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

[MarkCorrigan]

Please don't ignore me Vixen.

 

[Vixen]

Weasel words again. You wish to imply that JAIC certified the vessel seaworthy as well as the relevant inspectors. This is false as you well know.

The JAIC very clearly states the thing was seaworthy.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Even the JAIC had to concede this would not be enough to capsize the ship.

More weasel words, intended to imply the JAIC were biased.

This does not address the point. (Imagine my surprise.) Is it your claim that after 4,500 tons of water entered the ship, flooding would simply stop?

I take your evasion to mean you accept the answer is "no".

 

[Vixen]

You appear to have decided the only potential threat to a Baltic ferry is collision and heavy seas are no threat at all. It appears you have indeed still not read that page describing a dozen previous cases of ships suffering dangerous damage at sea.

None of them sank. It's a red herring.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The JAIC very clearly states the thing was seaworthy.

Looks like it's weasels all the way down.

The JAIC very clearly reported the ship's state of inspection and certification. Any implication that they certified it is just some weird imagining in your own head.

If I show you my car's MOT certificate that does not mean I inspected and certified it. This is trivial stuff and I don't know why you don't drop it other than your seeming remarkable incapacity to admit error.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

None of them sank. It's a red herring.

None of them sank until eventually one did. And then finally there was concerted action.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The JAIC very clearly states the thing was seaworthy.

You're either lying about this, or you genuinely don't understand why this isn't true. Neither reflects well on you.

 

[Vixen]

What does 'float on it's superstructure' mean?

Why does it either capsize immediately or not at all?

It took over half an hour to sink, why isn't that plenty of time for water to get in to the hull and superstructure?

Because when a boat capsizes it turns upside down very rapidly. It doesn't float about on its side for any length of time. In the JAIC scenario, because the [maximum] 4,500tonnes presumed [never proven] water on the car deck was not enough to cause the boat to capsize [even the JAIC had to admit this in their report instead of in their customary manner, ignoring it], so it had the vessel floating on its side for half an hour as the windows of the superstructure needed to be smashed by the beastly waves, and saturation to happen that way.

 

[Andy_Ross]

This is where you fall flat on your face as the JAIC state clearly that the vessel was in seaworthy condition, and as certified by Bureau Veritas, the compliance regulators.

What does 'seaworthy' mean in that context?

We went through the Bureau Veritas certification previously.
They had nothing to do with the design or condition of the bow visor.
Here is the Bureau Veritas involvement.

From the report Chapter 3 The Vessel
Section 3.6 Certificates and inspections
3.6.2 Certificates valid at the time of the accident

International certificates cease to be valid when a ship changes flag. New certificates were therefore issued when the ship became Estonian in January 1993. Two new classification certificates (hull, machinery) were issued by Bureau Veritas in January 1993. The Estonian Maritime Administration had authorised Bureau Veritas in August 1992 to perform the surveys on its behalf and to issue certificates under the 1966 Load Line Convention, the 1974 SOLAS Convention, the 1973 MARPOL Convention and the 1969 Tonnage Convention. The status of the certificates at the time of the accident was as follows.
Passenger Ship Safety Certificate. As a new trim and stability manual was under development, the vessel carried an interim Passenger Ship Safety Certificate, issued on 26 June 1994.
Load Line Certificate. For the same reason the Load Line Certificate was interim, issued on 9 September 1994.
International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate. A conditional IOPP certificate was issued by Bureau Veritas on 14 January 1993. The validity was conditional on the issuance of a Passenger Ship Safety Certificate.
International Tonnage Certificate. Bureau Veritas issued, on behalf of the Estonian Government, a tonnage certificate under the Tonnage Convention of 1969. The certificate valid at the time of the accident was dated 29 August 1994.
At the request of the owners Bureau Veritas had also issued a Cyprus tonnage certificate, dated 8 June 1993, according to the Cyprus Merchant Shipping Regulations requirements. Bureau Veritas also issued, under the same authority, a Certificate of Survey pursuant to the Republic of Cyprus Merchant Shipping Law of 1963.

3.6.4 Statutory inspections

The inspections of the vessel regarding compliance with international conventions and national regulations were, during the period under Finnish flag, carried out by the Finnish Maritime Administration except for compliance with the International Load Line Convention and the MARPOL Convention. The authority to perform surveys under these conventions was given to Bureau Veritas.
Bureau Veritas carried out the first load line survey at the time of delivery of the vessel. The compliance with the load line convention requirements was verified at the stipulated annual surveys and the five-year periodic surveys. The load line certificate was renewed when the ship changed flag in January 1993. The last annual inspection for verification of the load line certificate was carried out on 9 September 1994.

Notice that this involves the load line certificates, it is nothing to do with the condition of machinery or fittings.

However

3.6.5 Classification society inspections
Bureau Veritas inspected the vessel for compliance with class requirements in accordance with their rules and standards. The main inspection period was five years and the items to be inspected were divided so that about one fifth of the total inspection work was carried out each year on a rolling schedule. The bow area was inspected under this programme in 1983, 1988 and 1993. No discrepancies were recorded during any of these inspections.

So, the bow was last inspected in 93. but BV could only inspect certain aspects of the ship construction.

Bureau Veritas had no authorisation to survey the vessel for compliance with the SOLAS Convention. When Bureau Veritas surveyed the vessel for change of flag this was done in accordance with the requirements to the extent of a periodic survey, which did not include examination of construction drawings. The location of the extension of the collision bulkhead was thus not considered during this survey.

Estonia was not in compliance with SOLAS regulations

The position of the bow ramp of ESTONIA did not satisfy the SOLAS requirements for an upper extension of the collision bulkhead. No exemption was issued. Such an exemption could be given on condition that the vessel in the course of its voyages did not proceed more than 20 nautical miles from the nearest land.

It should not have been sailing at all as it was not in compliance with SOLAS.

 

[Vixen]

Please don't ignore me Vixen.

Remind me what your question is.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I see, so US Navy SEAL's or Royal Navy divers are unable to set up communications with more than one platform.


Okaaay. We'll just ignore veteran elite expert Brian Braidwood.

Braidwood did not say divers get different instruction in each ear. Stop pretending he did.

And it would be super if you would drop all those passive aggressive "Okaaay" things to imply other people are being stupid. It really sits uneasily with the lack of foundation for the stuff you post.

 

[Vixen]

More weasel words, intended to imply the JAIC were biased.

This does not address the point. (Imagine my surprise.) Is it your claim that after 4,500 tons of water entered the ship, flooding would simply stop?

I take your evasion to mean you accept the answer is "no".

It would just carry on as before into port. The passengers wouldn't be happy at the drenched state of their vehicles but hey, the Diana II had a water ingress and carried on to port for the remaining two and a half hour journey.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The vessel was certified seaworthy.

Dealt with in a reply to the previous post.

'Seaworthy' covers a lot of ground.

Estonia was not in compliance with SOLAS requirements, it should not have been sailing at all.

 

[Vixen]

Looks like it's weasels all the way down.

The JAIC very clearly reported the ship's state of inspection and certification. Any implication that they certified it is just some weird imagining in your own head.

If I show you my car's MOT certificate that does not mean I inspected and certified it. This is trivial stuff and I don't know why you don't drop it other than your seeming remarkable incapacity to admit error.

If your car was in an accident, the police would certainly want to know if it was roadworthy. In the accident report it will state whether or not your vehicle was roadworthy (passed its MOT), thus Person B can't come along and claim it was not in a fit state for the road.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It would just carry on as before into port. The passengers wouldn't be happy at the drenched state of their vehicles but hey, the Diana II had a water ingress and carried on to port for the remaining two and a half hour journey.

So you do think the flooding would just stop. Yet it didn't. What did you overlook?

 

[Vixen]

Braidwood did not say divers get different instruction in each ear. Stop pretending he did.

And it would be super if you would drop all those passive aggressive "Okaaay" things to imply other people are being stupid. It really sits uneasily with the lack of foundation for the stuff you post.

Think about it logically. Those Kirby Morgan earphones are set up to connect to one platform and operate rather like a conference call, wherein all callers can hear each other simultaneously.

Now think about it. You can set up your phone for a conference call on one ear. There is absolutely nothing to stop you from having a second phone to your other ear at the same time.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Brian Braidwood knows better than a lawyer or a politician.

EFD

Some people have principles and use their skills for the common good.

Braidwood identified a petal-shaped indentation near one of the side-locks and his expert eye suspected it had been caused by a detonation.

But of course someone on their keyboard knows better.

I might have to look up my old friend Ben. He was an RN Clearance Diver and worked as a Saturation Diver offshore for many years.
I think I will get his opinion on the evidence for explosives in those photographs.

He was also, along with his brother the last man off the dock when Aden was evacuated after independence, the pair of them kept the NLF off the quayside with a Bren gun while the last ship slipped it's lines.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If your car was in an accident, the police would certainly want to know if it was roadworthy. In the accident report it will state whether or not your vehicle was roadworthy (passed its MOT), thus Person B can't come along and claim it was not in a fit state for the road.

They can if they received evidence the brakes had failed some time after the MOT test and I'd been using the handbrake to stop the car. Rather analogous to crew using hammers to get ill-fitting locks shut, no?

So yes, "person B" could perfectly well report that my car had a valid in-date MOT certificate yet it was not in fact roadworthy.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Remind me what your question is.

Are you serious? You spent much of yesterday desperately trying to avoid answering it.

Ok though, I'll ask it again. If Ian Wright on MOTD started talking about how football is a 13-a-side game where the keeper could run with the ball in his hands like rugby would he still be an acceptable expert on football?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Think about it logically. Those Kirby Morgan earphones are set up to connect to one platform and operate rather like a conference call, wherein all callers can hear each other simultaneously.

Now think about it. You can set up your phone for a conference call on one ear. There is absolutely nothing to stop you from having a second phone to your other ear at the same time.

So you are suggesting the divers wore two helmets.

Look, this is ridiculous, You have been shown that the system used is mono and feeds the same signal to both ears. You have a favourite CT site which claims there was a secret voice we do not hear, but the means they suggest for achieving this is very clearly not supported by documented fact. You could imagine some hypothetical setup which allows this to be done but it is clearly not the equipment actually used by real divers.