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

[Andy_Ross]

Obviously it was. The JAIC assumed the public to be .

Codes of practice for the operation of ferries and construction techniques and standards were changed based on the report. SOAL regulations were updated across the entire globe based on it.
Do you think that the specialists and experts in the worlds shipping industry were too dimwitted to notice the anomalies and omissions?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I know what it means.

Does "floating on its beam ends for about a minute" mean the same as "continuing to roll completely over"?

Hint: No. It does not mean that.

 

[JayUtah]

No he does not otherwise he would not have made a point of saying it.

He made an explicit point of disavowing exactly the conclusion you're trying to draw. It's right there in black-and-white.

It is for the informed to understand what would have happened next but for the sand bar.

But you aren't competent to determine what would have happened next. You cited this document as evidence of the veracity of your belief that Herald would have turtled but for the seabed. Now you're telling us that we have to read between the lines and determine for ourselves what would have happened next, if not for the sandbar. So you're conceding that the passage that would have confirmed your belief is not actually in the document. Very well, I'm professionally qualified to extrapolate from the given evidence. You are not.

 

[Mojo]

I meant "fortuitous' as in 'providence' not as in 'fortunate'.

A ‘providence’ that kills 193 people doesn’t seem much good.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes because a vociferous poster here is insistent that had the sand bar not been there, there is no way The Herald of Free Enterprise would have capsized further or even turtled...

Which poster are you referring to, and where did he say what you've attributed to him?

That is why I quoted Sheen to show the error of this poster's ways.

The quote from Sheen neither precludes nor mandates further rolling. It does, however, make explicit that it does not conclude that what made the ship stop rolling at 90° was the seabed. And this is consistent with a properly-informed understanding of equilibrium subdomains in the roll-axis model. You may conclude as you wish, but Sheen is not an authority for your subsequent conclusions.

No matter how much you complain, the report on Herald absolutely does not support your belief that a ship will invariably turtle.

 

[Andy_Ross]

As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that is hardly an analogy, as the US bombing of Japan was an act of war, in retaliation for Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbour.

He thinks the nuclear bombs were fakes.
They were not in retaliation for Pearl Harbor. At least learn something about it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Yes because a vociferous poster here is insistent that had the sand bar not been there, there is no way The Herald of Free Enterprise would have capsized further or even turtled, but would, we are assured, 'have landed on its side' exactly as it did on the sand bar.


That is why I quoted Sheen to show the error of this poster's ways.

Can you show us with quotes where the mystery poster and Sheen disagree? So far you only have a quote from Sheen which clearly does not say what you claim it says.

 

[Andy_Ross]

What is it you do not understand by Mr. Justice Sheen saying that The Herald of Free Enterprise turned more than 90°?

Did you not understand at all what Tammes meant, when he said the list of the Estonia was 30° to 40° and why he was in a state of panic?

More than 90 is not 180

If I was on a ship in a storm that had taken on a list of 30 to 40 degrees and was taking on water I think I would feel a bit of panic coming on.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You seem to have forgotten that the Estonia's non-compliance had not been noted by the authorities at the time. If you think the JAIC were wrong in what you keep quoting, perhaps you would indicate precisely where and what they ought to have said instead.

The only non compliance was that concerning the location and height of the collision bulkhead, they could have applied for an exemption. There were a number of ships predating the change that were not in compliance.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No he does not otherwise he would not have made a point of saying it. It is for the informed to understand what would have happened next but for the sand bar.

He says the roll stopped as the ship stabilised and continued to flood. It did not keep turning, if it had the top of the superstructure would have made contact with the seabed before the ship sank.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The only non compliance was that concerning the location and height of the collision bulkhead, they could have applied for an exemption. There were a number of ships predating the change that were not in compliance.

Yes and, as you said, if it had obtained an exemption that would be conditional on its not sailing further than 20nm from land, which might have put it in calmer waters and saved it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yes because a vociferous poster here is insistent that had the sand bar not been there, there is no way The Herald of Free Enterprise would have capsized further or even turtled, but would, we are assured, 'have landed on its side' exactly as it did on the sand bar.


That is why I quoted Sheen to show the error of this poster's ways.

Sheen says just that though, the ship stopped it's roll and then after a minute of flooding while still on it's side it sank.
It did not continue to roll.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yes and, as you said, if it had obtained an exemption that would be conditional on its not sailing further than 20nm from land, which might have put it in calmer waters and saved it.

Yes, and this is laid out in the report.
I wonder why the owners didn't apply for an exemption that would have forced either a change in it's route or extensive rebuilding?

It seems that the Swedish and Finnish authorities turned a blind eye to the requirements as a matter of official policy

Chapter 18 Compliance with Collision Bulkhead requirements

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.

In Finland and Sweden the arrangement of the forward ramp in ro-ro passenger ferries seems to have been inherited from the cargo ferries. The Commission has not found any formal document showing approval, exemption or disapproval of any such design under the SOLAS requirements.

The first passenger ferries were used in sheltered waters near land so that the SOLAS regulation on an exemption if the voyage remains within 20 nautical miles of the nearest land may have been in the background when the decisions were made.
It thus became common amongst the Finnish and Swedish Maritime Administrations to accept the forward-located bow ramp arrangement. Many ferries built for Baltic ferry operations from 1961 up to about 1985 had a forward-located bow ramp that did not meet the SOLAS requirement for passenger vessels regarding the location of the collision bulkhead upper extension.

There may have been a lenient attitude from the Administrations at the time as they had very limited staffs and relied heavily on the classification societies. These, in turn, did not in most cases have the authorisation to verify compliance with the SOLAS requirements.

It is the opinion of the Commission that an extended collision bulkhead, built in compliance with either SOLAS 1974 or the 1981 Amendments, would have increased the Estonia's chances of surviving the loss of the visor.

According to the Finnish Administration, the problem concerning the deviation of the ramp location from the SOLAS requirement for an upper extension of the collision bulkhead was not known to its inspectors. Anyhow, according to the same information, the Administration would have accepted the deviation in line with previous practice, applied also by the Swedish Maritime Administration.The Commission has noted that full responsibility for enforcing compliance with the Conventions nevertheless, according to SOLAS, remains with the Administration. The Commission has also noted that the unrestricted right of the Finnish Maritime Administration to rely on classification society hull surveys in this respect was withdrawn in the new decree on surveys of ships issued in 1983.
It seems obvious to the Commission that the interpretation of the SOLAS Convention's collision bulkhead regulations common at the time did not ensure satisfactory compliance with applicable rules and made it possible to design the ESTONIA in a way which may have contributed to her capsizal. The Commission finds it unacceptable that practice is developed that makes it possible to deviate from a Convention with no documentation or exemptions in the certificate.

 

[Myriad]

Yes and, as you said, if it had obtained an exemption that would be conditional on its not sailing further than 20nm from land, which might have put it in calmer waters and saved it.

I keep reading that as "20 nanometers" which would be extremely (even dangerously) close to land indeed.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think Archimedes got there a couple of thousand years before anyone here.

Yes. I'm aware of that.

That's not what I was talking about though. I was talking about the frequent - and usually non-applicable - invocation within this thread of Archimedes and his principle. Now I know the provenance of those hapless attempts at scientific validation. That's all

 

[LondonJohn]

No he does not otherwise he would not have made a point of saying it. It is for the informed to understand what would have happened next but for the sand bar.

I mean, I would laugh until my abdomen could take no more.... but I have work to do. So I'll just make do with noting the patent idiocy and absence of logic/reason behind this.

 

[LondonJohn]

He made a point of saying there was reason to believe the ship floated on her beam ends (i.e. maintained its attitude of somewhat more than 90° roll) for around a minute.

The issue here is not what those who imagine themselves to be informed believe would happen next.

The issue is that you claimed Sheen said that the ship would turn right over, intending that as support for your belief that it would, when he absolutely did not say so. You said that he was on your side on this point when he absolutely did not say the ship would have rolled right over.

Indeed.

And further: the very fact that the report concludes that what most likely happened was that the HOFE settled in that 90-degree (give or take a few degrees) heel before sinking down to the sandbar....

......actually lends a lot more weight to the notion that the ship - had the sandbar not intervened - would simply have continued to sink in that same orientation onto a deeper sea bed.

 

[JesseCuster]

Indeed.

And further: the very fact that the report concludes that what most likely happened was that the HOFE settled in that 90-degree (give or take a few degrees) heel before sinking down to the sandbar....

......actually lends a lot more weight to the notion that the ship - had the sandbar not intervened - would simply have continued to sink in that same orientation onto a deeper sea bed.

But Justice Sheen said that the HOFE would have continued to roll over until it was upside down and then would have floated there, if not for the sandbank it settled on.

Well, he didn't actually say that. But that's what he meant. It's apparently up to us to fill in the gaps and extrapolate some conclusion from what he did say, and that's apparently the same thing as him saying it himself, even if it's inconsistent with what he actually said.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Imagine how short this thread could have been if we each just decided that what the report said really meant whatever we reckoned actually happened.

 

[abaddon]

So let me get this straight. The Finnish, Estonian. Swedish and Russian government all colluded to cover all of this up? They sent out mini-subs or full size subs and torpedos and limpet mines and suicide squads of spetsnaz and nuclear waste and who knows what else.

But it absolutely is not a CT?