Tuesday, May 27, 2008



Well Ellison I guess I am not the only one that makes mistakes. As of 11:00 AM CST the USCG has verified that the EPIRB in the Sav-A-Buck incident has NOT been found as you reported.

So I guess you either mis-read the newspaper article that you cited or again just did not follow up and do your homework, because the subject matter is just not important to you and that is not really what your after anyway..

Of course I doubt we will ever see a correction coming form you. That makes two confirmed mistakes in your reporting. The rest is subject to opinion. In the meantime, the question that we posed still remains. How many EPIRB's fail?


Looks like PANBO and Ellison are blowing more smoke than a raging forest fire. To quote a famous President who once said. "there you go again"....

Flame war? No Mr. Ellison no flame war except for the one you started and continue to propel Now you drop to the next level... personal insults....

Yes unfortunately the mistake I did make in my last posting was misidentifying the Ellie B as the F/V Adriatic. Though the Ellie B's EPIRB was reported as failed. I have inquired into what ever records there are regarding the Ellie B and will report back as soon as possible.

For that I stand corrected and will always note when I am wrong.

No I am not perfect and I am not a professional writer. Unlike Mr. Ellison who rather blow more smoke and throw insults instead of admit his own errors and biased one sided reports and views and continue playing games just to add more hits to his website and play up to his advertisers and electronics masters.

The point here is that there are few officially reported EPIRB failures making it difficult to hammer down. Many go unreported for various reasons. Many are not followed up on for various reasons.

If Ellison is so sure of himself why is he opposed to any official inquiry? You would think someone so confident of himself would relish any inquiry. Bring it on?

No matter my error or not that does not change the meat of the subject. We do not know what the failure rate of EPIRBs are. We don't, the USCG does not, NOAA does not, and neither does Ellison. To argue over how the COSPAS-SARSAT system works or does not work is why many times "parties investigations" get dragged out.

No Ellison a EPIRB signal can be received in a matter of minutes and up to 90 minutes dependent on a number of factors. Though today more than 50% of the emergency beacons sold today are actually GPIRBs.

Ellison say's that the USCG investigates these reports they deem worthy. Well Ellison that is not what the regulations says and that is not what is done. Its says that when there is a report of a failure of life safety equipment that is certified and inspected by the United States Coast Guard. It must conduct a informal hearing. Not when they deem it worthy to conduct one. Most reports are not investigated unless there is a loss of life......and if the device can be salvaged for investigation.

Its evident that Ellison just does not want to know nor does he care to know to what extent there might be problems with EPIRBs . All he seems to be bent on is keeping the USCG off the backs of his advertisers and masters. Ellison seems to be part of the gang that just loves to keep the USCG MSO's in check and not what they once were.

Answer the question Ellison... How many EPIRBs fail?

All we care about is closing any gaps that might exist to save more lives. You have a problem with that?

Lastly for those like Ellison who believe I made a fool of myself in public over my last posting as one anonymous gutless poster sent to me. ....

"Get over yourself. And, learn a little about your subject before you pontificate. You have made a total fool and laughingstock of yourself in public."

Here is a quote for you....

“Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checked by failure...than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.”


No comments: