The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Opened up a fresh chat in Google Gemini.
Prompt: Did the JAIC make recommendations to move the bow visor on RORO ferries closer to the bridge as a result of the investigation into the Estonia disaster?

Response (first paragraph): No, the Joint Accident Investigation Commission (JAIC) did not recommend moving the bow visor on Ro-Ro ferries closer to the bridge.

Seems clear cut if Google AI is trusted with a direct straight forward question about facts. I’ve no idea how trustworthy it is, but Vixen seems to put great faith in it.
 
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...

This is not the flex you seem to think it is. Try again.
 
Mojo said:
Why the reference to SOLAS? You were supposed to be finding the JAIC recommendation that the bow visor be moved closer to the bridge.
Click to expand...

Once again, 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.
---
Conclusion [meaning]:

a judgement or decision reached by reasoning.
"each research group came to a similar conclusion"

notandum: this can also be rectified by increasing the angle of vision, i.e., increasing height of bridge.
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
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.
Click to expand...

Call me Mr Cynical.... but I have a feeling I know why this simple step is not being observed by our antagonist.
 
JesseCuster said:
Opened up a fresh chat in Google Gemini.
Prompt: Did the JAIC make recommendations to move the bow visor on RORO ferries closer to the bridge as a result of the investigation into the Estonia disaster?

Response (first paragraph): No, the Joint Accident Investigation Commission (JAIC) did not recommend moving the bow visor on Ro-Ro ferries closer to the bridge.

Seems clear cut if Google AI is trusted with a direct straight forward question about facts. I’ve no idea how trustworthy it is, but Vixen seems to put great faith in it.
Click to expand...
It's what's known as Rubbish In Rubbish Out' or RIRO.
 
Vixen said:
Once again, 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.
---
Conclusion [meaning]:

a judgement or decision reached by reasoning.
"each research group came to a similar conclusion"

notandum: this can also be rectified by increasing the angle of vision, i.e., increasing height of bridge.
Click to expand...
I’ve read that multiples times and can’t find the bit that recommends that the bow visor be moved closer to the bridge.
 
Vixen said:
Once again, 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.
---
Conclusion [meaning]:

a judgement or decision reached by reasoning.
"each research group came to a similar conclusion"

notandum: this can also be rectified by increasing the angle of vision, i.e., increasing height of bridge.
Click to expand...
Can you quote and link to (or provide a precise citation for) JAIC's recommendation that the bow visor should be moved closer to the bridge?
 
How is “Did the JAIC make recommendations to move the bow visor on RORO ferries closer to the bridge as a result of the investigation into the Estonia disaster?” A rubbish prompt?
 
Vixen said:
Once again, 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.
---
Conclusion [meaning]:

a judgement or decision reached by reasoning.
"each research group came to a similar conclusion"

notandum: this can also be rectified by increasing the angle of vision, i.e., increasing height of bridge.
Click to expand...
That doesn't explain why you added SOLAS to you search string. Try again.
 
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...

Except your scientific illiteracy (or your wilful attempt to mislead) makes you think this section is about the view from the bridge of the bow, whereas it's actually about the view from the bridge of the sea surface in front of the bow.

It's now beyond pitiful by this point, since you've had this explained to you half a dozen times already.
 
Vixen said:
Sorry, when you say 'greasy' is this a euphemism for 'bloody foreigner'?
Click to expand...
No. I was referring the slippery way your responses avoid answering the question asked.

Please don't try to imply that I'm being racist. The fact that you associate 'greasy' with xenophobic epithets, rather than slipperyness says more about you than it does me.
 
JesseCuster said:
How is “Did the JAIC make recommendations to move the bow visor on RORO ferries closer to the bridge as a result of the investigation into the Estonia disaster?” A rubbish prompt?
Click to expand...
The term I used, which you are utterly determined to twist, was, 'in future'. Your ridiculous time-wasting attempts to make out it means literally ripping out the bow and shifting it it physically to the bridge (when the freaking wreck is underwater!) is pathetically childish. Joke taken. Move on.
 
junkshop said:
No. I was referring the slippery way your responses avoid answering the question asked.

Please don't try to imply that I'm being racist. The fact that you associate 'greasy' with xenophobic epithets, rather than slipperyness says more about you than it does me.
Click to expand...
You know perfectly well the term 'greasy' is used by some people to refer to foreigners. If you are accusing me of wrongdoing use the proper term instead of insinuating I have set out to cheat you in some way.
 
“No, the Joint Accident Investigation Commission (JAIC) did not make a recommendation to move the bow visor on future ferries closer to the bridge as a result of its investigation into the Estonia disaster.”

Telling it that recommendations are to be taken on future ferries in case Google AI is too stupid to understand what was clearly meant (in which case you really shouldn’t be using it) doesn’t change the answer.
 
Vixen said:
You know perfectly well the term 'greasy' is used by some people to refer to foreigners. If you are accusing me of wrongdoing use the proper term instead of insinuating I have set out to cheat you in some way.
Click to expand...

But you're not a foreigner. I'm confused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom