The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Vixen]

No. Documentation has been previously provided several times.

Prove it; produce the documentation.

 

[Vixen]

That explains why you make mistakes like assuming that back in 1994 a float free EPIRB was also necessarily an automatic activation type.

It doesn't explain why you keep insisting on repeating the same mistakes over and over ad nauseam.

It was. It was as mandated by IMO CHPATER III, 1988 amendment, under the 1974 treaty.

The issue of EPIRB's has never been amended since. The 1988 edict is the one still in place. If it has since been amended then prove it. Show me the amendment.

As for exemptions, these only apply to trivial cases such as wooden vessels, fishing boats and oil tankers. No way would a 15,000 passenger ship be exempt from SOLAS rules.*

Here is the last time the issue of EPIRB's was amended:

.CHAPTER III Reg 6 Section 2.3

NOTING that the Conference of Contracting Governments to the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS),
on the global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS Conference, 1988)
adopted regulation IV/7.1.6 of the 1988 SOLAS amendments, applicable not
later than 1 August 1993, requiring the carriage of a float-free satellite
EPIRB on every ship as part of the global maritime distress and safety system,
https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresourc...MOResolutions/AssemblyDocuments/A.696(17).pdf
<snip>
RECOMMENDS Governments: (a) to ensure, as part of national type approval procedures, that any new type of 406 MHz satellite EPIRB to be deployed on board ships' h tested to confirm that it is in accordance with the IMO performance standards for 406 MHz EPIRBs (resolution A.695(17)); confirmation that the satellite EPIRB meets part B of that performance standard can be achieved by either: (i) performing, or having performed, under national procedures, all appropriate tests; or (ii) accepting type approval test results obtained through the COSPAS-SARSAT type approval procedure (C/S T.007) and confirmed by the delivery o{ a COSPAS-SARSAT Type Approval Certificate; and (b) to encourage national type approval authorities to develop test procedures compatible, to the extent possible, with C/S T.007, if necessary in consultation with the COSPAS-SARSAT Secretariat.
https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresourc...MOResolutions/AssemblyDocuments/A.695(17).pdf

If you believe there has since been another amendment after A.696(17), 1988, prove it. Produce the relevant amendment, standard or resolution, together with the date.


*ETA: Especially as automatic free float EPIRBs only cost a few bob.

 

[lobosrul5]

It was. It was as mandated by IMO CHPATER III, 1988 amendment, under the 1974 treaty.

The issue of EPIRB's has never been amended since. The 1988 edict is the one still in place. If it has since been amended then prove it. Show me the amendment.

As for exemptions, these only apply to trivial cases such as wooden vessels, fishing boats and oil tankers. No way would a 15,000 passenger ship be exempt from SOLAS rules.*

Here is the last time the issue of EPIRB's was amended:

If you believe there has since been another amendment after A.696(17), 1988, prove it. Produce the relevant amendment, standard or resolution, together with the date.


*ETA: Especially as automatic free float EPIRBs only cost a few bob.

https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Pages/SummaryOfSOLASchapter-3-default.aspx

Why does it say "entry into force: 1998"?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Prove it. Produce the statute.

Again?
So you can ignore it again?

How many times do you want it.
Stop being lazy and look back through the thread.
Why should we do it for you again so you can ignore it again?

 

[JayUtah]

Prove it. Produce the statute.

Already did.

 

[Axxman300]

If you need a productive break from the bouy stuff, this article have a gallery of over 30 high resolution photos of the raised bow ramp:

https://news.err.ee/1609042985/photos-ms-estonia-bow-ramp-raised

This guy photographed the ramp from almost every possible angle. Guess what's missing? Yup, no signs of explosives used anywhere on this structure. There is interesting damage, but it's from the bow visor yanking it open in the storm.

So if you'd like a change from bad fiction, you can look at the real key piece of evidence for yourselves.

And this article details the new computer modeling of the ship impacting the bottom, and the technical challenges this modeling represented:

https://news.err.ee/1609108349/analysis-ms-estonia-wreck-damaged-after-hitting-seabed

Again, I'm sorry I bring actual science and facts into this. I'm still looking for that submarine with monster-truck tires.

 

[JayUtah]

Prove it; produce the documentation.

As stated, already produced several times.

 

[JayUtah]

It was as mandated by IMO CHPATER III, 1988 amendment, under the 1974 treaty.

Already discussed several times, including the exemption.

 

[JayUtah]

Especially as automatic free float EPIRBs only cost a few bob.

...says the "accountant."

 

[lobosrul5]

...says the "accountant."

The accountant in me understands why in many cases existing vessels are given extra time to upgrade to comply with safety regs.

Lets say the IMO gets together and says every vessel over 300 tons must upgrade to automatic immersion activated EPIRB's.

The manufacturer: so you want us to spend millions re-tooling for this new device, and expand our output, and our suppliers of components to do the same for a huge glut in new EPIRB's and then as soon as everyone is done upgrading to the new model we have this huge new manufacturing plant sitting mostly idle?! Our ROI won't even cover the interest on the loan we'd need!

 

[zooterkin]

Prove it; produce the documentation.

You've already seen it, and either ignored or forgotten it. What are you going to do if you see it again?

 

[Mojo]

Nobody said the Kannad 406 F should be 'manually tuned'.

Apart from you, no.

 

[JesseCuster]

Vixen, if "tuned" merely means "tested", then why did you make so much hay out of insisting that "tuned" was the correct translation? Why go to the trouble of insisting that the EPIRBs were "untuned" when what you suddenly meant all along was that that were "untested"?

Also, why am I asking?

 

[whoanellie]

Vixen, if "tuned" merely means "tested", then why did you make so much hay out of insisting that "tuned" was the correct translation? Why go to the trouble of insisting that the EPIRBs were "untuned" when what you suddenly meant all along was that that were "untested"?

Also, why am I asking?

Even by Vixen standards it is an enormous inconsistency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JesseCuster]

Nobody said the Kannad 406 F should be 'manually tuned'. In the set up phase or inspection phase, they need to be tested as to whether they are emitting the correct frequency in the 406mhz range. That is what was meant by Lehtola when he said they were 'untuned'. The signal was not reaching the satellite for some reason.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14177731&postcount=2800

From Helsingin Sanomat quoting JAIC Chairman Kari Lehtola:

Quote:
28.1.1995 2:00

Google translate:

"Autoferry Estonia's two emergency buoys did not send a signal to rescuers because they were not tuned on the boat. Emergency buoys pop to the surface properly when the ship sinks. The International Accident Commission of Inquiry has investigated the operation of the emergency buoys that washed ashore on the Estonian coast. The buoys' batteries were fully charged, but they couldn't transmit anything untuned."

You are here quoting Karl Lehtola as saying that the EPIRBs did not transmit a distress signal because they were not tuned on the boat and that they couldn't transmit anything untuned.

Well, which is it Vixen? Is "tuning" an EPIRB something that is done by ship's electricians on the boat, or is "tuning" just checking to see if the EPIRB can send out a signal properly?

How can you claim that Karl Lehtola have meant that the EPIRBs merely hadn't been tested when you have explicitly quoted him saying something entirely different? Do you think no-one can see you do a 180 and act like you meant something else all along when we can actually read your posts and read this thread and see what silly claims you've actually made about ship's electricians having to tune EPIRBs.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Indeed, neither "armed" nor "tuned" is strictly accurate.

"Tuned" is right out if it means adjusting the frequency. EPIRBs must transmit on either 406.025 MHz or 406.028 MHz with a variance not more than 2 ppm for several hours in order to be certified for sale. That narrow tolerance is so that we can Doppler-locate a signal that doesn't have GPS or whose GPS data is unusable. You can only get that tolerance in the factory. There is absolutely no field adjustment for frequency.

"Armed" is still inaccurate because it implies it can be disarmed. There is no user control that will make an immersion-activated model not activate when the sensor gets wet. That would effectively defeat the purpose of immersion activation. There is the immersion switch and there is the manual-on switch. It's always armed in the classical sense of arming.

From Helsingin Sanomat quoting JAIC Chairman Kari Lehtola:

28.1.1995 2:00

Autolautta Estonian kaksi hätäpoijua eivät lähettäneet signaalia pelastajille, koska niitä ei ollut viritetty laivalla. Hätäpoijut pulpahtivat pinnalle asianmukaisesti laivan upotessa.
Turman kansainvälinen tutkimuskomissio on selvittänyt Viron rannikolle ajautuneiden hätäpoijujen toimintaa. Poijujen akut olivat täydessä varauksessa, mutta ne eivät voineet lähettää mitään virittämättöminä, kertoo komission jäsen Kari Lehtola .

Google translate:

"Autoferry Estonia's two emergency buoys did not send a signal to rescuers because they were not tuned on the boat. Emergency buoys pop to the surface properly when the ship sinks. The International Accident Commission of Inquiry has investigated the operation of the emergency buoys that washed ashore on the Estonian coast. The buoys' batteries were fully charged, but they couldn't transmit anything untuned."

About the only way we'll know what the intent of the Finnish text is would be to get at least two native Finnish speakers who are also fluent in English to give us a translation. If they both agree that "tuned" is the correct translation, we'd further need to determine if it means "tuned" in the common English sense of the word (e.g. tuning a piano; tuning a TV set to receive on a particular frequency) or if it's a Finnish idiom that means "to test for proper operation."

(Being a bit snarky here: as a Linux user I'd ask Linus Torvalds, but although he's Finnish his native language is Swedish.)

 

[Andy_Ross]

Who cares what they wrote?

It's a standard, badly written and inaccurate newspaper story.

Why would anyone be using a newspaper story as a primary source when we have all the actual primary materials available?

 

[GlennB]

Who cares what they wrote?

It's a standard, badly written and inaccurate newspaper story.

Why would anyone be using a newspaper story as a primary source when we have all the actual primary materials available?

Because it's a desperate little bolt-hole Vixen can retreat to whenever the going gets tough? i.e. just about with every exchange here.

fwiw I fiddled around with Google translate and one translation of the English 'tuned' (like a radio or piano) was 'cocked' (like a gun) in Finnish.

 

[Mojo]

Why would anyone be using a newspaper story as a primary source when we have all the actual primary materials available?

Because it's a desperate little bolt-hole Vixen can retreat to whenever the going gets tough? i.e. just about with every exchange here.

That was what the business about Times journalists posting what they had heard German soldiers saying on the front line at Stalingrad was all about, remember?

 

[Here_to_learn]

I think the latest "pretend it didn't happen" was about how long GPS has been around. But isn't it what Carl Bildt said that is the usual distraction when coming back?