The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Vixen]

Doesn't mention moving the bow visor closer to the bridge.

How do you understand the following:

• 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°.

bearing in mind the Estonia's bridge was deemed by the JAIC too far away from forward of the bow [corrected for precise term] for the bridge to properly have good visibility of it?
ETA: from A1 overview:
"


The conning position is the specific spot on a ship's bridge where the conning officer stands to have a commanding view and control of the vessel, issuing helm and engine commands for safe navigation. It's a workstation that provides the best visibility of the ship's heading, surroundings, and necessary navigation instruments like radar and ECDIS. " [ends]

 

[Mojo]

How do you understand the following:

• 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°.

bearing in mind the Estonia's bridge was deemed by the JAIC too far away from the bow for the bridge to properly have good visibility of it?
ETA: from A1 overview:
"

View attachment 64071
The conning position is the specific spot on a ship's bridge where the conning officer stands to have a commanding view and control of the vessel, issuing helm and engine commands for safe navigation. It's a workstation that provides the best visibility of the ship's heading, surroundings, and necessary navigation instruments like radar and ECDIS. " [ends]

What do you understand by the expression "forward of the bow"?

 

[Vixen]

What do you understand by the expression "forward of the bow"?

As is outlined by AI overview:

"
AI Overview




"Forward of the bow" is nautical terminology meaning in front of the bow, toward the direction the vessel is moving. The term "bow" refers to the entire front section of the ship. The specific part of the bow that extends furthest forward is called the stem. "[ends]

Notandum: corrected in my post for the precise term, 'forward of the bow'.

 

[JesseCuster]

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.

But we’re talking about the Estonia, not the HoFE, how is SOLAS updating their regulations as a result of the investigation of the HofE, evidence that SOLAR enacted or updated JAIC recommendations to move the bow visor closer to the bridge on RORO ferries? You’ve posted no evidence that the JAIC contains those recommendations (the AI slop response is inadmissible even by your bottomless standards and doesn’t even say what you think it says) in the first place, or that SOLAS regulations V/22 were enacted as a result.

 

[Mojo]

As is outlined by AI overview:

"
AI Overview



View attachment 64072
"Forward of the bow" is nautical terminology meaning in front of the bow, toward the direction the vessel is moving. The term "bow" refers to the entire front section of the ship. The specific part of the bow that extends furthest forward is called the stem.

So when they refer to visiblity two ship lengths or 500m forward of the bow, are they talking about the ability to see the bow visor?

Anyway, can you quote and link to JAIC's recommendation that the bow visor should be moved closer to the bridge, please?

 

[Vixen]

But we’re talking about the Estonia, not the HoFE, how is SOLAS updating their regulations as a result of the investigation of the HofE, evidence that SOLAR enacted or updated JAIC recommendations to move the bow visor closer to the bridge on RORO ferries? You’ve posted no evidence that the JAIC contains those recommendations (the AI slop response is inadmissible even by your bottomless standards and doesn’t even say what you think it says) in the first place, or that SOLAS regulations V/22 were enacted as a result.

The issue is all to do with visibility. It should be common sense that to see the forward of the bow you either need to be near enough to it or you need to be placed higher up, in layman's terms. The JAIC ruled the bridge couldn't see this spot, hence SOLAS adding the precise distances and arc needed. SOLAS is the standards regulatory body who add amendments or new paragraphs as and when safety at sea issues come up.

 

[Vixen]

So when they refer to visiblity two ship lengths or 500m forward of the bow, are they talking about the ability to see the bow visor?

Anyway, can you quote and link to JAIC's recommendation that the bow visor should be moved closer to the bridge, please?

"Forward of the bow" would relate to this. Please see my simple explanation to the poster, above. I don't see how it can be explained any more clearly.

 

[GlennB]

"Forward of the bow" would relate to this. Please see my simple explanation to the poster, above. I don't see how it can be explained any more clearly.

'Forward of the bow' refers to the view of the sea from the bridge, not the view of the visor.

 

[JesseCuster]

I just read SOLAS regulations V/22. It’s quite short. Says nothing about the distance between the bow visor and the bridge, in fact it doesn’t mention the bow visor at all.
Edit: there’s also nothing about the distance between the bridge and the bow (regardless of any visors). Edit2: dang spellcheck keeps insisting on SOLAR.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen are you unable to understand your own source? It doesn't say what you're claiming it does.

Oh and where in the images you provided earlier does it say anything about 15-18 knots?

 

[JesseCuster]

So the current argument from Vixen for how she knows the JAIC report contains recommendations to move the bow visor closer to the bridge in future RORO ferries, is that despite not explicitly stated, the JAIC report implies recommendations to review visibility and safety standards, and these findings indirectly contributed to the enforcement and importance of SOLAS V/22 which has no mention at all of the distance between the bow visor and the bridge, or of bow visors at all. The fact that this AI slop is being presented openly and unashamedly as debate.. well it’d be against the rules to state honestly what I think.

 

[junkshop]

So the current argument from Vixen for how she knows the JAIC report contains recommendations to move the bow visor closer to the bridge in future RORO ferries, is that despite not explicitly stated, the JAIC report implies recommendations to review visibility and safety standards, and these findings indirectly contributed to the enforcement and importance of SOLAS V/22 which has no mention at all of the distance between the bow visor and the bridge, or of bow visors at all. The fact that this AI slop is being presented openly and unashamedly as debate.. well it’d be against the rules to state honestly what I think.

It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Lazy, desperate, greasy, ignorant ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. That's what I think.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Lazy, desperate, greasy, ignorant ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. That's what I thi

I totally agree. Vixen is manifestly obviously putting various loaded prompts into Google AI until she gets something close to what she wants, then wilfully (or ignorantly) misinterpreting the loaded "answer" she gets.

And her claiming that "forward of the bow" (meaning the point on the surface of the sea ahead of the bow) actually means "the forward of the bow" (in Vixen's "interpretation" meaning the frontmost part of the bow section of the ship) is just the latest risible low from Vixen.

Not to mention that if one accepted Vixen's laughable attempt to mislead, it would mean that the recommendation was that the bow was no more than two ships' lengths away from the bridge LMAO

 

[LondonJohn]

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. 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.

To use the technical term: complete and utter bollocks. Supplemented by the mendacious hasty googling of the correct answer. Pathetic.

 

[zooterkin]

The 18 knots refers to the maximum claimed speed marine experts say Estonia was travelling at.

Which is irrelevant to the current conversation. You claimed the speed 15-18 kts was on the diagram, remember? It isn't.

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

View attachment 64065




View attachment 64064

Strange way to say, "Oops, I got it wrong.". Want to try again? Where are you getting 15-18 knots from?

I didn't get it wrong, YOU got it wrong. (Or, as I suspect, pretended to, for 'a laugh'.)

 

[LondonJohn]

While we're on the subject. @Vixen : please will you stop using AI in your attempted arguments/responses? It's lazy, frequently gives incorrect or misleading outputs, and is clearly open to abuse based on the input parameters (which is perfectly obviously exactly what you are doing). Thank you in advance.

 

[JesseCuster]

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.

The SOLAS documents are freely and publicly available in web form, found easily via a simple Google search, you don’t need to download any PDFS. Regulations V/22 is short and concise and written in plain clear language. It takes a few minutes to read.

Everything you said above is wrong. If you think the text of SOLAS V/22 is longwinded and dense, it isn’t, it’s about 600 words and concise and clear.

 

[LondonJohn]

Which is irrelevant to the current conversation. You claimed the speed 15-18 kts was on the diagram, remember? It isn't.

Vixen's squirming attempts at misdirection stand in direct contrast to what is expected on a critical thinking forum. Shame.

 

[LondonJohn]

The SOLAS documents are freely and publicly available in web form, found easily via a simple Google search, you don’t need to download any PDFS. Regulations V/22 is short and concise and written in plain clear language. It takes less than 10 minute to read.

Everything about what you said above is absolutely wrong. If you think the text of SOLAS V/22 is longwinded and dense, it isn’t, it’s about 600 words and concise and clear.

Yes. Anyone of even basic intelligence and scientific/analytical skills would easily understand it properly. Which is curious, given the claims that have been made in this thread regarding extraordinary intelligence and exceptional levels of scientific/analytical literacy.......

 

[Vixen]

To use the technical term: complete and utter bollocks. Supplemented by the mendacious hasty googling of the correct answer. Pathetic.

I am sorry you have been caused so much anger and rage to discover that my use of 18 knots had nothing to do with windspeed but you wish it were so because you want to keep up the pretence of my being an airhead bimbo who thinks 18 m/s windspeed means the same as 18 knots. I am terribly sorry but I have no control over your unwarranted belief, which I suspect is merely a disguise to let rip a few putdowns. I hope you feel better now having let rip.