Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part III

[Andy_Ross]

Go on, then.

RoRo Ferry pitching in to a stiff sea



Frigate pitching as it forces in to a head sea.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are incorrect. The waves were not 'head on' into the swell. The waves were South Westerly like the wind, whilst the boat was travelling West North West. In effect, the port side of the vessel was taking the brunt, and in particular, the port side bow visor was subject to transverse waves, which would have a greater impact on it then face forward (which you claimed not to be able to grasp). So, no, the ship was not head onto the waves. And no, it would not have been dipping and bowing into them but rather, battered by them from the side.

The official report states that the winds were more-or-less SW - ie coming from a compass direction of around 225 degrees.

But the swell was actually coming from just less than 270 degrees (and since swell etc is described - unlike wind - using the direction of travel rather than the direction of origin, the swell would be described as just slightly north of Easterly).

And the Estonia was sailing WNW at the relevant time - ie it was sailing on a compass heading of around 295 degrees.

The angle between the ship and the swell was therefore around 145-150 degrees. Or to put it another way, the swell was approaching the ship at an angle of around 30-35 degrees to the ship's direction of travel.

And so, even though the ship wasn't sailing literally directly into the swell, it was sailing into swell that was only 30-35 degrees away from being directly opposite to the direction of the ship's travel. The Estonia, therefore, would clearly and obviously have been traversing the peaks and troughs of the swell as it moved forward. It was not sailing side-on to the swell. It was not even sailing quarter-on to the swell.

But yeah, keep these posts coming!

 

[erwinl]

RoRo Ferry bow pitching in to the waves in a stiff sea.

Oh wow!

At first it looks like there is nothing amiss, but when the true pitching starts the ship loses all forward speed, just because of the force of the waves slamming into the bow.

I don't think being a passenger on board at that time would be very much fun.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh wow!

At first it looks like there is nothing amiss, but when the true pitching starts the ship loses all forward speed, just because of the force of the waves slamming into the bow.

I don't think being a passenger on board at that time would be very much fun.

Nor would it have been much fun for anyone aboard had the bow opening become significantly compromised and opened.....

 

[Andy_Ross]

You are incorrect. The waves were not 'head on' into the swell. The waves were South Westerly like the wind, whilst the boat was travelling West North West. In effect, the port side of the vessel was taking the brunt, and in particular, the port side bow visor was subject to transverse waves, which would have a greater impact on it then face forward (which you claimed not to be able to grasp). So, no, the ship was not head onto the waves. And no, it would not have been dipping and bowing into them but rather, battered by them from the side.

What in degrees is a he difference between the heading and the wave direction?

What point are you trying to make?
An asymmetric load on the bow is worse than dead ahead.

 

[LondonJohn]

(And incidentally, Vixen might care to note, wrt that video of the ferry digging into swell in rough seas, the flow of water along the sides of the hull. If she does so, she will see that in fact there are virtually no times at which the sea level (along the middle 3/4 of the hull's length) rises above the nominal waterline of the ship. And on the rare occasions when water does get that high, it's momentary and more akin to wash/spray than significant volumes. As opposed to the bow of the ship, which is repeatedly digging into very large volumes of water....)

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oh wow!

At first it looks like there is nothing amiss, but when the true pitching starts the ship loses all forward speed, just because of the force of the waves slamming into the bow.

I don't think being a passenger on board at that time would be very much fun.

It's the propellers rising to the surface and being pushed deep as much as the force of the wave. Also some of the forward motion is turned in to upwards movement.

 

[erwinl]

It's the propellers rising to the surface and being pushed deep as much as the force of the wave. Also some of the forward motion is turned in to upwards movement.

Oh yes, of course. That sounds logical.

What size of waves are we talking about in the case of that ferry?
I find it very hard to estimate (me living rather far from the sea and such).

 

[erwinl]

Nor would it have been much fun for anyone aboard had the bow opening become significantly compromised and opened.....

That thought had crossed my mind, yes.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oh yes, of course. That sounds logical.

What size of waves are we talking about in the case of that ferry?
I find it very hard to estimate (me living rather far from the sea and such).

Judging sea state from visual indication.
https://www.weather.gov/media/pqr/beaufort/beaufort.pdf

 

[Steve]

Why has the discussion returned to weather? You have been told by our resident expert that the weather conditions had nothing to do with the sinking. Please return to discussing the relevant facts re submarines, hijacking, secret military operations, and other important facts.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

From Kurm (Glasgow):



<snip>

ibid

In other words, the JAIC has had to assume, quote, "When about 2000 tons of water had entered the ship, a list of 40 degrees had developed. From that moment the waves started to break the windows and doors on deck four and five," yet if the doors and window are now found not to be broken, then the assumption fails.

You are once again conflating decks 4 & 5 with the car deck. The JAIC did not, as you falsely claimed, have to assume the doors on the car deck were compromised.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Stop lying. The Herald of Free Enterprise only partially sank. Even Wikipedia will tell you that. You saying a thing doesn't make it so. Learn to argue honestly.

And, once again, the official report on the Herald of Free Enterprise says if it had not grounded it would have sunk entirely. This official view may well be contrary to your personal wot-I-reckon but you don't get to call anyone a liar for not adopting your utterly inexpert opinion as fact here.

 

[erwinl]

Judging sea state from visual indication.
https://www.weather.gov/media/pqr/beaufort/beaufort.pdf

Hmmm.
Based on that list and the descriptions.
I’d guess, somewhere between Beaufort number 5 or 6?

 

[JayUtah]

He won't accept it.

What won't I accept? Are we back to you making all new arguments for me instead of the ones I actually made?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Hmmm.
Based on that list and the descriptions.
I’d guess, somewhere between Beaufort number 5 or 6?

6 to 7 I would guess.

 

[JayUtah]

Don't forget, there is a vertical tear, as well as a horizontal one.

Yes, but only the part below the actual waterline -- not the blue paint and not the Plimsoll line -- that has any bearing on the flood rate such a hole could sustain if the injury occurred on the surface. You're the one trying to tell us this is the hole that gave us the flood rate that caused the ship to sink so quickly. Show me the numbers.

Pretty sure one of the expedition crews confirmed it goes down as far as the swimming pool area, which is Deck 0.

Except that we can see in the photos and reconstructed images where the hole is. We can see for ourselves how it relates to the water line no matter how many towels an expedition says they saw.

 

[phiwum]

It is important to remember the bow visor explosion claim is that of Jutta Rabe/Brian Braidwood and the Fokus Group. The latter believe this did not necessarily happen above water, implying Naval activity. If you recall Braidwood spotted what looked like an unexploded device attached to the bow bulkhead in an official Rockwater tape of the scene, which then disappeared from the clip.

The bow visor was above the waterline, right?

So, how would explosions designed to cause bow visor failure be below the waterline?

If the natural failure of the bow visor couldn't explain the sinking, then neither could the intentional destruction of the bow visor -- unless it produced other substantial damage which would be current today.

Do have some consistency, Vixen. If you deny that the former explains a sinking, you must deny that the latter does too. Pretty simple logic.

 

[phiwum]

Note that if the car deck wasn't flooded, then the starboard hole doesn't explain the sinking, since it opens into the car deck.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

What came first? The starboard breach or the list? The JAIC believes the bow visor falling off and pulling open the car ramp door caused a flood of water into the car deck, which caused the list, which could not be rectified as the opposite ballast was full (remember we talked about centre of gravity=trim). Water into the lower decks, JAIC claim, must have come from the force of this water breaching deck 4 and 5 windows and doors. However, nobody saw the bow ramp door open nor did they see any gap at the top of it. It is a JAIC assumption, having decided the water must have come in from the bow. It is an untested hypothesis.

Um, whatever. Not at all relevant to my point.

 

[whoanellie]

You have deaded me, you rotten swine!


ETA: That's right, sod your Hitchhiker's and Python references, I'm going old school!

Is this from one of those English shows I've never heard of?