The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Vixen]

Explained in chapter 17.2 in the JAIC report. To summarize - the Finnish organisation was not staffed to be able to handle an accident this size, and that delayed the rescue operation.

As has been pointed out many times in this (and previous) threads.

No, the JAIC hasn't explained it at all. Adopting a scolding tone doesn't hide the fact it evaded:

• dealing with why the mayday didn't come from the bridge
• why the mayday via a walkie talkie was only received at 01:21 some twenty minutes after the 40° list.
• why Ainsalu and Tammes heroically sacificed their lives by hanging off the bridge to get the SOS through.
• Why Capn Thoresson could not get through to MRCC Turku.

The fact of the staff levels is irrelevant. Lt Capn Mikko Mononen who was on duty that night said that although he didn't get the message until 01:36 all of the 'maydays' had been automatically recorded by their systems. He couldn't get through to Helsinki Radio or Mariehamn until circa 01:44. Helsinki Radio could do nothing until it had the location.

No explanation of why VHF Channel 16 and 2182hz were down across the region. Ships in the area got the Mayday via Silja Europa but there is little a high-sided ship some kilometres away can realistically do.

 

[Vixen]

I was under the impression that the word you translate as "untuned" came from a newspaper article, perhaps reporting on what Lehtola said. Is there an actual JAIC document that uses this word?

As advised, the JAIC do not deal with this in their report and the documents and EPIRB's remain missing, according to YLE reporters who tried to requisition them.

 

[Vixen]

Isn't the new investigation confirming the conclusions of the initial one?

No. It is now working on a new theory that the 40m hole in the side (not 22m as originally thought) was caused by 'a rocky outcrop' on the sea bed.

 

[phiwum]

As advised, the JAIC do not deal with this in their report and the documents and EPIRB's remain missing, according to YLE reporters who tried to requisition them.

So when you wrote that JAIC said in 1995 that the EPIRBs were unturned, that was just false. They said no such thing, right?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Mojo]

Isn't the new investigation confirming the conclusions of the initial one?

No. It is now working on a new theory that the 40m hole in the side (not 22m as originally thought) was caused by 'a rocky outcrop' on the sea bed.

What was the old investigation's theory about the hole?

 

[JayUtah]

As advised, the JAIC do not deal with this in their report...

You haven't shown why they would need to. It's not an investigative board's responsibility to include in the final report a specific rebuttal for some offhand remark a poorly-informed lawyer made to a reporter. The report is aimed at people who know EPIRBs can't be "tuned" in the sense of having their frequency adjusted. The JAIC discovered why no signal was received from the EPIRBs and reported it completely and accurately. The rest is just your ignorance and conspiracy-mongering.

...and the documents and EPIRB's remain missing, according to YLE reporters who tried to requisition them.

The YLE reporter asked for a specific report allegedly written by Asser Koivisto on the EPIRBs, likely prompted by conspiracy theorist Margus Kurm who would have had no actual knowledge of whether any such report was actually prepared. The reporter chose to interpret the inability to find such a report as some sort of nefarious scheme, rather than the dead end the evidence actually suggests.

As for the disposition of the EPIRBs, they were the property of Estline. After an official investigation is satisfied with physical evidence, the impounded property is typically returned to the owner. Investigative boards have no implicit legal right to retain the physical specimens in perpetuity. That other people—largely uninformed—develop an interest in accidents that happened 25 years ago doesn't create the scandal you're trying to stir up.

 

[Vixen]

So when you wrote that JAIC said in 1995 that the EPIRBs were unturned, that was just false. They said no such thing, right?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

It is what the JAIC said at a press conference and reported on 28 Jan 1995.

Estonia's emergency buoys had forgotten tuning


Tukkimäki Paavo

28.1.1995 2:00

The two emergency buoys on board the ferry Estonia did not send a signal to the rescuers because they were not tuned on board. The emergency buoys popped to the surface appropriately as the ship sank.

The International Commission of Inquiry into the Accident has investigated the operation of emergency buoys that drifted off the coast of Estonia. The buoys' batteries were fully charged, but they could not transmit anything untuned," says Commissioner Kari Lehtola.

The Commission concluded its two-day meeting on Friday in Helsinki.
The so-called EPIRB emergency buoys had recently been maintained and had been placed in place according to the rules. However, during the setup phase, we forgot to activate the buoys: the protective cover must be opened and the switch turned on.
The activation of the emergency buoy was part of the tasks of the Estonia radio telegraphists, of which there were two on board. The investigation is still ongoing, but the Commission has consulted the radio operator on the matter, said Commission expert member Asser Koivisto.

HS

 

[Vixen]

What was the old investigation's theory about the hole?

It worked on the assumption the hull was intact. However, people, such as Anders Bjorkmann, pointed out that for 7,000 tonnes of water to ingress at the rate claimed by the JAIC Report*, in that given time, there had to have been a hole in the hull. It seems that his prediction of a hole in the hull was correct. The new investigators just need to ascertain whether that hole was caused by something other than before the accident and are assessing whether it could have been the nearby rocky outcrop.


*If you recall, it speculated that the windows on the fourth deck must have been smashed by the waves as it listed and the water flooded int hat way, and also through the open doors of the car ramp. But Kurm's expedition found that two of the car ramp doors along the centre of the ship were firmly shut.

 

[JayUtah]

No. It is now working on a new theory that the 40m hole in the side (not 22m as originally thought) was caused by 'a rocky outcrop' on the sea bed.

Red herring.

Yes, the recent unlawful dives on the wreck produced evidence of damage that was not previously seen and therefore not discussed in prior investigations. The hypothesis that it was post-sinking damage from contact with the seafloor was immediately the most plausible once the full extent of the evidence was revealed. Evertsson cherry-picked his evidence and lied about it. Nevertheless, the newly observed damage is being extensively investigated according to proper methods, and the investigation has so far failed to uncover evidence of nefarious conduct that others speculate.

But that has nothing to do with why the ship sank. The newer investigation has largely confirmed the findings of the previous investigation.

 

[JayUtah]

It worked on the assumption the hull was intact. However, people, such as Anders Bjorkmann...

Not an expert.

 

[Mojo]

It is what the JAIC said at a press conference and reported on 28 Jan 1995.

The two emergency buoys on board the ferry Estonia did not send a signal to the rescuers because they were not tuned on board. The emergency buoys popped to the surface appropriately as the ship sank.

The International Commission of Inquiry into the Accident has investigated the operation of emergency buoys that drifted off the coast of Estonia. The buoys' batteries were fully charged, but they could not transmit anything untuned," says Commissioner Kari Lehtola.

HS

Why would not being tuned prevent them from transmitting?

And, if they were "untuned", why did they transmit correctly when recovered and turned on?

I suspect that either Lehtola or the journalist has misunderstood something, possibly just a simple translation error.

 

[JayUtah]

It is what the JAIC said at a press conference and reported on 28 Jan 1995.

False, it's what Kari Lehtola said. As you noted, Lehtola is not a subject matter expert. The chair person is not the committee.

 

[Vixen]

You haven't shown why they would need to. It's not an investigative board's responsibility to include in the final report a specific rebuttal for some offhand remark a poorly-informed lawyer made to a reporter. The report is aimed at people who know EPIRBs can't be "tuned" in the sense of having their frequency adjusted. The JAIC discovered why no signal was received from the EPIRBs and reported it completely and accurately. The rest is just your ignorance and conspiracy-mongering.



The YLE reporter asked for a specific report allegedly written by Asser Koivisto on the EPIRBs, likely prompted by conspiracy theorist Margus Kurm who would have had no actual knowledge of whether any such report was actually prepared. The reporter chose to interpret the inability to find such a report as some sort of nefarious scheme, rather than the dead end the evidence actually suggests.

As for the disposition of the EPIRBs, they were the property of Estline. After an official investigation is satisfied with physical evidence, the impounded property is typically returned to the owner. Investigative boards have no implicit legal right to retain the physical specimens in perpetuity. That other people—largely uninformed—develop an interest in accidents that happened 25 years ago doesn't create the scandal you're trying to stir up.

I see. So anyone who disagrees with you is a 'conspiracy theorist'.

Even if they were directly involved in the case at the time, rolled up their sleeves and went to look at the wreck themselves, with scientists, divers, analysts and film experts at their fingertips.

Name calling is not a useful device in a debate. It rather degrades your argument, whatever it is but seems to be based on a personal dislike Kurm.

 

[Vixen]

Why would not being tuned prevent them from transmitting?

And, if they were "untuned", why did they transmit correctly when recovered and turned on?

I suspect that either Lehtola or the journalist has misunderstood something, possibly just a simple translation error.

Nope. Correct translation.

 

[JayUtah]

I see. So anyone who disagrees with you is a 'conspiracy theorist'.

I made no such claim.

Name calling is not a useful device in a debate. It rather degrades your argument, whatever it is but seems to be based on a personal dislike Kurm.

I have explained why Kurm is a conspiracy theorist, and it has nothing to do with personal dislike. He is trying to pretend he is a forensic engineer, and he's getting everything wrong about it in his desire to propose a conspiracy to sink the ship.

 

[Mojo]

Nope. Correct translation.

A misunderstanding, then, because the EPIRBs being "untuned" doesn't fit the known facts about the nature of the EPIRBs and how they performed when recovered.

Or what Lehtola was reported to have said about them not being able to transmit because they were "untuned". If such a thing were possible, they would just have transmitted on the wrong frequency until the batteries went flat.

The amazing thing is that if "turned on" is substituted for "tuned", everything fits.

 

[JayUtah]

Nope. Correct translation.

Nope.

Sources that aren't you give several other possible translations. In fact, the definition in the musical sense, meaning to adjust a frequency, is not the primary English translation.

As I explained at length, when presented with several possible translations for any given word, the context must be considered. Here the context is a device whose frequency cannot be adjusted. Therefore "tuned" is pretty much the only wrong translation in this case. The fact that you keep presenting Google Translate's version as if it were somehow superlative in all cases suggests you're lying about your understanding of Finnish, as you typically do about such things about which you claim expertise.

 

[GlennB]

never mind

 

[Vixen]

A misunderstanding, then, because the EPIRBs being "untuned" doesn't fit the known facts about the nature of the EPIRBs and how they performed when recovered.

Or what Lehtola was reported to have said about them not being able to transmit because they were "untuned". If such a thing were possible, they would just have transmitted on the wrong frequency until the batteries went flat.

The amazing thing is that if "turned on" is substituted for "tuned", everything fits.

The correct verb is exactly the same as in English. One never says, 'Tune on the light' or 'Tune off the light'. The verb used by Lehtola is very specifically the one that means 'to tune', not to 'switch on' or 'switch off' or even 'turn on' or 'turn off'. There is no way the two different verbs or actions can be confused in translation.

 

[Mojo]

The correct verb is exactly the same as in English. One never says, 'Tune on the light' or 'Tune off the light'. The verb used by Lehtola is very specifically the one that means 'to tune', not to 'switch on' or 'switch off' or even 'turn on' or 'turn off'. There is no way the two different verbs or actions can be confused in translation.

Indeed, but the EPIRBs were found to transmit correctly when recovered, and could not be adjusted in any case. "Tuned" does not fit the facts. Someone must have misunderstood something at some point.