• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Maybe the translators didn't know the difference between valves and sprinklers. But they definitely cite 'Drencher' system as though they thought it was a brand.

ETA: It says:

"By pushing a respective bottom the watch officer started the fire pump and activated one or more quick-opening valves of the sprinkler system installed underneath the car deck ceiling"

so it was a valve (drencher/deluge) system and not a sprinkler.
Click to expand...

If a person who worked in the field for many years, and has actually designed the type of systems - for buildings, not marine vessels - some here are attempting to describe, may comment:

The term used in the industry, and as per the National Fire Protection Association Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection - NFPA 15, is "deluge system". I have never encountered the term "drencher" in this context prior to this thread. Maybe it is specifically European. The heads used to discharge water in a deluge system are commonly referred to as sprinkler heads as the water from each head is distributed in a spray pattern similar to all other overhead sprinkler systems. Deluge systems are commonly activated automatically by heat or smoke sensors in order to reduce the chance of human error affecting the required operation of the system. But manually activated systems are not unheard of. Deluge systems are normally zoned in order to keep the fire pump or water supply capacity to a reasonable level. If a fire is detected that crosses zone boundaries this would complicate the decision making process of the person responsible for manual activation

Semantics aside, the argument over terminology is irrelevant. The fire suppression system is (was) a standard deluge system, manually activated, with open sprinkler heads for water discharge and distribution. It appears to not conform in many respects to NFPA standards, but that may be more common in European and/or ocean going design practices than I am aware of.
 
LondonJohn said:
I'm SORRY? You're actually using a spoof Wikipedia site called "Hikipedia" as a source now?

Do you have any understanding whatsoever of the importance of primary sources and trusted sources when it comes to research and analysis?
Click to expand...

I think we all have seen more than ample evidence of the answer to that question.
 
I am staggered by the effort Vixen is putting in to try to twist the evidence to try to cast doubt on the idea that there was sea water on the car deck, even after she posted the picture a survivor drew of what he saw on a video monitor, which was a cascade of water pouring in from both sides of the ramp (or was it a "trickle"?) and the water was described as going in a few minutes from covering the cars' wheels to splashing on the camera.

A non-existent fire alarm causing nobody to activate a sprinkler system, substituting "sprinkled" for "splashed" in a survivor's account and repeatedly referring to some other camera which does not point at the ramp does not explain what was very clearly described.
 
Steve said:
If a person who worked in the field for many years, and has actually designed the type of systems - for buildings, not marine vessels - some here are attempting to describe, may comment:

The term used in the industry, and as per the National Fire Protection Association Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection - NFPA 15, is "deluge system". I have never encountered the term "drencher" in this context prior to this thread. Maybe it is specifically European. The heads used to discharge water in a deluge system are commonly referred to as sprinkler heads as the water from each head is distributed in a spray pattern similar to all other overhead sprinkler systems. Deluge systems are commonly activated automatically by heat or smoke sensors in order to reduce the chance of human error affecting the required operation of the system. But manually activated systems are not unheard of. Deluge systems are normally zoned in order to keep the fire pump or water supply capacity to a reasonable level. If a fire is detected that crosses zone boundaries this would complicate the decision making process of the person responsible for manual activation

Semantics aside, the argument over terminology is irrelevant. The fire suppression system is (was) a standard deluge system, manually activated, with open sprinkler heads for water discharge and distribution. It appears to not conform in many respects to NFPA standards, but that may be more common in European and/or ocean going design practices than I am aware of.
Click to expand...

Automatic systems are kept to a minimum on a ship, you want to be able to control how much water you are pumping in to a ship. A fire will be tackled by a fire team in the first instance.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I am staggered by the effort Vixen is putting in to try to twist the evidence to try to cast doubt on the idea that there was sea water on the car deck, even after she posted the picture a survivor drew of what he saw on a video monitor, which was a cascade of water pouring in from both sides of the ramp (or was it a "trickle"?) and the water was described as going in a few minutes from covering the cars' wheels to splashing on the camera.

A non-existent fire alarm causing nobody to activate a sprinkler system, substituting "sprinkled" for "splashed" in a survivor's account and repeatedly referring to some other camera which does not point at the ramp does not explain what was very clearly described.
Click to expand...

The 'over the wheels' has been neglected.
That would be a depth of around half a meter. Across the car deck that would be a massive volume to come from a fire suppression system. It would have to be running for hours.
 
junkshop said:
Whère are you getting the highlighted from? I have just reread your linked page and can't find it. I was under the impression that the drawing of water coming in around the ramp was based on this camera feed.
Click to expand...

The quote is here:

Furthermore there are some observations/indications which could point to a fire in the forward part of the car deck. These are

(1) the statement of the watch engineer Margus Treu that a jet of water hit the lens of the video camera transferring pictures from the partly open bow ramp to the monitor in the engine control room (ECR) where he was watching - see his statement dated 29.09.94 Turku - Enclosure 21.2.3.263. Treu believed that this water jet came from the partly open bow ramp, which however is not possible because the camera is fitted at the forward part of the centre casing underneath the ceiling. The distance to the bow ramp is 25 m and the height above car deck is about 5 m - see the pictures below taken on board the near-sister DIANA II where the camera was installed as on ESTONIA.
Click to expand...
https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia final report/29.3.htm

Let's face it, is the CCTV going to be aimed at the car ramp or down on the vehicles below?


In any case, as the car ramp door habitually leaked, how do we know Sillaste's drawing isn't from his generalised memory of previous voyages? After all, he shows the water coming in at the sides and downwards, not from the top shooting upwards.
 

Attachments

  • 2021-09-24 (6).jpg
    2021-09-24 (6).jpg
    40.4 KB · Views: 4
  • pg493.jpg
    pg493.jpg
    38.7 KB · Views: 5
JayUtah said:
Is there evidence of combustion fumes, or is that just being inferred as part of the hypothesis?
Click to expand...

Witnesses reported hearing the Mr Skylight 1 or 2 messages on the tannoy. Should the JAIC not made an effort to investigate whether there had been a fire (whether coincidentally, before or during) and ruled it out?


This is because if there was a fire warning triggering sprinklers or valves, then that might account for all the water the two chaps saw on the monitor.
 
Vixen said:
Witnesses reported hearing the Mr Skylight 1 or 2 messages on the tannoy. Should the JAIC not made an effort to investigate whether there had been a fire (whether coincidentally, before or during) and ruled it out?





This is because if there was a fire warning triggering sprinklers or valves, then that might account for all the water the two chaps saw on the monitor.
Click to expand...
Your misunderstanding of the alert has been thoroughly addressed. And apparently the answer to the question I actually asked is no, there is no evidence of combustion fumes.
 
LondonJohn said:
The sort of underwater currents moving silt/mud on the seabed that might, just perhaps, at some point have caused the wreck of the Estonia to shift its position on the seabed, such that the damage sustained when it originally hit the seabed - together with the part of the seabed which created that damage - were now visible (where they hadn't been visible back in 1994-96)?
Click to expand...

It's a geological fact that the wreck has shifted at least four times. The deformations caused by that type of wear and tear does not cancel out any damage that occurred BEFORE it sank.
 
Vixen said:
The quote is here:

https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia final report/29.3.htm

Let's face it, is the CCTV going to be aimed at the car ramp or down on the vehicles below?


In any case, as the car ramp door habitually leaked, how do we know Sillaste's drawing isn't from his generalised memory of previous voyages? After all, he shows the water coming in at the sides and downwards, not from the top shooting upwards.
Click to expand...


Why would the water have been coming "from the top shooting upwards"?
 
JesseCuster said:
From the Hikipedia article on coronavirus:

"The coronavirus mainly causes diarrhea, wanting Corona , greed for money, lowering state development aid, general disregard for minority or Western ethics, soft exercise of power, and segregation from the rest of society like lepers. Another symptom of the coronavirus is hoarding. When someone gets the coronavirus, the body’s immune system tells you to buy more stuff."

Oh dear. This is what happens when you copy and paste from a quick Google search without doing any sort of checking of the source you're copying and pasting from.
Click to expand...

It's just Finnish dry humour. Not dissimilar to British satire.
 
Vixen said:
Witnesses reported hearing the Mr Skylight 1 or 2 messages on the tannoy. Should the JAIC not made an effort to investigate whether there had been a fire (whether coincidentally, before or during) and ruled it out?


This is because if there was a fire warning triggering sprinklers or valves, then that might account for all the water the two chaps saw on the monitor.
Click to expand...


Ah, but you see: "Mr Skylight Number 1/2" doesn't refer to a fire alarm. It's a general alarm. Which is obvious, because there was no fire.

I do wonder at your motivation in sticking to your incorrect fingers-in-ears insistence that this was a fire alert. It's quite some phenomenon to observe.
 
Vixen said:
It's a geological fact that the wreck has shifted at least four times. The deformations caused by that type of wear and tear does not cancel out any damage that occurred BEFORE it sank.
Click to expand...


I totally agree. But the damage to the starboard hull was caused by the ship hitting the seabed on the night it sank.

Which is also why the official investigation didn't (and couldn't) notice it: at that point in time, the ship was lying on its starboard side with the damage - and with the portion of the seabed which had caused that damage - invisible to anyone surveying the wreck.

Hope that makes things clearer for you.
 
Vixen said:
The quote is here:

https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia final report/29.3.htm

Let's face it, is the CCTV going to be aimed at the car ramp or down on the vehicles below?


In any case, as the car ramp door habitually leaked, how do we know Sillaste's drawing isn't from his generalised memory of previous voyages? After all, he shows the water coming in at the sides and downwards, not from the top shooting upwards.
Click to expand...

Look again at the text you quoted, just before your highlight:

Furthermore there are some observations/indications which could point to a fire in the forward part of the car deck. These are

(1) the statement of the watch engineer Margus Treu that a jet of water hit the lens of the video camera transferring pictures from the partly open bow ramp to the monitor in the engine control room (ECR) where he was watching - see his statement dated 29.09.94 Turku - Enclosure 21.2.3.263. Treu believed that this water jet came from the partly open bow ramp, which however is not possible because the camera is fitted at the forward part of the centre casing underneath the ceiling. The distance to the bow ramp is 25 m and the height above car deck is about 5 m - see the pictures below taken on board the near-sister DIANA II where the camera was installed as on ESTONIA.
Click to expand...
https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net...eport/29.3.htm

Do you see this bit "the video camera transferring pictures from the partly open bow ramp to the monitor"?

In what way does this suggest that camera is facing away from the ramp? It doesn't, does it?

Look again at the drawing you posted. Do you see the text at the top? The text that reads "Drawing made by the system engineer showing what he saw in the surveillance monitor"?

Do you think that that might suggest it was not "from his generalised memory of previous voyages"?
 
Vixen said:
No stone should be left unturned. The JAIC should have investigated what triggered the 'Mr Skylight 1 or 2' tannoy messages and also whether the sprinklers or valves had been turned on in the car deck.
Click to expand...

The ship foundering caused it
 
Vixen said:
On a ship it might be the only solution.
Click to expand...


LOL. I'm sure they never even considered putting appropriate fire suppression systems into a vehicle deck, where the obviously-predominant risks of fire were from gasoline/diesel or motor oil combustion.

They just thought: "Oh, well if there does happen to be such a fire, we'll just have to cobble together some sort of way of fighting it. And luckily we've got plenty of seawater available, so why not let's have a crack at using that?"

:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom