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

[GlennB]

Didn't we go though that in great detail over many pages just last week?

Yes, huge detail, and Vixen should have been blushing with embarrassment. Caveat emptor.

 

[Axxman300]

If it was a military attack by speznats, then the bow area certainly would be a target for them, bearing in mind their favoured tactic is to strike a vessel in several places to sink it for sure.

When - Was - The- Last - Time - Spetsnaz - Sank - A - Ship - In - A - Real - World- Mission ?

I will accept an answer dating back to 1950.

 

[Vixen]

Where was the Wilhelm Gustloff struck above the waterline? It was hit by torpedoes, they are by their nature below the water.

I mistakenly thought the nurses auxiliary area was quite high up but apparently not.

 

[JayUtah]

I was trying to keep it very very simple.

No, you're just wrong. There's a difference.

 

[Vixen]

What is your evidence that the HOFE had no watertight compartments in the hull?

How do you think it's construction differed from that of the Estonia?

What was the status of the openings in the hull at the time it sank?

Why would a hole in to one of these compartments cause the Estonia to sink if all the other compartments was watertight?

Wikipedia: " there were no watertight compartments."

 

[Vixen]

Water found it's way in to the hull. the machinery spaces were flooding, that is why the engineering crew abandoned them and power was lost.

How would a hole towards the bow on the starboard side flood the machinery space?

The engine room, the swimming pool, sauna and public toilets were the only areas in use in Deck 0 and these were all sealed with watertight doors.

Passengers on Deck 1 - who incidentally, were often the first to have escaped - consistently reported water in the passage way and it was not coming down the stairs.

 

[Andy_Ross]

In section 12.6.1 of the Final Report:
“Even though the list developed rapidly, the water on the car deck would not alone be sufficient to make the ship capsize and lose its survivability. As long as the hull was intact and watertight below and above the car deck, the residual stability with water on the car deck would not have been significantly changed at large heel angles (figure 12.12). Capsize could
only have been completed through water entering other areas of the vessel.”

We know that water was entering the vessel as the machinery spaces were flooding and the ship lost power.
Where do you think the water came from if not down from the car deck and superstructure through ventilators, air intakes and access hatches?

How would a hole near the bows on the starboard side flood the machinery spaces?

 

[Andy_Ross]

I mistakenly thought the nurses auxiliary area was quite high up but apparently not.

Why would you even think it was?
How would a torpedo hit above the waterline?

 

[LondonJohn]

I was trying to keep it very very simple.

This one needs laminating and preserving for posterity.

 

[LondonJohn]

The ignorance is staggering. The Herald of Free Enterprise landed where she did and in the position she lay because the crew steered it deliberately onto a sandbank. It is in that position because that is the lie of the land where she was grounded. Doh_!


Given the water in which The Herald of Free Enterprise lay is extremely shallow, it is preposterous for you to confidently assert that that is exactly how it would have lay on the seabed had it been deeper water and it had sunk fully submerged.

wiki

The Estonia for example, went from being on its starboard side to sinking face down, with a seabed gradient of 30° halting its descent and thus, causing it to finish up at 214°. Had the seabed been level it would have been nearer 180°, except the bridge and funnel would have caused an angle,

*shakes head slowly and backs away*

You don't know what you're talking about.

(I fully accept that you might think you know what you're talking about. But you really don't know what you're talking about - I can assure you of that. You're welcome.)


ETA: As another point of order - I note that you've misrepresented me yet again in this post of yours. I'm not "confidently assert(ing) that this (90-degree capsize) is exactly how it would have lay (sic) on the seabed had it been deeper water...."

What I am stating is: 1) it is likely that the ship would indeed have sunk to the seabed in this attitude, and 2) you're 100% wrong in your assertion that it would necessarily have turned completely upside-down and floated upside-down for some time.

But hey, your misrepresentations are nothing new. I guess it's the "cost of doing business" with your batcrap ideas.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Wikipedia: " there were no watertight compartments."

Yet the General Arrangement plans show the lower hull is divided in to watertight compartments and the official report says that

The ship was of all welded steel construction, with a raked stem and transom stern. A double bottom extended from frame 25 to frame 149. Above the level of the tank tops there were 8 decks, the uppermost being A deck and the lowest H deck, which was below the main or (bulkhead) deck. H deck was sub-divided by 13 watertight bulkheads and had 9 watertight doors for access between compartments. There were 4 watertight flats devoted to passenger accommodation and store spaces. Compartments between the watertight bulkheads were devoted to steering gears (bow and stern) main and auxiliary machinery, fuel and fresh water storage, sewage plant, ballast tanks and voids.

What to trust Wikipedia or the official report and plans of the ship?

General Arrangement drawing
http://www.hhvferry.com/sofeorigga.html

Formal Investigation report
https://assets.publishing.service.g...estigation_HeraldofFreeEnterprise-MSA1894.pdf

(Edit to add a 'Flat' as mentioned in the report is a sub deck in a larger compartment)

 

[Andy_Ross]

The engine room, the swimming pool, sauna and public toilets were the only areas in use in Deck 0 and these were all sealed with watertight doors.

Passengers on Deck 1 - who incidentally, were often the first to have escaped - consistently reported water in the passage way and it was not coming down the stairs.

Machinery Spaces are not sealed. They need large amounts of air. There are large intakes and fans that force it down in to them. Air needs to be circulated to keep the temperature down to a level that can be worked in, induction air is needed for the engines and generators, air is also needed for the air conditioning plant.
There are lots of openings to allow exhaust air to escape.
Also Hatchways and doorways in to the machinery spaces are open whenever the engine room is manned for safety reasons.
As well as the vents, intakes, exhausts and access from above, there are horizontal openings between the machinery spaces to allow crew access. In normal sailing these are open. I would be surprised if some of them had been closed at all for years before the sinking.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... If the windows were smashed by 'pounding' waves, they would not have needed to cut the glass out of the window frames.

Are you talking about divers gaining access through windows on the port side, which are now on the upper side of the wreck, or on the starboard side which were the ones thought to have been smashed?

 

[whoanellie]

I was trying to keep it very very simple.

You shouldn't lie

 

[GlennB]

Given the water in which The Herald of Free Enterprise lay is extremely shallow, it is preposterous for you to confidently assert that that is exactly how it would have lay on the seabed had it been deeper water and it had sunk fully submerged.

And how many times have you claimed that it would have turned turtle but for the shallow water in which it sank? More ... that turning turtle is pretty much inevitable when any boat capsizes in deep water?

No, what's preposterous is that you have the sheer nerve to use a 'laughing dog' in any of your replies. Your contributions here have been worthy of derision from the beginning.

 

[zooterkin]

The ignorance is staggering.

Quite possibly the only correct statement you've made in this thread.

 

[JayUtah]

And how many times have you claimed that it would have turned turtle but for the shallow water in which it sank? More ... that turning turtle is pretty much inevitable when any boat capsizes in deep water?

Nobody tell her about MS Express Samina. Hit a rock, rolled to 90ish degrees, stopped rolling, and sank on its side. It's resting on its side on the bottom. Deep enough to sink, deep enough to "turn turtle," but the ship refused to obey Vixen-physics. So why didn't it continue rolling to 180 degrees? Also, those investigators seemed to think the vast, uncompartmentalized car deck was a problem for stability.

 

[JayUtah]

Given the water in which The Herald of Free Enterprise lay is extremely shallow, it is preposterous for you to confidently assert that that is exactly how it would have lay on the seabed had it been deeper water and it had sunk fully submerged.

Why is it preposterous for your critics to opine what the ship would have done if the water had been deeper, but not preposterous for you to do exactly the same thing? In your case, your prediction comes from a known, discredited crackpot -- even if you think that not citing your source, or making vague irrelevant references to Archimedes, somehow makes it okay. In our case, the prediction comes from the experts who investigated the accident. What's preposterous is an accountant with demonstrably little if any expertise in ship stability (or physics in general) pretending she can just keep spewing "Because I say so" arguments and hiding behind laughing dogs when challenged.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yet the General Arrangement plans show the lower hull is divided in to watertight compartments and the official report says that



What to trust Wikipedia or the official report and plans of the ship?

General Arrangement drawing
http://www.hhvferry.com/sofeorigga.html

Formal Investigation report
https://assets.publishing.service.g...estigation_HeraldofFreeEnterprise-MSA1894.pdf

(Edit to add a 'Flat' as mentioned in the report is a sub deck in a larger compartment)

The point of this is that the bulkheads can be as watertight as you like but if the flooding is coming from above they count for nothing.

 

[JayUtah]

What to trust Wikipedia or the official report and plans of the ship?

Also from the official report:

It is not possible to say whether the ship reached more than while still floating or whether this was only when she reached the sea bed. There is some reason for thinking that the ship floated more or less on her beam ends for about a minute before finally resting on the sea bed.

So the official investigators consider favorably the proposition that the Herald of Free Enterprise stopped its roll at roughly 90° not because it had struck bottom, but because this is where the roll equilibrium was obtained while still afloat.