• 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.

The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Jack by the hedge said:
What information do you have on the subject that was not provided in the report? What analysis might you have performed on it?
Click to expand...
An investigation accident board in its final report will not outline every possible scenario. It will only include stuf that is RLELEVANT to the report. Sadly, it did not consider the life-saving EPIRB's and communication systems particularly relevant, having decided on the 'poor design of bow visor' scenario as the cause of the tragedy.
 
Vixen said:
By Dec 2021, it was corrected:

British ship rams Danish vessel - Two Detained​

This seems on the face of it remarkably similar to the Marchioness/Bow Belle* river boat tragedy. Bow Belle 'didn't see' the Marchioness due to aggregate weight and having rammed her from behind, it then turned abeam and sailed right over her midships, causing her to capsize and sink within 3
Click to expand...
Nearly a month later, and not exactly 'corrected', since you didn't acknowledge your prior error. And neither is it actually correct, since the dredger was the Bowbelle (no space).
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I show the outright fallacy of the claim 'you never admit a mistake' and going back literally years to dredge up an example of my wrongness that turn out to be...not an example at all!
Click to expand...
Are you saying that you didn't make a mistake when you referred to the "Marquess of Bow Belle riverboat disaster"?

edit: I brought it up not as an example of you refusing to admit a mistake, but of you making a fundamental basic error (something that if you remembered correctly or just bothered spending 10 seconds Googling could have checked), like how you said Putin was head of the KGB, or that the Nazis sank the Lusitania, or that Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense at the time of the Estonia disaster, or how you repeatedly referred to the 1998 Rome Statute as the 1988 Rome Treaty (even after your error was pointed out), etc.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Er, the question remains why were the automatic EPIRB's switched off at source.
Click to expand...
Please provide the evidence that establishes that the EPIRBs were of the type which is automatically activated by immersion.

Inference from regulations you think might have applied at the time does not count.

You do have a source for this, don't you?

Vixen said:
I never make anything up. All of my comments are sourced, unless I state 'IMV'.
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC only deal with the issues it considered RELEVANT to the sinking, and the ventilation duct flooding was not one of them.
Click to expand...
Flooding through openings that can't be closed is obvious.
How do you think the machinery spaces flooded?
The only ships that can be made completely watertight from above are submarines
 
Vixen said:
From Helsingin Sanomat 9 Oct 1994, a highly reputable, accurate, reliable and trustworthy newspaper:

Mikko Monto is more concerned about where the ship's epirb buoys disappeared.

"The buoys had been serviced a couple of months ago. There were two of them, and they should have been placed in the ship's superstructures so that at least one of them would float, regardless of which side the ship capsized on," Montonen wonders.

However, buoys sending distress messages had no practical significance because the distress message had already been received.

"We thought we had already found the other buoy in that video film, clinging to it, but it has become uncertain again. Now we cannot say whether it is a buoy or a light buoy of a lifebuoy, the image should be interpreted even more," says Kari Lehtola.

"On its string, the buoy should pop to the surface, we already thought that there it was the unfortunate one." The Epirb buoy activates in the water and sends a name and position message to satellites that transmit the message to the ground station, in the case of the Baltic Sea, to Bodo in Norway. From there, the message is transferred to the nearest maritime rescue centre. Although the route sounds complicated, the message travels in a matter of seconds.
HS 9.10.1994
Click to expand...
◊◊◊◊ off with this same bollocks you already tried.

Who cares what ◊◊◊◊ a newspaper posts.

We know the exact model of buoy, it's manual.
They were recovered and were found to be inactive.
When they were turned on they worked as they should.

This is all in the report and supporting archive.

Why do you post the same lies over and over, even when they have been shown to be lies?

Is it a game or are you ill?
 
Vixen said:
As I said, the JAIC didn't consider the lack of communication particularly important, despite Third Officer Tammes emphaisising at least twice, 'We have a blackout'. He was not just talking about the emergency generator going down, he was talking about the bridge, which should have continued on battery power. Also, here, once again (NOTA BENE!) is the sworn testimony of the senior officer of the Mariella:

Viking Line ferry MARIELLA the mate Ingmar Hans-Göran Eklund

After we had heard the 'Mayday' call we saw the lights of ESTONIA. While I was taking care of the navigation, the master was trying to get in contact with Helsinki Radio, first over VHF and then on MF 2182 kHz, both of which failed. He finally managed to get in contact with the shore by mobile phone.«

Even the JAIC states:

Helsinki Radio had mentioned a strange wave of interference, which prevented the officers of ships near Estonia from contacting mainland Finland and Sweden. The last radio contact with Estonia took place on September 28, 1994 at 1.31 am and ended with the words: "How far are you? Really bad, really bad now looks like yes here. "#
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what kind of point @Vixen is trying to make here, and suspect she isn't sure either. If she's trying to suggest the failure of radio communications was a Twilight Zone kind of event, then I have news for her.

Fifty years ago, when I held three FCC licences (Amateur Extra, First Class Radiotelephone, and Second Class Radiotelegraph), the amateur ("ham") radio world was pioneering the VHF repeater technology that eventually morphed into modern cellular networks (which use even higher frequencies). The reason we needed repeaters is that VHF communications have limited range. That's the same reason I cannot receive television broadcasts at my home from a high-power transmitter with a serious antenna located less than 50 miles away.

And that business about "a strange wave of interference" in the 2 MHz band? Interference is not at all uncommon in that band, which limits the range of low-power AM broadcast stations. Furthermore (as stated by Wikipedia), "Attenuation...is...higher over water when seas are rough."

(Edited to improve a link.)
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
An investigation accident board in its final report will not outline every possible scenario. It will only include stuf that is RLELEVANT to the report. Sadly, it did not consider the life-saving EPIRB's and communication systems particularly relevant, having decided on the 'poor design of bow visor' scenario as the cause of the tragedy.
Click to expand...
More deliberate lies, why do you keep posting the same lies over and over?
 
zooterkin said:
Please provide the evidence that establishes that the EPIRBs were of the type which is automatically activated by immersion.

Inference from regulations you think might have applied at the time does not count.

You do have a source for this, don't you?
Click to expand...
It has been done in great detail.

I posted the actual manual for the model and even it's maintenance manual.

The actual buoys were recovered and found to be turned off, as they should be when ready to use.

They have one switch that activates them after a short time delay which lets them be turned on and off to do a battery check at recommended intervals.

When recovered both were off sbd when activated started to transmit at full power.
Both batteries were fully charged.

it's all covered in the report and in supporting documentation in the archive
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom