The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[LondonJohn]

Yowza. All highlighting is my own.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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



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.



Most of us knew that.

Motive for the miscalculation.





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."

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.



@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?



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

Now THAT'S how to forensically critique a poster's nonsense. Bravo! (or Brava!)

 

[JayUtah]

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

Indeed, she tossed out some numbers with little or no context and now she's making considerable hay out of people's attempts to figure out what she might have been trying to say.

 

[Mojo]

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.

Spot the operative words, 'JAIC's recommendation'. That is what you were supposed to be finding, and yet you decided to ask Google AI about something else. Why would "a straightforward person who wanted a straightforward answer" do that?

Someone who wanted to obfuscate, on the other hand...

 

[LondonJohn]

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?

And of course it's not in the Recommendations section either. (Which a competent person would have known even before looking at the Recommendations section)

 

[Reformed Offlian]

And of course it's not in the Recommendations section either.

Sure it is! The word "Recommendations" is clearly colloquial shorthand for "build the bow visor closer to the bridge"

 

[dorricc0]

Yowza. All highlighting is my own.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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



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.



Most of us knew that.

Motive for the miscalculation.





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."

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.



@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?



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

Superb post sir! So much nonsense, so beautifully deconstructed.

My own theory was that 14 knots is her 'Brit slang' for 15-18 knots, but I much prefer your explanation.

 

[junkshop]

Citation, please.

@Vixen?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Exactly, so being called 'greasy' is an outrage.

1. You're assuming it was racist again. Or more likely you're pretending to assume that to spin this nonsense out for longer. In fact Junkshop clarified that it was nothing to do with your ethnic extraction and all to do with your arguments being slippery because trying to get you to actually pony up on something is like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

2. Aren't you Finnish, which would actually make you foreign to Junkshop?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

@Vixen?

Look you said the word "greasy" in a post about what Vixen said, therefore if Vixen whines enough she can spin out page after page of her claiming you were calling her greasy and that therefore you're a racist, which is the real goal here.

 

[Axxman300]

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.

As an illustration: Person A says, 'the vessel sank because it was an almighty tempest and it was going too fast'. Now, it has already been established that experts believed it was travelling at a top speed of 18 knots that night, and that maximum wind was 24/25 m/s.

Person B, in the debate, counters, 'But the windspeed was [only = the implication being it was not all that stormy-tempests-of-stormy-stormy tempests] 18 m/s. [At speed] 18 knots'.

So Person A has no figures at hand or feint recollection of the situation as of the time the boat sank, so a diagram was provided - after the above was written, in another post to another poster - showing the wind speed was SW at 18 m/s as Person B stated, albeit the diagram showing a figure of 'S = 14' as of the spot the visor dropped. There was no requirement to find a diagram that spelt out 'S=18' in large because it is assumed Person A has followed the conversation and is perfectly well aware 18 knots refers to MV Estonia's alleged top speed that night. I am pretty confident that that poster knew perfectly well 18 knots referred to MV Estonia's alleged speed and was attempting churlishness, rather than genuine bewilderment.

Cool, now calculate the windspeed combined with the ship's speed, and weight combined with the calculations with the kinetic energy generated by the bow plunging into troughs of various depth. What your diagram shows is the ship's speed and the wind, not wave-height, nor wave energy (not all waves are created equal).

The key factor here was wave action combined with excessive sailing speed for the conditions, and well beyond the ship's design specifications. The other key factor, as Andy Ross stated, is the speed at which Estonia continues to sail after the visor is gone. The rest of that diagram illustrates not just the wind power (not speed), combined with the CURRENT (another factor you ignore). Just look at how fast Estonia drifts backward after losing power. The illustration you posted and misquote just confirms how bad the seas were that night.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Let's take a step back and remember what started this whole bow-visor-visibility-from-the-bridge excursion: Vixen was suggesting that some bad operators had opened the bow deliberately to dump out contraband. Somebody pointed out that opening the bow visor high enough to do that *would* have been visible from the bridge. Vixen introduced the current topic in an attempt to rebut that point, yet it doesn't.

The failure sequence didn't entail the visor ever being knocked all the way up to its fully open position. Attempting to argue that the bridge wouldn't notice a fully, mechanically opened bow visor because they didn't notice the waves pushing it up to some degree after the locks failed is an equivocation.

 

[Vixen]

Citation, please.

You wrote:

'It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Lazy, desperate, greasy, ignorant ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. That's what I think.'

Which was quite uncalled for given I was directly referencing the JAIC Report itself and even helpfully provided the relevant SOLAS chapter. You must admit it was a pretty unkind volley of unpleasant epithets.

Here's another excerpt from the JAIC Report Chapter 13.4

"In many other reported incidents of equivalent severity as far as the failure of the various attachment devices is concerned, the opening of the visor was observed visually from the bridge and the officers of the watch were able to take appropriate action. On the ESTONIA, however, the visor was not visible from the conning position.

The circumstances and arrangements did thus not give the officers on the bridge any direct information or warning about events in the visor area as the accident developed."

13.4 Advance indications and alarms from the bow area​

Why would you write 'It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Lazy, desperate, greasy, ignorant ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. That's what I think.'?

 

[Vixen]

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?"

Several persons are insisting that I meant 18 m/s wind speed was the same as 18 knots. Given I am a professional numbersmith how likely is it I wouldn't know the difference?

 

[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. Nor does any mention of bow visors appear in SOLAS Regulation V/22.

Yes I am pretty sure I saw somewhere that the bridge was too far back, owing to some reason or other, and that was seen as the problem

 

[Mojo]

You wrote:

'It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Lazy, desperate, greasy, ignorant ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. That's what I think.'

Which was quite uncalled for given I was directly referencing the JAIC Report itself and even helpfully provided the relevant SOLAS chapter. You must admit it was a pretty unkind volley of unpleasant epithets.

Here's another excerpt from the JAIC Report Chapter 13.4



Why would you write 'It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Lazy, desperate, greasy, ignorant ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. That's what I think.'?

In case anyone wants to see that in context, here it is with the link back that Vixen avoided by copy and pasting rather than quoting it:

It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Lazy, desperate, greasy, ignorant ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. That's what I think.

 

[Mojo]

Several persons are insisting that I meant 18 m/s wind speed was the same as 18 knots. Given I am a professional numbersmith how likely is it I wouldn't know the difference?

They seem to think that you were confusing m/s with mph. Given your history here, it's not unlikely.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Yes I am pretty sure I saw somewhere that the bridge was too far back, owing to some reason or other, and that was seen as the problem

Even if that were true, recognizing a problem and making a specific recommendation to fix it are two different things. We're all still waiting for your evidence that the JAIC ever did the latter.

 

[Vixen]

I repeat my earlier post.

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

View attachment 64084

As I recall it's all to do with positioning of the forward bulkhead but as this type of ro-or has been taken off the market it hardly matters in respect of ferry similar to Estonia but SOLAS has made it more subject to proper inspection that conning visibility meets standards in this respect. You recall DIANAII was a similar vessel, yet the bridge crew were able to see that visor rising dangerously, just in time to act on it, because they had proper visibility.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You wrote:

'It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Lazy, desperate, greasy, ignorant ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. That's what I think.'

Which was quite uncalled for given I was directly referencing the JAIC Report itself and even helpfully provided the relevant SOLAS chapter. You must admit it was a pretty unkind volley of unpleasant epithets.

Here's another excerpt from the JAIC Report Chapter 13.4



Why would you write 'It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Lazy, desperate, greasy, ignorant ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. That's what I think.'?

But that isn't what he's calling you and you know it.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Several persons are insisting that I meant 18 m/s wind speed was the same as 18 knots. Given I am a professional numbersmith how likely is it I wouldn't know the difference?

In light of your apparent inability to add one and six to come up with seven (i.e., the number of people the JAIC report correctly credits Y-64's rescueman, alias Kenneth Svensson, with having saved) you migth not like my answer to that question.