• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Cont: The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

The JAIC final report lists five experts from Estonia, five from Finland, and three from Sweden. Assar Koivisto is not on that list. So now I wonder what the JAIC tasked him with, and why, and how we know that.

The JAIC report lists the committee members. The subject matter experts are generally not referenced in a final report, but will appear in supplementary reports.

The "German group of experts" reports as follows :—

4. PCIMA's expert in navigation electronic, Asser Koivisto, has met some Russians. They reported that a NAVISAILOR 2000 ECDIS chart system of Russian make had been installed on "Estonia" which registers the covered route, speed and the like. It is possible to take out data from the installation even after it has been in sea water for sometime. In case Sweden should decide for reasons of ship-technical investigations or for other reasons to have the wreck examined by divers, the above-mentioned installation should be brought up, according to Koivisto, the matter should be given a relatively high priority and should be speeded up.

This purports to be a fax sent from Kari Lehtola (chair of the Finnish JAIC contingent) to Olof Forssberg (the Swedish chair) on 14 October 1994 (about halfway down the page). Take the source with a grain of salt, since our German "experts" can't seem to figure out how to spell Mr. Lehtola's name right throughout their entire report.

Automated maritime navigation systems are within Koivisto's personal and corporate expertise.
 
Yle is the Finnish public media so I'd say that the site is very reliable in what they report. Having said that the reporters there are hardly experts in EPIRBs so they would probably not be able to question what they hear, nor be able to fact check technical details in their reports.

The author here is hampered by writing 25 years after the events. His principal source (Margus Kurm) is noisy but unreliable, and the author's attempt to fact-check him gets ironically spun into more conspiracy hullabaloo.

JAIC's treatment of the EPIRBs is consistent with all the evidence. The beacons were recovered and tested according to subject-matter expertise. That expertise included the expectation that they would not have been activated by immersion. Koivisto is not mentioned anywhere.

The story implicating Koivisto with the EPIRBs immediately runs into problems. He's not an expert in emergency signaling systems, least of all EPIRBs. That's specialized mechanical, electronic, and system engineering. Why he should have been charged with preparing a report on them to the JAIC beggars explanation. The expectation that the beacons should have activated automatically seems naïve to the particulars of the product offerings and the specifics of the relevant regulations. In other words, why would anyone who could be considered an expert be asking those questions? Nevertheless a report was allegedly written to answer them and then "mysteriously" lost.

To me, the notion that this is some bombshell coverup has Kurm written all over it. And yes, our author reached out to Koivisto ostensibly to confirm or deny the claims. Koivisto declined the interview according to an allegedly false pretense (an NDA). Pretend you're Koivisto and some reporter you don't know contacts you about the same conspiracy theory you've heard a dozen times before. What do you do? Do you go along?

This has happened to me and to others. I used to get regularly cold-called by people I didn't know claiming to be reporters or researchers and wanting my comment on some conspiracy question or another. I learned that not all of those questions were being asked in good faith and not all my comments were reported honestly or correctly. Now I've voluntarily decided to wade into conspiracy matters, but many experts really don't want to be dragged into them in any way, even on the side of truth. We all develop a Spidey sense for whether something feels legit, and there is usually no benefit to a well-known person to be associated in any way with what feels like a conspiracy engagement.

This whole reporting issue becomes a lot easier to explain if you propose that this author simply didn't realize how far down the conspiracy rabbit hole he'd been led before he tried to fact-check Kurm. It's a lot easier to explain if you propose that the story about Koivisto and the EPIRBs is a tale possibly told by Kurm after two and a half decades of embellishment for spooky value—and that no such report ever existed.
 
... one thing which struck me is the (translated) caption of the photo of Koivisto with an EPRB. "Asser Koivisto in TV news on January 27, 1995. The emergency buoy in the picture is obviously not Estonia's, but a factory-new copy." Based on what has been said in this thread, about regulations in force, a factory-new EPIRB at that date would have to be automatically activated by immersion...

I hadn't thought of that. Good point.
 
The JAIC report lists the committee members. The subject matter experts are generally not referenced in a final report, but will appear in supplementary reports...

The version of the report I've been referring to lists names other than the commission's members:
https://onse.fi/estonia/joint.html

Two chairmen, a dozen members from the three nations, thirteen experts ditto, plus an observer and an administrator for each country.

The person listed as a subject expert in maritime radio is Finland's Seppo Rajamäki, MSc.
 
Asser Koivisto is mentioned as early as 28 Jan 1995, four months after the disaster, and as appointed by the JAIC to report on the EPIRB's.

Homeland
Estonia's emergency buoys had forgotten tuning


Tukkimäki Paavo

28.1.1995 2:00
The two emergency buoys on 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 Turma has investigated the operation of emergency buoys that have 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 electrician in the matter, said Commission expert member Asser Koivisto.
The purpose of the emergency buoy is to send the location of the sunken ship and tell searchers the name of the ship.
According to Koivisto's estimate, the mute nature of the buoys did not have a major impact on the rescue operations themselves, as the buoys only pop to the surface after the ship has sunk.(BTI)

https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000003402905.html

Koivisto very clearly states that the epirbs should have emitted a signal once they popped up to the surface of the water, having been released by the HRU in the brackets which contained them.
 
Asser Koivisto is mentioned as early as 28 Jan 1995, four months after the disaster, and as appointed by the JAIC to report on the EPIRB's.



https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000003402905.html

Koivisto very clearly states that the epirbs should have emitted a signal once they popped up to the surface of the water, having been released by the HRU in the brackets which contained them.
And he was incorrect, as has been explained to you many, many times.
 
Asser Koivisto is mentioned as early as 28 Jan 1995, four months after the disaster, and as appointed by the JAIC to report on the EPIRB's.

According to a newspaper account, not in any official record of the JAIC. We've been over this article a bunch of times already. It doesn't say what you think it says.

Koivisto very clearly states that the epirbs should have emitted a signal once they popped up to the surface of the water...

No, he doesn't. You're reading into his actual statements what you wrongly believe should have happened. He says the proper experts have been consulted. They were, and the findings of the JAIC incorporated that consultation. Koivisto is not an expert on emergency beacons.
 
Or its a translation error... they aren't tuned by the crew, this has been well established.

"Estonian hätäpoijuista oli unohtunut viritys" = 'tuned'.


It is not a translating error. It is possible that Kari Lehtola being a lawyer wasn't familiar with the correct jargon, but it is unmistakeable that the two radio electricians employed to maintain and inspect MV Estonia's EPIRB's had done so the the week before, yet the two buoys were found untuned and switched off. I am guessing they were not tuned to 406Mhz for some reason when the radio electricians would have checked they were signal-emission ready when released and/or when immersed in water and rising to the surface. In other words, they neither had the necessary signal and were found disabled, despite the batteries being fully charged.
 
"Estonian hätäpoijuista oli unohtunut viritys" = 'tuned'.


It is not a translating error. It is possible that Kari Lehtola being a lawyer wasn't familiar with the correct jargon, but it is unmistakeable that the two radio electricians employed to maintain and inspect MV Estonia's EPIRB's had done so the the week before, yet the two buoys were found untuned and switched off. I am guessing they were not tuned to 406Mhz for some reason when the radio electricians would have checked they were signal-emission ready when released and/or when immersed in water and rising to the surface. In other words, they neither had the necessary signal and were found disabled, despite the batteries being fully charged.


EPRIBs cannot be tuned. You have been told multiple times why you are wrong.
 
EPRIBs cannot be tuned. You have been told multiple times why you are wrong.

When testing the EPIRB, the radio electrician is supposed to test the frequency is within the correct range.

Test set up 1996 by Username Vixen, on Flickr

https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_i_ets/300001_300099/300066/02_60/ets_300066e02p.pdf

see page 15 re section 5.7


There is no reason at all as to why the EPIRB's should not have worked as they should have done, other than the radio electricians didn't do their job or someone tampered with them.
 
Koivisto is an expert, you are not.
That article says he was a commission member but he is not listed as such in the commission's report. And you say instead he was appointed a task by the commission rather than being a member of it. How do you know that? What's going on here?

All that is quite aside from the 'tuned' stuff which is absolutely clearly contradictory. A fault condition which meant the beacons were 'untuned' in the English language sense is not at all compatible with their being tested later by switching them on and finding they worked properly. There is no sensible way of reconciling these claims.
 
Then why would a ship's radio electrician need to check them regularly as per IMO CHAPTER IV GMDSS 1999?

D'uh. To make sure they're not faulty? The way I test my home smoke alarms from time to time?
D'uh? :rolleyes:

They cannot be tuned in situu, by the user. You know this. Why do you pretend to be ignorant of established facts? What do you get from it?
 
It is not a translating error. It is possible that Kari Lehtola being a lawyer wasn't familiar with the correct jargon...

I agree Mr. Lehtola is not a subject matter expert on the operation of emergency beacons. You should not be making him the prevailing source on whether EPRIBs can be tuned. The beacons cannot be tuned in the sense of having their frequency changed. When activated, they will transmit on 406.028 ± .000000812 MHz for up to four hours. There is no adjustment possible to this frequency. This is a fact. Any claimant that suggests that they can be adjusted is ipso facto wrong even if he's the chair of the JAIC.

Mr. Koivisto is not a subject matter expert on EPIRBs. He is a subject matter expert on navigation electronics, which is likely why he was at the meeting in Helsinki that discussed more than just emergency beacons. (It doesn't take two days to figure out that some device has an on-off switch that was found in the off position; other topics were discussed.) Likely Koivisto heard the report of the EPIRB team and recounted what he recalled of it to the reporter who asked. He said the matter had been referred to the proper experts.

Just because those were the two people who bothered to stop for Tukkimäki Paavo that day doesn't mean they are the ones best suited to report on the details of the meeting.

but it is unmistakeable...

No, you insist on making many mistakes, not the least of which is your inability to understand how sources work.

...the two buoys were found untuned and switched off.

Switched off, yes. Untuned, no.

I am guessing...

Your uninformed guess is irrelevant when we have reliable facts to the contrary

In other words, they neither had the necessary signal and were found disabled, despite the batteries being fully charged.

In the words of the subject matter experts, they were found switched off. They should have been turned on by MS Estonia's radio operators during the accident sequence, whereupon they would immediately have started transmitting, but they were not.
 
That article says he was a commission member but he is not listed as such in the commission's report. And you say instead he was appointed a task by the commission rather than being a member of it. How do you know that? What's going on here?

All that is quite aside from the 'tuned' stuff which is absolutely clearly contradictory. A fault condition which meant the beacons were 'untuned' in the English language sense is not at all compatible with their being tested later by switching them on and finding they worked properly. There is no sensible way of reconciling these claims.

Helsingin sanomat reported 25 Jan 1995:

Estonia's satellite buoys revealed intact

https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000003402022.html


JROTKO Assistant

25.1.1995 2:00
TALLINN - The EPIRB satellite buoys of the ferry Estonia were in working order, although for some reason the message sent automatically by them did not reach the alarm system.

Estonian and Finnish experts tested buoys detached from the sunken Estonia on Tuesday aboard the icebreaker Tarmo. According to Estonian Radio, the buoys sent four hours of radio messages, which should arrive via satellite to the ground station.

The next step is to investigate the operation of ground stations to find out where the automatically triggered alarm message disappeared.
Satellite alerts in the Baltic Sea region are received in Bodø, Norway, which transmits the information to the nearest maritime rescue centre. Satellite alerts in the Baltic Sea may also be printed in Falmouth, England, or Toulouse, France.

In connection with the Estonia accident, people were surprised that there was no satellite alarm. The buoys were later found stranded on the Estonian coast.
JORMA ROTKO


It is extremely clear that these were free-float automatic buoys hence the consternation as to where the signals went.
 
When testing the EPIRB, the radio electrician is supposed to test the frequency is within the correct range.

Why do you assume that means the frequency can be adjusted?

...other than the radio electricians didn't do their job or someone tampered with them.

The radio operators didn't do their job on the night of the sinking. That answers literally everything.
 
I agree Mr. Lehtola is not a subject matter expert on the operation of emergency beacons. You should not be making him the prevailing source on whether EPRIBs can be tuned. The beacons cannot be tuned in the sense of having their frequency changed. When activated, they will transmit on 406.028 ± .000000812 MHz for up to four hours. There is no adjustment possible to this frequency. This is a fact. Any claimant that suggests that they can be adjusted is ipso facto wrong even if he's the chair of the JAIC.

Mr. Koivisto is not a subject matter expert on EPIRBs. He is a subject matter expert on navigation electronics, which is likely why he was at the meeting in Helsinki that discussed more than just emergency beacons. (It doesn't take two days to figure out that some device has an on-off switch that was found in the off position; other topics were discussed.) Likely Koivisto heard the report of the EPIRB team and recounted what he recalled of it to the reporter who asked. He said the matter had been referred to the proper experts.

Just because those were the two people who bothered to stop for Tukkimäki Paavo that day doesn't mean they are the ones best suited to report on the details of the meeting.



No, you insist on making many mistakes, not the least of which is your inability to understand how sources work.



Switched off, yes. Untuned, no.



Your uninformed guess is irrelevant when we have reliable facts to the contrary



In the words of the subject matter experts, they were found switched off. They should have been turned on by MS Estonia's radio operators during the accident sequence, whereupon they would immediately have started transmitting, but they were not.

As the signal did not reach the COSPAS-SARSAT satellite the conjecture was that the frequency was not quite correct, yet when the Tarmo icebreaker guys tested it, it transmitted the correct signal for four hours.
 
As the signal did not reach the COSPAS-SARSAT satellite the conjecture was that the frequency was not quite correct...

That conjecture is wrong. The signal was not received because the beacons were not switched on.

...yet when the Tarmo icebreaker guys tested it, it transmitted the correct signal for four hours.

Thereby proving they had not been damaged or sabotaged such that they would not transmit on the proper frequency. They simply had not been switched on. When switched on, they functioned correctly and transmitted on the proper frequency.

The radio operators aboard MS Estonia did not manually activate the EPIRBs on the night of the sinking as was their duty. This explains literally all that you're trying to frantically attribute to a conspiracy.
 
Why do you assume that means the frequency can be adjusted?



The radio operators didn't do their job on the night of the sinking. That answers literally everything.

OR, like so many of the other communications channels (VHF16 and VHF 2128 iirc) not working and a blocking signal from a Russian base the EPIRB's not emitting a signal to the satellite as expected is yet another communications failure.

You cannot just shrug it off, as the JAIC did,
 
That conjecture is wrong. The signal was not received because the beacons were not switched on.



Thereby proving they had not been damaged or sabotaged such that they would not transmit on the proper frequency. They simply had not been switched on. When switched on, they functioned correctly and transmitted on the proper frequency.

The radio operators aboard MS Estonia did not manually activate the EPIRBs on the night of the sinking as was their duty. This explains literally all that you're trying to frantically attribute to a conspiracy.

Why wouldn't they be switched on. The whole point of the radio electricians is to ensure they are set up ready to free float and automatically emit a distress signal when immersed in up to 4 m of water on rising to the surface. The HRU seems to have been triggered OK as Rockwater found the cages empty and recovered one HRU.
 
Then why would a ship's radio electrician need to check them regularly as per IMO CHAPTER IV GMDSS 1999?

.................. ?!

To make sure they are working as intended. In fact, previously I listed a website that sold testers. They just check that the EPIRB is transmitting. If it isn't you send them back to the manufacturer for a replacement.

There is no dial to tune them. They are only designed to transmit on one (or in some cases 2) frequencies, and only those frequencies.
 
Why wouldn't they be switched on.

Because as you've been told practically every day for the past two years, the Kannad 406 F is manual-only activated. There is no immersion switch, as you seem to believe—that would have been the Kannad 406 AF. And you can't seem to figure out the very simple difference between immersion activation and hydrostatic release. Everyone else can, but not you. If you switch the Kannad 406 F's on, they immediately start transmitting. The radio operators were tasked with periodically testing them, but also to turn them on in an emergency. They did not do this on the night of the sinking. That's why they didn't transmit the night of the sinking, but worked perfectly when they were found and switched on.

This is why armchair detectives are worse than useless.

The whole point of the radio electricians is to ensure they are set up ready to free float and automatically emit a distress signal when immersed in up to 4 m of water on rising to the surface.

Wrong.
 
Last edited:

You didn't answer the question. Why does testing whether a fixed-frequency transmitter is properly operating on the expected frequency amount to an insinuation that the beacon's frequency can be adjusted?

You cannot just shrug it off, as the JAIC did,

No one shrugged it off. The JAIC's findings are fully in accordance with the known facts. That you and some number of newspaper reporters have a hard time understanding technical subjects is not their fault.
 
Because as you've been told practically every day for the past two years, the Kannad 406 F is manual-only activated. There is no immersion switch, as you seem to believe—that would have been the Kannad 406 AF. And you can't seem to figure out the very simple difference between immersion activation and hydrostatic release. Everyone else can, but not you. If you switch the Kannad 406 F's on, they immediately start transmitting. The radio operators were tasked with periodically testing them, but also to turn them on in an emergency. They did not do this on the night of the sinking. That's why they didn't transmit the night of the sinking, but worked perfectly when they were found and switched on.

This is why armchair detectives are worse than useless.



Wrong.


You just made that up. Brits call it 'winging it', a device much employed by exam candidates, hoping the marker won't spot they haven't a clue but are going to give it a go anyway. Never works. Nobody is fooled. Zero points. Please always state sources.
 
Vixen, you told us the JAIC appointed Koivisto to investigate the EPIRBs. How do you know that?

It was extensively reported by Helsingin Sanomat, four months after the disaster, as the JAIC enquiry was well under way. You do know that investigation bodies are allowed to co-opt and delegate areas of expertise to industry experts?

For example, here is an extract from an article 27.1.1995, clearly referring to Asser Koivisto, who had been referred to the day before:

The Commission meeting will continue on Friday. Today, we will hear from an expert on the operation of Estonia's EPIRB satellite buoys.
The buoys were found in the sea after the accident, and Estonians and Finns tested their operation on Tuesday. According to Estonian Radio, the buoys were made to transmit a radio signal. However, on the night of the accident, for some reason, the signal could not be received anywhere.
Buoys were supposed to signal the ship's position in case of emergency.
https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000003402741.html
 
Article is paywalled.

Why exactly do you assume the unnamed expert on Estonia's EPIRBs was Koivisto? In what context was he referred to the day before?

Also, is it the commission or the journalist who believes the unnamed person has expertise in EPIRBs?
 
You just made that up. Brits call it 'winging it', a device much employed by exam candidates, hoping the marker won't spot they haven't a clue but are going to give it a go anyway. Never works. Nobody is fooled. Zero points. Please always state sources.

What would be the point of repeating the sources that have already been given several times, since you took no notice before?

(And I need to order a new batch of stronger irony meters, my remaining ones just melted into a puddle.)
 
You just made that up. Brits call it 'winging it', a device much employed by exam candidates, hoping the marker won't spot they haven't a clue but are going to give it a go anyway. Never works. Nobody is fooled. Zero points. Please always state sources.

It reconciles with the known facts. Your version does not.

Whatever you think was meant by the reported word translated as 'untuned', it either has to somehow reconcile with the absence of any means of user adjustment of EPIRBs or it's just wrong.

Your insistence they were automatically activated does not reconcile with the manufacturer's naming convention, nor with the fact that the devices operated normally when found and switched on and that fact did not indicate to the commission nor any other interested party that these EPIRBs had failed to work as designed. That dog which did not bark in the night is fatal to your story. The service manuals for later automatic models show no user switch to override the immersion activation. The only thing which can prevent activation is a magnetic switch, active when the buoy is in its holder and which releases as it floats free from the holder.

You don't have a coherent story.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom