The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

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...
Vixen, not even your desperate attempt to lazily use AI to give some sort of answer, the text you provided here, does not say that the JAIC recommended moving the bow visor closer to the bridge. It says other things about the bow visor, but it you read the actual recommendations bit in your AI generated answer, it makes no recommendation about moving the bow visor anywhere. Did you actually read what the AI responded with before copying and pasting it here?
 
Vixen said:
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]
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?
 
JesseCuster said:
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.
Click to expand...
SOLAS documents are in pdf, which isn't good etiquette for people who don't want to download pdf, and the SOLAS documents are quite longwinded and densely worded. You can download SOLAS V22 by simply doing a quick google search if you want to look it up for yourself.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Meaningless gibberish that doesn't answer my question.

Where does it say 15-18 knots?
 
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...
Herewith again:

"
  • 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]"
As advised, you can google SOLAS V22 doc for yourself.
 
Vixen said:
SOLAS documents are in pdf, which isn't good etiquette for people who don't want to download pdf, and the SOLAS documents are quite longwinded and densely worded. You can download SOLAS V22 by simply doing a quick google search if you want to look it up for yourself.
Click to expand...
YOU are making the claim. YOU need to support the claim. Stop deflecting and attempting to dodge your responsibility. It's pathetic.
 
Vixen said:
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]
Click to expand...
Does not answer the question. Does not mention moving the bow or visor closer to the bridge.
 
Vixen said:
Herewith again:

"
  • 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]"
As advised, you can google SOLAS V22 doc for yourself.
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?
 
Vixen said:
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]
Click to expand...
That is not a quote from the JAIC which you have been repeatedly asked for. It also does not say that the JAIC recommended moving the bow visor closer to the bridge. It says that that “while not explicitly stated”, the “conclusion implies a recommendation of a review of the design and visibility standards of the Estonia’s bridge” and the JAIC’s findings “indirectly contributed to the enforcement and importance of these regulations”. The wording of the AI response makes it obvious that you worded your question in such a way as to generate some desperate link to do with the JAIC and recommendations to do with moving the bow visor closer to the bridge, and even then it’s clear that the AI is desperately trying to please you and come up with anything that it thinks will satisfy your very specifically worded prompt. Tell us, what was your prompt? It’s considered the done thing at least tell us what AI model and what prompt you used.
 
Last edited:
I searched and could find nothing that indicated that SOLAS regulations V/22 had anything actually to do with any JAIC recommendations.

Vixen is now arguing that the JAIC report explicitly recommends that future RORO ferries should have their bow visor moved closer to the bridge, and instead of just copying and pasting the text that she has access to and is capable of copying and pasting from, is instead getting an AI to come up with a summary that says.. edit: Also, and when the first AI generated response was pointed out as not being what was asked for at all, she just went back to ChatGPt or whatever AI, and typed in a new prompt in the hopes of getting a better answer, and failed again.

While not explicitly stated, the conclusion implies a recommendation of a review of design and visibility standards which indirectly contributed to the enforcement and important of SOLAS regulations V/22. Is that what you’re going with Vixen as evidence that the JAIC report contains recommendations to move the bow visor closer to the bridge on future RORO ferries?
 
Last edited:
junkshop said:
Does not answer the question. Does not mention moving the bow or visor closer to the bridge.
Click to expand...
From JAIC Report, Chapter 21, Conclusions, subheader, Actions by Crew, para.3:

  • 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.
SOLAS solution V22 re above:
  • 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°.
It requires that the bridge should not be so far from the bow (or so low down) that the bow and bow visor action cannot been readily seen by the bridge. All clear now?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
From JAIC Report, Chapter 21, Conclusions, subheader, Actions by Crew, para.3:

  • 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.
SOLAS solution V22 re above:
  • 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°.
It requires that the bridge should not be so far from the bow (or so low down) that the bow and bow visor action cannot been readily seen by the bridge. All clear now?
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, please?
 
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...
I already patiently explained - and referenced the discussion on the outcomes re SOLAS re Herald of Free Enterprise regarding EPIRBS - that committees tasked with investigating marine disasters do not have the power to issue edicts. They make recommendations, or SOLAS takes up the issues arising from the accident committee's findings, and these issues and recommendations and/or findings are presented to the international SOLAS member countries for discussion via various papers, and paragraphs drawn up into SOLAS conventions as to future best practice, which in this case, relates to passenger ships, and the issue of the bow's visibility to those on the bridge.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I already patiently explained - and referenced the discussion on the outcomes re SOLAS re Herald of Free Enterprise regarded EPIRBS - tha committee tasked with investigating marine disasters do not have the power to issue edicts. They make recommendations, or SOLAS takes the issues arising up, and these issues and recommendations and/or findings are presented to the international SOLAS member countries for discussion via various papers, and paragraphs drawn up into SOLAS conventions as to best practice, which in this case, relates to passenger ships.
Click to expand...
Can you quote and link to the 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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom