The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Mojo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I was trying to give her the benefit of the doubt, but in hindsight I was obviously wrong in how I interpreted what she was saying. A second look at the diagram makes more sense (the diagram and what it’s actually saying). What Vixen is trying to say does not make any sense will continue to make less sense.
It seems Vixen misinterpreted the speed on the map as in meters per second even though the legend clearly states it is in knots, she then continue the error by not only making a meaningless conversion, did it incorrectly and thus got a doubly meaningless result. Triply meaningless because I doubt she can squeeze it into any narrative coherently anyway.
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
I was trying to give her the benefit of the doubt, but in hindsight I was obviously wrong in how I interpreted what she was saying. A second look at the diagram makes more sense (the diagram and what it’s actually saying). What Vixen is trying to say does not make any sense will continue to make less sense.
Click to expand...
Some marine safety experts suggest the Estonia may have been travelling at 15 to 18 knots, which could have been too fast for the storm conditions, potentially contributing to the disaster. AI overview

Standard common knowledge, This is the accepted range of the likely speed Estonia was doing up to the time of the disaster.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
BBC shipping forecasts are a repeat of the Met Office notices and warnings to mariners.

I can assure you if you are out in a gale then yes, something rare and terrible could happen.

That the storm wasn't 'particularly exceptional' doesn't mean it wasn't dangerous.

You don't deliberately sail in to the teeth of a gale as a matter of routine. If you are caught in one you wouldn't ignore it and try to stick to a schedule or course. Not even super tankers or aircraft carriers do that.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Since you are so well informed about the JAIC recommendations, you should have absolutely no issue providing both quote and link to source where they state that the bridges on future RORO should be built closer to their bow so they can see the ramp/visor better.

Go ahead. Prove just how better informed you are on JAIC recommendations on future RORO construction.
 
Vixen said:
I didn't get it wrong, YOU got it wrong. (Or, as I suspect, pretended to, for 'a laugh'.)
Click to expand...
No, you got it wrong. Whether it was through incompetence, ignorance, dishonesty, an inability to communicate clearly, or indeed was just done "for 'a laugh'", you got it wrong.
 
Vixen said:
Some marine safety experts suggest the Estonia may have been travelling at 15 to 18 knots, which could have been too fast for the storm conditions, potentially contributing to the disaster. AI overview

Standard common knowledge, This is the accepted range of the likely speed Estonia was doing up to the time of the disaster.
Click to expand...
Your posted diagram shows 14 kts
 
Vixen said:
...the figures are all clearly stated here:

View attachment 64058
Click to expand...

EHocking said:
Where exactly, on your "self-explanatory diagram" is this fictitious vessel speed of 15-18kn?
Just a time from the diagram will do.
Click to expand...

zooterkin said:
Could you circle where the 15-18 knots is? The fastest ship speed I can see is 14 knots.
Click to expand...

junkshop said:
14 isn't 15-18
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Some marine safety experts suggest the Estonia may have been travelling at 15 to 18 knots, which could have been too fast for the storm conditions, potentially contributing to the disaster. AI overview

Standard common knowledge, This is the accepted range of the likely speed Estonia was doing up to the time of the disaster.
Click to expand...
"the figures are all clearly stated here" was a lie, then.
 
EHocking said:
Since you are so well informed about the JAIC recommendations, you should have absolutely no issue providing both quote and link to source where they state that the bridges on future RORO should be built closer to their bow so they can see the ramp/visor better.

Go ahead. Prove just how better informed you are on JAIC recommendations on future RORO construction.
Click to expand...
AI Overview confirms the following:


"The JAIC Final Report on the MS Estonia ferry disaster cited the lack of a proper view of the ship's bow visor from the bridge as a significant contributing factor to the capsize. In response to this and other findings, new amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), specifically Recommendation V/22, were introduced to require ships to be equipped with systems preventing bow door/visor detachment from causing a total loss of buoyancy, thereby improving bridge visibility and safety.
Context of the Estonia Disaster (1994)

  • Cause:The sinking of the MS Estonia in the Baltic Sea was caused by the failure of the bow visor and bow door locks, leading to flooding of the car deck and a rapid capsize.
  • Contributing Factor:The Joint Accident Investigation Committee (JAIC) Final Report highlighted that the bridge officers could not see the bow visor due to its position, contributing to their delayed response to the unfolding events.
SOLAS Recommendation V/22

  • Purpose:This SOLAS amendment addresses issues identified in accidents like the Estonia.
  • Requirement:It mandates that any damage to, or detachment of, a bow door or visor must not result in a total loss of the vessel's watertight integrity or a complete capsize.
  • Implementation:New amendments to SOLAS requiring these measures were put into place to enhance safety for existing and new ships.
Impact of Recommendation V/22

  • Improved Visibility & Safety:The recommendation ensures ships have better systems to prevent detached bow doors from causing disaster, improving overall safety on ferries.
  • Prevention of Recurrence:It aims to prevent future maritime disasters by addressing the fundamental flaw that led to the sinking of the Estonia."
"the lack of a proper view of the ship's bow visor" directly relates to the JAIC report Chapter 21, Conclusions, Subsection> Actions by crew.

notandum: I earlier erroneously referred to SOLAS V15.5
 
Vixen said:
AI Overview confirms the following:


"The JAIC Final Report on the MS Estonia ferry disaster cited the lack of a proper view of the ship's bow visor from the bridge as a significant contributing factor to the capsize. In response to this and other findings, new amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), specifically Recommendation V/22, were introduced to require ships to be equipped with systems preventing bow door/visor detachment from causing a total loss of buoyancy, thereby improving bridge visibility and safety.
Context of the Estonia Disaster (1994)

  • Cause:The sinking of the MS Estonia in the Baltic Sea was caused by the failure of the bow visor and bow door locks, leading to flooding of the car deck and a rapid capsize.
  • Contributing Factor:The Joint Accident Investigation Committee (JAIC) Final Report highlighted that the bridge officers could not see the bow visor due to its position, contributing to their delayed response to the unfolding events.
SOLAS Recommendation V/22

  • Purpose:This SOLAS amendment addresses issues identified in accidents like the Estonia.
  • Requirement:It mandates that any damage to, or detachment of, a bow door or visor must not result in a total loss of the vessel's watertight integrity or a complete capsize.
  • Implementation:New amendments to SOLAS requiring these measures were put into place to enhance safety for existing and new ships.
Impact of Recommendation V/22

  • Improved Visibility & Safety:The recommendation ensures ships have better systems to prevent detached bow doors from causing disaster, improving overall safety on ferries.
  • Prevention of Recurrence:It aims to prevent future maritime disasters by addressing the fundamental flaw that led to the sinking of the Estonia."
"the lack of a proper view of the ship's bow visor" directly relates to the JAIC report Chapter 21, Conclusions, Subsection> Actions by crew.

notandum: I earlier erroneously referred to SOLAS V15.5
Click to expand...
Can you quote and link to source where the JAIC state that the bridges on future RORO should be built closer to their bow so they can see the ramp/visor better, please?
 
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan said:
Another lie.

Are the 15-18 knots in the room with us Vixen? Because they certainly aren't on the images you supplied. It says 14.
Click to expand...
Look, I know I am a numbers person and am flattered that people think I am geekish enough to convert metres per second (the standard SI unit for measuring wind speed) into (a) kilometres per hour, and then (b) miles per hour and then (c) apply a factor of 1.15 to obtain knots, but there is no need to be as mathematically minded as myself to instantly spot that 18 m/s - being decimal-based - is never going to be like for like with miles, being imperial measures based. Yes, historically wind might have been measured by knots but there is no way even the most unmathematical person is gong to think 18 m/s converts so easily into 18 knots. :wackylaugh: However I have been nerdish enough to estimate 18 m/s wind speed would equate to roughly 35 kts, off the top of my head.
 
Last edited:
Refusing to copy and paste the relevant text, when you clearly have access to it and are capable of doing so, after being asked to repeatedly quote the relevant text, and after a failed attempt to provide the text by copying and pasting text which did not say what you claimed, you now resort to continuing to refuse to do the simple and correct thing by copying and pasting the text that would show you are right about the JAIC making a recommendation about moving the bow visor closer to the bridge, and instead are resorting to pasting a summary by an AI. Just copy and paste and text and cite the location in the JAIC properly.
 
Mojo said:
Can you quote and link to source where the JAIC state that the bridges on future RORO should be built closer to their bow so they can see the ramp/visor better, please?
Click to expand...
Here, specifically, again AI overview:

"The Estonia Joint Accident Investigation Commission's (JAIC) 1997 report highlighted the inadequate bridge visibility on the Estonia and recommended a review of bridge design and visibility regulations to prevent similar future disasters. While the accident led to the disaster, the primary international regulation for bridge visibility is the SOLAS Convention's Regulation V/22, which mandates that the view of the sea surface from the conning position must not be obscured by more than two ship lengths (2L) or 500m, whichever is less, forward of the bow.

JAIC's Recommendation on Bridge Visibility

  • The JAIC report determined that the Estonia was not seaworthy.
  • A key contributing factor to the disaster was the inadequacy of the bridge's visibility, which likely played a role in the series of events leading to the sinking.
  • While not explicitly stated, the JAIC's conclusion implies a recommendation for the review of the design and visibility standards of the Estonia's bridge, as well as those of other vessels, to prevent future accidents caused by restricted forward visibility.
SOLAS's Bridge Visibility Requirements

  • SOLAS Regulation V/22: sets international standards for navigation bridge visibility.
  • It requires that the view of the sea surface from the conning position not be obstructed by more than two ship lengths (2L) or 500m, whichever is less, for a certain arc forward of the bow.
  • The regulation also sets requirements for the horizontal field of vision, specifying an arc of no less than 225°.
  • The JAIC's findings about the Estonia indirectly contributed to the enforcement and importance of these SOLAS regulations, reinforcing the need for adequate visibility from the bridge." [ends]
 
Vixen said:
Look, I know I am a numbers person and am flattered that people think I am geekish Yes, historically wind might have been measured by knots but there is no way even the most unmathematcial person is gong to think 18 m/s converts so easily into 18 knots.
Click to expand...
But we thought you might have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom