Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

[Vixen]

What is good about this is that the video of the ferry shows the window breaking when the wave hits but not breaking when it is subject to just the wind.

The wind drives the wave.

 

[JesseCuster]

It is all set out in the naval standards MIL-S-901 & MIL-STD-167 and ISO 21005.

And what do those naval standards tell you about whether or not the windows on the Estonia would have broken or not from being hit by waves on the night it sank as it listed heavily into the sea?

Nothing, that's what. So why mention it?

Again I'll ask, do you have an actual cogent argument about why the windows on the Estonia wouldn't have broken when being hit by waves under the conditions of the night it sank?

You are naïve if you think cruise ships use ordinary glass or glass that has not been certified as being of a safety standard (usually this means kite marked).

I would be naive if I thought that. But I don't think that. Which is why I said nothing of the sort. Can you not read properly or something?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Welcome back Vixen. Care to answer my questions yet?

 

[JesseCuster]

The wind was the force behind the waves. Here, any time there is a storm, there is invariably a power cut - thankfully, usually short - due to falling power cables (gradually being replaced by underground ones). After almost every storm, going to our villa out in the deep countryside, I know I will be greeted with the sight of a fallen tree or two.

There were no power cables or trees in the middle of the Baltic where the Estonia sank.

The windows on the ship were broken by wave action, not by winds.

So what is the point behind this odd ramble about fallen power cables and trees?

 

[Vixen]

You asserted the word "bang" was used in interviews to mean explosions. That was just speculation. That "bang" doesn't mean something else does not help you be correct.

No, that is not what I said. What I said was that the JAIC anonymised summary avoids using the survivors' own words of hearing 'bangs' and has either only reported those passengers of the six it interviewed who mentioned 'metallic thuds' or it revised the word 'bang' to 'metallic thud' to fit in with its pet narrative, that any suspicious noises heard must have been 'the bow visor pounding on the forepeak deck', but that is rather begging the question.

 

[JesseCuster]

But how does the wave get to be six metres high in the first place unless there are gale force winds?

There were 4-6 metre waves and force 7-8 gale force winds on the night of the sinking.

 

[JesseCuster]

It is everything to do with the foreseeable forces of nature.

But it was the waves that broke the windows as the ship listed into the sea. It wasn't the wind.

So why do you keep gibbering on about the wind speed the windows were designed to withstand, how winds can knock down power cables and trees, etc.?

 

[Vixen]

The posts about Einseln and Simm are still there. They aren't Swedish generals and could not have influenced much how Swedish authorities would have approached the investigation. Why would Ingvar Carlsson care about covering for Einseln?

Did you not know that the CIA, MI6 and the Swedish intelligence services were assisting Estonia in setting up its own, having kicked out the KGB and the newly named one?


Einseln was an American who was appointed by Estonia circa 1993 and it is inconceivable that he was not a key part of this development.

 

[Vixen]

The wave smashed the windows, not the wind.

What's your point in all this Vixen? Do you have some actual coherent argument that because the windows on the Estonia were designed to withstand a windspeed of 41 metres/second that therefore the waves that hit it that night couldn't have broken the windows?

If so, can you actually provide a cogent argument to that effect instead of just waffling on about how the waves were caused by wind?

This reminds me of the argument structure, 'Did the window smash because OF the wave or WITH the wave'?

 

[Andy_Ross]

It is all set out in the naval standards MIL-S-901 & MIL-STD-167 and ISO 21005.


You are naïve if you think cruise ships use ordinary glass or glass that has not been certified as being of a safety standard (usually this means kite marked).

Who says the glass on a ship would be 'ordinary' glass?

Glass high in the superstructure an towards the stern will not be the same as glass lower in the ship or towards the bow.
It is not expected to come in to contact with solid waves. It is of lesser thickness and strength so lighter than that used in more vulnerable positions.


Why would glass on a ship built in Germany have a 'kite mark'?

 

[JesseCuster]

No, that is not what I said. What I said was that the JAIC anonymised summary avoids using the survivors' own words of hearing 'bangs' and has either only reported those passengers of the six it interviewed who mentioned 'metallic thuds' or it revised the word 'bang' to 'metallic thud' to fit in with its pet narrative, that any suspicious noises heard must have been 'the bow visor pounding on the forepeak deck', but that is rather begging the question.

The highlighted part is what you actually said. You've after the fact included the qualifier that you said it was that OR that they only reported passengers who mentioned metallic thuds.

You were quite specific in what you claimed, and your claim wasn't that they might have limited the testimonies to those who mentioned metallic thuds, it was that they specifically reworded survivor testimony to replace the word 'bang' with 'metallic thud'.

Note whilst at least 39 of the passenger survivors mention hearing 'bangs', the JAIC has rewritten it as 'metallic thuds'

Which is yet another claim you've provided no evidence for. You just squirm and deflect and throw out stuff that doesn't actually prove the claims you're making.

 

[Andy_Ross]

But how does the wave get to be six metres high in the first place unless there are gale force winds?

What point are you making?

What caused the wave doesn't matter once the wave exists.
It will hit the ship much harder than any wind.

 

[JesseCuster]

This reminds me of the argument structure, 'Did the window smash because OF the wave or WITH the wave'?

Let me try again, you completely neglected to answer the question in the post you quoted.

Do you have some actual coherent argument that because the windows on the Estonia were designed to withstand a windspeed of 41 metres/second that therefore the waves that hit it that night couldn't have broken the windows?

If so, can you actually provide a cogent argument to that effect instead of just waffling on about how the waves were caused by wind?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The wind was the force behind the waves. Here, any time there is a storm, there is invariably a power cut - thankfully, usually short - due to falling power cables (gradually being replaced by underground ones). After almost every storm, going to our villa out in the deep countryside, I know I will be greeted with the sight of a fallen tree or two.

The wind is incredibly powerful. How can an inanimate object such as an extremely heavy tree fall of its own accord, ceteris parabus, assuming it is not old or diseased?

That ferry in Hamburg had panes of glass that could not withstand winds of a rare wind speed of up to 122mph (as recorded in England recently in Storm Eunice). The wave that smashed it was driven by a powerful wind, that had not been anticipated by the builders who installed the glass.

But the windows were withstanding the force of the wind. It was the wave that broke it.

How do you know the Hamburg ferry can't withstand a wind speed of 122mph?

 

[Andy_Ross]

It is measurable. In respect of Estonia, the height of the waves was nothing exceptional on the night of the disaster:

EFD

What point do you think any of that makes?

 

[Andy_Ross]

No, that is nonsense. Passenger and naval ships have to comply with standards (ISO, IMO, SOLAS). The elements in its structure have to undergo rigorous strength, tensile and vibration testing. Things of course have developed enormously in the twenty-seven years since the disaster in glass window design, acrylic glass, thermal or chemical heating, there are all kinds of permutations and of course the windows in such a vessel would be expected to withstand intense pressures (air pressure, extremes of climate, shock waves, storms, fractures caused by flying debris, etc) as in an aeroplane.

You are just making stuff up as you go along now.

You don't know what any of the standards are or were at the time.

 

[Vixen]

Last Super Bowl Sunday, my wife and I had planned to visit relatives a few miles away. But our car wasn't running well. The day before, it had overheated. Also, there was a moderate snowstorm going on that day. I'm quite experienced with driving in snow, so the snowfall alone wouldn't have deterred me from a short car trip. I'm also not overly afraid of breaking down. I can do minor repairs and there's good roadside service available in the area. But the combination of the two factors kept us home. A relatively minor breakdown, plus heavier than expected snow that delayed roadside service for hours, would make the choice to travel regrettable. If we had decided to risk it, you can be sure that I'd have driven like a nervous granny and kept an eye on every dashboard instrument every mile of the way, rather than insist on going full speed.

The point is, when the adverse factors stack up against you, that's when you change your plans, or at least proceed with an over-abundance of caution. Especially when you're responsible for the well-being of others (such as passengers or guided clients). If you hike, cave, fly, dive, climb, or sail, you already know this. Every inherently risky activity has its own library of cautionary stories where the motif of cumulative adverse factors leading to disaster appears over and over.

How is that relevant to Estonia? The dialog in my mind goes something like this:

"Here's a ferry. Its design is considered by international experts to only be safe in coastal waters."

"Actually, we're going to sail it across the Baltic Sea."

"Okay, but only when the weather conditions are calm, right?"

"Actually, we're going to make the crossing in stormy weather."

"Okay, but you'll at least make sure the ship is in the best possible condition and in the ideal configuration to react to unforeseen problems during the crossing, right?"

"Actually, we're going to set off with leaky seals and an unbalanced trim condition that makes further trim adjustments impossible."

"Hmm, you might get away with that if you're lucky, but you'll at least slow down or change your route to minimize the risk from wave impacts, right?"

"Actually, we have a schedule to keep so we're going to steam in a direct line at full speed."

"That's really asking for trouble. I think I'll stay on shore and wait for another ferry. But just for my peace of mind, at least tell me your officers and crew are going to be extra vigilant for any sign of equipment failure or danger to the passengers."

"Actually, we're all going to slack off and disregard every warning sign until it's too late."

At this point it's clear that if the ship had made the crossing without foundering, it would only have been due to near-miraculous luck. The operation of the vessel amounts to what in U.S. law would be described with phrases like "reckless endangerment" and "depraved indifference." Unfortunately the passengers had no idea of all the accumulated adverse factors, apart from the stormy weather itself. If they knew, none of them would have boarded. But the captain and senior officers knew all of them, or should have known if they were competent. They're fortunate to now be little bits of the marine life of the Baltic Sea floor. It's better than they deserved.

The problem is, the JAIC report declares that on the day of departure, the Estonia was seaworthy and that there were no outstanding issues.

The blame is placed on 'a design fault of the bow visor'.

Of course people should know you should drive safely. In the icy conditions we have here - frozen rain on top of snow and a lack of grit/sand due to huge demand this year - it is common sense to avoid skidding by not going over 45 mph as sliding into the wrong lane or a wall is correlated with high speeds. A car found itself skidding in front of an oncoming van and both were written off. Police said it was the fault of the person who finds themselves in the wrong lane for whatever reason. The idea that the senior crew of the Estonia had no idea how to sail in a storm is questionable because it did turn to port. One wonders whether the Captain had been incapacitated or whether there was sabotage, such as an explosive device loosening the ramp, as there was very little time to save the situation. Zero evacuation, no time to launch the life boats. Series of bangs heard at Swedish midnight midway through its journey and during a change of watch on the bridge. No Mayday from the captain. Perhaps there was nothing the crew could had done that would have stopped the disaster.

 

[Vixen]

You are just making stuff up as you go along now.

You don't know what any of the standards are or were at the time.

As I said standards now are twenty-seven years after the accident. Do read what I wrote.

 

[Vixen]

Eh? I thought a southwesterly wind was one blowing from the south west?

"The North wind doth blow, And we shall have snow ..."

The direction of the wind or a wave is always in the direction from which the wind is coming from.

IOW a southwesterly is coming from the south west and a northerly from the north.

 

[Vixen]

Whut?

You left out barometric pressure, temperature across the air column and water column, timing of the tide, and some other stuff. Then there is the fetch, which is a huge factor in wind and wave and wave-power(force) generation.

Let's take a moment to ponder why you even went there without looking things up.





Where do you get 99.9% from?

The only way to achieve that level or probability is if the ship never leaves port.

I'm sure there are standards for window/porthole specs. I'm not looking them up.



Nothing here is true. Ask a surfer.

The waves which hit the Pipeline in Hawaii, or Mavericks, up the road from me, are all generated in the South Pacific. Those waves are not 40 to 60 feet tall where they're generated. The wind has to combine with the fetch (the amount open space) and then the sea floor, or a sudden mixing of primary ocean currents to make big, and or powerful waves.

The Estonia was headed into the wind and into the waves. This is why the bow visor was knocked off. The windows made no difference.

Well, of course, wind and rain are caused by areas of low pressure moving this way and that, but having ascertained by fairly accurate metreological means that 'gale force winds are on the way and will arrive at X-am/pm' then let's use that as the shorthand starting point.