The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Vixen said:
The JAIC doesn't have the power to effect edicts. This is done via SOLAS or IMO.
Click to expand...
No-one said the JAIC had the power to effect edicts. You're not being asked about any edicts of the JAIC, you're being asked about the recommendations of the JAIC. Are you genuinely not able to follow this?
 
W.D.Clinger said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's some shed load of anger! If I said I meant knots, I meant knots. And when I said m/s, I meant m/s.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, another example of the inherent problem with bow visors.
 
Mojo said:
Have you ever seen a photo of the front of the Estonia?
Click to expand...
I have but I have also read various analyses of what went wrong re the bow visor and the finding that it simply wasn't visible from their vantage point, as they were too far back. If I can find the reference, I'll let you know.
 
Last edited:
Vixen, I asked you two questions, which you just ignored. Would you please do me the courtesy of answering? Here is the first one:

I've mentioned this twice in another thread, but you ignored it as usual, so I'm going to rephrase it as a question. Alex Jones was on the air on September 11, 2001, claiming that the attacks were orchestrated by the US government. Was he just discussing "a current affairs news item?" Or was he a conspiracy theorist who was promoting conspiracy theories?​
 
And the second:

So tell us, Vixen, how is it that you are perfectly fine with these experts' being allowed to criticize the JAIC report, yet you dismiss any experts who criticize the evidence against Amanda Knox and her ex-boyfriend (and Lucy Letby, for that matter) as "bent," "paid off," "hired guns," "incompetent," "ivory-tower academics," or supposedly just feeling sorry for the accused?​
 
Vixen said:
I have but I have also read various analyses of what went wrong re the bow visor and the finding that it simply wasn't visible from their vantage point, as they were too far back. If I can find the reference, I'll let you know.
Click to expand...
I won't hold my breath.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
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.
Click to expand...
The bow is visible from the bridge. But it depends where on the bridge you stand, just like it depends where in the room you stand in order to try to see the shrubbery under the window. The conning position is any of several designated places on the bridge where the navigating officer is expected to stand in order to see everything he needs, both inside the bridge and outside. Which one he uses depends on what the ship is doing.

The JAIC notes that the underway conning position on MS Estonia’s bridge was not a position from which the officer could see the bow. That’s not to say it’s impossible to see the bow from the bridge. You just have to stand someplace other than the underway conning position, likely farther forward. The rationale here is that if the navigating officer had had the bow visor in his ordinary field of view, he might have noticed the damage sooner.

The SOLAS statement @Vixen wrongly thinks followed from JAIC finding is the opposite problem. In order to see and avoid things in the ship’s path, you want to arrange the bow and bridge so that the bow doesn’t stick out too far into your field of view from anywhere on the bridge. That is, you don’t want big parts of the ship to block your view of what’s in the ship’s path.

Seeing the front of the ship easily and seeing what’s in front of the ship easily are physically contradicting requirements. Consequently their respective solutions are mutually exclusive. Vixen doesn’t understand the difference between what JAIC says and what SOLAS says, and therefore got the design solutions mixed up. Moving the bridge (and all its conning positions) closer to the stem makes the stem harder to see from any position on the bridge that doesn’t have your nose pressed up against the glass.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
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?
Click to expand...
I am not going to get into identity politics but I do think 'greasy' is a dodgy word to use about people as it has all kinds of connotations to do with sleaziness and repulsiveness. I don't think Junkshop was being 'racist' or 'xenophobic' but I don't think it was reasonable for him to make those comments either, given I was directly quoting from the JAIC Report and there was nothing criminal, stealth-like or slippery about it at all. People should explain what they disagree with instead of trying to dream up cutting putdowns.
 
Andy_Ross said:
By coincidence, I was just watching the new Drachinifel video on The US Third Fleet in WW2 and the damage done to it by Typhoon Connie.

USS Pittsburgh lost it's entire bow forward of A Turret due to the pounding effect of the waves.
It didn't flood and sink for several reasons. First because it was completely 'closed down' with all hatches and openings secure and second, the captain reacted quickly turning the stern to the waves while damage control crews shored the bulkheads that were exposed to the sea. It then 'hove to' and rode out the worst of the storm before making for port.

Had the captain of the Estonia realised what was happening and turned his ship either before or immediately after losing the bow the outcome may have been different.
In the same storm two aircraft carriers had their flight decks smashed down in to the hull by the weight of water and pounding of the waves.

Pictures are from after a temporary patch had been put over the opening to allow it to sail back to Hawaii for repairs.

View attachment 64080View attachment 64081​

Click to expand...
I saw this one, too (I'm one of Drach's Patreons), but I didn't connect it to the Estonia. Excellent observation.
 
JayUtah said:
The bow is visible from the bridge. But it depends where on the bridge you stand, just like it depends where in the room you stand in order to try to see the shrubbery under the window. The conning position is any of several designated places on the bridge where the navigating officer is expected to stand in order to see everything he needs, both inside the bridge and outside. Which one he uses depends on what the ship is doing.

The JAIC notes that the underway conning position on MS Estonia’s bridge was not a position from which the officer could see the bow. That’s not to say it’s impossible to see the bow from the bridge. You just have to stand someplace other than the underway conning position, likely farther forward. The rationale here is that if the navigating officer had had the bow visor in his ordinary field of view, he might have noticed the damage sooner.

The SOLAS statement @Vixen wrongly thinks followed from JAIC finding is the opposite problem. In order to see and avoid things in the ship’s path, you want to arrange the bow and bridge so that the bow doesn’t stick out too far into your field of view from anywhere on the bridge. That is, you don’t want big parts of the ship to block your view of what’s in the ship’s path.

Seeing the front of the ship easily and seeing what’s in front of the ship easily are physically contradicting requirements. Consequently their respective solutions are mutually exclusive. Vixen doesn’t understand the difference between what JAIC says and what SOLAS says, and therefore got the design solutions mixed up. Moving the bridge (and all its conning positions) closer to the stem makes the stem harder to see from any position on the bridge that doesn’t have your nose pressed up against the glass.
Click to expand...
So we've got a couple equivocations running concurrently. Thanks!
 
Vixen said:
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.'?
Click to expand...
I asked for a citation of where I had called you greasy. This is not that. What this is is another example of the thing I did call greasy.
 
Vixen said:
I have but I have also read various analyses of what went wrong re the bow visor and the finding that it simply wasn't visible from their vantage point, as they were too far back. If I can find the reference, I'll let you know.
Click to expand...
Yes, the conning position was likely too far back on the bridge to permit the navigating officer to see the bow. That is what JAIC said.

What JAIC did not say—and what you’re being asked to provide a JAIC reference for—is that the bridge and the bow should be moved closer together to solve this problem. That would aggravate the problem, not solve it.

Because JAIC did not say what you attribute to them, you pulled up an irrelevant SOLAS statement that says something about the bridge and the bow being closer together. Because you don’t understand the entirely different problem the SOLAS statement is meant to address, you wrongly think the SOLAS statement should substitute for your missing JAIC reference.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I am not going to get into identity politics but I do think 'greasy' is a dodgy word to use about people...
Click to expand...
Let me stop you there. I described your opaque use of AI and disingenuous, evasive responses as greasy, not you. This is yet another example that illustrates my point. The remaining crap is snipped, due to being utterly irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom