• 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

Myriad said:
In general, I agree. No one's memory is perfect and memory impairments from all causes are no joke. That's exactly why I find using "My my, I just don't remember anyone saying that tee hee" as a form of argumentation, as an excuse for reviving claims that have already been disproven or as an excuse for broaching previous agreements and denying posting things one has posted, as utterly reprehensible. Would you agree that people who tell lies like "no, I don't remember promising to pay that back, do you have it in writing?" are nasty and best avoided? Would you agree that falsely pretending to be mobility impaired to use handicapped parking spaces is highly disrespectful to people with actual limited mobility? Would you agree that feigning poverty to get free food you could easily afford yourself from a food kitchen is highly disrespectful to people who are actually food insecure due to poverty?

If you're fortunate enough to have scientifically verified unimpaired memory, then pretending you don't remember previously established and agreed-to facts and findings, for the purpose of drawing out arguments with arbitrary resets and evasion and trolling, is all the more scummy.
Click to expand...
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.

The ESTONIA was equipped with two modern EPIRB buoys (Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons) of type Kannad 406 F.

The last check of the radio beacons was reported to have been made about one week prior to the disaster by the radio operator. The check confirmed that the EPIRBs were in full working order and it has to be assumed that both were left in "switched-on" condition after the test.

Nevertheless, no signals from the two buoys were received in the course of the rescue operation. GERMAN GROUP OF EXPERTS
Click to expand...

Let me know if you are going to argue with the above.
 
EHocking said:
Cite? There is absolutely no reason to turn off an EPIRB, automatic or manual, while at a dock. Wet or dry.

My EPIRB, is sitting in an emergency grab bag in my office with my VHF handheld, flares and V-sheet.
I put them on board whenever I launch my boat.

No need to remember to arm my EPIRB as it is always armed.
Just not activated,



Yes, and if it is a manual EPIRB like the ones on MS Estonia, they need to be manually activated when removed from their cradle. Just as mine is.

Alternatively, the EPIRBS on the coastguard boats I worked on were automatic models and remained in place outside the bridge(s). During a dry dock of 3 weeks for hull cleaning and prop shaft replacement/maintenance, both EPIRBs remained installed in their brackets. As did the automatically deployed life rafts on both boats.

Face it, you have absolutely no experience with installing, deploying or maintaining these devices beyond mad CT flailings by you illinformed sources.

How often must your misapprehensions about using these devises be corrected, by people on this thread who actually own and operate these devices, before you realise that your entire understanding of EPIRB operation is incorrect?
Click to expand...
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:

Yes, cruise vessels typically disable or remove their EPIRBs (Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons) while in dry dock to prevent accidental activation, as these beacons are designed to float free and transmit distress signals automatically in water; they are usually activated by contact with water, so being out of the water makes them safe, but they are often put in a "standby" or "off" mode or physically removed for maintenance/inspection.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which makes it all the more amusing that you're bang wrong about the EPIRBs being auto-activation models: they were not. They were certainly attached to separate auto-release mechanisms, and those auto-release mechanisms worked exactly as intended when the ship went down. But the EPIRBs themselves were of the manual-activation type. And none of the crew managed to switch on either of the EPIRBs before the ship sank, which is why neither EPIRB transmitted distress signals on the night of the sinking.

Sorry to say, your "3%" is a grotesque underestimation. And it appears to be only you who cannot understand that you're wrong and why you're wrong.
 
Vixen said:
I read it somewhere but I found when I typed in the query: "do cruise vessels swtich off ther 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:
Click to expand...

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.
 
LondonJohn said:
Ah, that's because this model of EPIRB (Kannad 406F) required a manual activation by one of the crew.

(The Hammar hydrostatic release device is entirely separate from the EPIRB itself, and is entirely separate from any auto-activation mechanism that the EPIRB might or might not possess - and as I say, this model of EPIRB did not possess an auto-activation mechanism*).


* The maritime regulatory environment, as of September 1994, only mandated an auto-activation mechanism for the EPIRBs themselves when the EPIRBs had exceeded their operating lifetime and needed to be replaced - ie only the new, replacement EPIRBs needed to be auto-activated, The EPIRBs on the Estonia were not auto-activated but were still within their operational lifespan, and thus they were compliant with regulation (had the Estonia not sunk that night, the EPIRBs would have reached their operational lifespan within a couple of years and wiould have had to be replaced with auto-activation models.)
Click to expand...

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.
 
LondonJohn said:
Ah, that's because this model of EPIRB (Kannad 406F) required a manual activation by one of the crew.

(The Hammar hydrostatic release device is entirely separate from the EPIRB itself, and is entirely separate from any auto-activation mechanism that the EPIRB might or might not possess - and as I say, this model of EPIRB did not possess an auto-activation mechanism*).


* The maritime regulatory environment, as of September 1994, only mandated an auto-activation mechanism for the EPIRBs themselves when the EPIRBs had exceeded their operating lifetime and needed to be replaced - ie only the new, replacement EPIRBs needed to be auto-activated, The EPIRBs on the Estonia were not auto-activated but were still within their operational lifespan, and thus they were compliant with regulation (had the Estonia not sunk that night, the EPIRBs would have reached their operational lifespan within a couple of years and wiould have had to be replaced with auto-activation models.)
Click to expand...
Stuff and nonsense.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Kannad 406 F is a manual device, not automatically triggered.
 
JayUtah said:
Quit whining. Quit stalling and interpret the paragraph from the Brandenburg report that I asked you about several days ago.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I haven't had a chance - my priority was getting the persons who pay me my salary their long and short-term cashflow forecasts, together with a Teams with HMRC tax inspectors. Luckily, my enfeebled frame and doddery memory wasn't too much of an impediment. (NB: this was a JOKE 😜).
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Stuff and nonsense.
Click to expand...

I see that the German group of "experts", while they managed to get the make and model of the EPIRB correct - Kannad 406F - they obviously failed to do the small amount of research to discover whether this model was auto-activation or not (the 406F is not auto-activation). And the rest of their reference to the EPIRBs is utter nonsense which they've misunderstood from the JAIC report. "Experts" LMAO.
 
Vixen said:
Sorry, I haven't had a chance - my priority was...
Click to expand...
No.

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.
 
zooterkin said:
The Kannad 406 F is a manual device, not automatically triggered.
Click to expand...

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....)
 
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.
 
Google AI: Query "What kind of ERIPBs were on the MS Estonia?"


The MS Estonia was equipped with two Kannad 406 F type Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRBs).
These particular beacons required manual activation to send a distress signal. According to the accident investigation, the crew did not activate them manually during the sinking, and they did not deploy automatically. Both beacons were found washed ashore later, switched off but in full working order when tested.
Click to expand...
 
LondonJohn said:
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....)
Click to expand...

"You can lead a horse to water but that doesn't mean it will activate"? Especially when it's a dead horse that's been beaten posthumously for half a decade.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom