The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

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...
We coverd the SOLAS regulation changes in depth at the time you first went round this course.
 
LondonJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, not at all. I was being helpful as the SOLAS documents are unwieldy at many pages.
 
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...
How far from the bow and how low down is Estonia's bridge?

How much higher and closer to the bow could the bridge of the Estonia have been?

1758374298273.png
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

To use the technical term: complete and utter bollocks. Pathetic.
 
Vixen said:
"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.
Click to expand...
I've seen it. Your use of the phrase, "the forward of the bow" and your reference to it as "this spot" suggests that you do not understand the expression, "forward of the bow.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Maybe go back and read what you actually posted?
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...


Where on that diagram is there any ship's speed faster than 14 knots?

Why would anyone reading your post assume the subject of the last 3 words was the ship, not the wind?
 
Oh looky here:

What happens if I put "MS Estonia 15-18 kts" into Google.....?

Well, Google AI comes up with the following helpful loaded "answer" (my bolding for the nonsensical reaching by Google AI):

During its final voyage, the MS Estonia maintained a speed of approximately 15-16 knots (around 15 to 18 knots) while navigating a severe storm in the Baltic Sea, just before the bow visor failed,
 
JesseCuster said:
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?
Click to expand...
The SOLAS regulations were updated partly with the Estonia in mind.

What you need to read is the minutes of the meetings and draught proposals for the new regulation to get the full picture.

Just quoting the final regulation loses a lot of the context and reasoning for the changes.

Estonia wasn't however the only reason for the changes, a number of incidents were taken in to account in draughting the regulation.
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh looky here:

What happens if I put "MS Estonia 15-18 kts" into Google.....?

Well, Google AI comes up with the following helpful loaded "answer" (my bolding for the nonsensical reaching by Google AI):

During its final voyage, the MS Estonia maintained a speed of approximately 15-16 knots (around 15 to 18 knots) while navigating a severe storm in the Baltic Sea, just before the bow visor failed,
Click to expand...
Whereas what it told me was:

AI Overview


The M/S Estonia's cruising speed was approximately 15-18 knots, with a design maximum speed of 21 knots. The ship was reportedly traveling at about 14 knots just before it sank in a storm on September 28, 1994, in the Baltic Sea.
Click to expand...
 
LondonJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...
So once again, I am falsely accused of wrongdoing. Perhaps reevaluate your kneejerk attempts to represent me as an airhead bimbo who has no idea of intellectual issues and has to use underhand cunning and sleight of hand. Judging others by your own standards.
 
Vixen said:
That's what came up as to what 'conning' was. I thought it a good, brief summing up. I am not sure how wikipedia would have been better.
Click to expand...

Misdirection sad fail. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Posting dissembling "responses" does you no favours, you know?
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are anger and rage two separate and distinct things?

And you are grossly misinterpreting LondonJohn's comment to meet your own desperate need to appear oppressed. There is more than ample evidence to confirm LondonJohn's comment as accurate.
 
Vixen said:
No, not at all. I was being helpful as the SOLAS documents are unwieldy at many pages.
Click to expand...
So read them and quote the parts you think are relevant and support your case, don't just post an AI response to some question you asked.
 
Vixen said:
So once again, I am falsely accused of wrongdoing. Perhaps reevaluate your kneejerk attempts to represent me as an airhead bimbo who has no idea intellectual issues and has to use underhand cunning and sleight of hand. Judging others by your own standards.
Click to expand...
Where does it say 15-18 knots on your diagram? Stick to the scenario.
 
Vixen said:
So once again, I am falsely accused of wrongdoing. Perhaps reevaluate your kneejerk attempts to represent me as an airhead bimbo who has no idea of intellectual issues and has to use underhand cunning and sleight of hand. Judging others by your own standards.
Click to expand...

LMAO you don't like your mendacious techniques being rumbled, do you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom