's. The point being made is that if Voronin and the old boy had no problem surviving the sinking then it is highly probable that these senior 'missing Estonians' also survived and as initially listed as survivors.

As for your bleeding heart over Voronin you do know that when Rockwater and other naval divers searched the bridge, there was also a prolonged search of Voronin's cabin and for a particular briefcase? Voronin was an expat Russian who ran an electronics business and came to the particular attention of the secret services intelligence. Voronin may or may not have been dodgy but the point being made was the probability of someone at that vantage point on Deck 6 near the lifeboats, life vests and life rafts, had an excellent chance of surviving, as a majority of survivors were from the upper decks. His two sons were young adults or teenagers, not children, BTW.

 

[Vixen]

3.4.4 Emergency beacons
The ESTONIA carried two emergency beacons (EPIRBs) of type Kannad 406F

I absolutely don't care how many more deliberately uninformed essays you write about how it must be thus because <whatever>. None of that changes anything. The type was Kannad 406F. Deal with it.

'F' means free floating 406 means Mhz wavelength.

I am not going to continue arguing a fact. May as well argue over whether Paris is the capital of France.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

'F' means free floating 406 means Mhz wavelength.

Yes, and A means automatic activation.

Only they weren't AFs were they? Just F.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

These persons are confirmed to have been on deck 6 at the time of the accident and either remained there or went only to the nearest and safest escape option available to them without any deviation?

Not sure how you can determine the probability of survival of persons who's whereabouts, activities, and frame of mind during and after the accident are not firmly known.

"Their cabin was near the cabin a survivor was in" is barely circumstantial, if not a complete non sequitur.

 

[JayUtah]

'F' means free floating 406 means Mhz wavelength.

F is for free-floating.
A is for automatic activation.

The manufacturer understands the distinction. The regulations understand the distinction. Your critics universally understand the distinction. You're the only person who hasn't yet figured it out.

I am not going to continue arguing a fact.

Good. You're simply wrong. That's all there is to it. You've presented no evidence for your mischaracterization of this device beyond your table-pounding dictum, and you're utterly unable to comprehend the English words that others seem to grasp plainly.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... you do know that when Rockwater and other naval divers searched the bridge, there was also a prolonged search of Voronin's cabin and for a particular briefcase?

Baloney. We did this one too. The diver who found the case while looking through the cabin contents struggled to read the cyrillic name and was clearly not familiar with the name.

Have you forgotten this was the time you tried to persuade us the voice recording of the dive didn't contain the sooper seekrit extra voice channel which only the diver could hear, in one ear, and thereby receive nefarious instructions from a clandestine operative hiding somewhere on the dive support vessel? That was ******* hilarious.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I am not going to continue arguing a fact.

No, you're going to keep revisiting a non-fact.

Can you even remember now why it was you were so desperate to convince us they were immersion activated types? For years now it's just been about trying to look like you aren't wrong (which you are), but there must have been a moment when you thought it would help your conspiracy theory in some way.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, and A means automatic activation.

Only they weren't AFs were they? Just F.

You might have noticed that the JAIC have provided as little information as possible about the buoys, which is interesting, given the consternation of the Coastguards and technical experts as to why there was no signal.

The correct question is, why has the JAIC evaded this issue?

 

[Vixen]

No, you're going to keep revisiting a non-fact.

Can you even remember now why it was you were so desperate to convince us they were immersion activated types? For years now it's just been about trying to look like you aren't wrong (which you are), but there must have been a moment when you thought it would help your conspiracy theory in some way.

You are mistaken. I have no interest in convincing you or anyone, as I know the majority of people prefer rationalisation rather to actually find out the truth of a matter. I was simply correcting what I saw to be misinformation. I have provided the documentation and evidence. As simple as that. You are welcome to hold whatever beliefs you like.

 

[JayUtah]

You might have noticed that the JAIC have provided as little information as possible about the buoys...

I noticed they identified them by manufacturer and model. No other information is necessary in the report.

...which is interesting, given the consternation of the Coastguards and technical experts as to why there was no signal.

Asked and answered. In order to be sure you remember and understand the answer, please summarize in your own words for the group what I wrote the last time you referred to these people.

The correct question is, why has the JAIC evaded this issue?

No, there is no problem with the JAIC. The problem is why you—who clearly know so very little about these devices, how they're made and operated, and how they're regulated—are presuming to lecture your betters.

 

[JayUtah]

I have no interest in convincing you or anyone...

Correct. Your behavior is far more consistent with simply attracting attention to yourself no matter how ridiculous you have to appear in order to do it.

I know the majority of people prefer rationalisation rather to actually find out the truth of a matter.

You are attempting to talk down to people who are professionally qualified in the fields you're dabbling in. You've been presented with facts that clearly contradict your beliefs, but you are unwilling to face them. Kindly patronize someone else.

I was simply correcting what I saw to be misinformation. I have provided the documentation and evidence.

And it has been thoroughly addressed many times. Your continued repetition of multiply-debunked claims does not indicate your interest in finding out the truth. It suggests rather a desire to obtain and hold the attention of the grown-ups in this discussion by any means.

You are welcome to hold whatever beliefs you like.

But for your nagging that we are "dishonourable" for doing so.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Care to deal with my other request of you Vixen? You've still not reproduced the post(s) that show that I was incorrect.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You might have noticed that the JAIC have provided as little information as possible about the buoys, which is interesting, given the consternation of the Coastguards and technical experts as to why there was no signal.

The correct question is, why has the JAIC evaded this issue?

You might have noticed that Inspector Morse drove a Jaguar Mk.II yet yet Colin Dexter provided as little information as possible about the car, which is interesting, given the consternation of readers anxious to know if it was a 2.4 or a 3.8.

The correct question is, why did Dexter not simply include a copy of the owner's manual with his books?