The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

JesseCuster said:
I’ve read that multiples times and can’t find the bit that recommends that the bow visor be moved closer to the bridge.
Click to expand...
The term "conning position" refers to any of several positions on a ship's bridge occupied by the navigating officer in different circumstances. It does not refer simply to the bridge taken as a whole. Visibility out of the bridge windows is one factor in determining which conning position to use. But other factors include seeing the bridge instruments, charts, etc. While docking, for example, the proper conning position may be on a bridge wing so that the officer can see along the entire side of the vessel.

What the JAIC notes is that the underway conning position on MS Estonia did not provide a view of the bow visor. This has less to do with the relationship between the vessel superstructure and the stem and more to do with the layout within the bridge. If the officer is standing or sitting too far back from the front of the bridge (e.g., to also monitor instruments) he cannot see as far downward. As photographs show, Estonia's bridge was quite high and quite forward already. This actually makes it harder to see the bow from a spot on the bridge that isn't right up next to the forward windows. The problem would be made worse by moving the bridge and the bow closer together.

One solution could be to lower the bridge, but this creates other problems. Moving the bridge farther away from the bow would bring the bow into a more nominal line of sight. But that too has a tradeoff. The best solution is to fix the bridge layout so that the underway conning position is closer to the front of the bridge (not to move the bridge itself) and allows for a wider field of view through the forward windows. As a stop-gap, more video monitors could be provided.
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
“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.
Click to expand...
The term, 'in future' was in my original post and nothing to do with JAIC or SOLAS. SOLAS rules start as of the date the paras are incorporated into its rules. So anything it advises will be as of that date. So it should be clear it wouldn't and cannot refer retrospectively, although after the disaster, that type of bow visor RO-RO was taken out of service anyway.
 
Vixen said:
Because it is SOLAS that formulates the Safety at Sea rules. Am I six steps ahead of you again?
Click to expand...
You were, supposedly, trying to quote and cite the JAIC recommendation, not the SOLAS rules.

And no, you aren't six steps ahead; you have wandered off into the long grass.
 
Vixen said:
The term, 'in future' was in my original post and nothing to do with JAIC or SOLAS. SOLAS rules start as of the date the paras are incorporated into its rules. So anything it advises will be as of that date. So it should be clear it wouldn't and cannot refer retrospectively, although after the disaster, that type of bow visor RO-RO was taken out of service anyway.
Click to expand...
Now explain the part about moving the visor closer to the bridge.
 
Vixen said:
The term, 'in future' was in my original post and nothing to do with JAIC or SOLAS. SOLAS rules start as of the date the paras are incorporated into its rules. So anything it advises will be as of that date. So it should be clear it wouldn't and cannot refer retrospectively, although after the disaster, that type of bow visor RO-RO was taken out of service anyway.
Click to expand...

Umm..... WHAT?
 
Mojo said:
You were, supposedly, trying to quote and cite the JAIC recommendation, not the SOLAS rules.

And no, you aren't six steps ahead; you have wandered off into the long grass.
Click to expand...
I have patiently explained that accident investigation committees do not have the remit to make changes to international marine laws and requirements.
 
Vixen said:
The term, 'in future' was in my original post and nothing to do with JAIC or SOLAS. SOLAS rules start as of the date the paras are incorporated into its rules. So anything it advises will be as of that date. So it should be clear it wouldn't and cannot refer retrospectively, although after the disaster, that type of bow visor RO-RO was taken out of service anyway.
Click to expand...
What original post? My post where I pasted the prompt and response was not a response to you, I didn’t mention you or quote you. I was clearly posting the results of a quick and dirty experiment to see what Google AI would answer if I fed it a simple straight forward question. Your inability to follow a simple back and forth going back a couple of hours is just brute fact at this point.
 
Vixen said:
I have patiently explained that accident investigation committees do not have the remit to make changes to international marine laws and requirements.
Click to expand...

Nope. What you've done is you've impatiently rowed back on SOLAS incorporating the "less distance between conning position and bow visor" stuff in the JAIC recommendations.
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh dear.

(It's specifically to do with the visibility of the sea surface in front of the bow, not the visibility of the bow)
Click to expand...
That's the tradeoff. If you elevate your bridge and shorten the bow, you get a better view of the sea surface in the ship's path. But that limits the positions on the bridge from which you can see the bow itself. Citing reasons to provide a better view of the seas in front of the ship is the opposite of citing reasons to provide a better view of the bow, which was JAIC's concern.
 
junkshop said:
Who called you greasy?
Click to expand...
You did.

adjective

  1. 1.
    covered with, resembling, or produced by grease or oil.
    "he wiped his greasy fingers"


  2. 2.
    (of a person or their manner) unpleasantly or insincerely polite or ingratiating.
    "the greasy little man from the newspaper"     [Oxford languages]

    There is nothing insincere or ingratiating about moi-même, 'ow dare you. Monsieur.
 
Vixen said:
I have patiently explained that accident investigation committees do not have the remit to make changes to international marine laws and requirements.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. You claimed JAIC made a certain specific recommendation which it quite evidently did not make. You seem to have misused an AI search to find recommendations and regulations aimed at solving the opposite problem, and you're trying to make it sound like those were the result of JAIC actions.

Being able to see in front of the ship from certain positions on the bridge is in direct conflict with being able to see parts of the ship itself from those same positions on the bridge. It's the ship designer's task to find the best compromise solution between those conflicting requirements.
 
Vixen said:
You did.

adjective

  1. 1.
    covered with, resembling, or produced by grease or oil.
    "he wiped his greasy fingers"

  2. 2.
    (of a person or their manner) unpleasantly or insincerely polite or ingratiating.
    "the greasy little man from the newspaper"     [Oxford languages]

    There is nothing insincere or ingratiating about moi-même, 'ow dare you. Monsieur.
Click to expand...

Where's the definition referring to foreigners?
 
JayUtah said:
That's the tradeoff. If you elevate your bridge and shorten the bow, you get a better view of the sea surface in the ship's path. But that limits the positions on the bridge from which you can see the bow itself. Citing reasons to provide a better view of the seas in front of the ship is the opposite of citing reasons to provide a better view of the bow, which was JAIC's concern.
Click to expand...

Incidentally, and in addition to the bow visor not being visible from the conning position, the following two factors from the JAIC Report probably explain why there was - for the first crucial moments at least - an inability for the bridge to comprehend that the bow visor had been completely ripped off and that the bow ramp had also been pulled out of position:

  • The position sensors for signal lamps showing locked visor were connected to the side locking bolts in such a way that the lamp on the bridge showed locked visor even after the visor had tumbled into the sea. The indirect information on the status of the visor was thus misleading. The signal lamp for locked ramp was most likely not on because one of the locking bolts was not fully extended. There was thus no lamp warning when the visor had forced the ramp partly open and it was resting inside the visor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom