• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Why are you posting all the same ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ◊◊◊◊ you have already posted and had destroyed previously?

Do you think we have forgotten?

What purpose does repeating the same lies and misrepresentations serve?
 
Vixen said:
The couple of strong waves is what started the sequence of events of the visor falling off and opening the car ramp door with it to allow a huge ingress of seawater.
Click to expand...
Instead of making up your own words, why not quote the actual text in the report. If you believe that you are competent to do so, show your calculations on where the JAIC went wrong.

This is the first part of 13.5
13.5 Failure sequence of bow visor and ramp

This section describes what the Commission considers to be the most likely sequence of events leading to the loss of the visor and opening of the ramp. The loads to which the visor was exposed in the seaway were simulated theoretically and examined in model tests in conditions similar to those deemed to have prevailed at the time of the accident. Experimental and theoretical results are presented in 12.1-12.3 and summarised in 15.2. The maximum opening moment to which the visor was exposed after the ship had turned at the last waypoint is estimated to have been between 4 and 20 MNm and the maximum resultant force between 4 and 9 MN. Such high loads and opening moments occurred randomly The resultant load and the opening moment may have exceeded the lower limit of the range a number of times within half an hour under the prevailing conditions. Levels above the upper limit of the range have a low probability of occurring but cannot be excluded. The vast majority of wave impacts created no opening moment at all.

As described in 15.10 it is concluded that the strength of the visor attachments was insufficient to withstand a resultant wave load of 7-9 MN, corresponding to opening moments in the range of 13-20 MNm
Click to expand...



I removed the rest of your post since that seems to be you running away from the "a strong wave" quote.
 
Vixen said:
The couple of strong waves is what started the sequence of events of the visor falling off...
Click to expand...
No. That's an incorrect reading of the findings.

Vixen said:
However, the calculated area of water to fill the car ramp is not enough to capsize the vessel so a further stage needed to be added by the JAIC of having the fourth deck windows smashed by the waves on the listing starboard side...
Click to expand...
Distraction.

First, you have demonstrated that you are not competent in the relevant physics and engineering. Your opinion is unfounded. Second, the question was whether the JAIC narrowed the cause of the accident to "one or two strong waves." You keep pinning this on your critics as a straw man. A correct reading of the report clearly says otherwise. Your desire to move on to other well-covered ground is a distraction from your error.

Vixen said:
...given the hypothesis there was no breach in the hull.
Click to expand...
The failure of the visor and the subsequent ingress of water to the car deck constitutes a hull breach for the purposes of computing flood rates, stability factors, and buoyancy. The failure of upper deck windows also constitutes a hull breach for those purposes. You continue to interpret the report incorrectly.
 
Here_to_learn said:
Instead of making up your own words, why not quote the actual text in the report. If you believe that you are competent to do so, show your calculations on where the JAIC went wrong.

This is the first part of 13.5




I removed the rest of your post since that seems to be you running away from the "a strong wave" quote.
Click to expand...
The JAIC very clearly states a couple of strong waves precipitated the issue with the bow visor falling off. Every accident has a precipitating cause. An inquest or a car accident will generally always assess what happened immediately before the death/accident (guy began to get chest pains or child ran into the road, causing driver to swerve into a tree). The bow visor didn't fall off of its own accord.
 
The report goes in to great detail on the design flaws, previous damage and zub standard repairs and maintenance carried out in previous years plus the operation of the ship for years in unsuitable conditions.

As always you ignore all that forgetting that we have also read the report and pointed this out on your previous attempts at deception.
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC very clearly states a couple of strong waves precipitated the issue with the bow visor falling off. Every accident has a precipitating cause. An inquest or a car accident will generally always assess what happened immediately before the death/accident (guy began to get chest pains or child ran into the road, causing driver to swerve into a tree). The bow visor didn't fall off of its own accord.
Click to expand...
I quoted the beginning of the chapter where this is described. Where they calculate the moment and force caused by waves. As you can see there, they say "The resultant load and the opening moment may have exceeded the lower limit of the range a number of times within half an hour under the prevailing conditions. Levels above the upper limit of the range have a low probability of occurring but cannot be excluded. "

The final straw is indeed a wave. But that does not mean that "a strong wave" is the cause of the accident.

In your example you have a single event causing an accident. You do not have the driver keep driving for 30 minutes, in slippery conditions, with the wheel nuts not designed to handle the load from the bad road conditions. Then a child stepped out and the wheel broke off while trying break, leading to the car hitting a tree. An inquest that only focused on the child in the road would not be worth anything.

As Andy_Ross points out just above here, the JAIC report is addressing a lot of factors, and not just "a strong wave".
 
JayUtah said:
No. That's an incorrect reading of the findings.


Distraction.

First, you have demonstrated that you are not competent in the relevant physics and engineering. Your opinion is unfounded. Second, the question was whether the JAIC narrowed the cause of the accident to "one or two strong waves." You keep pinning this on your critics as a straw man. A correct reading of the report clearly says otherwise. Your desire to move on to other well-covered ground is a distraction from your error.


The failure of the visor and the subsequent ingress of water to the car deck constitutes a hull breach for the purposes of computing flood rates, stability factors, and buoyancy. The failure of upper deck windows also constitutes a hull breach for those purposes. You continue to interpret the report incorrectly.
Click to expand...
Deck 4 is NOT the hull, it is a passenger deck.


1762275146478.jpeg

  • Hull: The hull is the main body of the ship, the exterior, watertight shell. It is separate from the decks, which are the internal floors of the ship.
 
Vixen said:
Heh, you are no Dan Brown. You need to include some symbology, perhaps a slide rule and compass, or better still a sextant and telescope with a few codes thrown in. Perhaps JackbytheHedge can help you with the spy thriller stuff. He's good at that.
Click to expand...
At Yankee Stadium, in the late 1950s, someone in the stands yelled at Al Kaline: "You're not half as good as Mickey Mantle!"

Kaline's classy response was classic: "No one is half as good as Mickey Mantle."

I love that. Taken literally, it says Mickey Mantle himself was not half as good as Mickey Mantle, which speaks to how we create myths portraying even the greatest as still greater than they are. But I'm sure that wasn't what Kaline was saying.

No one is half as bad as Dan Brown. But you've got us off to a great start. If we keep trying, we'll give Dan Brown some serious competition.
 
Vixen said:
So were England, Northern Ireland and Scotland decreed part of the Union Treaty and Wales was not but did include Malawi, you don't consider there is any reason for anyone to query the reasons why. Perhaps the deficit in comprehension is not with the person asking after all.
Click to expand...
Is there a point buried somewhere in this attempt at distraction.
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC very clearly states a couple of strong waves precipitated the issue with the bow visor falling off. Every accident has a precipitating cause. An inquest or a car accident will generally always assess what happened immediately before the death/accident (guy began to get chest pains or child ran into the road, causing driver to swerve into a tree). The bow visor didn't fall off of its own accord.
Click to expand...
It's always amusing when you try to Vixensplain other people's professions to them.

A precipitating event is part of a failure sequence. It is not the entire failure sequence, and differs very importantly from root cause analysis. In forensic engineering, a precipitating event has a precise definition: a point in the causal chain after which failure of a particular nature and degree becomes inevitable. For example, if you define failure as a ship foundering, the precipitating event is the point at which buoyancy becomes negative. If you define failure as a hull breach, then the environmental factor that first causes water ingress is the precipitating event. Now you can certainly go on to say that water ingress is a contributing cause of loss of buoyancy, but your failure analysis then has to be more nuanced in order to put everything correctly in perspective. JAIC offers just such a nuanced analysis. You do not, and your inability to read and understand the JAIC findings is more arrogance than curiosity.

In contrast, root cause analysis puts together all the contributing factors that apply both before and after the precipitating event. Root causes can affect the probability of a precipitating event occurring, such as ongoing maintenance failures that make parts weaker than they should be. Root causes can affect the likelihood of survival or recovery after the precipitating event, such as a failure to maintain emergency equipment or a failure to train crew to deal with emergencies.

The precipitating event in the Apollo 13 accident was the electrical arc that ignited a fire within the oxygen tank. Once that had occurred, overpressure of the tank and subsequent rupture was inevitable. The failure sequence continued for approximately two hours after that, where failure is defined as the loss of oxygen to the point of endangering mission success and human life. A root cause analysis identified design failures, testing failures, and operational failures. It also identified other singular incidents in the failure sequence—the use of heaters to accelerate venting of the oxygen during a pad test a few days earlier.

Your argument presents the straw man that the JAIC's failure sequence is non-credible because the precipitating event and the immediate result are not within the same scale. You argue that it's not credible to say that "one or two strong waves" could be enough to cause the bow visor of an ostensibly well-built, well-operated ship to fail. More insidiously, you insist that this is what your critics believe happened, no matter how much they tell you otherwise. You ignore all the root cause analysis that identifies the important contributing factors and explains why the precipitating event occurred. It did not—as you insinuate—simply happen improbably out of the blue. Your inability to understand failure mode and effects analysis hampers your judgment, sets false expectations, and therefore undermines your criticism. Your critics understand this better than you, and can see how the JAIC report properly identifes both a precipitating event and the relevant contributing factors.

In other words, you need to stay in your lane.

Vixen said:
Deck 4 is NOT the hull, it is a passenger deck.
Click to expand...
No, that's a simplistic understanding of the terminology.

I said an opening in the upper portion of a ship can be considered a hull breach...
JayUtah said:
...for the purposes of computing flood rates, stability factors, and buoyancy.
Click to expand...

I put that qualification there on purpose. For the purposes of hydrodynamics, a "hull" is only that portion below the waterline. That's because it's the only part of the hull that nominally interacts with the water. For purposes of construction and structural analysis, the "hull" is generally the part of the ship up to and including the weather deck. That's because hulls are built according to one kind of structural design and construction method and superstructures are built entirely differently. There is no One True Definition of a hull and therefore no one true definition of a hull breach.

If you need to compute a flood rate, every opening through which water is entering is considered a breach. The opening that defines a vessel's downflooding angle can be literally anywhere on the ship. For stability, you consider only the fact that the vessel is flooding. This means you need to use a different model than the metacentric height calculation you demonstrated you didn't understand. Finally, the ship's center of buoyancy is computed from the shape of the volume of displaced water regardless of what part of the ship is doing the displacing. Flooding models similarly don't distinguish between the hull as defined for other purposes and any other part of the ship as defined for those other purposes.

In other words, you need to stay in your lane.
 
Here_to_learn said:
The final straw is indeed a wave. But that does not mean that "a strong wave" is the cause of the accident.
Click to expand...
One of the factors cited is the poor fit of the locking mechanism. This causes dynamic "hammering" action that is reduced or eliminated in a properly constructed and maintained mechanism. The difference between a well-fitting bolt pressing on a lug and a poorly-fitting bolt hammering a lug is night and day. Even if the visor had not failed, the hammering behavior on the ship should have been a cause for extreme concern. And in the hypothetical case where the visor simply fell off for no readily apparent reason, that hammering would be just as much a contributing cause—i.e., for the damage done to the lug—as in the more dramatic case that actually happened.

Conflating causal analysis with the identification of a precipitating event is an elementary error.
 
Andy_Ross said:
The report goes in to great detail on the design flaws, previous damage and zub standard repairs and maintenance carried out in previous years plus the operation of the ship for years in unsuitable conditions.

As always you ignore all that forgetting that we have also read the report and pointed this out on your previous attempts at deception.
Click to expand...
All that analysis has to be ignored if the goal is to transform the JAIC findings into something that seems improbable and therefore suspicious. If one were genuinely curious, one could learn a lot about failure analysis by asking proper questions and attempting to incorporate the answers into one's understanding. But if one desires to fabricate a conspiracy at all costs, one must cherry-pick a necessary statement of the precipitating event and wrongly pretend that it alone must explain, or be explained by, the accident—and consequently that it fails to do so, suspiciously.

It's bad enough that Vixen understands too little of failure analysis to do it correctly. It's worse when she insists that her critics must hold to the improbable straw-man narrative she's concocted rather than the careful, end-to-end analysis that the JAIC actually performed and wrote about, and which her critics actually believe.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Deck 4 is NOT the hull, it is a passenger deck.


View attachment 65490

  • Hull: The hull is the main body of the ship, the exterior, watertight shell. It is separate from the decks, which are the internal floors of the ship.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. You're utterly wrong (of course): nearly all modern passenger-carrying ships have multiple decks within the hull.

Oh and that last bullet point starting "Hull: The hull is....". That reads VERY suspiciously like an AI attempt at answering a loaded question placed to it by you. You need to come clean on your use of AI (and you've been asked to do so several times already).
 
JayUtah said:
It's always amusing when you try to Vixensplain other people's professions to them.
Click to expand...
True.
JayUtah said:
A precipitating event is part of a failure sequence.
Click to expand...
Indeed. On a related note a friend of mine decided to update his desktop, which he uses for custom 3D printing, to Windows 11. For no particular reason.

The ensuing disaster required several acts of stupidity; deciding to download the W11 ISO onto that same PC, using Rufus to create one installation disk (a microSD card) with no spare copy, not choosing to backup his system, not checking the boot disk before running the installation, not choosing to preserve the old W10 installation.....

Long story short, yesterday he needed to borrow a computer to run his printer and to download the 5.5GB ISO again.
It's the classic swiss cheese effect, several mistakes have to intersect to create a disaster.


JayUtah said:
It is not the entire failure sequence, and differs very importantly from root cause analysis. In forensic engineering, a precipitating event has a precise definition: a point in the causal chain after which failure of a particular nature and degree becomes inevitable. For example, if you define failure as a ship foundering, the precipitating event is the point at which buoyancy becomes negative. If you define failure as a hull breach, then the environmental factor that first causes water ingress is the precipitating event. Now you can certainly go on to say that water ingress is a contributing cause of loss of buoyancy, but your failure analysis then has to be more nuanced in order to put everything correctly in perspective. JAIC offers just such a nuanced analysis. You do not, and your inability to read and understand the JAIC findings is more arrogance than curiosity.

In contrast, root cause analysis puts together all the contributing factors that apply both before and after the precipitating event. Root causes can affect the probability of a precipitating event occurring, such as ongoing maintenance failures that make parts weaker than they should be. Root causes can affect the likelihood of survival or recovery after the precipitating event, such as a failure to maintain emergency equipment or a failure to train crew to deal with emergencies.

The precipitating event in the Apollo 13 accident was the electrical arc that ignited a fire within the oxygen tank. Once that had occurred, overpressure of the tank and subsequent rupture was inevitable. The failure sequence continued for approximately two hours after that, where failure is defined as the loss of oxygen to the point of endangering mission success and human life. A root cause analysis identified design failures, testing failures, and operational failures. It also identified other singular incidents in the failure sequence—the use of heaters to accelerate venting of the oxygen during a pad test a few days earlier.

Your argument presents the straw man that the JAIC's failure sequence is non-credible because the precipitating event and the immediate result are not within the same scale. You argue that it's not credible to say that "one or two strong waves" could be enough to cause the bow visor of an ostensibly well-built, well-operated ship to fail. More insidiously, you insist that this is what your critics believe happened, no matter how much they tell you otherwise. You ignore all the root cause analysis that identifies the important contributing factors and explains why the precipitating event occurred. It did not—as you insinuate—simply happen improbably out of the blue. Your inability to understand failure mode and effects analysis hampers your judgment, sets false expectations, and therefore undermines your criticism. Your critics understand this better than you, and can see how the JAIC report properly identifes both a precipitating event and the relevant contributing factors.

In other words, you need to stay in your lane.


No, that's a simplistic understanding of the terminology.

I said an opening in the upper portion of a ship can be considered a hull breach...


I put that qualification there on purpose. For the purposes of hydrodynamics, a "hull" is only that portion below the waterline. That's because it's the only part of the hull that nominally interacts with the water. For purposes of construction and structural analysis, the "hull" is generally the part of the ship up to and including the weather deck. That's because hulls are built according to one kind of structural design and construction method and superstructures are built entirely differently. There is no One True Definition of a hull and therefore no one true definition of a hull breach.

If you need to compute a flood rate, every opening through which water is entering is considered a breach. The opening that defines a vessel's downflooding angle can be literally anywhere on the ship. For stability, you consider only the fact that the vessel is flooding. This means you need to use a different model than the metacentric height calculation you demonstrated you didn't understand. Finally, the ship's center of buoyancy is computed from the shape of the volume of displaced water regardless of what part of the ship is doing the displacing. Flooding models similarly don't distinguish between the hull as defined for other purposes and any other part of the ship as defined for those other purposes.

In other words, you need to stay in your lane.
Click to expand...
Excellent.
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh and that last bullet point starting "Hull: The hull is....". That reads VERY suspiciously like an AI attempt at answering a loaded question placed to it by you. You need to come clean on your use of AI (and you've been asked to do so several times already).
Click to expand...
I hadn't noticed that because I had my own rebuttal in mind, but good catch. The bullet point seems like it's trying to distinguish the shell plating from the internal structure, which is not the same thing as distinguishing between hull and superstructure as Vixen normally does. And I second the motion to compel Vixen to disclose her use of AI.
 
JayUtah said:
A precipitating event is part of a failure sequence. It is not the entire failure sequence, and differs very importantly from root cause analysis. In forensic engineering, a precipitating event has a precise definition...
Click to expand...
When I joined the forum almost 22 years ago I picked a username that reflect my reason for spending time here. I'm glad to see that the community here still delivers. Thank you JayUtah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom