• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Andy_Ross said:
They were both recovered and we're manual beacons, they were found to be in working order.

Estonia wasn't required to replace the manual buoys until 1999 as allowed by the new regulation.
Click to expand...

That is not what Helsingin Sanomat says, quoting Lt Capn Montonen, Coastguard and Asser Koivisto Marine Communications expert, dated Jan 1995 FOUR YEARS before the year you claimed it came into being. The IOM Resolution clearly shows 'by Aug 1993'. You can not pretend it doesn't exist as I reproduced it here.
 
JayUtah said:
Yes. It's my profession to know. Hydrostatic release is not the same as immersion activation. This has been carefully explained to you dozens of times. We all understand it. You don't.
Click to expand...

Nobody said it was the same. They do work together. THe HRU's sole purpose is to release the free-float automatic EPIRB when immersed in up to 4m of water, so that it can float freely to the surface and begin emitting a signal conveying its location to the satellite.
 
SpitfireIX said:
That's not what you said. You wrote "[The Times] even had reporters on the German front line, who must have been British secret agents to have infiltrated it in the first place."
Click to expand...

I don't recall exactly what I wrote yonks ago but I am flattered you have carefully retrieved it to go through it with a fine-tooth comb. It still doesn't specifically refer to the Stalingrad frontline as the correspondent would need to be pretty dim to think Brits are on German minds in that situation, as insular as the press has always been.
 
Vixen said:
Let's start again. Within one sentence you can have a list of discrete items which can be separated by a comma, if more than two and by a conjuction, 'and' or 'or' or similar for the last item in that list. So, for example, say you are talking about biscuits. You could say, "I went to the shop to buy some chocolate fingers, chocolate digestives and gingernuts." = Three different items but all things you intend to buy.

In my sentence I similarly described three different types of interesting articles in the TIMES: maps of battles such as Stalingrad, the battle of Stalingrad and an article on German soldiers and British soldiers. Just as you should not confuse gingernuts with chocolate biscuits, nor should you read the latter as being about Stalingrad.

As a pointer, Stalingrad was Germany versus the USSR and hence any correspondent who did get to the German frontline in Stalingrad would surely be interviewing about their view on the Soviets.
Click to expand...

Thankyou for the English language and WW2 history lesson Vixen. Next time I crack a book about the Eastern Front of WW2 I will remember your pointer that it was Germany v USSR, and not "tommies" fighting over there. I will forget the Romanians though. /s

Is it really that hard to admit that you were mistaken?
 
Vixen said:
Nobody said it was the same.
Click to expand...

You're constantly conflating them.

They do work together.
Click to expand...

No, they don't.

The HRU's sole purpose is to release the free-float automatic EPIRB
Click to expand...

No, you're trying to equivocate "automatic." The HRU can release any mechanically compatible EPIRB regardless of whether that EPIRB is also activated by immersion. If the EPIRB is manually activated, the HRU will release it but the EPIRB will not transmit if it had not been previously turned on. This is what occurred on MS Estonia. The proper procedure in that configuration is to remove the EPRIB from the HRU, switch it on, and then replace it in the HRU. Alternatively you can throw it overboard.

when immersed in up to 4m of water, so that it can float freely to the surface and begin emitting a signal conveying its location to the satellite.
Click to expand...

No, you're trying to equivocate "immersion." An immersion-activated EPIRB will begin transmitting when it is immersed in water, regardless of what it may previously have been held in.

This is the umpteenth time this difference has been explained to you. It's very simple, and we all understand it. No amount of equivocation from you changes this.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
MV Viking Sally was not even built until 1980. When it became MV Estonia in 1993 and refurbished of course it was fully compliant with IOM Chapter III re EPIRBS; it even had brackets for the beacon built either side of the bridge, as specified in IOM Chapter III!
Click to expand...

Asked and answered multiple times. You are not reading the regulations carefully enough. MS Estonia's SOLAS certification posture is a matter of incontrovertible record.

Manually-activated-beacons-only are kept inside the vessel and ready to hand.
Click to expand...

No, you made this up.

Otherwise, how else are you supposed to switch them on manually?
Click to expand...

Asked and answered multiple times. You remove them from the HRU, switch them on, and replace them in the HRU. Or alternatively you can thrown them overboard after switching them on.

Honestly, Vixen, no one is this accidentally dense. Stop playing games.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
That would be using the term coincidence correctly.
Click to expand...

Not according to what you wrote later.

Vixen said:
So, what most people call a 'coincidence' like someone having the same name or even their dogs, is usually easily explicable. That is using the term 'coincidence' in the same way as 'chance' or 'luck'. When you look into it, it means nothing at all except some fortuitous coming together of two or more events...
Click to expand...

It's either paranormal or it's easily explicable. Make up your mind.
 
JayUtah said:
Asked and answered multiple times. You are not reading the regulations carefully enough. MS Estonia's SOLAS certification posture is a matter of incontrovertible record.



No, you made this up.



Asked and answered multiple times. You remove them from the HRU, switch them on, and replace them in the HRU. Or alternatively you can thrown them overboard after switching them on.

Honestly, Vixen, no one is this accidentally dense. Stop playing games.
Click to expand...


Dearie me.

A manual EPIRB (non-float-free) sits inside a bracket installed on the vessel. The bracket must be kept in a readily accessible position on board the vessel. In an emergency, a person removes the EPIRB from its bracket, switches it on, and takes it with them if they abandon the vessel.
Click to expand...
https://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/cont...l EPIRB (non-float,if they abandon the vessel.
 
Vixen said:
Ernwl said 'co-belligerents (ha ha :rolleyes:).

I corrected a factual error.
Click to expand...

I said Nazi Germany and Finland were allies in the war against the Soviet Union (and alluded to the usual complains by, mostly, Finnish people, that they were only (wink wink) co-belligerents ).
I said nothing about jews in Finland whatsoever.
 
Vixen said:
Do you have a citation that it was Kurm speaking and not Koivisto?
Click to expand...

Straw man. I didn't say it was Kurm who was speaking. But your sole source for the statement attributed to Koivisto is a single article that cites only Kurm as its authority. Koivisto specifically declined to be interviewed.

Your other sources actually explain what Koivisto's actual role was in the investigation, but I see you haven't managed to figure that out yet.
 
Vixen said:
Ernwl said 'co-belligerents (ha ha :rolleyes:).

I corrected a factual error.
Click to expand...

They were co-belligerents against the USSR during the Continuation War. What do you think co-belligerent means?! Unlike Germany, Finland (and Romania too) had very sound reasons for being belligerents against the USSR.

Time for English language lessons from me:

The older sense (“waging war”) is generally used to refer to the actions or combatants of a nation at war, or to the nation itself ("belligerent operations"; "belligerent troops"; “the belligerent state”); it is paralleled by the earliest sense of the noun, “a nation at war” (“the belligerents assembled at the peace conference”).

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belligerent

Being a belligerent nation in a war does not mean the aggressive side, or going to war without justification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom