• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
The JAIC affirm that the hull was intact.
Click to expand...

No. As I explained twice previously, the "intact hull" qualification on the model has nothing to do with whether the hull is damaged. All it means is that the model does not account for flooding. Thanks for continuing to demonstrate that you really have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Vixen said:
Water washes off a deck. The car deck was two metres above the water line (its floor).

If you are trying to say the entire hull was below the surface of the sea, then it must have gone past its point of stability and should have capsized there and then. However, the JAIV say you need to wait twenty minutes for a few windows to break (and no-one knows whether these windows and inner dividers actually did break because the JAIC claim it was not possible to examine the starboard side).
Click to expand...

You have understood nothing that has been explained to you in these threads. I will not be wasting my own time on an explanation that you do not have the ability to grasp.
 
Psst, Vixen: it's duck. Water washes off a duck, hence the expression "like water off a duck's back." No one says "like water off a deck." Decks are nowhere near as waterproof or water-shedding as ducks. Unfortunately, ducks are too small to carry smuggled Russian equipment.
 
Myriad said:
Psst, Vixen: it's duck. Water washes off a duck, hence the expression "like water off a duck's back." No one says "like water off a deck." Decks are nowhere near as waterproof or water-shedding as ducks. Unfortunately, ducks are too small to carry smuggled Russian equipment.
Click to expand...
Well, I have seen some mighty big ducks in my day...
 
Vixen said:
But if you look at Der Spiegel's timing, which is likely more accurate, as it is based on what survivors say (whereas the JAIC has arbitrarily decided to take Treu's statement at face value, even though he changed his timings and Linde had to change his timings to fit in with Treu) you will note that Speigel has the bow visor falling off shortly after 0100, which would fit in with events more accurately in terms of timing. Yes, whilst the engines would have cut out when the vessel listed 45°, the weird thing is, it appears to have still been going at about 5kn (it travelled back a mile).
Click to expand...

How do you not understand that this illustration is a fantastic explanation of how the ship sank so fast after loosing the bow visor?

Why post something that undermines every claim you've made?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Would the righting arm still work if it lost power?


It was a roll, not a list.




Washed out? is that for real?
Click to expand...

If the vessel was relentlessly pitching and ploughing against huge waves that permeated the [sealed] car deck (the waves lapping in, and lapping out on the downward motion), then as soon as it turned in the opposite direction to the oncoming waves, this time it is the stern lurching downwards and upwards, depositing said water from the [presumed] open bow as it does so, spilling it back out into the sea. The car deck is part of the superstructure, not the hull. It has scuppers at the side to additionally drain off excess water, as do the promenade decks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Myriad said:
Psst, Vixen: it's duck. Water washes off a duck, hence the expression "like water off a duck's back." No one says "like water off a deck." Decks are nowhere near as waterproof or water-shedding as ducks. Unfortunately, ducks are too small to carry smuggled Russian equipment.
Click to expand...

The car deck is flat, is it not?

It is not cup-shaped.

If you have ever tried washing a baking tray with 1mm sides by hand then you would know that water washes straight off it.
 
Vixen said:
If the vessel was relentlessly pitching and ploughing against huge waves that permeated the [sealed] car deck (the waves lapping in, and lapping out on the downward motion), then as soon as it turned in the opposite direction to the oncoming waves, this time it is the stern lurching downwards and upwards, depositing said water from the [presumed] open bow as it does so, spilling it back out into the sea. The car deck is part of the superstructure, not the hull. It has scuppers at the side to additionally drain off excess water, as do the promenade decks.
Click to expand...

The ship was still pitching in to the waves.

Why do you use the term 'lapping'? that implies a few splashes. Waves of that size are solid walls of water many meters high. They do not 'lap in and out'
Where are the 'scuppers' in the car deck?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vixen said:
The car deck is flat, is it not?

It is not cup-shaped.

If you have ever tried washing a baking tray with 1mm sides by hand then you would know that water washes straight off it.
Click to expand...

Why do you think a baking tray is the same as the car deck on a ferry?
 
Vixen said:
The car deck is flat, is it not?

It is not cup-shaped.

If you have ever tried washing a baking tray with 1mm sides by hand then you would know that water washes straight off it.
Click to expand...

You are aware that the car deck is not the top deck, open to the elements? There are sides to it, the water can't just drain off the side of the ship.
 
The car deck on the Estonia is part of the hull, it is not in the superstructure.
It is two decks high.
There are no open 'scuppers', it is completely enclosed, any water would go through drains.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
The ship was still pitching in to the waves.

Why do you use the term 'lapping'? that implies a few splashes. Waves of that size are solid walls of water many meters high. They do not 'lap in and out'
Where are the 'scuppers' in the car deck?
Click to expand...

3.2.6. JAIC Report

Twelve closable 4" scuppers were installed along each side of the deck. The scuppers were normally left open.
Click to expand...

The ship travelling almost westwards was almost head-on with the southwesterly waves. These waves were rising up and hitting the bow and its forepeak deck head on as the ships sped along at 15 knots.

Think about it. The bow falls off. The ship lists severely enough to cut out the engines. The water on the car deck is to the aft and to the starboard.

Consequently when it turns or drifts into the opposite direction, it is the stern which is now being lifted up by the waves. The bow is on the down wave and no more water is pouring into the car deck (as the car deck and accommodation decks are over two metres above sea level and are not part of the hull) as the waves are no long in that direction. On the downward motion, all the water on the car deck now simply pours off, just as it does on the promenade and weather decks and there are no waves smashing in. All the wave action is now at the stern end.
 
Vixen said:
If the vessel was relentlessly pitching and ploughing against huge waves that permeated the [sealed] car deck (the waves lapping in, and lapping out on the downward motion), then as soon as it turned in the opposite direction to the oncoming waves, this time it is the stern lurching downwards and upwards, depositing said water from the [presumed] open bow as it does so, spilling it back out into the sea. The car deck is part of the superstructure, not the hull. It has scuppers at the side to additionally drain off excess water, as do the promenade decks.
Click to expand...

If those scuppers would be able to discharge the water at the same rate an open bow would bhe able to scoop it in, this would suggest, the scuppers colletcively would need to be about the same area as that open bow.

Is that what you're suggesting is the case?
 
Vixen said:
3.2.6. JAIC Report



The ship travelling almost westwards was almost head-on with the southwesterly waves. These waves were rising up and hitting the bow and its forepeak deck head on as the ships sped along at 15 knots.

Think about it. The bow falls off. The ship lists severely enough to cut out the engines. The water on the car deck is to the aft and to the starboard.

Consequently when it turns or drifts into the opposite direction, it is the stern which is now being lifted up by the waves. The bow is on the down wave and no more water is pouring into the car deck (as the car deck and accommodation decks are over two metres above sea level and are not part of the hull) as the waves are no long in that direction. On the downward motion, all the water on the car deck now simply pours off, just as it does on the promenade and weather decks and there are no waves smashing in. All the wave action is now at the stern end.
Click to expand...

What is, in your opinion, the effect on stability, if the centre of Gravity is not a fixed point, but moving all over the place?
 
zooterkin said:
You are aware that the car deck is not the top deck, open to the elements? There are sides to it, the water can't just drain off the side of the ship.
Click to expand...


3.2.6 Car deck arrangement

Twelve closable 4" scuppers were installed along each side of the deck. The scuppers were normally left open.

JAIC Report

There are also 'sides' to the cafeteria, shop, pub, accommodation.
 
erwinl said:
If those scuppers would be able to discharge the water at the same rate an open bow would bhe able to scoop it in, this would suggest, the scuppers colletcively would need to be about the same area as that open bow.

Is that what you're suggesting is the case?
Click to expand...

Even the JAIC concur the gap in the car ramp was about one metre at most, thus only the very highest of waves were ingressing.

IMV there is zero evidence the car deck was ever significantly flooded.

The JAIC had to admit that even if the entire car deck up to the roof was flooded, there still need to be significantly more ingress of water for it to capsize and sink.

Vessels of that size were generally designed to be able to withstand the flooding of two watertight bulkhead compartments. The Estonia had 15 watertight bulkhead compartments in the hull (Deck 0). The only accessible areas were the Engine Control Room, the swimming pool, public toilets and the sauna, all of which had tight waterproofed doors with gaskets for persons coming in or out.
 
Vixen said:
Even the JAIC concur the gap in the car ramp was about one metre at most, thus only the very highest of waves were ingressing.

IMV there is zero evidence the car deck was ever significantly flooded.

The JAIC had to admit that even if the entire car deck up to the roof was flooded, there still need to be significantly more ingress of water for it to capsize and sink. Vessels of that size were generally designed to be able to withstand the flooding of two watertight bulkhead compartments. The Estonia had 15 watertight bulkhead compartments in the hull (Deck 0). The only accessible areas were the Engine Control Room, the swimming pool, public toilets and the sauna, all of which had tight waterproofed doors with gaskets for persons coming in or out.
Click to expand...

Now, this, I'd like to see a source from you.
That this is exactly what they said and not how you interpreted it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom