• 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:
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).
Click to expand...
Let me put it this way: so it turns out someone placed manually activated EPIRB's one on either side of the bridge, for which a member of crew when the ship is in distress somehow has to wait for it to be released by being submerged in water (they have to dive for it?) or perhaps as soon as the ship goes into an irrecoverable heel a member of the crew is supposed to nip out and somehow grab the manually operated EPIRB from its cage on the side of the bridge superstructure and toss it in the water, yet failed to do so on the night? It doesn't matter how illogical you think this is, this is the way it was.
 
Vixen said:
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,

Loading…

wwwcdn.imo.org

[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.

Loading…

wwwcdn.imo.org
Click to expand...
Float free is not automatic activation.
At the time of the sinking ships were allowed manually activated EPIRBs on an exemption for ships already carrying them.
At the time of their life expiration they were to be replaced with immersion activated models. Other exemptions in specific cases were also allowed.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Then explain how an EPIRB which was working perfectly did not activate on immersion.

You know the answer: The Estonia was still carrying manually activated EPIRBs as it was still permitted to do.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Now you are getting it. The MHz radio communications were blocked for the duration and the EPIRB's deactivated. It is as simple as that.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
What difference would the EPIRBs have made if they were triggered?
 
Vixen said:
Mistaken, how? Herewith from the Rockwater Report itself:

View attachment 66829


It very clearly describes the EPIRB found as being of a 'hydrostatic release mechanism'. Exactly as mandated by SOLAS regulations.
Click to expand...

You're still laughably confused about the difference between 1) hydrostatic release mechanisms (which, as the name suggests, simply release the EPIRBs from their cages once they are submerged; and 2) hydrostatic activation mechanisms (which, as the name suggests, would actually switch on the EPIRBs upon submersion.

The Estonia carried EPIRBs which had hydrostatic release mechanisms, but which did not have hydrostatic activation mechanisms. We know this for certain via a) the JAIC report, and b) our knowledge of the precise model types of both the EPIRBs and the hydrostatic release mechanisms. The Estonia was compliant with international maritime regulations of the time, which required hydrostatic release mechanisms, but which did not yet require hydrostatic activation mechanisms.

Oh and "herewith" LOLOLOL
 
Vixen said:
...or perhaps as soon as the ship goes into an irrecoverable heel a member of the crew is supposed to nip out and somehow grab the manually operated EPIRB from its cage on the side of the bridge superstructure and toss it in the water, yet failed to do so on the night?
Click to expand...
Have you forgotten saying that the buoys had a hydrostatic release mechanism? It was only 10' ago.
 
Vixen said:
Mistaken, how? Herewith from the Rockwater Report itself:

View attachment 66829


It very clearly describes the EPIRB found as being of a 'hydrostatic release mechanism'. Exactly as mandated by SOLAS regulations.
Click to expand...
A release mechanism isn't the buoy, it's the holder you know this.

Rhe manufacturer supplied the same holder for all their buoys.

Correct procedure even for automatic activation models is to activate them with the switch and throw them clear of the ship.

Relying on the automatic release can result in a buoy getting caught on the ship structure or the mechanism not releasing the buoy.

Additionally the automatic activation by immersion should not be relied on as the primary method of activation.
 
Vixen said:
Let me put it this way: so it turns out someone placed manually activated EPIRB's one on either side of the bridge, for which a member of crew when the ship is in distress somehow has to wait for it to be released by being submerged in water (they have to dive for it?) or perhaps as soon as the ship goes into an irrecoverable heel a member of the crew is supposed to nip out and somehow grab the manually operated EPIRB from its cage on the side of the bridge superstructure and toss it in the water, yet failed to do so on the night? It doesn't matter how illogical you think this is, this is the way it was.
Click to expand...

In an emergency, a crewman had to get an EPIRB from its case, switch it on and throw it into the sea.

That's how it worked. You know this and so does everyone else. That type were being phased out. You know this too. The cases they were contained in were already the type suitable for automatic versions. You know this too.

It doesn't matter, as you said, how illogical we think it was that the owners did not simply pay for new EPIRBs. They just didn't, presumably because they weren't yet forced to.
 
Vixen said:
Let me put it this way: so it turns out someone placed manually activated EPIRB's one on either side of the bridge, for which a member of crew when the ship is in distress somehow has to wait for it to be released by being submerged in water (they have to dive for it?) or perhaps as soon as the ship goes into an irrecoverable heel a member of the crew is supposed to nip out and somehow grab the manually operated EPIRB from its cage on the side of the bridge superstructure and toss it in the water, yet failed to do so on the night? It doesn't matter how illogical you think this is, this is the way it was.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, no.

The way it was supposed to work was not that. What was supposed to happen was that once a mayday situation had been reached, a member of the crew was supposed to go and switch on both EPIRBs. There was no need for the crew member to actually release the EPIRBs into the water (though that would have been the case in the days before hydrostatic release cages). The EPIRBs would begin signalling while they were still secured to the ship in their cages, then once the ship began sinking or listing sufficiently to submerge one or both of the EPIRBs, the hydrostatic release mechanisms would then automatically release them into the water.

It's also worth noting that the EPIRBs and the hydrostatic release structures were entirely separate entities. And while the hydrostatic release mechanism was entirely located within the cage structure (and not the EPIRBs themselves), any automatic activation mechanisms had, by definition and design, to be an integral part of the EPIRBs themselves. EPIRBs are expensive kit, which is precisely why SOLAS gave operators more time to upgrade them to auto-activation models.
 
Vixen said:
Let me put it this way: so it turns out someone placed manually activated EPIRB's one on either side of the bridge, for which a member of crew when the ship is in distress somehow has to wait for it to be released by being submerged in water (they have to dive for it?) or perhaps as soon as the ship goes into an irrecoverable heel a member of the crew is supposed to nip out and somehow grab the manually operated EPIRB from its cage on the side of the bridge superstructure and toss it in the water, yet failed to do so on the night? It doesn't matter how illogical you think this is, this is the way it was.
Click to expand...
Stop being deliberately stupid.

The buoy can be removed from the holder by hand, the automatic release is a fail-safe in case that hasn't happened.

You are being deliberately ignorant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom