It was painfully obvious he was referring to the AI slop that also appears in addition to quotes from the JAIC report.
Replacing visor-type ferries with clamshell-type ferries doesn’t change what JAIC wrote. You claimed the JAIC recommended the bridge and the bow be moved closer together. You have cited the part where they talk about the conning position. But you have neither substantiated nor withdrawn the statement you attribute to JAIC.
We have no idea how Captain Andresson lost control and I guess they simply had to improvise as best they could.Nothing indicates that the officers realised that the bow was fully open, although it must have been obvious that the situation was very serious, and that the survival of the vessel was threatened.
Simulations carried out by the Commission show that a quick reduction of speed and change of heading would have significantly reduced the rate of water ingress. The safest condition for the vessel with the bow open would have been lying beam on to the waves at zero speed. It has also been established that turning the vessel to starboard would not have endangered her stability. The wind pressure would have increased the list by only a few degrees. Thus turning the vessel, with the bow fully open, towards the wind and the high waves was not the best action. On the other hand it must be kept in mind that from the officers' point of view turning the vessel to starboard away from the wind would have exposed the port side to the full force of wind and waves and would have further increased the list and the roll. In this light the decision to turn the vessel to port and into the wind is understandable.
I sense no anger. I see someone with a plausible hypothesis for your ever-changing story of where your cryptic figures came from. You tell us to read them off the diagram but then admit it has to be inferred from information on the diagram because it’s not actually there verbatim.
We noticed.
But it was still visible from other places on the bridge, so still defeats the truck jettison theory. How other ships are arranged is irrelevant.
Yes, and at this point I'm done with being nice and colouring inside the lines. I'm done with fact checking the errors and misrepresentations and evasions in Vixen's posts, I'm done with carefully phrasing my responses to criticise Vixen's posts, not Vixen herself.
No, we were discussing how bad the storm was. I mentioned I had travelled from Stockholm to Turku in the middle of January overnight with no problem, so there is nothing special about the end of September (and the water is deepest just NW of Gottland, and the stretch between Åland Islands and Stockholm can go up to >300). Compare and contrast to the relatively shallow waters near where Estonia sank (35m - 125m) plus, the Gulf of Finland midstream is quite deep. So having mentioned the January ferry journey, I stated the wind speed on 27.9.1994 was sou'westerly at 18 m/s. 18 knots. Later, another poster claimed not to understand so I produced a diagram (from the JAIC Report) illustrating wind direction and speed at m/s and the speed of the vessel where the bow visor fell off, which showed 'S = 14'. It is unfortunate the JAIC diagram didn't show where Estonia reached its maximum speed as witnessed by AMBER and the nearby Silja Europa. So we then had dozens of posts from people claiming they couldn't see the word 'S = 18', on the JAIC diagram, so therefore, I was a some kind of an airhead/bimbo and also a liar for denying I had supposedly - according to the detractors - confused 18 knots for 18 m/s. Given I went to some lengths to explain it several times, plus I am a fully qualified chartered accountant who works with numbers every working day, uses kilometres here, in this country, as default, and has a mathematical sciences degree, there really is zero chance I could mistake 18 m/s windspeed for 18 knots boat speed. Having stated wind speed 18 m/s, there is zero chance I would bother to calculate the mph equivalent, as the person I was responding to already knows what 18 m/s windspeed means. However, person no. 2, claimed they just couldn't understand the difference between 18 m/s windspeed and 18 knots, and a whole load of people claiming I really thought 18 m/s = 18 knots. So yes, I do think it was hazing and not a genuine belief, given the background and my explanations.
There's no need to go.
Pure gaslighting.
What did the "18 knots" refer to, why was it mentioned without explanation immediately after "18 m/s", and how did it not occur to a triple-niner like yourself that this might invite the understanding that you were equating the two expressions?
We had already been talking about the storm conditions and Capt Mäkelä saying it was not unusual for a September storm. Someone having said it was a terribly stormy night and the boat was going too fast. Using the word knots obviously referred to boat speed. Having clarified exactly that, and even providing the JAIC's diagram showing wind direction and speed plus knots of the boat, I was subjected to hazing anyway.
None of that answers any of my three questions. Would you like to try again?
As I said, 18 m/s refers to wind speed, i.e., metres per second and 18 knots refers to the presumed maximum speed of Estonia that night (actually, 18.5 knots). What is it you do not understand? ETA to your question #3, I assumed it was common knowledge that knots in the context of Estonia in a storm refers to speed of the boat.
It's not identity politics. He made the comment that a specific argument you made was greasy in that it was slippery as he later clarified. You are taking umbrage over nothing just so you can pretend to be victimised and it's sad.
Yet you directly asked him if he was referring to you being foreign, which is an implicit accusation that you thought he might have been.
Fair enough. Those are answers to my questions (the first two, anyway), then, thank you. Are they correct or satisfactory ones? I will leave that as an exercise for the reader.
Yes, Vixen wants you to stay Junkshop because less people in the thread means less attention on her.
Why would deeper water be more scary? It's shallow water that you need to be careful around. And don't forget that fetch is a factor.