The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Revealingly, when I google "MS Estonia 14 kts", Google AI tells me:

The MS Estonia was traveling at approximately 14 knots (about 16 miles per hour) at the time the ferry encountered the storm, shortly before the bow visor failed,

Whereas, you may remember, when I google "MS Estonia 15-18 kts", Google AI told me that the ship was travelling at 15-18kts.

So Google AI is farmable depending on the loaded nature of the search terms. It even gives different answers for the very same search terms. Instructive as to our current problem, I infer.
 
Mojo said:
How did you access it? What AI did you use, and what prompts did you give it?
Click to expand...
I went to Google search to find out which SOLAS section referred to the JAIC's reference to the lack of visibility on the bridge of the bow and the AI overviews came up automatically with SOLAS V22. As that was all I was looking for, in response to someone's request for which SOLAS reference, that is all that was needed.
 
Vixen said:
I went to Google search to find out which SOLAS section referred to the JAIC's reference to the lack of visibility on the bridge of the bow and the AI overviews came up automatically with SOLAS V22. As that was all I was looking for, in response to someone's request for which SOLAS reference, that is all that was needed.
Click to expand...
What search terms did you use?
 
Mojo said:
It's easy to misread that way, but it actually said "stem".
Click to expand...

Ah, my mistake. So that means Vixen's post is either ignorantly or wilfully misunderstanding the term "forward of the bow" (meaning "ahead of the bow") to mean "the forward part of the bow".
 
LondonJohn said:
Revealingly, when I google "MS Estonia 14 kts", Google AI tells me:

The MS Estonia was traveling at approximately 14 knots (about 16 miles per hour) at the time the ferry encountered the storm, shortly before the bow visor failed,

Whereas, you may remember, when I google "MS Estonia 15-18 kts", Google AI told me that the ship was travelling at 15-18kts.

So Google AI is farmable depending on the loaded nature of the search terms. It even gives different answers for the very same search terms. Instructive as to our current problem, I infer.
Click to expand...
I am sure you understand the difference between average speed, mean speed, speed as of time of accident, maximum unsuitable speed for the conditions...? Please read the following carefully and you might understand why 14 knots refers to estimated speed as of time bow visor fell off* and the other types of speed esitmates:

Between 2215 and 2245 hrs (approximate) the ESTONIA was plotted by a meeting vessel, the AMBER and according to Amber's plot, the speed was then about 18.5 knots. The speed of the SILJA EUROPA was at this point 18.8 knots and further decreased to 17.6 knots between Russarö lighthouse and the Apollo buoy. After passing Osmussaar lighthouse the ESTONIA lost her land shelter and the sea conditions deteriorated. Based on experience it is believed that the sea conditions were slightly worse in the area where the SILJA EUROPA was sailing. At about 2255 hrs the Apollo buoy was abeam and the ESTONIA's speed is estimated to have been close to 17 knots. The ESTONIA passed the Glotov buoy at about 2355 hrs and, by comparing with the SILJA EUROPA, it can be assumed that her speed was now about 15 knots. This estimate is also confirmed by the trainee second officer, who has stated that the speed was between 14 and 15 knots, as well as by the third engineer who has stated that the speed was 15 knots when he started his watch in the engine control room at midnight. During the first thirty minutes after midnight the average speed of the SILJA EUROPA dropped by about one knot. When the ESTONIA reached the waypoint at 59° 20 N, 22° 00 E between 0025 and 0030 hrs, her true course was changed from 262 to 287 and the stabilisers were extended. Her average speed was between 14 and 15 knots."

Bahnhof Fact Group
Click to expand...
*Bear in mind the JAIC times the accident as starting from 01:20 when the bow visor fell off, when eye witnesses time the violent listings, bangs and shudders at around 01:00 or thereabouts.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I went to Google search to find out which SOLAS section referred to the JAIC's reference to the lack of visibility on the bridge of the bow and the AI overviews came up automatically with SOLAS V22. As that was all I was looking for, in response to someone's request for which SOLAS reference, that is all that was needed.
Click to expand...
Why not do the obvious, and actually look at the SOLAS yourself? Or, having used AI to find the section, actually read it before simply passing on machine-generated gibberish?
 
Just copy and paste the search terms you used, you can easily get them from your search history, it’ll take less time and energy for you to copy and paste the prompt here than it will for you and everyone’ else to play out the same drama whereby you refuse to pony up, pony up something that is not what was asked for that doesn’t actually help you at all, try and get AI to help you out, etc.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I am sure you understand the difference between average speed, mean speed, speed as of time of accident, maximum unsuitable speed for the conditions...? Please read the following carefully and you might understand why 14 knots refers to estimated speed as of time bow visor fell off* and the other types of speed esitmates:


*Bear in mind the JAIC times the accident as starting from 01:20 when the bow visor fell off, when eye witnesses time the violent listings, bangs and shudders at around 01:00 or thereabouts.
Click to expand...
The passage you quote, specifically the last sentence, says exactly what LondonJohn did. There is not a single mention here of the bow visor's falling off, let alone what the Estonia's speed was when it did. Are you alright?
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thank for the info, I’ll keep it in mind. I also shouldn’t be too hasty to post the results of quick Googling when I should know to dig deeper. I think that qualifies as some sort of basic debating standard and intellectual integrity. It’s a lot better than some of the current dreck being scraped up and unloaded here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom