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

[JayUtah]

Once it is beyond 90° - as Justice Sheen said The Herald of Free Enterprise was before it landed on the sand bar - it is inevitable the vessel will turn over...

No, it isn't. And it's not something the author said, as you reported. It's something you concluded after reading what was said, based upon your misconception about ship stability. Your inability to separate what your source says from what you think upon reading it is a chronic problem for you. Your source is not responsible for your incorrect subsequent conclusions.

...as it has a negative arm reach between the centre of gravity and centre of buoyancy.

"Negative arm reach" is gibberish.

Further, the center of buoyancy is not fixed. It changes with respect to the geometry of the ship that is underwater from instant to instant. Did you factor that into your clumsy attempt at vector arithmetic?

 

[Vixen]

Hi Vixen,

Firstly: that is not a quote, you were asked for a quote.

Secondly: a list of over 90^° is not 'turned over completely'.

Sidebar: I hope you appreciate that I have, as you requested, quoted the post you were replying to, in order to preserve for posterity the context of your answer.

Arrow back from my reply to Myriad to the earlier post to which I was responding and you will see it originates with Abbadon scurrilously and mischievously falsely claiming that I claimed to be an expert in all kinds of areas, which I challenged him to prove and he only managed to come up with two, which happened to be true. This proves conclusively the subject was about my claims about myself.

Clear now?

 

[JayUtah]

Where it says the vessel turned over 90°.

Note how your source does not then go on to state -- as you inaccurately reported -- that the ship would then continue to roll, but was prevented from doing so by the shallow water. You erroneously believe that's what would happen. But a source that fails to state what you erroneously believe is hardly an authority for that belief.

 

[Vixen]

I may well be wrong on this, but I was under the impression that the JAIC report said that the Estonia had been certified as seaworthy (according to specific criteria) by the relevant body. The JAIC itself had no authority to certify seaworthiness, especially retrospectively on a ship that was already at the bottom of the sea.

Better qualified compatriots, please correct me where I have erred. I thirst for your knowledge.

ETA: that last bit may have come across a bit creepier than intended. Sorry 'bout that.

ETA2: crap, I forgot the all important context quote. Sorry Vixen, here it is:

From the JAIC Report:


5.2 Status of the vessel on departure

On departure from Tallinn on 27 September the ESTONIA was seaworthy and properly manned. There were no outstanding items either from the authorities or from the classification society's surveys. The maintenance standard of the vessel was good as witnessed by various instances.

 

[Steve]

I may well be wrong on this, but I was under the impression that the JAIC report said that the Estonia had been certified as seaworthy (according to specific criteria) by the relevant body. The JAIC itself had no authority to certify seaworthiness, especially retrospectively on a ship that was already at the bottom of the sea.

Better qualified compatriots, please correct me where I have erred. I thirst for your knowledge.

ETA: that last bit may have come across a bit creepier than intended. Sorry 'bout that.

No, no, no! If Vixen tells us that the JAIC states that the ship was seaworthy then this is undoubtedly a properly cited, referenced and verified fact, in keeping with Vixen's claim that all her posts are such.

 

[JayUtah]

From the JAIC Report:


5.2 Status of the vessel on departure

On departure from Tallinn on 27 September the ESTONIA was seaworthy and properly manned. There were no outstanding items either from the authorities or from the classification society's surveys. The maintenance standard of the vessel was good as witnessed by various instances.

"Seaworthy" in this context, as evidenced in the text, simply means there were no outstanding maintenance or repair issues. It does not mean the ship was free of defects.

 

[Vixen]

No, it isn't. And it's not something the author said, as you reported. It's something you concluded after reading what was said, based upon your misconception about ship stability. Your inability to separate what your source says from what you think upon reading it is a chronic problem for you. Your source is not responsible for your incorrect subsequent conclusions.



"Negative arm reach" is gibberish.

Further, the center of buoyancy is not fixed. It changes with respect to the geometry of the ship that is underwater from instant to instant. Did you factor that into your clumsy attempt at vector arithmetic?

Yes, and there comes a point it no longer reaches back.

Skip to about the 13:00 mark. Sure the parameters may differ slightly from vessel to vessel dependent on the shape of the hull but holds good as the general principle.

 

[Vixen]

Note how your source does not then go on to state -- as you inaccurately reported -- that the ship would then continue to roll, but was prevented from doing so by the shallow water. You erroneously believe that's what would happen. But a source that fails to state what you erroneously believe is hardly an authority for that belief.

See this video at about the 13 minute mark. This guy makes it extremely simple to understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af0OqOCWEh4

 

[JayUtah]

...mischievously falsely claiming that I claimed to be an expert in all kinds of areas, which I challenged him to prove and he only managed to come up with two, which happened to be true.

How many times have you previously claimed to be a scientist?

Your critics aren't quite as mischievous as you desire them to be, as they note you don't always claim to be an expert. But you do often act as if you were an expert, in the manner I outlined. This is tantamount to the claim even if the claim is never made explicit.

 

[Vixen]

"Seaworthy" in this context, as evidenced in the text, simply means there were no outstanding maintenance or repair issues. It does not mean the ship was free of defects.

Don't try to change the subject, which was Abaddon falsely claimed the JAIC 'never said it was seaworthy'.

Be frank and admit it.

 

[Vixen]

How many times have you previously claimed to be a scientist?

Your critics aren't quite as mischievous as you desire them to be, as they note you don't always claim to be an expert. But you do often act as if you were an expert, in the manner I outlined. This is tantamount to the claim even if the claim is never made explicit.

Stop being less than candid and stop 'appealing to the crowd' as though you and the erroneous Abaddon are one homogenous body called 'Your Critics'.

 

[JayUtah]

See this video at about the 13 minute mark. This guy makes it extremely simple to understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af0OqOCWEh4

You already posted that link, and I already responded to it when you first posted it. What was my answer to it? I want your solution the problem, in your words, not some hastily-googled partial explanation from someone else.

You also ignored the other point I raised. Why does your source stop short of documenting what you believe would happen? And why did you cite it as a source for something it clearly does not say?

 

[JayUtah]

Stop being less than candid and stop 'appealing to the crowd' as though you and the erroneous Abaddon are one homogenous body called 'Your Critics'.

You didn't answer the question. You said the list of your claimed expertise was unsupported, except for two items which you stipulated. But you're not quite correct. "Scientist" was on the list.

How many times in this thread have you claimed to be a scientist?

 

[JayUtah]

Don't try to change the subject, which was Abaddon falsely claimed the JAIC 'never said it was seaworthy'.

Be frank and admit it.

But what is meant by "seaworthy" is a chronic point of confusion in this thread. Your arguments have constantly equivocated this. No, I'm not to stipulate to yet another attempt to equivocate.

The JAIC does not have the authority to declare a ship seaworthy in the way the question intended. Therefore when the statement is made, its exact meaning as gleaned from the context has to be matched against the original question.

 

[junkshop]

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?

Where it says the vessel turned over 90°.

Hi Vixen,

Firstly: that is not a quote, you were asked for a quote.

Secondly: a list of over 90^° is not 'turned over completely'.

Sidebar: I hope you appreciate that I have, as you requested, quoted the post you were replying to, in order to preserve for posterity the context of your answer.

Arrow back from my reply to Myriad to the earlier post to which I was responding and you will see it originates with Abbadon scurrilously and mischievously falsely claiming that I claimed to be an expert in all kinds of areas, which I challenged him to prove and he only managed to come up with two, which happened to be true. This proves conclusively the subject was about my claims about myself.

Clear now?

Vixen, I have acquiesced to your request that I quote the post you are responding to, in order to preserve the context of your posts.

This post of yours, however, illustrates the lack of attention you pay to the questions you 'answer'.

Your 'reply' has no relevance whatsoever to what I posted.

So before you get on your high horse again about people taking you out of context, or imply (as you do here) that they should scroll back and get their facts straight, might I suggest that you READ THE ******* POST YOU ARE REPLYING TO.

Thanks.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So you have said. However, the JAIC never looked at the issue of water finding its way down the ventilation pipes and other sundry intakes, when even if this type of flooding is slower (cf Oceanos) it should at least claim to have actually investigated this area.

It is all very well you and the JAIC saying 'once 18,000 tonnes of water entered the superstructure it would irreversibly sink. However, that is working backwards from knowing that the Estonia's reserve bouyancy is 18,000 tonnes fully loaded, or it wouldn't float in the first place.

So the circular reasoning seems to be, "Let's see, the Estonia had 18,000 reserve buoyancy, therefore there must have been at least 18,000 tonnes of water ingressing (and extremely rapidly for it to sink within 0h 33' of doing so!)".

Of course they looked at it. Ships are not watertight from above, they have lots of openings.

Oceania is a red herring. It flooded slowly through a failed sea pipe . Any air intakes or hatches would have not taken any water until the ship was low enough in the water and heeled over far enough to submerge them. Estonia lost its bow and was going fast in to big waves

 

[Andy_Ross]

See Section 12.

The JAIC does not mention the air intakes, ventilators, machinery intakes and exhausts and hatchways.

JAIC assumes those reading the report know enough about the construction and operation of ships to know they have openings.
A ship is not a plastic lemonade bottle.

 

[Vixen]

You already posted that link, and I already responded to it when you first posted it. What was my answer to it? I want your solution the problem, in your words, not some hastily-googled partial explanation from someone else.

You also ignored the other point I raised. Why does your source stop short of documenting what you believe would happen? And why did you cite it as a source for something it clearly does not say?

As I said Justice Sheen as a legal bod will only stick to the legal facts found and not indulge in speculation. He said the boat had turned more than 90° for about one minute. It made no further movement as a sand bar ended its capsize and there it rested, which is fortuitous because otherwise the death toll would have been more like over 400, as capsizing tends to happen rapidly once it goes over the 90°, or even as little as 70° can make it inevitable within minutes. depending on other factors.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The JAIC states the ship was seaworthy.

JAIC could only report on the status of the ship according to it's certification in place at the time. These are discussed in the report.

 

[Vixen]

JAIC assumes those reading the report know enough about the construction and operation of ships to know they have openings.
A ship is not a plastic lemonade bottle.

Where does it state that?

This is a public report.

The Swedish Government set up a ministry of information to persuade people to accept it.