I can hardly help it if I am better informed than you. I was not to know you were not familiar with what JAIC recommended and the issues arising from their report. I have no problem in helping out but don't take it out on me that you didn't know.
I would have thought by now people would be well-versed in what JAIC Report said and the issues arising from it. See what I mean about my being attacked on a personal level just because I am - quite inadvertently - well-informed of the facts. Whenever I provide citations or point people to where the information can be found, I am not expecting thanks, but then again, I think it is rather unkind to bully me about it.
Don't be ridiculous. When I show conversions it will look something like this: Y units (= X thingummybobs).
You’re obviously unfamiliar with the JAIC report and have difficulty understanding it, because you were asked specifically to state where in the JAIC it says that it recommended the bow visor be moved closer to the bridge, and can’t and won’’t answer that question. In an attempt to defend that claim you have copied and pasted text from the JAIC which does not say the bow visor should be moved closer to the bridge, you then offered up the bizarre rationale that SOLAS is required to follow certain recommendations, and also when asked again for evidence of the JAIC report containing recommendations to move the bow visor closer to the bridge, responded by linking to some entirely irrelevant SOLAR webpage with nothing to do with bow visors or the JAIC. You’re willing to copy and paste text and paste links, but you’re clearly just throwing out any chaff that pops into your head and hastily Googling things, linking to them and pasting them without reading them, and now you’re pulling another tactic you commonly do, refusing to provide evidence or citations, telling everyone else its their job to do your research and homework.
And it was also not clear that they were referring to the speed of two different things.
From a current wind warning on the The Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute
I would have thought 'm/s' being how wind speed is measured and 'knots' being the speed of a vessel would be the big clue. Especially together with a whopping big diagram clearly setting it out large where the figures come from. I am not sure how much clearer it can be. I suspect people are 'having fun' pretending they can't tell one from the other but then again, maybe it really is true they thought m/s converts into knots, in which case ask nicely and politely and I'll clarify it for you, instead of laying into me for your own lack of comprehension, which I wasn't to know of in advance.
Rather than the faux outrage, how about addressing some of the more substantial questions you've been asked?
Where exactly, on your "self-explanatory diagram" is this fictitious vessel speed of 15-18kn?
Yes, this is similar to the old BBC World Radio shipping forecasts, which listeners found fascinating due to the references to places such as the Dogger Bank; it's a guide for people out there in their boats, rather like one might look at the weather forecast to see if it is going to rain. 'NEAR GALE' even in big block letters simply means to be prepared and cautious. It doesn't mean something rare and terrible is about to happen that is in anyway unusual. Yes, there was a storm 27.9.1994 and the vessel was going faster than conditions indicated but the point is, it wasn't particularly exceptional, as remarked by Silja Europa captain, Esa Mäkelä.
The Shipping Forecast* is still going strong, and just celebrated its 100th anniversary. And while gale force may not be exceptional, especially in that place and at that time of year, that doesn't mean that going out in it in a ship that is not built and maintained for the conditions is anything other than suicidal. Not to mention that this was the low end of the wind speeds on that day.
You were misunderstood and the responses were unnecessary. I agree with that much, but I’m not going to belabor it, you shouldn’t either, high debating standards and all that.
There isn't any sensible way of interpreting the figure of 15-18 knots in what Vixen posted as referring to anything other than the wind speed preceding it.
At one point Vixen had the Estonia doing "137 knots over 6.55 hours".
Could you circle where the 15-18 knots is? The fastest ship speed I can see is 14 knots.
14 isn't 15-18
"Yes, you are right 2 + 2 = 5, have fun." ~ Keanu Reeves.
