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

[Andy_Ross]

Exactly, which is why it didn't turn turtle in one minute, like the The Herald of Free Enterprise.

Yes, neither of them turned turtle, they flooded and sank.
It is very rare for a ship to 'turn turtle' and stay afloat.

 

[Andy_Ross]

"12.6.1
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. "

We know that it wouldn't, but there wasn't just water on the car deck.
Once it was flooded water found it's way down ventilators, machinery air intakes and exhausts, air conditioning intakes and hatchways. Once it was far enough over the waves breaking against the starboard side smashed windows which allowed more water in to the ship.

A ship is not watertight from above.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I don't need to calculate anything as I don't believe the Estonia did float on its superstructure as the JAIC claims, whilst its windows filled with water.

Where do they claim this?

New calculations by VINNOVA in 2008 and as agreed by the Swedish bods, show that it needed to have an inflow of almost three times as much seawater than JAIC state and a displacement of air of nearer 83% for the Estonia to have sunk like that.

ERR

Water went down the air intakes, ventilators, machinery intakes and exhausts and hatchways.
Nobody is claiming that there was only water on the car deck.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oh yes, I did.

"It listed heavily to starboard [?] the whole time and we never saw its superstructure windows smashing as a result." ibid

Spot the question mark?

If it was listing heavily, how would you see the windows smashing when they would be on the lower, submerged side?

 

[abaddon]

If we take the JAIC assumption that the only damage to the ship was both the bow visor and the bow ramp falling off due to a strong wave,

But that isn't the JAIC conclusion. What makes you think it is?

then ipso facto the hull must be intact and there was no collision or explosion (whether due to ingress of water into pipes or not),

You mean the collisions and explosions you claimed earlier never actually happened?

in addition to the vessel being seaworthy when it departed (as the JAIC state),

Not what the JAIC stated.

then it is correct that once the boat heels far enough either to port or starboard, there comes a point when it will topple over - and this happens quite quickly - and floats upside down.

It is impossible for a vessel to sink then, right?

Normally, because of water gradually displacing the air it would sink eventually.

How can you make that claim when you clearly know nothing about it?

 

[Andy_Ross]

If we take the JAIC assumption that the only damage to the ship was both the bow visor and the bow ramp falling off due to a strong wave, then ipso facto the hull must be intact and there was no collision or explosion (whether due to ingress of water into pipes or not), in addition to the vessel being seaworthy when it departed (as the JAIC state), then it is correct that once the boat heels far enough either to port or starboard, there comes a point when it will topple over - and this happens quite quickly - and floats upside down.

What is your evidence for this claim?

Why would it 'topple over'?

 

[Axxman300]

Has anyone pointed out that the fractures found in Estonia's hull aren't large enough to sink her? Certainly not as fast as a wide-open bow ramp.

 

[Andy_Ross]

He might be a pain in the neck and given to prolix but I can see nothing wrong with his basic calculations on buoyancy and Finite Elements calculation. I couldn't care less what he thinks about other topics.

Do you have the knowledge and experience to know if his 'basic calculations' are valid?

 

[Andy_Ross]

'It depends' might be salient to your tax accountant or IRS. However, if you were expected to investigate an accident which killed 852 very suddenly, people want definite answers. Not, 'it depends'.

That would depend on the information and evidence your investigation was able to gather.
If aftyer investigating you don't know the answer it is honest to say so, not to guess or invent something.

 

[Mojo]

Legal bod, Mr. Justice Sheen, is on mine. Thörnroos' and Mäkelä's side, albeit in retrospect.

Can you quote the bit of the report where Sheen said the that The Herald of Free Enterprise would have turned over completely but for the sand bar on its port?

 

[abaddon]

Quasi conclusion. I have never said, "Because I say so."

You are a master of false logic, I'll give you that.


Instead of discussing the topic of the thread you have been trying to divert it to deprecating the poster instead.

Unlike you, some of us know who Jay actually is and his logic is sound. In fact it is so solid that I have no need to even defend him. He will and has demolished all the crap you have generated with ease.

Truth be told, I have learned a lot from my interactions with Jay. His mastery of logic and reason is not to be sneezed at. My mastery of logic and reason is not too shabby. If you compare mine to Jay's, it's shabby.

But comparing either of us, or any of a number of others here in this thread to you? What will we make of that?

 

[Andy_Ross]

OK, so explain in which way he got 'drummed out' of his profession many years ago. Anyone can slag someone else off behind their back, or when they do not have the right or means of a reply. So if you are going to make that type of claim, you need to be explicit about what you mean.

He was a contributor on this very site and nothing was 'behind his back' and he has a means of reply and replied quite often, check his post count.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Except you do make false claims about yourself, don't you Vixen? You claimed to be a scientist, repeatedly. That was a lie.

 

[abaddon]

Except you do make false claims about yourself, don't you Vixen? You claimed to be a scientist, repeatedly. That was a lie.

Well go on Vixen. Are you actually a scientist as you claimed?

Or are you not?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Has anyone pointed out that the fractures found in Estonia's hull aren't large enough to sink her? Certainly not as fast as a wide-open bow ramp.

Yes, repeatedly, the hole isn't even below the waterline.

 

[Here_to_learn]

I don't have the supplement. I infer nor do you. Can't speak for you but I do not assume it never existed. Neither of us is qualified to criticize the work anyway.

The supplements to the JAIC report are available on this site: https://sok.riksarkivet.se/estonia?infosida=jaics-haverirapport-och-supplement

Supplement 2 has the stability calculations from what I can see.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The supplements to the JAIC report are available on this site: https://sok.riksarkivet.se/estonia?infosida=jaics-haverirapport-och-supplement

Supplement 2 has the stability calculations from what I can see.

You need to create an account and log in to see any documentation younger than 110 years for data protection reasons.

ETA I now have an account for the archives.

Rockwater divers reports and logs are available, they look interesting.

 

[Mojo]

Er, more than 90° means it is no longer above the surface.

In which case it is impossible for a ship to “turn turtle” and float upside down, as it will have sunk before it becomes inverted.

 

[Mojo]

Mr Justice Sheen is a wig who sits on the Queen's Bench. He does not do street slang like, 'turtled' and nor does he speculate. He just gives the facts. His legal fact found was that the The Herald of Free Enterprise had already turned more than 90°. What did you think would happen next?

What did he say happened next?

 

[Here_to_learn]

New calculations by VINNOVA in 2008...

Since you keep repeating this, I should point out that Vinnova (The Swedish Innovation Agency) did not perform any calculations. They were asked by the government to provide funds to two separate groups that did perform the calculations.