The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[zooterkin]

Indeed. Kannad updated this EPIRB to include an auto-activation mechanism, and gave it the code 406AF.

As I said before, I wonder if Vixen can deduce what the "A" in 406AF stands for, and how the 406AF differs from the 406F (although...one can lead a horse to water....)

Similarly, the F stands for "Float free".

 

[Spektator]

You can drag a dead horse to facts, but you can't make it think.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Not at all, the hydrostatic release mechanism indicates the EPIRB's WERE compliant with SOLAS in being automatic ones, when this was disputed, I proved it was an automatic hydrostatic release EPIRB by showing the photo of the Rockwater diver with the Hammar spring device in his hand. I had thought the EPIRB itself was still int he bracket but it is clear both of the two EPIRBs released as intended but failed to transmit the distress signals on rising to the surface.

The manufacturer offered one enclosure for the range auto or manually activated.
You were told this a number of times but as usual pretend to be ignorant

 

[W.D.Clinger]

So now I am being accused of low morals. I have zero debts, I pay off my credit card in full promptly, I do not park where I should not park, I am not given to lying either. I was security vetted to a high level to deal with POCA cases in going after serious organised criminals, from the accountancy POV; our team chased these dodgy characters to the other side of the world and recovered literally hundreds of thousands of pounds of stolen UK taxpayers money back to HMRC. You will find I cannot be bribed nor intimidated into behaving unethically, either. So, when I argue a point it is ALWAYS from a point of good faith; not that I am perfect, saintly or angelic, but I stick to my moral principles.

This is not a debtors court. No one is trying to drag you into prison. No one here cares about your credit card, where you park, how you were "security vetted", whom you have chased, or who may have tried to bribe you.

The questions you need to address are factual. You have consistently failed to address those factual questions with adequate rigor or intelligence. I am taking you at your word that you have not been lying. Starting with that premise, I am considering other explanations for your consistent failure to come to grip with actual facts.

So, when I say the EPIRBS's were almost certainly of the automatic type, then that is what I genuinely believe. I am 97% certain of this, the other 3% allows for the possibility that some fool tried to place manual ones in the brackets by mistake although I doubt it.

I genuinely believe you genuinely believe you are 97% certain of your false belief that the EPIRBs were of the automatic type, and I genuinely believe you genuinely believe that the only other possibility is that some fool made a mistake.

Yet the fact remains that the EPIRBs were not of the automatic type, and their presence on the MS Estonia was not due to some fool making a mistake.

The mistake is yours, as you consistently ignore the mountain of evidence that contradicts your genuine beliefs.

Your persistent dismissal of factual evidence has a name. Multiple names, in fact:

The invincible ignorance fallacy, also known as argument by pigheadedness, is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word.

Those phrases accurately describe your preferred mode of argument. That doesn't necessarily mean you are lying, or immoral, or have been bribed, or any of the other bad things you so strenuously disclaim. Accepting your disclaimers, however, forces me to consider alternative explanations for what you're doing.

I get that some people enjoy denying - and believe me, I can spot a troll a mile off - a certain, or near certain, fact just for the fun of it.

Yes, some people enjoy denying. That is one of the possible explanations for what you are doing. It is also true that some people enjoy trolling, but I refuse to consider that possibility here.

In addition, I have an excellent memory.

You believe you have an excellent memory. That belief of yours is contradicted by abundant evidence to the contrary, including several spectacular failures of your memory just within the past few days.

In particular, you have forgotten all of the evidence that contradicts your persistent belief that the EPIRBs were of the automatic sort, along with all of the evidence that should have straightened you out on your confusion concerning the distinction between their activation and their release.

As you have confirmed again and again, your memory is not excellent. You only believe your memory is excellent.

That is just one of your many beliefs that is factually incorrect.

BTW The more you try to drag down my character and sensibilities, the more I will set the record straight.

Poor memory is not a character flaw, but it does present an impediment to research. That impediment can be overcome by taking detailed notes and preserving a record of your sources. You have not been very good about that.

This has been explained again and again for at least five years. This isn't misunderstanding, it's a wilful refusal to accept simple reality.

The Kannad 406 F is a manual device, not automatically triggered.

A service manual for Kannad EPIRBs has been posted in the thread previously, as Vixen will of course remember.
It shows the models with immersion activation have no user control to deactivate that function.

An AI overview is not going to muddy the water enough to conceal that, however much Vixen would love to find any excuse to persist in avoiding admitting the Estonia's EPIRBs were obviously manual models.

You've spent the last few days assiduously avoiding the Brandenburg report by rehashing a stale debate over EPIRBs. You claimed you were in a superior position to interpret the Brandenburg report. At this point I'm asking you to interpret merely one short paragraph.

Please address the paragraph from the Brandenburg report now.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So now I am being accused of low morals. I have zero debts, I pay off my credit card in full promptly, I do not park where I should not park, I am not given to lying either. I was security vetted to a high level to deal with POCA cases in going after serious organised criminals, from the accountancy POV; our team chased these dodgy characters to the other side of the world and recovered literally hundreds of thousands of pounds of stolen UK taxpayers money back to HMRC. You will find I cannot be bribed nor intimidated into behaving unethically, either. So, when I argue a point it is ALWAYS from a point of good faith; not that I am perfect, saintly or angelic, but I stick to my moral principles. So, when I say the EPIRBS's were almost certainly of the automatic type, then that is what I genuinely believe. I am 97% certain of this, the other 3% allows for the possibility that some fool tried to place manual ones in the brackets by mistake although I doubt it. I get that some people enjoy denying - and believe me, I can spot a troll a mile off - a certain, or near certain, fact just for the fun of it. In addition, I have an excellent memory. BTW The more you try to drag down my character and sensibilities, the more I will set the record straight.



Let me know if you are going to argue with the above.

Apart from we know by their model number and the fact they were recovered that they were manual only units.

Stop telling lies.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I read it somewhere but I found when I typed in the query: "do cruise vessels swtich off their EPIRBS in dry dock?" the first answer, which was AI overview, which is not always known to be accurate, responds - and I am confident this matches what I understood from elsewhere:

They do not have a "standby or off mode" if they are immersion activated.
Your AI is wrong or you are telling lies.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oh dear. Off we go with "AI overview" once again. Do some primary research, Vixen. And take account of the difference between 1994 and 2025 - the key difference being that in 2025 all EPIRBs are definitely auto-activation, whereas in 1994 ships were allowed to keep using their manual-activation EPIRBs until they'd reached the end of their operational lifespan.

Manual only units are still available for private and leisure craft.
It's only commercial vessels that are required to have auto units.

Offshore racing rules also make them mandatory.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If they had been left switched on they would have been broadcasting a distress signal until their batteries depleted.
When they were recovered they were found to be switched off with full batteries.
When activated by switching on they transmitted a distress signal at full strength.

I remember this has been posted multiple times, even though my memory is much poorer than it used to be these days. Imagine if I had an excellent memory. I could probably tell you how many times it's been said and by which posters and where they gleaned the information from. If I had a good memory.

What did I come in here for again?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Stuff and nonsense.

No it is fact as show to you by manufacturers documents, personal, practical experience with EPIRB buoys and the recovery report for the units being discussed.

At this point it's obvious you are just posting to get a reaction or you have some kind of illness

 

[Andy_Ross]

Hehehe

(Although I shudder to think what one would have to do to manually turn on a horse)

Do not Google for that!

 

[JayUtah]

Lest @Vixen stall yet again by wondering which paragraph I'm asking about—which was first posted ten pages ago—this is from the Brandenburg report as reproduced on page 195 of Sven Anér's book.

The in volume panel-shaped iron carbide parts of the perlite are unable to resist the strong micro processes. The destruction of this perlite, marked on the micro section as lamellar structure, becomes particularly clear on pictures 29, 31, and 33. A destruction of the lamellae has occurred which cannot occur by any comparable mechanical technological influence. The processes of explosive treatments of metallic materials as for example explosive hardening and explosive cladding have to be excluded. These processes show in surface-near areas comparable effects.

@Vixen, please tell us what this paragraph means, in your own words.

 

[Mojo]

Not at all, the hydrostatic release mechanism indicates the EPIRB's WERE compliant with SOLAS in being automatic ones, when this was disputed, I proved it was an automatic hydrostatic release EPIRB by showing the photo of the Rockwater diver with the Hammar spring device in his hand. I had thought the EPIRB itself was still int he bracket but it is clear both of the two EPIRBs released as intended but failed to transmit the distress signals on rising to the surface.

As I said, Vixen introduced the release mechanism in order to confuse it with the EPIRBs.

 

[LondonJohn]

As I said, Vixen introduced the release mechanism in order to confuse it with the EPIRBs.

Vixen clearly believes that the act of releasing the EPIRB from its holding structure also somehow turns on the EPIRB itself. Which only goes to show how ignorant she is about how EPIRBs and their holding structures actually work - she doesn't realise that they are two entirely separate and unlinked entities and actions.

 

[JayUtah]

Vixen clearly believes that the act of releasing the EPIRB from its holding structure also somehow turns on the EPIRB itself.

That's not an unreasonable assumption on the part of a lay person. It is within the ken of lay people to believe that emergency equipment tends to function in a fully autonomous manner, even if they don't understand the details. We live in a modern world were such automation can generally be expected.

Which only goes to show how ignorant she is about how EPIRBs and their holding structures actually work - she doesn't realise that they are two entirely separate and unlinked entities and actions.

Which is not also unreasonable for a lay person to understand upon explanation. One doesn't need an engineering degree to be shown that two mechanisms function separately to achieve different ends. My Audi implements the standard VAG affordance for the inside door latch handle that releases the door lock if pulled twice. Nevertheless it is not incomprehensible for people to understand that the door lock and the latch handle are separate mechanisms with separate controls and that many cars maintain that separation. These are not hard concepts.

What gives us pause is the sheer pigheadedness of being told of these things by people with considerable hands-on experience in them, being shown documentary evidence to corroborate the experience of those informants, and still maintaining a confusion that frankly would be evidence of cognitive impairment if not for assurances from the claimant to have superior intelligence and impeccable memory. Whereupon we then have to assume malice (or at best the lack of good faith), which results in tantrums from the claimant.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's deliberate

 

[Steve]

It's deliberate

Maybe it has to do with those low morals that she imagines posters are accusing her of.

 

[Vixen]

That's not an unreasonable assumption on the part of a lay person. It is within the ken of lay people to believe that emergency equipment tends to function in a fully autonomous manner, even if they don't understand the details. We live in a modern world were such automation can generally be expected.


Which is not also unreasonable for a lay person to understand upon explanation. One doesn't need an engineering degree to be shown that two mechanisms function separately to achieve different ends. My Audi implements the standard VAG affordance for the inside door latch handle that releases the door lock if pulled twice. Nevertheless it is not incomprehensible for people to understand that the door lock and the latch handle are separate mechanisms with separate controls and that many cars maintain that separation. These are not hard concepts.

What gives us pause is the sheer pigheadedness of being told of these things by people with considerable hands-on experience in them, being shown documentary evidence to corroborate the experience of those informants, and still maintaining a confusion that frankly would be evidence of cognitive impairment if not for assurances from the claimant to have superior intelligence and impeccable memory. Whereupon we then have to assume malice (or at best the lack of good faith), which results in tantrums from the claimant.

Of course the Hammar device is separate.

 

[JayUtah]

It's deliberate

I agree. One can be wrong because one has cognitive impairments or memory issues that prevent one from thinking correctly. Or one can be wrong because one is arguing in bad faith for some reason. Vixen seems to be reaching for a third option, which is that reality will somehow bend to her will and that we are all meanies if we don't acknowledge that. A moment's thought demonstrates that this third option collapses to one of the previous two and no one is obliged to feel bad for thinking that no matter what tantrums the claimant wants to throw.

 

[Vixen]

Lest @Vixen stall yet again by wondering which paragraph I'm asking about—which was first posted ten pages ago—this is from the Brandenburg report as reproduced on page 195 of Sven Anér's book.



@Vixen, please tell us what this paragraph means, in your own words.

I have a lot of Christmassy things to do over the next few days so possibly the weekend.

 

[JayUtah]

Of course the Hammar device is separate.

Brandenburg, please.