The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

junkshop said:
Context needed: was it good/accepted/safe practice to to sail a vessel designed and certified for coastal operation into deep waters at high speed during storms, be they typical for the month or not?

ETA: More succinctly ninja'd by zooterkin.
Click to expand...
Hindsight is a fine thing. The vessel hadn't yet come into deep water, that starts at Aland Islands to Stockholm. These vessels run several times a week, if not daily, between Estonia, Finland and Sweden.
 
Vixen said:
Hindsight is a fine thing. The vessel hadn't yet come into deep water, that starts at Aland Islands to Stockholm. These vessels run several times a week, if not daily, between Estonia, Finland and Sweden.
Click to expand...
These vessels? Perhaps I wasn't clear. We are talking about one vessel: MS Estonia. Was it good/accepted/safe practice to to sail a this vessel designed and certified for coastal operation into deep waters at high speed during storms, be they typical for the month or not?
 
Vixen said:
Hindsight is a fine thing.
Click to expand...
I've also heard foresight well spoken of. Sailing a vessel in heavier seas than it was designed for increases the risk of foundering, for example.

Vixen said:
The vessel hadn't yet come into deep water, that starts at Aland Islands to Stockholm. These vessels run several times a week, if not daily, between Estonia, Finland and Sweden.
Click to expand...
In the case of MS Estonia, this means subjecting the vessel several times a week to seas she was not designed for and in which she was not certified to operate. We learned long ago in hindsight that this will accelerate the fatigue of structures. Hence foresight should have acknowledged the diminished margin of safety the operators had decided to accept.
 
Vixen said:
Hindsight is a fine thing. The vessel hadn't yet come into deep water, that starts at Aland Islands to Stockholm. These vessels run several times a week, if not daily, between Estonia, Finland and Sweden.
Click to expand...
And one sank. Due to being unsafe for the route it was taking and the weather it was sailing in. Something to do with a certificate of limited operation. Do you recall any of this?
 
Andy_Ross said:
So pretty bad then.? Not bad at all?
You have never been in a storm, at night, at sea. You have no basis for comparison.
Click to expand...
What? I travelled from Stockholm to Turku, night boat, in the middle of January in recent years. It is not a problem for these boats.

The wind on 27.9.1994 was 24/25 m/s at its worse but otherwise a sou'westerly 18 m/s. 15 - 18 knots.

1758323342310.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
What? I travelled from Stockholm to Turku, night boat, in the middle of January in recent years. It is not a problem for these boats.

The wind on 27.9.1994 was 24/25 m/s at its worse but otherwise a sou'westerly 18 m/s.

View attachment 64050
Click to expand...
Tell that to the dead and bereaved of the Estonia.
 
JayUtah said:
I've also heard foresight well spoken of. Sailing a vessel in heavier seas than it was designed for increases the risk of foundering, for example.


In the case of MS Estonia, this means subjecting the vessel several times a week to seas she was not designed for and in which she was not certified to operate. We learned long ago in hindsight that this will accelerate the fatigue of structures. Hence foresight should have acknowledged the diminished margin of safety the operators had decided to accept.
Click to expand...
It's a shame the culprit for the entire accident, the supposedly 'weak' Atlantic lock, was simply thrown away back into the sea by one of the technical investigators, so we'll never know how fatigued the Atlantic lock was for it to be detached by 'a strong wave'.
 
Vixen said:
It's a shame the culprit for the entire accident, the supposedly 'weak' Atlantic lock, was simply thrown away back into the sea by one of the technical investigators, so we'll never know how fatigued the Atlantic lock was for it to be detached by 'a strong wave'.
Click to expand...
The supposedly 'weak' Atlantic lock? Tell us about it and why you used the word 'supposedly' and put the word 'weak' in scare quotes. Do you remember what you previously said about the Atlantic lock? I do. Please remind us about what you think about the supposedly 'weak' Atlantic lock and its relevance. Be forewarned, in response I'm going to quote what you've actually said, because you certainly cannot remember.
 
Vixen said:
What? I travelled from Stockholm to Turku, night boat, in the middle of January in recent years. It is not a problem for these boats.

The wind on 27.9.1994 was 24/25 m/s at its worse but otherwise a sou'westerly 18 m/s. 15 - 18 knots.

View attachment 64050
Click to expand...
What was the wave hight?
Estonia was not on the Stockholm to Turku run and not one of the ships built for it.
 
Vixen said:
I am right:

From JAIC Report Section 21: Conclusions, Actions by the crew subsection:

  • The visor could not be seen from the conning position, which the Commission considers a significant contributing factor to the capsize. In all incidents known to the Commission where the visor has opened at sea due to locking device failure, the opening was observed visually from the bridge and the officers of the watch were able quickly to take appropriate action.
Click to expand...

No. No you are not. The quote from the JAIC report says nothing about your assertion that the JAIC recommended that future RORO should have the visor closer to the bridge.

Vixen said:
BTW the bow visor was not visible from the bridge, hence the JAIC recommendation it is constructed nearer, in future.
Click to expand...

So. Cite from the JAIC recommendation?
 
Vixen said:
What? I travelled from Stockholm to Turku, night boat, in the middle of January in recent years. It is not a problem for these boats.
Click to expand...
Wow. It’s amazing that 20 years later, RORO ferry design and performance might have improved. They moved the bow closer to the bridge for a start, apparently.
Vixen said:
The wind on 27.9.1994 was 24/25 m/s at its worse but otherwise a sou'westerly 18 m/s. 15 - 18 knots.
Click to expand...
18m/s = 15-18knots? Are you SURE of that?
I know you can out Mensa Mensa and are a Chartered Accountant maven, but I was trained as a cox in the coastguard and can also do unit conversions.

What do you think “m/s” stands for? Do you know what a knot measurement is and how to convert to it?
I think knot.

I think you are just blindly quoting from your usual CT sites without understanding any of the numbers you spout here.
Vixen said:
View attachment 64050
Click to expand...
 
EHocking said:
What do you think “m/s” stands for?
Click to expand...
The m/s Estonia, of course.
EHocking said:
Do you know what a knot measurement is and how to convert to it?
I think knot.

I think you are just blindly quoting from your usual CT sites without understanding any of the numbers you spout here.
Click to expand...
I was going to work in a "knot" pun, but you beat me to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom