• 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:
The JAIC did not say that. It said it was seaworthy and the only damage was to the bow area.
Click to expand...


Oh, my. How shocking. Why do you suppose the JAIC issued that ship with a seaworthiness certificate?

Oh, wait. It didn't. That's not their job.
 
Vixen said:
Sorry to sound sarcastic but did you really believe the bow visor fell off 'because of a few strong waves'?.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that camel's back broke because of "a few straws"?

The amount of straw you've loaded onto this thread would crush any camel into the ground.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Do you really believe that camel's back broke because of "a few straws"?

The amount of straw you've loaded onto this thread would crush any camel into the ground.
Click to expand...

Is there any evidence that 'the camel's back broke'? And what evidence is there that a piece of straw was the last - ahem - straw, as it were, that broke the camel's back?
 
Vixen said:
Is there any evidence that 'the camel's back broke'? And what evidence is there that a piece of straw was the last - ahem - straw, as it were, that broke the camel's back?
Click to expand...

The conclusion of the JAIC report is consistent with the evidence.

If you have a different sequence of events which are similarly consistent then by all means tell us what you think happened. So far we just have a scattergun of what-ifs, many of which are implausible and which together don't amount to a coherent explanation.
 
Vixen said:
The last inspection was September 1994 as per section 3.6.4 of the JAIC report:



There are claims that Estonia was actually barred from sailing the day of the accident. In Silver Linde's 2002 Helsinki [prison] interrogation the interrogator mentions a mysterious 'committee of men' having been seen arguing with the officials on the bridge. [To which Linde responds with his classic 'I know nuuuuthing' routine'].
Click to expand...

Do you know what a 'load line survey' means?

It is to ensure that a ship has sufficient freeboard (distance from waterline to main deck level ) and therefore enough reserve buoyancy.

It doesn't have anything to do with checking bow visors, car ramps or any other part of the ship it's systems or 'seaworthyness'.
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
Ah good. You remembered. Kindly quit trying to cast aspersions on JAIC for saying the ship that sank was seaworthy.
Click to expand...

It used the seaworthy certificate as evidence the vessel was seaworthy. Even Captain_Swoop questions whether it was seaworthy.

If a few 'low impact waves' can knock off the bow visor, how can it have been seaworthy?


"Shortly after one o'clock a low wave impact on the visor caused the visor attachments to fail completely. The visor started cutting openings in the weather deck plating and associated structures. Soon the back wall of the visor housing came into contact with the ramp, hitting its upper edge and thus breaking its locks. The ramp fell forwards and remained resting inside the visor. In a few minutes the visor started falling forwards."
Click to expand...
JAIC

Note the time, within minutes of Swedish midnight - whoosh! - a low impact wave comes along and the bow visor drops of. As it does.
 
Vixen said:
It used the seaworthy certificate as evidence the vessel was seaworthy. Even Captain_Swoop questions whether it was seaworthy.

If a few 'low impact waves' can knock off the bow visor, how can it have been seaworthy?


JAIC

Note the time, within minutes of Swedish midnight - whoosh! - a low impact wave comes along and the bow visor drops of. As it does.
Click to expand...

You have just posted that the inspection was a 'load line survey'

That has nothing to do with overlall fitness of the ship.

It was compliant at the time of any inspection.

How did the track rod end fail on my car going over a few low impact bumps in the road when it had just passed it's MOT a week before?
 
Vixen said:
The last inspection was September 1994 as per section 3.6.4 of the JAIC report:



There are claims that Estonia was actually barred from sailing the day of the accident. In Silver Linde's 2002 Helsinki [prison] interrogation the interrogator mentions a mysterious 'committee of men' having been seen arguing with the officials on the bridge. [To which Linde responds with his classic 'I know nuuuuthing' routine'].
Click to expand...
What does a load line certificate require? Does it include a careful inspection of the visor?

Wasn't the locking system in poor shape, requiring hammering into place?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Vixen said:
Is there any evidence that 'the camel's back broke'?
Click to expand...


Yes, there is. The bottom lock of the bow visor failed due to a combination of cumulative metal fatigue (probably over several years) and the stresses endured on the night of the sinking itself.



And what evidence is there that a piece of straw was the last - ahem - straw, as it were, that broke the camel's back?
Click to expand...


Uhmmmmm..... it was a stormy night with high swells, which placed stress on the bottom lock. This is what was the final straw.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Do you know what a 'load line survey' means?

It is to ensure that a ship has sufficient freeboard (distance from waterline to main deck level ) and therefore enough reserve buoyancy.

It doesn't have anything to do with checking bow visors, car ramps or any other part of the ship it's systems or 'seaworthyness'.
Click to expand...
Ah. Thanks.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Vixen said:
It used the seaworthy certificate as evidence the vessel was seaworthy. Even Captain_Swoop questions whether it was seaworthy.

If a few 'low impact waves' can knock off the bow visor, how can it have been seaworthy?
Click to expand...


I mean: really?

The simple answer here is that the seaworthiness inspection was primarily a visual inspection when it came to the bow visor: they didn't see the growing amount of metal fatigue because it was hidden within the crystalline structure of the metal. In addition to which, it's highly likely that Estline would have been regularly slathering fresh paint on/around the lock (because untreated/unpainted metal doesn't mix well with seawater and sea spray).

It would have required, at a minimum, ultrasound inspection of the bow visor's bottom lock to determine the presence of metal fatigue.



Note the time, within minutes of Swedish midnight - whoosh! - a low impact wave comes along and the bow visor drops of. As it does.
Click to expand...


Oh boy. Off down the rabbit hole we charge once again....
 
Vixen said:
It used the seaworthy certificate as evidence the vessel was seaworthy. Even Captain_Swoop questions whether it was seaworthy.

If a few 'low impact waves' can knock off the bow visor, how can it have been seaworthy?
a low wave impact
Click to expand...

JAIC

Note the time, within minutes of Swedish midnight - whoosh! - a low impact wave comes along and the bow visor drops of. As it does.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom