The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Jack by the hedge]

What seems to escape you is that the compulsory hydrostatically operated automatic EPIRBS had been SWITCHED OFF. As for the Hammar spring, auto activated hydrostatically, when in four metre deep water, was found by Rockwater STILL IN ITS CAGE. So the Hammar didn't auto activate either because the whole thing was found at the bottom of the sea intact. You have been shown the stills from the official video.

This seems rather garbled. I think you are confused about what these things are and what they do. The Hammar device is part of the EPIRB's container/cage. It's the part which causes the container to spring open and release the EPIRB at a certain depth of immersion. It doesn't float away with the EPIRB. It's supposed to stay behind with the container because it's part of the container. The EPIRBs would still be inside the containers if the Hammar device had not operated.

 

[Andy_Ross]

This seems rather garbled. I think you are confused about what these things are and what they do. The Hammar device is part of the EPIRB's container/cage. It's the part which causes the container to spring open and release the EPIRB at a certain depth of immersion. It doesn't float away with the EPIRB. It's supposed to stay behind with the container because it's part of the container. The EPIRBs would still be inside the containers if the Hammar device had not operated.

The manufacturer offered one cage, it was used for manual and immersion activated devices.
This has as usual all bern covered at great length.
I spent ages searching for the original manufacturer specifications and manuals for these long discontinued devices. They were all posted in the thread and of course were ignored.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I am not in the habit of lying, thanks.

And yet you do.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I am not in the habit of lying, thanks.

Then I can only conclude you still do not grasp how these devices work.

Only a manual EPIRB can fail to trigger when floating in the sea, so long as it is in good working order. We all agree that we have excluded the possibility that they were not working properly. After they were found washed up, they were tested and transmitted as expected.

QED only a manual EPIRB would do that.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The fundamental problem you have here is that if they had been automatically activated models nobody would have to switch them on.

The manual Kannad 406F had an on/off switch. The automatic version had a switch so that users could manually trigger them without throwing them in the sea, but that switch did not disable the immersion activation from working. The auto version would trigger if it got wet with seawater. The only thing preventing this was a magnet in the holder bracket. That activated a magnetic switch which stopped the EPIRB from operating.

So as soon as an automatic EPIRB is immersed and floats free of its holder, it activates. That's what the auto model does if it's working properly. The Estonia's EPIRBs were working properly. They were immersed, and they floated free, yet they did not activate. QED: they were manual models.

It's pointless telling her this.
I did it at great length originally and I sm the one that found and posted all the specifications for the exact models used.
I posted installation and user manuals and the workshop refurb manuals.
All ignored.

 

[Steve]

I am not in the habit of lying, thanks.

Then your thought processes are so garbled that you simply have no idea what you are posting here. There is no third option.

 

[JayUtah]

Then I can only conclude you still do not grasp how these devices work.

She’s a proven expert in hydrostatics.

 

[Dabop]

... sorry, not enough laughing dogs for this.

You could use every single laughing dog the internet has, and it still wouldn't be enough for THIS garbage.....

 

[Dabop]

Stop telling lies.
It has to be deliberate.
I am not allowed to call you a troll as it's against the rules but we can all draw conclusions.

Well I can say that almost ALL the posters in this thread are NOT trolls..... there is an exception, who I will not name...

I will say, on this page, it was NOT me, Jay, Steve, Andy, Jack, or Zooterkin....
(note I have NOT named any possible trolls, as that is against the rules- but naming those I consider NOT to be trolls is perfectly cromulent....)

....

 

[Axxman300]

The difference between you and I is that you are coming from a place of having been a former CT-er. Thus, like a former alcoholic terrified of taking a sip of alcoholic drink and ending up back in its grip, you are scared of accepting objective facts because you fear you'll be back falling down a rabbit hole of ludicrous CT nonsense. I have never been a CT-er. Problem-solving and sticking to objective reality is my thing.

The difference between you and I is I don't tell lies any more.

I am here doing my penance for being a CTist, and engaging in the spreading of lies about a variety of things over the years. And as an actual former alcoholic, I can spot my kind a mile away. You are 100% a Conspiracy Theorist, a lazy one, but very much neck-deep in silliness. For my sins as a CTist I get to deal with people like you. With the EPIRB issue you have initiated yet another fringe reset on an endless list of fringe resets. The fact have been provided multiple times, and are searchable to anyone who takes a few minutes, but continue to ignore the facts, and instead push lies (and at this point they are indeed lies).

And as a CTist, you are a hack. Every point you have made has been shot down by well established, thoroughly documented, and scientifically tested data. Your response is to stall, and then rehash your failed points again (like a three-week cycle with you). A good CTist would at least try to fabricate a good story about specific - but unverifiable - sensitive Russian military hardware, or elements worth sinking the ship. Something like red mercury, or a man-portable nuke. But you clearly lack any basic knowledge of the military, or special operations, or even basic seamanship, and you're stuck repeating failed claims. A good CTist would tell us stories about SBS, or SEALs being rushed out to a submarine that night, and throw in an aside that the whereabouts of a specialized US submarine remain unknown in the hours after the sinking (which is true because the US Navy never discloses submarine movements). A good CTist would relate a story told to them by a former SAS operator they met in a Spanish bar one night.

Instead we get EPIRBs again. Just quit while you're behind.

 

[EHocking]

We were talking about the electronics on the bridge. Specifically why the MAYDAY was not made from there.

Ah. My mistake.
But you’re still mistaken about EPIRBs.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

We know the EPIRBs were working. We know they were tested afterwards and found to be working perfectly.

They only remaining mystery is why you can't put two and two together.

I don't think there's any great mystery about that.

Do you get some sort of thrill from demonstrating your ignorance and lack of understanding?

They were recovered and shown to be manually operated by their make and model number and by the fact they had manual operation switches which were in the off position.
Immersion activated models cannot have the automatic function turned off, there's no switch to do it.

I am not in the habit of lying, thanks.

There you go again.

And yet you do.

Then your thought processes are so garbled that you simply have no idea what you are posting here. There is no third option.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

She’s a proven expert in hydrostatics.

Wait a minute! Didn't I get one of Vixen's nines? And I think I'm a proven idiot in hydrostatics.

 

[Vixen]

This seems rather garbled. I think you are confused about what these things are and what they do. The Hammar device is part of the EPIRB's container/cage. It's the part which causes the container to spring open and release the EPIRB at a certain depth of immersion. It doesn't float away with the EPIRB. It's supposed to stay behind with the container because it's part of the container. The EPIRBs would still be inside the containers if the Hammar device had not operated.

Herewith factual newspaper report citing persons with direct expert knowledge, 13 Dec 1994 and 25 Jan 1995. These guys know better than you:

Lieutenant Captain Mikko Montonen of Turku Maritime Rescue Centre 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 superstructures of the ship so that at least one of them would float, no matter which ship crashed on either side,"

The Epirb buoy activates in the water and sends a name and location message to satellites that transmit the message to a ground station, in the case of the Baltic Sea, to Bodo in Norway. From there, the message goes to the nearest maritime rescue center. Although the route sounds complicated, the message goes in a few seconds. 25.1.1995 https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000003373270.html

TALLINN - Satellite passenger buoys (EPIRBs) on the Estonian passenger ferry have been found, the Estonian Ministry of Transport announced on Monday. Experts are now investigating why the buoys were not operating at the time of the accident. The radio transmitters in the buoys should have automatically reported the exact position of the vessel via satellites after being submerged. 13.12.1994

29 Sept1994

Another oddity related to the alarm also occurred in connection with the accident. The ship had an alarm and position buoy for the sarsat-cospas system, which automatically transmits the alarm via satellite while sending the coordinates of its own position.

Kalle Pedak , the director general of the Estonian Maritime Administration , thinks that the buoy was not released into the water, but that it must have gone to the bottom with the ship.
29.9.1994 2:00

https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000003370653.html

 

[Vixen]

She’s a proven expert in hydrostatics.

Don't need to be an expert in hydrostatics. We can simply discover the factual evidence for ourselves. You: opinion -based. Me: fact-based.

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,

https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/AssemblyDocuments/A.696(17).pdf

[excerpt]

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.

https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/AssemblyDocuments/A.695(17).pdf

 

[Vixen]

Then your thought processes are so garbled that you simply have no idea what you are posting here. There is no third option.

My thought processes are fine, thanks.

 

[Vixen]

The difference between you and I is I don't tell lies any more.

I am here doing my penance for being a CTist, and engaging in the spreading of lies about a variety of things over the years. And as an actual former alcoholic, I can spot my kind a mile away. You are 100% a Conspiracy Theorist, a lazy one, but very much neck-deep in silliness. For my sins as a CTist I get to deal with people like you. With the EPIRB issue you have initiated yet another fringe reset on an endless list of fringe resets. The fact have been provided multiple times, and are searchable to anyone who takes a few minutes, but continue to ignore the facts, and instead push lies (and at this point they are indeed lies).

And as a CTist, you are a hack. Every point you have made has been shot down by well established, thoroughly documented, and scientifically tested data. Your response is to stall, and then rehash your failed points again (like a three-week cycle with you). A good CTist would at least try to fabricate a good story about specific - but unverifiable - sensitive Russian military hardware, or elements worth sinking the ship. Something like red mercury, or a man-portable nuke. But you clearly lack any basic knowledge of the military, or special operations, or even basic seamanship, and you're stuck repeating failed claims. A good CTist would tell us stories about SBS, or SEALs being rushed out to a submarine that night, and throw in an aside that the whereabouts of a specialized US submarine remain unknown in the hours after the sinking (which is true because the US Navy never discloses submarine movements). A good CTist would relate a story told to them by a former SAS operator they met in a Spanish bar one night.

Instead we get EPIRBs again. Just quit while you're behind.

How is the issue of the EPIRB's failing to initiate - whether automatic or manual - a trivial one when we have a 1,500 capacity passenger ship which DID have EPIRB's fitted and also certified as having being inspected and tested, as per protocol. Of course, it has to be 'switched on' or activated to be able to test it (!) and this testing the signal works should not be done any longer than a few seconds because OF COURSE a signal would then be accidentally trigger with COSPAS-SARSAT. Given out of over a thousand people only 79 passengers were saved, this is an important issue and not a trivial one. In addition, the Swedish government confirmed it had been using that ferry - twice during the same month at least - for transport of smuggled ex-Soviet military gear. A witness testified that the Tallinn port was sealed off when he arrived so that a late truck could be loaded. Another witness - quite independently - testified she watched over the railing as a truck was loaded, causing departure to be delayed by fifteen minutes. Think about it, the events leading up to the disaster are important factors in investigating the disaster. Saying that the failure in bridge communications and for surrounding vessels, the failure of the buoys and the other events as testified by survivors are irrelevant is just not reasonable. I can see no conspiracy theory in any of these issues that need to be addressed, and it is a thread because it is a current affairs news event.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... These guys know better than you:

Some of the quoted material is from people who did not yet know that the Estonia had manually activated EPIRBs. In other words, at the time the statements were made, those guys literally did not know better than we do. Other parts just describe how the system works and does not mention the method of activation of the beacons.

You have nothing.

Your version of events is illogical, self-contradictory and stupid (immersion activation of beacons cannot be switched off, by design).

 

[Jack by the hedge]

How is the issue of the EPIRB's failing to initiate - whether automatic or manual - a trivial one when we have ...

It's not trivial. It's simple. It's logical.

Your histrionics about the scale of the tragedy do not require the answer to become complex or illogical.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Herewith factual newspaper report citing persons with direct expert knowledge, 13 Dec 1994 and 25 Jan 1995. These guys know better than you:





TALLINN - Satellite passenger buoys (EPIRBs) on the Estonian passenger ferry have been found, the Estonian Ministry of Transport announced on Monday. Experts are now investigating why the buoys were not operating at the time of the accident. The radio transmitters in the buoys should have automatically reported the exact position of the vessel via satellites after being submerged. 13.12.1994

29 Sept1994

Why do you rely on a newspaper when you can read the actual report and it's supporting documentation about the recovery of the buoys, and their testing, plus actual documents from the manufacturers?

Newspaper reports are not a reliable source