The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part II

[whoanellie]

You really have no conception of why public transport networks have a requirement to stick to the timetables.

See Captain Swoop's post above regarding dedicated ferry terminal.
Citing a generic need to be on time does not prove that Estonia would have been fined for a late arrival especially if weather dictated running at a reduced speed. You Google search didn't come up with anything, right? Just admit you made it up.

 

[junkshop]

Since when was a fire alert 'a minor emergency somewhere'.

You keep saying that the 'Mr. Skylight' code referred specifically to fire on the Estonia, as opposed to a general emergency. Where are you getting this information?

 

[whoanellie]

Actually I read it somewhere.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

 

[JayUtah]

(a) I read that Stockholm Port is strict about the passenger ferries being on time...

Why were you unable to find any examples of fines paid for being late in or out of a Swedish port?

(b) I did airports as one of my case studies, so I do know how they operate.

That wasn't my question. Have you ever flown an airplane into or out of a busy airport? Were you required to adhere to a "time slot," other than normal air traffic control?

Airports and Ports do have the force of law.

Ports have the authority to enforce laws and regulations that actually exist. But you are the one claiming their authority to enforce "time slots." You must show there is such a law or regulation for them to enforce.

 

[phiwum]

Have a read through Silver Linde's witness statement 2002, wherein he explains it very well https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/pdf/Enclosure16.pdf

In addition the shipping line had had bomb threats so this bomb threat scenario was part of the Mr Skylight fire drill. It was nothing at all to do with 'ship sinking!'.

It is a call to rescue stations. There's nothing in Linde's testimony to suggest it would not be used in a storm. Nor does he mention bomb threats in connection to Skylight drills, though perhaps they could be used for that.

Bomb threats are mentioned only on p. 14. Skylight codes are mentioned on p. 35. The explicit connection between the two is all in your head.

 

[whoanellie]

You keep saying that the 'Mr. Skylight' code referred specifically to fire on the Estonia, as opposed to a general emergency. Where are you getting this information?

She read it somewhere?

 

[junkshop]

How many public transportation networks have you worked at as an employee?

I have done extensive case studies of various industries - including public transport - as part of my business studies.

So none, then?

 

[Vixen]

Or possibly another "because I say so" argument from you. Can you document that the code phrase in question really was a fire alert?

Here you go:

Fire alarm

The fire alarm - continuous repetitive short sound signals - was also given with the alarm bells and/or the vessel's horn. When the alarm was given, the command group, the two fire groups, the engine control group, the control group, the port and starboard boat groups and the first aid groups were activated.

"Mr. Skylight"

Without alarming the passengers, the crew could be alerted over the public address system with the coded message "Mr. Skylight". This message could also be used with a suffix. Depending on which suffix, viz.

in case of fire:

"Mr. Skylight to No. 1", means for the fire groups to proceed immediately to "Fire Station No. 1".
"Mr. Skylight to No. 2", means for the fire groups to proceed immediately to "Fire Station No. 2".

Fire Station 1 is forward on deck 8.
Fire Station 2 is aft on the car deck.

https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia final report/7.3.htm

 

[JayUtah]

I have done extensive case studies of various industries - including public transport - as part of my business studies.

Then you should be able to cite the law or regulation that gives ports the authority to levy fines for failing to comport to "time slots." That you may have studied them academically is not the same as having practical experience with the challenges involved in keeping to timetables. There is certainly a business case to make for maintaining predictable service. But you're claiming it's being enforced as a matter of regulation, and you're doing little more the browbeating people who raise objections.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oh I almost missed this one.

The spray on the vehicle-deck monitors can easily (and with reference to actual evidence) be explained by the tons and tons of seawater gushing into the vehicle deck on account of the bow visor having broken away and the bow ramp having been severely compromised as the visor broke away.

Ships tend not to spray a lot of water from fire suppression systems if they can help it. It tends to sink the ship.

We don't know if the vehicle deck of the Estonia had an automatic system or a manual system activated from the fire board.

 

[JayUtah]

Here you go:

https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia final report/7.3.htm

Secondary source. They say, "The alarms were described in the emergency plan and in the safety manual..." Have you seen a copy of that manual? Do your sources reproduce it, or do they merely summarize it in their own words?

 

[Andy_Ross]

You can see where the belief that the car deck had some corrosive fumes came from, especially as the stern car ramp had also been opened at the top.

You don't think the ship sinking stern first and hitting the sea bed then moving around while subject to stress and forces it wasn't designed for had anything to do with this?

 

[Vixen]

Then you should be able to cite the law or regulation that gives ports the authority to levy fines for failing to comport to "time slots." That you may have studied them academically is not the same as having practical experience with the challenges involved in keeping to timetables. There is certainly a business case to make for maintaining predictable service. But you're claiming it's being enforced as a matter of regulation, and you're doing little more the browbeating people who raise objections.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said you could be fined for being one-off late. It is more to do with your overall performance. Quite frankly, ports are busy places and don't need to rent slots to passenger ferries and cruises that provide a shoddy service to customers and which disrupt the timetables and schedules of everybody else.

It can deal with this type of hindrance by various measures.

It has legal authority.

 

[Andy_Ross]

As I said, it would obviously be its performance over time.

Airport authorities: Civil Aviation Authority:

Business Traveller

Port of London Authority - a whole list of fines, here:




These ports (sea/air) serve many companies/airlines/shipping lines.

If people do not stick to the time slots, huge queues build up. I don't know if you've ever been in a long queue at Heathrow with a whole load of planes delayed all because one or two planes were late taking off, meaning you had a real chance of missing your connecting flight the other end.

What have airports got to do with it?

A ship running in to a dedicated berth at a terminal owned by the shipping line would not be subject to any 'fine'

What would the 'fine' be for?

How would a 'huge queue build up'?

What do those you listed above have to do with a ship being delayed by weather?

 

[theprestige]

Actually I read it somewhere.

I bet you didn't.

 

[LondonJohn]

As I said, it would obviously be its performance over time.

Airport authorities: Civil Aviation Authority:

Business Traveller

Port of London Authority - a whole list of fines, here:




These ports (sea/air) serve many companies/airlines/shipping lines.

If people do not stick to the time slots, huge queues build up. I don't know if you've ever been in a long queue at Heathrow with a whole load of planes delayed all because one or two planes were late taking off, meaning you had a real chance of missing your connecting flight the other end.

*sigh*

These are either to do with immigration breaches (airlines) or safety-related breaches (ships).

Yes, airlines and ships (and trains) can face compensation claims (from each individual passenger affected, mind) if they are unreasonably delayed and the delay is their fault. But that's a different matter altogether.

And cargo-carrying aircraft/ships/trains can also face compensation claims from customers or terminus operators - but again, these are individual contractual claims on a one-to-one basis.


In other words, all of this is nothing at all to do with your original claim. Well, colo(u)r me unsurprised.....

 

[Vixen]

Secondary source. They say, "The alarms were described in the emergency plan and in the safety manual..." Have you seen a copy of that manual? Do your sources reproduce it, or do they merely summarize it in their own words?

That is the one I saw on Google just now but do read Silver Linde's description of it, he was crew.

 

[JayUtah]

It can deal with this type of hindrance by various measures.

What enforcement measures are employed at Swedish sea ports? Can you give examples of any sort of sanction applied to shipping companies who failed to keep to the port's timetables?

It has legal authority.

If it has the legal authority to enforce timetables, then you should be able to provide examples of enforcement actions, of the kind Estline would hope to avoid.

 

[Andy_Ross]

In the case of the Estonia it was the code for specifically a fire drill.

What is your evidence for this?

 

[LondonJohn]

Here you go:

https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia final report/7.3.htm

I don't trust that site any further than I could throw it*.

Show me/us primary sources for your claim. Because I don't believe your claim is correct/true, and as of right now I have the weight of evidence firmly on my side.


* Though, since it's cloud-based and technically therefore of zero mass, I could in theory throw it an infinite distance. But we'll gloss over that technicality