The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Andy_Ross]

The Captain of Estonia, Andresson, was trained in the then Leningrad naval acadamy and was well-experienced. He was also authoritarian in the Soviet way (albeit being an Estonian) so whilst his crew might have feared drawing trouble to his attention, we don't actually have any idea what happened on the bridge, other than they had little to no time to react.

Why would the crew fear drawing trouble to his attention?

Why do you think he was an 'authoritarian'?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The AI overview was no different from wikipedia, which is where it seems to glean much of its stuff from. Do you think wikipedia is also dodgy because most people don't consider a wiki source as sleazy or greasy.

Wikipedia has a list of references for you to check for yourself.

Both Wikipedia and AI are no substitute for the actual source material.

 

[Andy_Ross]

In post n#3,660 I stated [excerpt] "Yes, historically wind might have been measured by knots..."

A Knot is one nautical mile per hour.
A nautical mile is very much in use as is the knot.
Do you know what a nautical mile is and why it is used?

 

[SpitfireIX]

It is not 'rejecting out of hand', it was objectively weighing up the issues.

No. You've never "objectively weigh[ed] up the issues" about any expert's qualifications. Any expert (or "expert") who supports your CT/guilter narrative is uncritically accepted, while any who doesn't is rejected out of hand with lame excuses such as "hired gun" or "ivory-tower intellectual." Even worse, you sometimes resort to blatant lies, such as falsely claiming outright fraud.

If you want to prove me wrong, then why don't you explain to us how you supposedly "weighed up the issues" about how the German group of experts weren't biased, but Dr. Peter Gill ("ivory-tower intellectual" ), one of the world's foremost experts on forensic DNA, is wrong when he says that the DNA evidence against Knox and her ex-boyfriend is worthless?

ETA: You've also been known to exaggerate the credentials and experience of "experts" who support your CT/guilter fantasies, such as Anders Björkman.

 

[JayUtah]

Both Wikipedia and AI are no substitute for the actual source material.

And an actual background of knowledge and experience.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

It would be more relevant to ask a boating friend. I can help.

In the US the gov meteorological site NOAA uses knots.
In the UK shipping forecast they use the Beaufort Scale. More useful as it describes sea state; wind, waves, swell etc.
In Germany, the Beaufort Scale is used . Despite being a metric country (wind in knots on the B.Scale)
in Sweden m/s is used, but Vixen’s argument that it is because “we are metric” is a moot as,
In Australia (metric) the marine forecast is still in knots. Sea state (wave height, swell, visibility) are metric

Oh, to save confusion, these are marine forecast units , e.g., daily weather forecasts for landlubbers in Australia use km/h

I lost interest after this

In commercial aviation, surface wind speeds are most frequently reported in knots by ATC.

I thank you both.

I doubt whether either of you will be surprised to learn that I, unlike @Vixen, was already aware that wind speeds are often expressed in knots. My pilot friend is an über nerd (he designs avionics), and I am one of the few people with whom he can get into the mathematical/software/electronic weeds. I have also sailed with a couple of boaters, one of whom was a CS nerd who designed the 30-foot junk-rigged sailboat we sailed from Portland (Oregon) to Victoria (BC) and then to Vancouver; he continued on to Alaska, but my job forced me to take a bus back to the lower 48.

(Edited to add the link for my pilot friend. Might as well give him some free publicity, why not?)

 

[Axxman300]

I hear Edward Smith was pretty experienced.

Absolutely. So was the captain of the El Faro, the Edmund Fitzgerald, and so on, and so on.

 

[JayUtah]

My pilot friend is an über nerd (he designs avionics), and I am one of the few people with whom he can get into the mathematical/software/electronic weeds.

Beer’s on me if you ever make it out my way.

Today was open-cockpit day at the Air Force museum where I volunteer. It’s the best day of the year. All the vintage airplane nerds and old retired pilots and crew chiefs are out in force. Busy day, though.

 

[Dabop]

Beer’s on me if you ever make it out my way.

Today was open-cockpit day at the Air Force museum where I volunteer. It’s the best day of the year. All the vintage airplane nerds and old retired pilots and crew chiefs are out in force. Busy day, though.

I've visited the armyflyingmuseum.com.au which is 'fairly' local to me- I actually drove past it for years without even knowing it was there- they got all sorts of stuff, most of it restored to flyable condition even!!!

I actually like to drop in every chrissy as I literally drive right through the town its in to get to my sisters place or mums place coming from my place- so makes a nice 'driving break' on the trip, and there's always something new been added (they actually have far more than they have display space for, so every time I've been, some stuff has been swapped out for new stuff in the displays...)

 

[dorricc0]

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.

Keep on digging!

 

[Mojo]

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...

Psychology?

...there really is zero chance I could mistake 18 m/s windspeed for 18 knots boat speed.

We've seen plenty of examples of mathematical confusion from you. For example here you manage to confuse knots with nautical miles, and convert 119 miles to 137 knots. There was the 'port is at 45 degrees and starboard is at 135 degrees' stuff. And there was all the prime notation stuff, which indicated that you don't use notation the way the rest of the world does, or even consistently.

 

[dorricc0]

May we take a step back to a previous claim that kicked off the discussion on visibility of the bow visor?

According to Andi Meister the story about the cobalt was shut down very quickly by the JAIC. The claim was, Eiseln, an American who used his Estonian ethnicity to take high office in Estonia, had a direct phone line - radio, satellite or otherwise - who supposedly rang up the bridge to order them to dump it as Swedish Customs had been tipped off. Hence the opening of the car ramp. The alternative version was a lucrative cargo of drugs which the gangsters didn't want Customs to get hold of, owing to its street value. Who knows, but Silver Linde did get nine years for drug smuggling some years later. The bow ramp could just as easily been opened by a person or persons, as a 'strong wind' knocking off the entire structure.

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.

It is or was the theory of persons involved in the investigation that cargo was ejected via the stern car ramp. I haven't seen any reports of any official connected directly to the disaster claiming the front car ramp was opened, although there were anecdotes from passengers and crew saying the Atlantic bolt had to be physically hammered home. The visibility thing arises from ferries similar to Estonia also having the bow visor rising open but that the guys on the bridge in the other vessels cited (for example, Diana II) saw it because they had they correct conning visibility range or angle. The JAIC findings are that it was not visible from where Estonia's conning was.

Since it may have gotten lost in the detailed discussions since, can I just ask @Vixen to clarify her position, on:
(1a) Does she believe that the bow visor and car ramp were purposely opened at sea (rather than the visor breaking off due to fatigue);
(1b) and if so, did the bridge crew notice that the bow visor was open, or not?
(1c) and if so, was this to dump some contraband / drugs / secret military/spacecraft equipment / briefcase / software?
(2a) Does she believe that the stern (not stem) ramp was purposely opened at sea;
(2b) and if so, was this to dump some contraband / drugs / secret military/spacecraft equipment / briefcase / software?

Many thanks in advance.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Revealingly, when I google "MS Estonia 14 kts", Google AI tells me:

The MS Estonia was traveling at approximately 14 knots (about 16 miles per hour) at the time the ferry encountered the storm, shortly before the bow visor failed,

Whereas, you may remember, when I google "MS Estonia 15-18 kts", Google AI told me that the ship was travelling at 15-18kts.

So Google AI is farmable depending on the loaded nature of the search terms. It even gives different answers for the very same search terms. Instructive as to our current problem, I infer.

Google AI doesn't like me nearly as much and is no fun:

The idea that "evil balloon animals" have any connection to the sinking of the MS Estonia is entirely unfounded; this tragic maritime disaster resulted in the loss of 852 lives and is a serious subject of investigation and remembrance.

What a stick-in-the-mud.

 

[Mojo]

Google AI doesn't like me nearly as much and is no fun:

The idea that "evil balloon animals" have any connection to the sinking of the MS Estonia is entirely unfounded; this tragic maritime disaster resulted in the loss of 852 lives and is a serious subject of investigation and remembrance.

What a stick-in-the-mud.

Is that why the "entertainers" were disappeared? A lot of people are saying.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Is that why the "entertainers" were disappeared? A lot of people are saying.

Very good point. How could they have drowned when they could simply twist a balloon dog into water wings or an impromptu Mae West? Answer us that, doubters.

 

[dorricc0]

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.

Oh really? But what about when you said knots but you meant nautical miles, and knots per hour when you meant knots:

Cont: Post in thread 'The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI'

Sep 27, 2023

Why do you think drawing a direct line on a map is not a good way to determine the course a ship would actually sail?

Bearing in mind I am a qualified offshore navigator and can check your answer.

As there was a storm raging which would have slowed progress and the attackers wouldn't have known how far the ship would travel by midnight, how did they get time and location to coincide?
Bearing in mind neither time or location were not precisely midnight or halfway.

There were two basic routes from Tallinn to Stockholm, changing westwards or carrying on northwestwards. The JAIC...

• Vixen

I would have thought that a fully qualified chartered accountant who works with numbers every working day and has a mathematical sciences degree, there really is zero chance they could mistake knots for nautical miles and knots per hour for knots.

 

[Mojo]

Oh really? But what about when you said knots but you meant nautical miles, and knots per hour when you meant knots:

Cont: Post in thread 'The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI'

Sep 27, 2023

Why do you think drawing a direct line on a map is not a good way to determine the course a ship would actually sail?

Bearing in mind I am a qualified offshore navigator and can check your answer.

As there was a storm raging which would have slowed progress and the attackers wouldn't have known how far the ship would travel by midnight, how did they get time and location to coincide?
Bearing in mind neither time or location were not precisely midnight or halfway.

There were two basic routes from Tallinn to Stockholm, changing westwards or carrying on northwestwards. The JAIC...

• Vixen

W
I would have thought that a fully qualified chartered accountant who works with numbers every working day and has a mathematical sciences degree, there really is zero chance they could mistake knots for nautical miles and knots per hour for knots.

Or minutes for seconds. Or was it seconds for minutes?

 

[Vixen]

It would be more relevant to ask a boating friend. I can help.

In the US the gov meteorological site NOAA uses knots.
In the UK shipping forecast they use the Beaufort Scale. More useful as it describes sea state; wind, waves, swell etc.
In Germany, the Beaufort Scale is used . Despite being a metric country (wind in knots on the B.Scale)
in Sweden m/s is used, but Vixen’s argument that it is because “we are metric” is a moot as,
In Australia (metric) the marine forecast is still in knots. Sea state (wave height, swell, visibility) are metric

Oh, to save confusion, these are marine forecast units , e.g., daily weather forecasts for landlubbers in Australia use km/h

I lost interest after this

The metric of m/s IMV is best because - and I made this point before but nobody understood it - wind doesn't move in a straight line, it tends to come in 'gusts', so metres per second is far more useful a measure in the short term for vessels because it can change a lot before one hour is even up.

 

[Mojo]

The metric of m/s IMV is best because - and I made this point before but nobody understood it - wind doesn't move in a straight line, it tends to come in 'gusts', so metres per second is far more useful a measure in the short term for vessels because it can change a lot before one hour is even up.

Saying that something moves at 18mph doesn't mean that it moves 18 miles in one hour. You don't actually have to wait an hour and measure how far it's moved.

 

[zooterkin]

The metric of m/s IMV is best because - and I made this point before but nobody understood it - wind doesn't move in a straight line, it tends to come in 'gusts', so metres per second is far more useful a measure in the short term for vessels because it can change a lot before one hour is even up.