The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[JayUtah]

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

Yes, he has, as he claims, and I can attest to that.

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

You seem to be the one having a breakdown.

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.

We had a lengthy discussion about the regulation in which you did not participate. No ships were exempt from having float-free EPIRBs. However, the regulation carefully distinguishes between float-free release of the beacon and immersion-activation of the beacon. You don't seem to understand the difference.

The JAIC itself said it was certified under 1974 IMO standards.

This 1974 certificate is specifically listed in the relevant regulation as exempting for a time the requirement that a relevant ships' EPIRBs be immersion-activated. This exemption was rescinded after the loss of MS Estonia. At the time MS Estonia sank, the temporary exemption was in force and the ship was in compliance: she had hydrostatically operated EPIRB brackets. She was not yet required to replace her manually-activated EPIRBs with immersion-activated ones. No one activated her EPIRBs during the accident sequence. Hence they floated free, as required by law, but did not automatically activate because they were of the manually-activated type. This behavior has been confirmed by consulting the manufacturer's documentation.

Simply citing repeatedly to the regulation does not guarantee you're reading it correctly.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

No.

All of that has been debunked multiple times by multiple people who have backed up their rebuttals with demonstrable knowledge, experience, sound reasoning, and documentary evidence. You simply insist in spite of it all that you still must somehow be right.

Since you cannot demonstrate ordinary rational behavior, we're left with few other possibilities. Either you're just yanking our chains to see how much attention you can get the forum to pay you, or (if you're serious) you may have a serious cognitive disorder. There is no third option where reality gives way to your imagination.

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

People have been remarkably patient with your shenanigans. Therefore you don't really have any mandate to chastise others for how you think they're participating.

If your performance in this thread has any one hallmark, it is your near-pathological unwillingness to admit even the simplest, most obvious error. Your apparent belief that you can make something true simply by saying it permeates all your arguments, many of which amount to nothing more than gaslighting and mindless repetition.

In contrast, we find that you lie incessantly. You lie about easily-discovered facts. You lie about what others have said. You lie about what you have previously said. You lie about your sources. Copious examples have been provided throughout this thread, which you generally do not address. I'm not talking about differences of opinion or different interpretations of—or conclusions drawn from—fact. I'm talking about obvious lies.

You simply have no moral basis for attempting to nanny the behavior of your interlocutors.

 

[Mojo]

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.

Read what you quoted there, and see if you can figure out what it describes as being tuned.

Here's a little hint: it isn't the EPIRBs.

 

[Mojo]

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

We know that the EPIRBs weren't automatically activated because they were recovered and identified as a manually activated model. End of story.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, he has, as he claims, and I can attest to that.



<snip>



We had a lengthy discussion about the regulation in which you did not participate. No ships were exempt from having float-free EPIRBs. However, the regulation carefully distinguishes between float-free release of the beacon and immersion-activation of the beacon. You don't seem to understand the difference.



This 1974 certificate is specifically listed in the relevant regulation as exempting for a time the requirement that a relevant ships' EPIRBs be immersion-activated. This exemption was rescinded after the loss of MS Estonia. At the time MS Estonia sank, the temporary exemption was in force and the ship was in compliance: she had hydrostatically operated EPIRB brackets. She was not yet required to replace her manually-activated EPIRBs with immersion-activated ones. No one activated her EPIRBs during the accident sequence. Hence they floated free, as required by law, but did not automatically activate because they were of the manually-activated type. This behavior has been confirmed by consulting the manufacturer's documentation.

Simply citing repeatedly to the regulation does not guarantee you're reading it correctly.

Don't bother 'blagging it' with me or laying on the hyperbole thick. It doesn't wash.


Here are the facts and as confirmed by JAIC. The MV Estonia had a Kannad 406 F which is a float free model, as you can see here:

kannad 406 f by Username Vixen, on Flickr

Source: https://www.gcaa.gov.ae/en/epublica...Cospas-Sarsat System Data - December 2010.pdf


What is a float-free EPIRB?

Float-free EPIRBs
Float-free Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (FF EPIRBs) are water-activated distress beacons fitted in a float-free bracket. They are designed to activate when a vessel capsizes to a depth of 1–4 metres. They use a hydrostatic release function and a water activated switch. They float to the surface of the water and transmit a distress signal.

https://beacons.amsa.gov.au/about/float-free-epirbs.asp


Let's stick to the cold hard facts, eh, and quit the histrionics.

Admit the MV Estonia was fitted with the prescribed free-float automatic EPIRB's as mandated by IMO CHAPTER III.


Take it on the chin.

 

[JayUtah]

Read what you quoted there, and see if you can figure out what it describes as being tuned.

Let me fill in some gaps.

Classes A and B EPIRBs are officially no longer used and are not picked up by satellites. They operate on aviation emergency frequency 121.500 MHZ and the older maritime emergency frequency, which is around 243 MHz IIRC. You can still safely operate a small craft with a Class A or B EPIRB as long as you stay in range of terrestrial receivers.

Class C EPIRBs operated on maritime VHF frequencies and are no longer permitted.

This is why these classes of EPIRBs can be tested simply by switching them on briefly during specific times of day when their transmissions will be interpreted as tests.

There is no such live-testing scenario for 406 MHz beacons, either air or marine. If you switch them on outside of an apparatus that blocks the 406 MHz signal, and you're not in distress, you get prosecuted and fined.

Any EPIRB you buy today has a separate 99.5 MHz short-range test mode that's activated when you switch the beacon to the Test position. It's coupled to the PLL electronics (see Myriad's explanation above) such that the primary frequency multipliers are bypassed and you get instead a transmission in a "safe" band. Incidentally EPIRBs often also transmit on 121.5 MHz for air-search purposes. SAR airplanes and helicopters have been set up for decades to home in on 121.5 MHz signals.

If you switch it to the Activated position (or whatever the manufacturer's label is), you get a fine.

You can pick up EPIRBs on a nearby AM radio for the same reason you can pick up electric shavers on them: AM radios are especially susceptible to any radiated signal.

The fixed frequencies on which emergency beacons operate—406.028 MHz, 121.500 MHz, and 99.5 MHz—are fixed frequencies. None of them can be adjusted in the field.

 

[Vixen]

We know that the EPIRBs weren't automatically activated because they were recovered and identified as a manually activated model. End of story.

...'as identified by a random guy on the internet, desperate to win an argument'. Based on nothing but opinion.



FIFY

 

[JayUtah]

Here are the facts and as confirmed by JAIC. The MV Estonia had a Kannad 406 F which is a float free model, as you can see here.

Correct, it was a float-free model, as designated by the manufacturer's sigil F. Note how the manufacturer distinguishes its automatically-activated models with the sigil A in the model designation.

What is a float-free EPIRB?

https://beacons.amsa.gov.au/about/float-free-epirbs.asp

Equivocation. You're quoting a different source, not the manufacturer. An Australian government web site in 2023 does not retroactively apply to 1994. Nowadays immersion activation is required, so their description is today reasonably accurate. It does not accurately describe the product used by MS Estonia in 1994.

Today there is no point in attempting to distinguish between manual-only-activated models and immersion-activated models since the latter is the only kind approved for operations under modern SOLAS standards. In 1994 there was a point, which is why both the manufacturer and the IMO regulations make the distinction. Your insistence that we blur those careful distinctions is dishonest and wrong.

Take it on the chin.

On a scale from 1-10, how effectively do you think your childish bluster and gaslighting is convincing anyone?

 

[JayUtah]

...'as identified by a random guy on the internet, desperate to win an argument'. Based on nothing but opinion.

On a scale of 1-10, how well do you think your gaslighting is fooling anyone?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

An Australian government web site in 2023 does not retroactively apply to 1994.

Not the first time she's tried this trick.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

On a scale of 1-10, how well do you think your gaslighting is fooling anyone?

Wait, let me roll my custom made d0 to get an answer for you.

 

[JayUtah]

Not the first time she's tried this trick.

There is a reason for modern sources to conflate float-free with immersion activation. Today, if it is one, it will be the other, because that's what modern standards require, and the investigation of MS Estonia played a large part in why we have those standards. This was not always the case.

To believe that the same appropriately conflated language that passes today must somehow apply to 1994 when there were important legal reasons to maintain distinctions is naïve. The manufacturer Kannad had a reason to distinguish between models that were immersion-activated and those that were not, because they were allowed in some circumstances and not in others. It had a reason to distinguish between models that were float-free and those that were not, because some models satisfied SOLAS standards and some did not.

For example, it would have been perfectly okay in 1994 to have a manually-activated float-free EPIRB if you were operating under a 1974 SOLAS certificate, and also to have non float-free manually-activated EPIRBs to be carried on lifeboats. So long as you had the required float-free apparatuses, you could have as many additional beacons as you wanted. So there was still a market for the Kannad 406 F and the Kannad 406 ELT. Only the Kannad 406 AF would satisfy the IMO regulations for non-grandfathered vessels, as it was both float-free (at least one or two required for all ships) and immersion-activated (required in 1994 for newer ships).

Commensurately the regulations in force in 1994 also carefully distinguished between float-free requirements and immersion-activation requirements because one requirement applied to all ships and the other did not. And since the beacon models on the market in those days differed along those lines, the regulations had to clearly spell out which ones complied and which did not.

That subsequent developments made those distinctions moot—and that therefore modern publications don't regard them—is irrelevant to the forensic engineering analysis.

 

[LondonJohn]

There is a reason for modern sources to conflate float-free with immersion activation. Today, if it is one, it will be the other, because that's what modern standards require, and the investigation of MS Estonia played a large part in why we have those standards. This was not always the case.

To believe that the same appropriately conflated language that passes today must somehow apply to 1994 when there were important legal reasons to maintain distinctions is naïve. The manufacturer Kannad had a reason to distinguish between models that were immersion-activated and those that were not, because they were allowed in some circumstances and not in others. It had a reason to distinguish between models that were float-free and those that were not, because some models satisfied SOLAS standards and some did not.

For example, it would have been perfectly okay in 1994 to have a manually-activated float-free EPIRB if you were operating under a 1974 SOLAS certificate, and also to have non float-free manually-activated EPIRBs to be carried on lifeboats. So long as you had the required float-free apparatuses, you could have as many additional beacons as you wanted. So there was still a market for the Kannad 406 F and the Kannad 406 ELT. Only the Kannad 406 AF would satisfy the IMO regulations for non-grandfathered vessels, as it was both float-free (at least one or two required for all ships) and immersion-activated (required in 1994 for newer ships).

Commensurately the regulations in force in 1994 also carefully distinguished between float-free requirements and immersion-activation requirements because one requirement applied to all ships and the other did not. And since the beacon models on the market in those days differed along those lines, the regulations had to clearly spell out which ones complied and which did not.

That subsequent developments made those distinctions moot—and that therefore modern publications don't regard them—is irrelevant to the forensic engineering analysis.

Frankly, I can scarcely believe that Vixen is still trying to flog this log dead (and fully decomposed) horse. It's abundantly clear to anyone with the slightest scientific education/understanding and basic reading comprehension that the EPIRBs on the Estonia were float-free, manual-activation devices. To still be trying to claim that the Estonia's EPIRBs were immersion-activated indicates one, some, or all of the following: inability to read for comprehension; gross lack of scientific understanding; fundamental dishonesty.

All in all, I can also scarcely believe that this thread has gish-galloped through soooooo many pages in such little time. Personally, I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue indulging individuals who are either dissembling or ignorant (or both), and I believe that this thread long since established the actual facts in evidence on all significant aspects of this disaster. But each to his/her own.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

My recollection, which a search appears to confirm, is that while a great deal of info was shared in the thread about Kannad EPIRBs, including links to the service manuals for all their 2006 era models, and a list written by 'Captain Swoop' describing all the models and their type, there was never a linked reference which confirmed the functions of the 1990s 406 F model.

It's capabilities are straightforward to infer from all the info that was shared (float-free, manual activation) but that conflicts with the reported remarks of Koivisto who described what seemed to be a different type. On the other hand those remarks conflict with what is known without doubt about EPIRBs generally, casting serious doubt either on Koivisto's understanding or on the reliability of the reporting of what he said.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The above leads me to wonder what Koivisto's relationship to the JAIC actually was. Throughout these threads Vixen has told us the committee appointed him as an expert in EPIRBs. e.g.

In fact, JAIC tasked Koivisto with investigating why the automatically-activated buoys did not automatically activate as they should have done.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13664216#post13664216

I realise now that I've never actually seen a reference for this claim either. The JAIC final report lists five experts from Estonia, five from Finland, and three from Sweden. Assar Koivisto is not on that list. So now I wonder what the JAIC tasked him with, and why, and how we know that.

 

[Here_to_learn]

A one hour long documentary about Estonia was published by Swedish Public Television today. It's available at: https://www.svtplay.se/video/85oE9d3/vetenskapens-varld-sanningen-om-estonia

From what I understand it can be viewed by all, but of course most of the spoken text is in Swedish. It is possible to turn on Swedish subtitles.

The focus is on the conspiracy theories around Estonia - mostly about the media uncritically sharing or promoting the stories.

It's also about the latest investigations, and how the conclusions all support the original report. It's also about the so called documentary "Estonia fyndet som ändrar allt" and how their report on the hole in the side did not show information about the rock next to the hole and also on how they redraw a diagram to make it support their theory.

Between 12:41 - 13:27, 15:26 - 16:05 as well as 16:18 - 16:36 you can see Jutta Rabe sharing her "insights" in English.

There are also several sessions with footage from the latest filming outside and inside the wreck. For example they mention how they could see several open doors from the car deck into the interior in the center casing.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Ah, that's interesting; open doors off the car deck. Of course we can't assume they were open during the sinking. They could have collapsed later maybe due to corrosion or stuff lying on top of them, or hypothetically have been opened on previous dives, but the fact that they remark on it at all suggests at least they had no expectation of finding them open.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Ah, that's interesting; open doors off the car deck. Of course we can't assume they were open during the sinking. They could have collapsed later maybe due to corrosion or stuff lying on top of them, or hypothetically have been opened on previous dives, but the fact that they remark on it at all suggests at least they had no expectation of finding them open.

Yes - the voice-over do point out that some doors are missing - probably ended up somewhere in the mess on the car deck. So some are open while others are missing.

 

[zooterkin]

The above leads me to wonder what Koivisto's relationship to the JAIC actually was. Throughout these threads Vixen has told us the committee appointed him as an expert in EPIRBs. e.g.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13664216#post13664216

I realise now that I've never actually seen a reference for this claim either. The JAIC final report lists five experts from Estonia, five from Finland, and three from Sweden. Assar Koivisto is not on that list. So now I wonder what the JAIC tasked him with, and why, and how we know that.

It's a good question, though I suspect the problem is that what he actually said has been mistranslated and/or misreported. This page is in Swedish, and I don't know the reliability of the site, but one thing which struck me is the (translated) caption of the photo of Koivisto with an EPRB. "Asser Koivisto in TV news on January 27, 1995. The emergency buoy in the picture is obviously not Estonia's, but a factory-new copy." Based on what has been said in this thread, about regulations in force, a factory-new EPIRB at that date would have to be automatically activated by immersion, but the information we have is that the legacy EPIRBs installed on the Estonia were not automatic. If no-one thought to check the exact model installed, and just asked for an EPIRB by the model number from the manufacturer, and then based their comments on what they had in front of them, that would account for a lot, if not all, of the discrepancies.

 

[Here_to_learn]

It's a good question, though I suspect the problem is that what he actually said has been mistranslated and/or misreported. This page is in Swedish, and I don't know the reliability of the site, but one thing which struck me is the (translated) caption of the photo of Koivisto with an EPRB. "Asser Koivisto in TV news on January 27, 1995. The emergency buoy in the picture is obviously not Estonia's, but a factory-new copy." Based on what has been said in this thread, about regulations in force, a factory-new EPIRB at that date would have to be automatically activated by immersion, but the information we have is that the legacy EPIRBs installed on the Estonia were not automatic. If no-one thought to check the exact model installed, and just asked for an EPIRB by the model number from the manufacturer, and then based their comments on what they had in front of them, that would account for a lot, if not all, of the discrepancies.

Yle is the Finnish public media so I'd say that the site is very reliable in what they report. Having said that the reporters there are hardly experts in EPIRBs so they would probably not be able to question what they hear, nor be able to fact check technical details in their reports.