The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Vixen]

No one called you "greasy." The term was only applied to the AI slop that was being presented instead of the requested citation. You tried to make it sound like it was referring to a person—ostensibly to you—but that was your doing, not anyone else's.

There was no 'greasiness' or ill-intent intended, I can assure you

 

[Mojo]

I have patiently explained that accident investigation committees do not have the remit to make changes to international marine laws and requirements.

Vixen, here's the claim you were supposed to be supporting:

BTW the bow visor was not visible from the bridge, hence the JAIC recommendation it is constructed nearer, in future.

It is not a claim about changes to international marine laws and requirements. It is a claim about a recommendation made by JAIC. Can you quote, and either link to or precisely cite, JAIC's recommendation that bow visors should be constructed nearer to the bridge, please?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

There was no 'greasiness' or ill-intent intended, I can assure you

We totally trust you.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, here's the claim you were supposed to be supporting:

It is not a claim about changes to international marine laws and requirements. It is a claim about a recommendation made by JAIC. Can you quote, and either link to or precisely cite, JAIC's recommendation that bow visors should be constructed nearer to the bridge, please?

Spot the operative word, 'in future'. Clearly referring to future SOLAS directives. ''Nearer the bridge' is clearly colloquial shorthand summing up fixing the problem. Its informal chatty structure indicates this is not how it would be worded in official documents.

In addition, my comment:

Vixen said:
BTW the bow visor was not visible from the bridge, hence the JAIC recommendation it is constructed nearer, in future.

Several posters were unaware the JAIC had made this observation in their conclusions and thought I was having an 'airhead bimbo' moment, which seems to have backfired on them spectacularly except they cannot under any circumstances admit I was right. And so we are having a long tedious exchange of 'how is it going to be brought nearer' as though it is an hilarious bimbo moment.

 

[LondonJohn]

Spot the operative word, 'in future'. Clearly referring to future SOLAS directives. ''Nearer the bridge' is clearly colloquial shorthand summing up fixing the problem. Its informal chatty structure indicates this is not how it would be worded in official documents.

Oh please. Stop with this nonsense. You made a(nother) mistake. Own it.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Spot the operative word, 'in future'. Clearly referring to future SOLAS directives. ''Nearer the bridge' is clearly colloquial shorthand summing up fixing the problem. Its informal chatty structure indicates this is not how it would be worded in official documents.

"Colloquial shorthand" is clearly colloquial shorthand for: "a near-pathological inability to admit error."

 

[JayUtah]

Spot the operative word, 'in future'. Clearly referring to future SOLAS directives.

No. The SOLAS directives you quote are aimed at solving the opposite problem from that identified by the JAIC.

 

[Vixen]

"Colloquial shorthand" is clearly colloquial shorthand for: "a near-pathological inability to admit error."

Yes of course my citing JAIC Chapter 10, Conclusion and citing:

Regulations like SOLAS Regulation V/22 were implemented after the MS Estonia disaster to ensure proper bridge visibility from the conning position.

Means you are right and I am wrong. Whatever makes you feel happy,

 

[LondonJohn]

Vixen said:
BTW the bow visor was not visible from the bridge, hence
the JAIC recommendation it is constructed nearer, in future.

Several posters were unaware the JAIC had made this observation in their conclusions and thought I was having an 'airhead bimbo' moment, which seems to have backfired on them spectacularly except they cannot under any circumstances admit I was right. And so we are having a long tedious exchange of 'how is it going to be brought nearer' as though it is an hilarious bimbo moment.

Where does the JAIC made
this observation/recommendation?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Several posters were unaware the JAIC had made this observation in their conclusions and thought I was having an 'airhead bimbo' moment, which seems to have backfired on them spectacularly except they cannot under any circumstances admit I was right. And so we are having a long tedious exchange of 'how is it going to be brought nearer' as though it is an hilarious bimbo moment.

Where does the "airhead bimbo" comment come from. You put it in quotes, suggesting that some poster actually wrote that. Or is "'airhead bimbo'" clearly colloquial shorthand for "people pointed out that I demonstrably didn't know what I was talking about?"

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes of course my citing JAIC Chapter 10, Conclusion and citing:

Regulations like SOLAS Regulation V/22 were implemented after the MS Estonia disaster to ensure proper bridge visibility from the conning position.

Means you are right and I am wrong. Whatever makes you feel happy,

Where does that observe/recommend that the bridge is constructed closer to the bow?

ETA: were you typing in such haste/invention that you wrote "bridge visibility" instead of "bow visibility"?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Yes of course my citing JAIC Chapter 10, Conclusion and citing:

Regulations like SOLAS Regulation V/22 were implemented after the MS Estonia disaster to ensure proper bridge visibility from the conning position.

Means you are right and I am wrong. Whatever makes you feel happy,

Correct, your citation of JAIC Chapter 10 *does* mean that I am right and you are wrong. Because nowhere in JAIC Chapter 10 do they recommend that the bow visor be built closer to the bridge. Nor does any mention of bow visors appear in SOLAS Regulation V/22.

 

[Vixen]

Correct, your citation of JAIC Chapter 10 *does* mean that I am right and you are wrong. Because nowhere in JAIC Chapter 10 do they recommend that the bow visor be built closer to the bridge.

• 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.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes of course my citing JAIC Chapter 10, Conclusion and citing:

Regulations like SOLAS Regulation V/22 were implemented after the MS Estonia disaster to ensure proper bridge visibility from the conning position.

Means you are right and I am wrong. Whatever makes you feel happy,

No, you are wrong. “Conning position” is not synonymous with “bridge.” It’s a distinction that matters.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I repeat my earlier post.

How do you make the Estonia's bridge closer to the bow or any higher?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

• 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.

You left out the bit where they recommended building the bow visor closer to the bridge. Where is that? You do know that there is an entire section of the report entitled "Recommendations", right?

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh and just for completion....

SOLAS Reg V/22 exclusively concerns:

1) The adequate & unimpeded (with limited blind spots) view from the bridge of the sea surface in front of the bow
2) The adequate & unimpeded (with limited blind spots)view from the bridge of the horizon in the front and side directions (225-degree* arc)
3) An adequate view of from the bridge of the sides of the two sides of the ship.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the view from the bridge of the ship's bow.

* Or should that be seconds...?

 

[JayUtah]

• The visor could not be seen from the conning position...

Asked and answered. "Conning position" is not synonymous with "bridge." They refer to two importantly different concepts. JAIC found that MS Estonia's underway conning position did not provide a view of the ship's stem. The problem is not solved by moving the bridge closer to the stem. In fact, that exacerbates the problem. The notion of moving the bridge closer to the stem and elevating it is meant to solve the problem of seeing better what's in the ship's path. It has nothing to do with JAIC's recommendations.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Yowza. All highlighting is my own.

I haven't 'converted' anything - the figures are all clearly stated here:

View attachment 64058

It is perfectly clear to everyone except @Vixen that her figure of 15-18 knots is not stated at all within that diagram.

Please let me know why you think the figures as stated, above, are out by about a factor of 2! Let's see which one of us is wrong and which one of us has a desperate need to blurt out, 'So much for honesty, integrity and precision'. Perhaps set an example.

Because @Vixen's stated figure of 15-18 knots appears nowhere within the diagram to which she was referring, the most reasonable source we could infer for her stated figure of 15-18 knots is that she herself calculated that speed from numbers that actually do appear within the diagram. Using numbers that actually do appear within the diagram, there is no obvious calculation that yields 15-18 knots. There is, however, an obvious miscalculation that yields a speed of 15.65 knots, which is within the 15-18 knots range: Divide 18 m/s by 1.15, which is what you would do if you were converting mph to knots.

Although that miscalculation is, so far as I can tell, the only obvious way to account for @Vixen's implication and subsequent confirmation that she believes her range of 15-18 knots is explicit within the diagram, it is fair to object that a careful scientist would be unlikely to make such a mistake.

@Vixen, however, has a long history of such miscalculations. (References on request.) So it was not necessary for her readers to tie themselves into knots by trying to find any other way to extract 15-18 knots from the numbers in that diagram.

the knots is the speed of the vessel but then you knew that.

I knew all of the speeds shown in that diagram are outside the range of 15-18 knots. I therefore knew that range did not come from the diagram via any correct calculation. There was, however, an obvious miscalculation that arrives at a speed within that range.

In fairness, I think Vixen possibly meant here that the wind speed was 24-25 meters per second and 18 meter per second, but the Estonia was travelling at 15-18 knots. Using completely different units for speed in the same context is confusing.

Yes, and @Vixen has a long history of confusing herself while trying to convert from one unit to another.

I would have thought 'm/s' being how wind speed is measured and 'knots' being the speed of a vessel would be the big clue. Especially together with a whopping big diagram clearly setting it out large where the figures come from. I am not sure how much clearer it can be. I suspect people are 'having fun' pretending they can't tell one from the other but then again, maybe it really is true they thought m/s converts into knots, in which case ask nicely and politely and I'll clarify it for you, instead of laying into me for your own lack of comprehension, which I wasn't to know of in advance.

If @Vixen wants to make it clearer, she can drop her claim that the 15-18 knots come from a "whopping big diagram clearly setting it out large where the figures come from." It is perfectly clear that 15-18 knots do not come from that diagram. The only question is whether that range came from a miscalculation or from an altogether different source.

By continuing to say her figure of 15-18 knots came from that diagram, @Vixen is pushing her readers to conclude her "15-18 knots" came from a miscalculation rather than from an entirely difference source.

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

Answering that question, @Vixen pointedly emphasized the fact that her 15-18kn did not come from the diagram she says it came from:

View attachment 64065




View attachment 64064

There isn't any sensible way of interpreting the figure of 15-18 knots in what Vixen posted as referring to anything other than the wind speed preceding it.

If @Vixen weren't so insistent that her range of 15-18 knots came directly from that diagram, it would be possible to believe that her numbers came from an entirely different source.

But @Vixen insists those numbers came from that diagram, and was unable to point to those numbers within that diagram even when asked to do so, so it is far more sensible to interpret her 15-18 knots as a miscalculation than as anything that came from that diagram.

Could you circle where the 15-18 knots is? The fastest ship speed I can see is 14 knots.

Go on, admit it, you converted 18m/s to knots, but thought it was 18mph, didn't you? And then tried to cover it up.

View attachment 64067

14 isn't 15-18

Most of us knew that.

18mph suited Vixen's argument much better than 18m/s.

Motive for the miscalculation.

Your posted diagram shows 14 kts

You claimed that this “self-explanatory diagram" showed the vessel speed between 15-18 knots.

Where?

Are the 15-18 knots in the room with us Vixen? Because they certainly aren't on the images you supplied. It says 14.

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.

That's hilarious, for so many reasons I have to break it out.

1. @Vixen is not a numbers person. (References on request.)
2. Few people think @Vixen is geekish enough to perform a correct conversion of m/s to knots. (See 1.)
3. Many people think @Vixen is capable of performing an incorrect conversion of m/s to knots. (See 1.)
4. It is easy to understand how "the most unmathematical person" could think 18 m/s converts to a speed within the range of 15-18 knots, because unmathematical persons often miscalculate, and (as I explained above) there is an obvious miscalculation that achieves that erroneous result.
5. @Vixen, however, does not understand how an unmathematical person could make that mistake, which suggests she does not understand how an obvious miscalculation makes that mistake.
6. Numbers people understand that unmathematical persons can easily make such mistakes. @Vixen does not. (So this reason 6 supports reason 1.)
7. @Vixen says she has been "nerdish enough to estimate 18 m/s wind speed would equate to roughly 35 kts, off the top of" her head. That's possible, but very unlikely. It is more likely that she worked it out, or used an AI assistant to work it out, and then claimed to be able to work it out off the top of her head.
8. The "more likely" alternative of reason 7 would be less likely if @Vixen had consistently done such calculations correctly in the past, or had never relied upon AI assistance.
9. Personal anecdote: I myself am a certified mathematical person who has the annoying habit of checking the numbers so often thrown about by unmathematical persons. It was immediately obvious to me, off the top of my head, that 18 m/s does not lie within the range of 15-18 knots. It was obvious to me because I can do easy sanity checks in my head. (18 m/s is more than 54 ft/s, which is more than half of the 88 ft/s that corresponds to 60 mph, hence more than 30 mph, hence more than 18 knots.) Although I am a certified mathematical person, I am not nerdish enough to convert 18 m/s to 35 knots "off the top of my head."

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?

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

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.

No apology necessary, mainly because your continued insistence that 15-18 knots is explicit within your diagram has been a source of hilarity rather than anger or rage.

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?

Where does it say 15-18 knots on your diagram? Stick to the scenario.

It's called inference. It is obvious if S=speed then the term next to the symbol 'S' refers to speed. Thus if speed at a key spot reads '14' as it does where the visor is estimated to have broken off, means it is within the same parameters of any speed within that range give or take a knot or two, given they are only estimates anyway.

@Vixen is now saying she inferred that 14 knots lies within the range of 15-18 knots, "give or take a knot or two, given they are only estimates anyway."

And who among us would not infer that a diagram that says 14 knots must therefore contain some explicit reference to 15-18 knots, despite numerous objections from many others who point out that it does not?

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,

That's hilarious. For it to be relevant here, however, we would have to suspect @Vixen occasionally relies upon AI assistance.

 

[LondonJohn]

• 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.

In what universe do you think that this paragraph contradicts RO's point and/or confirms yours? Truly remarkable.