Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
And I'm still waiting for a clarification for what the difference is between a ship floating with a 180-degree list, and a ship that's floating on its superstructure.
Vixen: When a ship turns turtle, what is it floating on? Where is the superstructure? Is the ship floating on it?
Since Vixen does not really provide any details and never does calculations, I am not sure what the overall argument is regarding "more than 90°," but we have evidence that the Estonia was listing beyond 90° before it sank. At 26:55 in this video, Paul Barney says, "Ship disappeared like a giant surfboard, effectively, and turning turtle, begin to turn… So it was like 95 degrees, it was slightly turning turtle."
So far, Vixen has treated Paul Barney as one of the survivors that it is unacceptable to question, so at least Vixen should accept this as accurate.
If the claim is that the JAIC conclusions would require the Estonia to rotate more than 90° (which may or may not count as "turning turtle"), then there is no problem. It did that.
At last! Light dawns. Yes, the Estonia should have turned turtle had it not been for the breach in the hull, caused by whatever reason.
It sank stern first, so that it was half standing out of the water (155 metres long to 70 metres deep) and then slowly fell forward face down. That is what Barney saw.
My understanding is that Vixen's claim is that MS Jan Heweliusz should be considered the stereotype for the sinking of a ro-ro ferry, specifically that any such ship should turtle (completely and inevitably) and float for a considerable time. There is a roll component to the claim, and a buoyancy component to the claim. That MS Estonia didn't both turtle and remain afloat is, in her opinion, anomalous.
If its hull below is intact and there were no explosions (pipes or otherwise) or other forms of flooding (as the JAIC claim) that is what the captains of Mariella and Europa were expecting to find: a semi-submerged vessel, not bits of debris and sinking at a breakneck speed. Faster than the Wilhelm Gustloff with a huge number of passengers crammed in and three torpedoes smashing its side simultaneously.
It's preposterous until you do it, after which it's just audacious.
The Italian navy managed to set up a secret mini submarine base inside the scuttled tanker Oltera, interned in Algeciras, under the guise of repairing it. In 1942/43 they launched multiple sabotage raids against allied ships just across the bay in Gibraltar.
If its hull below is intact and there were no explosions (pipes or otherwise) or other forms of flooding (as the JAIC claim) that is what the captains of Mariella and Europa were expecting to find: a semi-submerged vessel, not bits of debris and sinking at a breakneck speed. Faster than the Wilhelm Gustloff with a huge number of passengers crammed in and three torpedoes smashing its side simultaneously.
Faster than a very different design of ship damaged in an entirely different manner yet slower than a very similar ship with a very similar problem.
And yes, we've heard your attempted rebuttal a bazillion times. The HOFE hit the bottom within a couple of minutes of getting into trouble. How far did the Estonia sink in a couple of minutes?
The passive aggressive sarcasm just makes you look worse when the problem is that you cannot explain what you're trying to talk about.
Perhaps you could settle Stamuel's conundrum: When you say a ship has "turned turtle" do you mean that it has turned completely upside down (which I think most of us would understand that to mean) or do you mean something else, such as that it is anything more than halfway turned over, for example?
Faster than a very different design of ship damaged in an entirely different manner yet slower than a very similar ship with a very similar problem.
And yes, we've heard your attempted rebuttal a bazillion times. The HOFE hit the bottom within a couple of minutes of getting into trouble. How far did the Estonia sink in a couple of minutes?
What did you think of The Hope of Free Enterprise' purser, Stephen Homewood's extract, which summarises Mr. Justice Sheen's findings as follows in his book:
This water settled on the port side, causing that first roll. [Briefly] the ship then steadied; but as more water rushed in, the extra weight sent the ship into its final death roll. Floating on its side for a minute, it [soon and providentially] settled on the sandbank that [mercifully] saved the ship from turning completely turtle.”
What did you think of The Hope of Free Enterprise' purser, Stephen Homewood's extract, which summarises Mr. Justice Sheen's findings as follows in his book:
I think I initially assume the expertise assembled for an inquiry will be more knowledgeable on the process of sinking than the Herald's assistant purser.
How about you?
I note that once again you evaded answering the obvious point that the Herald sank a whole lot faster than the Estonia.
The passive aggressive sarcasm just makes you look worse when the problem is that you cannot explain what you're trying to talk about.
Perhaps you could settle Stamuel's conundrum: When you say a ship has "turned turtle" do you mean that it has turned completely upside down (which I think most of us would understand that to mean) or do you mean something else, such as that it is anything more than halfway turned over, for example?
Imagine a flat board of wood say, ten feet long and five feet wide, one foot depth, floating on a calm stretch of water. You are standing at its centre of gravity and are perfectly buoyant. The force of gravity pulling downwards and the centre of buoyancy pushing upwards means you are superbly balanced. You then step to your right a couple of feet. You are now not at the centre of gravity. Being flat wood, there is no righting mechanism as one would have on a boat. The board tips over toppling you out in the process.
Question: Does the flat board of wood float on its twelve-inch side even for a minute?
I think I initially assume the expertise assembled for an inquiry will be more knowledgeable on the process of sinking than the Herald's assistant purser.
How about you?
I note that once again you evaded answering the obvious point that the Herald sank a whole lot faster than the Estonia.
The question was how you define the term "turn turtle".
e.g. I would have tended to use "capsize" informally to mean "turn upside down" but I accept that people who are more familiar with boats and ships use the term for much lesser degrees of list, particularly if it reaches a point from which the ship does not recover itself.
I would understand the term "turn turtle" to mean "turn upside down".
If those terms mean something different to you, it might avoid pointless confusion if you said so.
But we can reach Justice Sheen's actual words which don't agree with what you or the paraphrasing say they do.
We've read Justice Sheen's words. We don't need your extrapolations or interpolations or someone else's paraphrasing to understand it.
Also, please explain your bizarre post about 0 degrees bring starboard, 45 being perfect equilibrium. I don't think anyone has a clue what you meant. You clearly don't understand at all what list angles mean.
Imagine a flat board of wood say, ten feet long and five feet wide, one foot depth, floating on a calm stretch of water. You are standing at its centre of gravity and are perfectly buoyant. The force of gravity pulling downwards and the centre of buoyancy pushing upwards means you are superbly balanced. You then step to your right a couple of feet. You are now not at the centre of gravity. Being flat wood, there is no righting mechanism as one would have on a boat. The board tips over toppling you out in the process.
Question: Does the flat board of wood float on its twelve-inch side even for a minute?
You are wrong to claim that a flat raft has no righting moment.
I am happy to admit that a 10' x 5' x 1' block of timber will not be stable floating on its narrow side. I do not expect you to be able to indicate its relevance.
At last! Light dawns. Yes, the Estonia should have turned turtle had it not been for the breach in the hull, caused by whatever reason.
It sank stern first, so that it was half standing out of the water (155 metres long to 70 metres deep) and then slowly fell forward face down. That is what Barney saw.
What did you think of The Hope of Free Enterprise' purser, Stephen Homewood's extract, which summarises Mr. Justice Sheen's findings as follows in his book:
But the report doesn't say it would have completely turned over.
In fact the ship turned on to it's side and then sank on to the sea med in that orientation. It says so right there in the report.
Imagine a flat board of wood say, ten feet long and five feet wide, one foot depth, floating on a calm stretch of water. You are standing at its centre of gravity and are perfectly buoyant. The force of gravity pulling downwards and the centre of buoyancy pushing upwards means you are superbly balanced. You then step to your right a couple of feet. You are now not at the centre of gravity. Being flat wood, there is no righting mechanism as one would have on a boat. The board tips over toppling you out in the process.
Question: Does the flat board of wood float on its twelve-inch side even for a minute?
No he doesn't. there is no mention in the report that the ship would have turned turtle if the water had been deeper. In fact the report says the ship listed and then stabilised and continued sinking.
It is very rare for a ship to turn completely over when it is sinking.
This is astonishing. 0° must represent upright, vertical, in a position floating nicely balanced in still water. Everybody else in this thread (and elsewhere) would take 90° to mean lying on its side, so that any mast, funnel or whatever standing perpendicular to the deck is now parallel with the water's surface.
Beyond that - even if you arbitrarily chose 0° to mean lying on its side, then 45° would be only half way up/down to the vertical. A right angle has 90°, in case you missed that at school.
A boat is only a half circle in shape, thus if port is at 45° and starboard at 135°, it is indeed standing perpendicular to the deck and now parallel with the water's surface when turned 90°. However, it only takes a list of just 45° for the side of the boat to be irrevocably in a state of impending capsize. At 90° this has surely already happened. And if it has turned more than 90° then it means the rotational force has reversed and it would have continued turning upside down, were it not for the sand bank, where it came to rest.
The guy in the video uses 0° for the centre of gravity thus making it clear what the angle of list is and of course, it depends on the shape of the hull as to what point it tips over. At at an angle of 70° list (or at 160° to the surface of the water) it is likely already at negative gravity and capsize imminent. By 90° it is certainly not floating om its side, it is in the final throes of turtling. (Ceteris paribus)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
