• 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.
Think about what you are writing.

Can you think of a reason that activation by just lifting them out of their brackets would be a bad idea?
 
Vixen, do you want to finally answer the repeated calls to explain where you got the images of those quotes from?

Or how about addressing my points where I provided quote trails to show that you were wrong and quite possibly lying?
 
Andy_Ross said:
You made all that up

They are not activated by lifting them from a bracket.

To test the buoy you either turn it on with the manual activation switch and see if the LEDs light up correctly, or on some models press a battery test button. Those without the test button have a 30 second delay after activation before they start to transmit, this to allow them to be turned on for testing without sending a distress signal.

There's no other way to turn them off. There's no other switch for storage. They have a fixed life before they are returned to the manufacturer for a battery swap.

There's no need for any other storage switch as they aren't using any power unless activated.

Not only have I read the regulations for construction and use, I have read the manual and service instructions for the model used on the Estonia and I own one myself (well, half own it with my brother)
Click to expand...

That is why I asked my questions, she has no idea how they work. She thinks that immersion activated buoys toggle the same switch that is used for manual activation.
 
I think that the problem Vixen might be having is that she doesn't understand that the phrase "switched off" doesn't necessarily mean that someone has at some point in time toggled the switch from the "on position" to the "off position", but can in fact mean that the switch has never been toggled to the "on position".

In other words, when it is reported that the buoys were found to be switched off it means that they had never been activated, not that they had been activated and then deactivated.
 
Comments plural, and as I recall they were mostly Jay pointing out that Vixen was mangling his actual statement to the point where she was inaccurately reporting his comments.
 
Vixen said:
Esa Makela OSC Captain of Silja Europa says the storm wasn't that bad but quite normal for a blustery September night. People have to conjure up a vision of a raging tempest complete with thunder and lightning in order to imagine how a 'few strong waves' could rip off an extremely heavy bow visor, which tells you how ludicrous a theory it is.
Click to expand...

This is lie.

The waves were breaking well over Estonia's bow, with some reaching the forecastle due to the reckless speed the ship sailed at for the conditions. The fact that the Estonia is on the bottom proves you wrong.
 
There one additional fact with regard to Silja Europa.

During the samt night their bow visor lock was damaged. When they arrived to Stockholm, they couldn't open the bow visor. Instead they had to reverse the ship and have all vehicle exit through the aft.

This was reported among other places by two TT employees that where onboard Silja Europa that night.

There are several other articles from the same time, for example in Dagens Nyheter or FInnish HBL. The latter article mention that Europa was built in the same ship yard as Estonia - Meyer-Werft.
 
Here_to_learn said:
There one additional fact with regard to Silja Europa.

During the samt night their bow visor lock was damaged. When they arrived to Stockholm, they couldn't open the bow visor. Instead they had to reverse the ship and have all vehicle exit through the aft.

This was reported among other places by two TT employees that where onboard Silja Europa that night.

There are several other articles from the same time, for example in Dagens Nyheter or FInnish HBL. The latter article mention that Europa was built in the same ship yard as Estonia - Meyer-Werft.
Click to expand...

Neat that article also explains how TT got the information, and the exact time.

I am of course, relying on Google translate.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
This thread http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=354857&page=31 wherein my relevant contribution begins with post #1218. For context you need to go a few pages back where Vixen is reposting Anders Björkmann's paraphrasing (without attribution, of course).
Click to expand...

His expertise appears to consist of having founded a company that makes navigational equipment and other sea systems. As near as I can tell, his company does not make emergency systems. As near as I can tell, he has never himself navigated a ship or participated in sea rescues. As near as I can tell, he is a businessman, not a sailor.

Do you know him to be an expert? Or are you simply assuming he's an expert because he has been prominently quoted?

Yes, I will take Captain Swoop any day as an expert in marine systems based on his demonstrated personal, hands-on navy experience over someone who sits in an office and directs the possibly relevant activities of others. He may attract the attention of officials because of his prominence in the field, but that doesn't necessarily give his testimony special weight as an expert.
Click to expand...
I see it now, thank you.
Further anyone who uses Mr. Björkmann as an expert in engineering factors should be using him with a large dose of salt. Experience from Apollo posting taught me that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom