The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Jack by the hedge]

Not an error. I was the one who read the article. It was my opinion that the correspondent must have had contacts on the German front line to have written it. I am entitled to have an opinion. I don't see how else he got the story.

Did you intend to write this in the present tense, indicating you still don't see how an article about Germans was written without the Times having agents embedded in the German front lines?

Eveyone who has followed the thread knows this was settled almost straight away, nearly two years ago. You gave an example of the Times "Through German Eyes" column and it was seen to be a report on what German newspapers were telling the German people about the news of Italy quitting the axis. No British secret agents involved.

Are you really saying you do not remember this being discussed? Or are you saying you don't believe this explanation for some reason?

The reason we keep pointing out your refusal to admit error is that you keep recycling the same errors over and over. When your defence of some false claim becomes untenable you do not concede the obvious truth, you merely change the subject or wave it away with a "yawn" and then after a time come back and repeat the same nonsense. It's fringe reset after fringe reset.

continued from

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=366861

Posted By: jimbob

 

[GlennB]

I was going by Google information:

Even the second sentence of your own source blows your claim out of the water.

 

[JayUtah]

Even the second sentence of your source blows your claim out of the water.

Indeed. She did a hasty Google search, clicked on the first link, and grabbed the first date from the page without reading further. And this is the person who wants us to believe she's the only one who can properly read such things as maritime regulations, scientific findings, and EPIRB instructions.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trying a new angle? Do you have a specific citation that said passenger ships were categorically exempt from IMO CHAPTER III regulations, as per amendment 1988 arising from the 1987 Herald of Free Enterprise inquiry, and becoming mandatory by August 1993?


In addition, prove that a manually-activated-only buoy is placed in a bracket with an HRU.

Read the regulations,

We know it was a manually activated buoy as they were recovered. We know the exact model
We also know that the manufacturer had one enclosure for that model range. It was used for all the buoys. I posted their product range from the time already. You can find it by looking back through previous posts. I'm not going to waste my time finding it again when you will just ignore it anyway.

I already spent a good number of hours tracking down product manuals and catalogues from the period. I'm not doing it all again because you are bonkers

 

[Andy_Ross]

I didn't say they were. I was pointing out to the poster who thought maritime radio communications in respect of VHF installment on ships in particular or free-floating automatic EPIRB beacons were somehow NEW in 1999 was quite misconceived.

Where did anyone post that?
You are reading imaginary posts.

Maybe that is the problem

 

[Vixen]

It's the same angle. You're just trying to shoehorn it back into your broken understanding of the regulations and equipment.



Straw man. Ships that were still allowed to operate under the 1974 SOLAS certification did not have to install immersion-activated EPIRBs until later. This grandfather provision was rescinded after MS Estonia sank. MS Estonia was sailing under the 1974 certification, as noted by JAIC. There was no categorical exemption, but there was an exemption that applied to MS Estonia at the time she foundered.

All ships at the time of MS Estonia's sinking were required to have float-free EPIRBs. As everyone except you is well aware, this describes only the manner in which the EPIRB is released, not the manner in which it is activated. The regulation makes this distinction extremely plain, but you insist on blurring the language.

The fact that you're now carefully wording your challenges to avoid what has already been explained to you would tend to show that you know you're wrong and are just trying to find a wording that avoids admitting error.



It can be, and the manufacturer's specifications were shown to you previously to prove this. This brought MS Estonia into compliance with IMO Chapter 3 as it applied to them at the time under their existing SOLAS certificate.

'Being allowed to' and 'did do' are two different things. All ships sail under the 1974 SOLAS regulations as that was the date IMO was formed. The assumption would be ships built before 1974 have qualified regulations.

MV Estonia was built as MV Viking Sally in 1980. It was bought by Nordstrom & Thulin in 1993 and renamed M/S Estonia and subsidised by two states, Sweden & Estonia. IOW in 1993 it was not only post-Herald of Free Enterprise tragedy, it was also post-IMO CHAPTER III amendment 1988 arising out of the HOFE inquiry of 1987 which stipulated that a free-floating automatic EPIRB was mandatory.

The MV Estonia had two such EPIRBS, one on either side of the bridge. Likewise, pre-1999 CHAPTER IV amendment it already had regular inspections by the ship's radio electricians, and indeed, had done so the week before.

 

[zooterkin]

'Being allowed to' and 'did do' are two different things. All ships sail under the 1974 SOLAS regulations as that was the date IMO was formed. The assumption would be ships built before 1974 have qualified regulations.

MV Estonia was built as MV Viking Sally in 1980. It was bought by Nordstrom & Thulin in 1993 and renamed M/S Estonia and subsidised by two states, Sweden & Estonia. IOW in 1993 it was not only post-Herald of Free Enterprise tragedy, it was also post-IMO CHAPTER III amendment 1988 arising out of the HOFE inquiry of 1987 which stipulated that a free-floating automatic EPIRB was mandatory.

The MV Estonia had two such EPIRBS, one on either side of the bridge. Likewise, pre-1999 CHAPTER IV amendment it already had regular inspections by the ship's radio electricians, and indeed, had done so the week before.

What do you hope to achieve by posting nonsense over and over again?

 

[JayUtah]

'Being allowed to' and 'did do' are two different things.

Yes, and we know what they did do, since the manually-activated EPIRBs themselves were recovered and found to be in working order.

In contrast you're trying to infer from your inattentive reading of the regulations and your ignorance of maritime certifications that MS Estonia "must" have had immersion-activated EPIRBs and therefore that the reason they didn't transmit is that they were sabotaged.

The assumption would be ships built before 1974 have qualified regulations.

No, that's not how SOLAS certification works. Your assumption is incorrect.

MV Estonia was built as MV Viking Sally in 1980.

Irrelevant. It is a matter of incontrovertible fact that she sailed under a 1974 SOLAS certificate.

The MV Estonia had two such EPIRBS, one on either side of the bridge.

They were not immersion activated, although they were hydrostatically released from their HRUs, as required for all ships at the time.

These are the facts and no amount of assumption, imagination, or equivocation changes them.

 

[JayUtah]

What do you hope to achieve by posting nonsense over and over again?

Apparently a seventh chapter.

 

[GlennB]

What do you hope to achieve by posting nonsense over and over again?

A constant stream of attention? And, yeah, mea culpa in that respect.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

A constant stream of attention?

Our survey says... DING

 

[Andy_Ross]

'Being allowed to' and 'did do' are two different things. All ships sail under the 1974 SOLAS regulations as that was the date IMO was formed. The assumption would be ships built before 1974 have qualified regulations.

MV Estonia was built as MV Viking Sally in 1980. It was bought by Nordstrom & Thulin in 1993 and renamed M/S Estonia and subsidised by two states, Sweden & Estonia. IOW in 1993 it was not only post-Herald of Free Enterprise tragedy, it was also post-IMO CHAPTER III amendment 1988 arising out of the HOFE inquiry of 1987 which stipulated that a free-floating automatic EPIRB was mandatory.

The MV Estonia had two such EPIRBS, one on either side of the bridge. Likewise, pre-1999 CHAPTER IV amendment it already had regular inspections by the ship's radio electricians, and indeed, had done so the week before.

You are making it up as you go along

 

[Myriad]

You have zero idea about how these function, as displayed over and over again in this thread. If you say that they are tunable in the field, you should be a able to cite the owner's manual where they describe how to tune it. You can't, because they can't be tunes in the field.

They can't be tuned at all. They transmit at a fixed and constant frequency. The way that's accomplished with modern electronic components is with a fixed frequency crystal clock circuit and a phase locked loop frequency multiplier, not some finicky analog oscillator with potentiometers adjusted by screwdriver and then stuck in place with a dot of blue Loctite. It's not a 1960s transistor radio. There's nothing to tune. It's like talking about tuning a microwave oven. Makes no sense at all.

 

[Vixen]

Read the regulations,

We know it was a manually activated buoy as they were recovered. We know the exact model
We also know that the manufacturer had one enclosure for that model range. It was used for all the buoys. I posted their product range from the time already. You can find it by looking back through previous posts. I'm not going to waste my time finding it again when you will just ignore it anyway.

I already spent a good number of hours tracking down product manuals and catalogues from the period. I'm not doing it all again because you are bonkers

You are lying. You have not produced any product manual proving the MV Estonia's EPIRBS were 'manual-activation-only'/non-automatic.

The only arguments in your debating toolbox are name-calling, footstamping and swearing.

The only exemptions from the IMO CHAPTER III 1988 amendments which required all relevant vessels - which includes passenger ships - to have a free-floating automatic EPIRB as a mandatory requirement by Aug 1993, at the latest.

This can be found here:

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

The only exemptions are oil tankers, with limitations, wooden vessels and fishing boats.

https://www.imorules.com/GUID-855D2143-5B6C-4D4A-A029-1E03F2272D2D.html

https://www.imorules.com/GUID-624390AE-EBB3-49D7-A472-E641E4636647.html

http://www.shipmg.com/marinetime_rule/GUID-F7544F8C-B5E2-49B4-95F7-44B981EA202F.html

Stop pretending that MV Estonia was not required to comply with IMO Standards, and further, did not. The JAIC itself said it was certified under 1974 IMO standards.*

Indeed, further to the harmonization of GMDSS in 1999, all that was was to bring the already in force regulations regarding all radio communications compliance under one broad header. The only new regulation was in respect of the requirement of having certified GMDSS inspectors in every relevant vessel.

*

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974

Conventions
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974
Adoption: 1 November 1974; Entry into force: 25 May 1980

https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conven...-the-Safety-of-Life-at-Sea-(SOLAS),-1974.aspx

 

[Vixen]

You are making it up as you go along

Judging others by your own standards?

 

[Andy_Ross]

You are lying. You have not produced any product manual proving the MV Estonia's EPIRBS were 'manual-activation-only'/non-automatic.

The only arguments in your debating toolbox are name-calling, footstamping and swearing.

The only exemptions from the IMO CHAPTER III 1988 amendments which required all relevant vessels - which includes passenger ships - to have a free-floating automatic EPIRB as a mandatory requirement by Aug 1993, at the latest.

This can be found here:

The only exemptions are oil tankers, with limitations, wooden vessels and fishing boats.

https://www.imorules.com/GUID-855D2143-5B6C-4D4A-A029-1E03F2272D2D.html

https://www.imorules.com/GUID-624390AE-EBB3-49D7-A472-E641E4636647.html

http://www.shipmg.com/marinetime_rule/GUID-F7544F8C-B5E2-49B4-95F7-44B981EA202F.html

Stop pretending that MV Estonia was not required to comply with IMO Standards, and further, did not. The JAIC itself said it was certified under 1974 IMO standards.*

Indeed, further to the harmonization of GMDSS in 1999, all that was was to bring the already in force regulations regarding all radio communications compliance under one broad header. The only new regulation was in respect of the requirement of having certified GMDSS inspectors in every relevant vessel.

*

https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conven...-the-Safety-of-Life-at-Sea-(SOLAS),-1974.aspx

All manuals for the model used by the Estonia were provided in the thread, everyone saw them. Even you.
Manufacturer product range for the time was provided.
Relevant certification for Estonia was provided and discussed in detail.
It's all available in the document archive that supports the report.

You either have some kind of mental condition that makes you forget everything or you are just hoping we have forgotten what went before.

I'm not going to spend hours and hours digging it all out again just for you to ignore it again.

We can all see what you are and what you are doing.

I am not addressing the beacons any more unless something new is posted.

 

[Vixen]

They can't be tuned at all. They transmit at a fixed and constant frequency. The way that's accomplished with modern electronic components is with a fixed frequency crystal clock circuit and a phase locked loop frequency multiplier, not some finicky analog oscillator with potentiometers adjusted by screwdriver and then stuck in place with a dot of blue Loctite. It's not a 1960s transistor radio. There's nothing to tune. It's like talking about tuning a microwave oven. Makes no sense at all.

Here's how testing and inspecting an automatic free-floating EPIRB works:

Testing EPIRB's

The Coast Guard urges those owning EPIRBs to periodically examine them for water tightness, battery expiration date and signal presence. FCC rules allow Class A, B, and S EPIRB's to be turned on briefly (for three audio sweeps, or one second only) during the first five minutes of each hour. Signal presence can be detected by an FM radio tuned to 99.5 MHz, or an AM radio tuned to any vacant frequency and located close to an EPIRB. 406 MHz EPIRBs can be tested through its self-test function, which is an integral part of the device. 406 MHz EPIRB's can also be tested inside a container designed to prevent its reception by the satellite. Testing a 406 MHz EPIRB by allowing it to radiate outside such a container is illegal.

https://www.mmsn.org/resources/epirb.html

That is what the MV Estonia ship's radio electricians did in the week prior and logged them as being in ready functional condition.

It is clear that someone in the interim switched them off so that they would not transmit automatically when subject to immersion and floating to the surface or else the ship's electricians were being untruthful about having inspected them, despite signing off the logs that they had.

 

[Vixen]

All manuals for the model used by the Estonia were provided in the thread, everyone saw them. Even you.
Manufacturer product range for the time was provided.
Relevant certification for Estonia was provided and discussed in detail.
It's all available in the document archive that supports the report.

You either have some kind of mental condition that makes you forget everything or you are just hoping we have forgotten what went before.

I'm not going to spend hours and hours digging it all out again just for you to ignore it again.

We can all see what you are and what you are doing.

I am not addressing the beacons any more unless something new is posted.

The 'mental condition' being knowing that I am right and being backed up by numerous authorities, including IMO Chapter III regulations, the coastguards and the technical expert presenting to JAIC.

All you have is name-calling and 'If I say a thing, it becomes true'.

 

[zooterkin]

The 'mental condition' being knowing that I am right and being backed up by numerous authorities, including IMO Chapter III regulations, the coastguards and the technical expert presenting to JAIC.

All you have is name-calling and 'If I say a thing, it becomes true'.

 

[JayUtah]

Here's how testing and inspecting an automatic free-floating EPIRB works...

Notice how it has nothing to do with adjusting the frequency, as you keep claiming.

It is clear that someone in the interim switched them off...

No, it is clear you don't understand how EPIRBs work.