The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Axxman300]

OK, so were there to be excess water ingressing on the car deck only, the capsize would look like this:

Water on the car deck by Username Vixen, on Flickr

Were the excess water also to come from above and below it would look like so:

Water below the car deck by Username Vixen, on Flickr

JAIC realised the water could not have just been in the car garage so formed a theoretical model of how windows on decks four and five must have smashed.

Cool, and how would the hull breach have changed any aspect of the sinking (had it been there before the impact with the sea floor)?

 

[JayUtah]

Of course, I'll read it carefully and hear what the various experts have to say about it.

Can you give us right now the names of the experts you'll be consulting? Conversely, this forum has a number of experts whose expertise you have thoroughly disregarded. Will you be paying attention to what those experts here have to say?

 

[Axxman300]

Expressing initial surprise at the speed of the sinking before the cause was known does not mean doubt in the cause.

Yes, and since this has been the Edmond Fitzgerald anniversary week, I'll point out the captain of the Arthur M. Anderson was also shocked the Fitzgerald sank so fast. Doesn't make it a conspiracy. In this case the speed has always been part of the mystery, but no one has ever suggested foul play. And we know what happened on the Estonia because, unlike the Fitzgerald, there are survivors.

 

[Axxman300]

When it comes to basic buoyancy, his reasoning is perfectly sound. He is an MSc in Naval Architecture. Compare and contrast to the M/S Jan Heweliusz, a ferry in terrible condition, hit by winds of 44 m/s yet none of its windows smashed allowing the ingress of 4,000 tonnes as it capsized. So it floated upside down on the water for at at least five hours. Estonia sank almost immediately. You really don't need to be a rocket scientist to want to understand how and why. Captain Mäkelä expressed surprise there was no sign of it at all when he arrived as CSO. Seriously, are you really saying people shouldn't be interested in it because <fx Baldrick voice> 'It bain't be for the likes of us, Sir'. For goodness sake, it is common or garden current affairs news.

I'm no naval architect, but I'd counter his reasoning with the fact the Estonia did in fact sink. I would also point out that the Jan Heweliusz was a smaller ferry, different design, and didn't have her car ramp open to the sea as the Estonia did. I will also point out that it sank due to high winds combined with a ballast problem. The Estonia SAILED WITH A LIST, so the usual ballast corrections needed were possible as per the JAIC. And, as a layman I'd point out that the weather in that region can and will sink large ships if standard precautions are not taken (based on historical facts).

And there were survivors from the Estonia, so she didn't sink "immediately".

 

[JayUtah]

OK, so were there to be excess water ingressing on the car deck only, the capsize would look like this:

According to whom? Where do those diagrams come from?

 

[Andy_Ross]

OK, so were there to be excess water ingressing on the car deck only, the capsize would look like this:

Water on the car deck by Username Vixen, on Flickr

Were the excess water also to come from above and below it would look like so:

Water below the car deck by Username Vixen, on Flickr

JAIC realised the water could not have just been in the car garage so formed a theoretical model of how windows on decks four and five must have smashed.

Water got below through the numerous large openings leading in to the hull thst are on every ship.
These include access doorways, ventilators, engine exhaust and intake trunking and air conditioning systems.
Ships are not watertight from above.
You have been told this but just ignore it.

 

[Mojo]

OK, so were there to be excess water ingressing on the car deck only, the capsize would look like this:

Water on the car deck by Username Vixen, on Flickr

Were the excess water also to come from above and below it would look like so:

Water below the car deck by Username Vixen, on Flickr

JAIC realised the water could not have just been in the car garage so formed a theoretical model of how windows on decks four and five must have smashed.

1F looks suspiciously like a ship floating on its superstructure. Do you think this could have happened?

 

[JayUtah]

1F looks suspiciously like a ship floating on its superstructure. Do you think this could have happened?

Indeed, the caption is ambiguous where it says the ship "floats up side [sic] down on the undamaged underwater hull." It's not clear what's being referred to as undamaged, underwater, or hull. But indeed the submerged portion in 1F is what is commonly referred to as the superstructure.

I reiterate that when you want to identify the different parts of a ship for reference, words such as "hull" and "superstructure" have certain commonly-accepted meanings. But for the special purpose of determining buoyancy and/or the propagation of flooding, such distinctions are meaningless. The center of buoyancy is determined by whatever part of the ship is underwater, regardless of what name is given to it for some other purpose.

Where do these diagrams come from? Who is responsible for the interpretive captions?

 

[Mojo]

Anyway, Vixen, you have said that the JAIC claimed that a ship will float on its superstructure. What is your source for this?

 

[Mojo]

Where do these diagrams come from? Who is responsible for the interpretive captions?

And why do all the vehicles stay rooted to the deck, even at lists of 90 to 180 degrees?

 

[JayUtah]

And why do all the vehicles stay rooted to the deck, even at lists of 90 to 180 degrees?

In most ferry designs the cars are chained to the deck as part of the loading process.

 

[Mojo]

Where do these diagrams come from?

Could it be the source for Vixen's claims about ships inevitably floating after "turning turtle"?

 

[Mojo]

In most ferry designs the cars are chained to the deck as part of the loading process.

Must be damned inconvenient when they need to get off at the other side.

 

[JayUtah]

Could it be the source for Vixen's claims about ships inevitably floating after "turning turtle"?

She'll have to tell us her source. It's not anything from the JAIC, so I wonder why she posted them in response to a request for where the JAIC allegedly said something. You'd think it would be a citation to the JAIC.

Must be damned inconvenient when they need to get off at the other side.

Yes, it's pain either way. You have to position the cars and chain them down at loading, and then unchain them for unloading. You don't want your cargo shifting too much during a voyage. But for stability calculation purposes you can assume the cars in this case would reasonably stay put.

 

[JesseCuster]

i am not the slightest bit interested in this guy. I couldn't give a toss what he thinks about 9/11 or Apollo or whatever.

Then why have you, on multiple occasions, attempted to handwave away his crackpot ideas about nuclear weapons, the moon landings, etc. as being someone "seriously interested" in those topics, or someone just pontificating on abstract matters etc? If you've not the "slightest bit interested" in what he has to say about nuclear weapons being a gigantic hoax perpetrated by the Americans, Soviets, etc. then why are you trying to portray them as some sort of high-minded serious thoughts on the subject?

If you've read any of his stuff about nuclear weapons, you wouldn't try to defend them as being the writings of someone with a serious or academic interest in the subject, or merely being opinions about something abstract (what's "abstract" about saying Nagasaki and Hiroshima never had atomic bombs dropped on them, or that every single piece of photographic evidence for nuclear bomb testing or human space travel is fake and part of a giant conspiracy to coverup the truth). And if you haven't read any of his stuff on those matters, why go out of your way to try and minimise the crackpottery of his writings on those subjects?

 

[JesseCuster]

She'll have to tell us her source. It's not anything from the JAIC, so I wonder why she posted them in response to a request for where the JAIC allegedly said something. You'd think it would be a citation to the JAIC.

Vixen has a track record of being repeatedly asked for evidence of something she claims is in the JAIC, and simply refusing to actually post the relevant portion of the JAIC. For example she has been asked countless times for evidence of her claim that about recommendations the JAIC made about the distance between the bow visor and the bridge.

She made multiple responses to this request, which consisted of posting sections of the JAIC which showed no such recommendations, then claiming that the JAIC had no authority to enforce changes to ferry design (which wouldn't preclude her from simply copying and pasting the recommendations the JAIC supposedly made, to posting a response from AI where she clearly asked the AI to furnish her with an answer which showed how changes to ferry design were the result of recommendations made by the JAIC (and even then the answer she posted explicitly said the JAIC did not in fact make those recommendations), to finally claiming that the JAIC made those recommendations but they didn't say so explicitly because they used some sort of colloquialism or something. "Colloquialism" seems to be a standard defense of Vixen's for when she says something entirely incorrect. "Died a few years later" apparently is a "colloquialism" for "died an unknown number of years later".

 

[Mojo]

"Colloquialism" seems to be a standard defense of Vixen's for when she says something entirely incorrect. "Died a few years later" apparently is a "colloquialism" for "died an unknown number of years later".

Also, "a couple" turned out to be a 'colloquialism' for "four".

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Please advise what 'conspiracy theories' you believe I subscribe to.

Dick Cheney finagled a bid for Rockwell to do the Estonia dive because CIA, just to name the most recent.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

In most ferry designs the cars are chained to the deck as part of the loading process.

In my experience with a number of ferries, all smaller than the MS Estonia, the cars and trucks were never chained to the deck.

 

[junkshop]

Also, "a couple" turned out to be a 'colloquialism' for "four".

I almost can't believe that I'm saying this, but I think that Vixen's hyperbole, hypocrisy, fantasism, bull-headed misinterpretation and near-naked arrogance are sort of useful.
This is the low effort thread were people come to do their reps and bank their steps. This is a good place to come for education from Jay and Andy (and many, many others, but this is a post, not an essay, so I can't credit everyone by name), and/or to practice throwing darts at a comically overblown balloon of ego and poor research and poor argument.

That's why I come back, anyway. Thank you, Vixen, for your service.

ETA: I am aware that this has bugger all to do with the post it is replying to. Consider it a homage to Vixen's posting style.