The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Jack by the hedge]

Then why would a ship's radio electrician need to check them regularly as per IMO CHAPTER IV GMDSS 1999?

To TEST that they were not faulty. Not to adjust anything. Only to perform a pass/fail test.

 

[GlennB]

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?

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?

 

[JayUtah]

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.

 

[Vixen]

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.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

 

[JayUtah]

Helsingin sanomat...

No one is interested in inaccurate media reporting. We have more reliable facts at our disposal.

 

[JayUtah]

Then why would a ship's radio electrician need to check them regularly as per IMO CHAPTER IV GMDSS 1999?

To ensure that they are still operating as required. Nothing about that implies that the frequency is being adjusted.

 

[Vixen]

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.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

 

[Vixen]

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,

 

[Vixen]

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.

 

[lobosrul5]

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.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

 

[JayUtah]

OR...

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.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Vixen, you told us the JAIC appointed Koivisto to investigate the EPIRBs. How do you know that?

 

[Vixen]

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]

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

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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?

 

[zooterkin]

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.)

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.