• 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

Vixen said:
View attachment 66168

As can be seen, when the visor was up the car deck (deck 2) was still high above the waterline.
Click to expand...
How high would you estimate the wave height to be in that photo? Compare and Contrast to the night of the accident.
How would you estimate the load status of the ferry in that picture? Compare and Contrast to the night of the accident.

And regardless of what you want it to be, the hull does not end at the waterline. If you want to make up your own definition of words feel free do to do so, but when you talk about the JAIC report, or reply to those that interact with you in this thread, you have to use the real definition.

JAIC has clearly stated (as I posted above) that the bow visor is part of the hull.
 
Pride of Dover, First winter storm November 2009

See how it pitches?

See how the waves break right over the bow?

That's a ferry taking herd of conditions and operating accordingly.

Compare with a ship going deliberately too fast for the conditions as we know Estonia was.

The difference being a Destroyer is designed to take the hammering for a short period as it's role sometimes necessitates it, as in this case as it speeds to get ahead of the carrier it's escorting.


 
Last edited:
Here_to_learn said:
How high would you estimate the wave height to be in that photo? Compare and Contrast to the night of the accident.
How would you estimate the load status of the ferry in that picture? Compare and Contrast to the night of the accident.

And regardless of what you want it to be, the hull does not end at the waterline. If you want to make up your own definition of words feel free do to do so, but when you talk about the JAIC report, or reply to those that interact with you in this thread, you have to use the real definition.

JAIC has clearly stated (as I posted above) that the bow visor is part of the hull.
Click to expand...
OK, fair enough it is part of the hull but with it being designed to triple lock, it is not properly explained how it came apart at three points. Braidwood does offer an explanation, together with physical evidence (photography taken directly from the official video) as to how the side lock came off.

1763558660300.jpeg

1763558696458.jpeg

This is more of an obvious answer than a couple of wave load impacts? The issue should perhaps have been addressed.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
Pride of Dover, First winter storm November 2009

See how it pitches?

See how the waves break right over the bow?

That's a ferry taking herd of conditions and operating accordingly.

Compare with a ship going deliberately too fast for the conditions as we know Estonia was.

The difference being a Destroyer is designed to take the hammering for a short period as it's role sometimes necessitates it, as in this case as it speeds to get ahead of the carrier it's escorting.


Click to expand...

The Estonia waves were southwesterly..? It was travelling north-westerly until it turned west and then back south-east after losing the visor.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The Estonia waves were southwesterly..? It was travelling north-westerly until it turned west and then back south-east after losing the visor.
Click to expand...
Which makes what difference?
It would still pitch in to the waves, wind direction isn't always the same as the swell.
Even if it was it would mean the Estonia was taking them almost broadside on which would add a big roll to the pitch making things worse.

We can discern the direction of the waves and swell by looking at the ship's course after the power failed.
It would be forced broadside on to the waves and be pushed in the direction of the swell and to an extent the wind.

We covered all this in great detail the first time you brought it all up.

I'm not searching through for the detailed posts made previously and not taking the time to compose it all again as you will just ignore it and and post all the same ◊◊◊◊ again in a few months.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
(a) I am not the slightest bit embarrassed. (b) if I said that is where I heard it, that is where I heard it.
Click to expand...
A. You should be. This is embarrasing afterall.

B. You're a liar though so we don't believe you, and even if it were true that doesn't make it cockney slang because it isn't.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
A. You should be. This is embarrasing afterall.

B. You're a liar though so we don't believe you, and even if it were true that doesn't make it cockney slang because it isn't.
Click to expand...
I did not make any claim. Someone asked where I got the phrase from and I told them. If it makes you feel powerful to call me a liar and to refer to yourself as 'we', can I suggest a tough reality check?
 
Andy_Ross said:
Which makes what difference?
It would still pitch in to the waves, wind direction isn't always the same as the swell.
Even if it was it would mean the Estonia was taking them almost broadside on which would add a big roll to the pitch making things worse.

We can discern the direction of the waves and swell by looking at the ship's course after the power failed.
It would be forced broadside on to the waves and be pushed in the direction of the swell and to an extent the wind.

We covered all this in great detail the first time you brought it all up.

I'm not searching through for the detailed posts made previously and not taking the time to compose it all again as you will just ignore it and and post all the same ◊◊◊◊ again in a few months.
Click to expand...
Yes, I get that the ship was crippled when the bow visor was ripped off but we are none the wiser as to why. But as you say, it has been discussed to death already.
 
Vixen said:
I did not make any claim. Someone asked where I got the phrase from and I told them. If it makes you feel powerful to call me a liar and to refer to yourself as 'we', can I suggest a tough reality check?
Click to expand...
What on earth is wrong with your memory? You very clearly made the repeated claim that "kemo sabe" is some form of cockney slang. Why are you lying about that now?
 
Vixen said:
I did not make any claim. Someone asked where I got the phrase from and I told them. If it makes you feel powerful to call me a liar and to refer to yourself as 'we', can I suggest a tough reality check?
Click to expand...
"I can confirm Kemo sabe was cockney slang for "understand". Actually, it should read Kimo Sabe."

Your post #2089
 
Vixen said:
I did not make any claim. Someone asked where I got the phrase from and I told them. If it makes you feel powerful to call me a liar and to refer to yourself as 'we', can I suggest a tough reality check?
Click to expand...
Here you are making the claim it's "east end slang". Here too.
 
Vixen said:
Yes, I get that the ship was crippled when the bow visor was ripped off but we are none the wiser as to why. But as you say, it has been discussed to death already.
Click to expand...
We do know why, a combination of faulty design (specific to this ship but the whole rising bow concept for offshore work), previous damage not properly repaired, poor maintenance and not sailing in a manner appropriate to the conditions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom