• 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:
After every public marine accident changes are made. For example, Zeebruge and The Herald of Free Enterprise. It could be seen that if the visor locks are weak then of course it is a safety issue.
Click to expand...
Herald of Free Enterprise didn't have a rising visor.
It had a Clamshell which is still widely used.
The problem wasn't weak locks it was the doors being left open.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
These vessels are designed to withstand pitching.
Click to expand...
Yes, they all are with their design parameters.
Estonia was driven in to the waves at higher speed than was suitable for the conditions. It was already known to be at risk which is why it had limited verification for coastal inshore work only.

The pictures are also visual evidence of the conditions at the time of the sinking.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Then as an expert in London you should know that cockney slang consists of more than just the rhyming type; extensive backslang, for example. As an aside, as for Stanley Unwin getting his Unwinese from his Bethnal Green-born mother, given she came out with 'falloloping' and hurting her 'kneeclabbers', and the fact her parents are listed as 'unknown' but née 'Brand' (unlike his father who is generations English), that indicates to me she was second generation cockney, and as with so many who arrived in the East End, was possibly a newcomer, using the half-remembered words of her parents or grandparents, which given the sheer number of syllables - 'falloloping'; 'kneeclabbers' - indicates a germanic language origin, which together with the name, 'Brand' indicates to me a Swedish or Danish origin. Entirely within keeping of cockney slang if others pick it up and start using it, too.
Click to expand...
Do you even remember why you (erroneously) brought up Stanley Unwin in the first place?
 
Vixen said:
I did ask google...
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. You keep proceeding from the premise that Anders Björkman is right and everyone else is wrong, often denying that he is your source. You keep parroting his wrong terminology and uniquely made-up facts. Instead of scouring the internet for cranks and AI slop, why won't you consent to be taught by people who can demonstrate proper expertise?

Vixen said:
I didn't claim to solve it, I simply demonstrated that of course it's possible to calculate likely impact on seabed, given the specified dimensions.
Click to expand...
Is this that demonstration?

Vixen

Cont: Post in thread 'The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V'

LondonJohn said:
Ummmmmm..... the beam of a ship is not a physical part of the ship: it is its (widest) width (in normal orientation when afloat). To write something like "only the beam was near hard rock" is utterly nonsensical, and further illustrates your ignorance of the subject matter.






This is pitiful. Unless you know the relative buoyancy of the ship just before it hit the sea bed, you can have no understanding whatsoever of the force with which it impacted the sea bed. You're scientifically illiterate.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that?


Using https://www.aichatting.net/ with the...
Posted By: zooterkin

Vixen said:
I am a bean counter, not an engineer, so I wouldn't claim to be able to calculate it myself.
Click to expand...
Which is why you should heed my advice to stay in your lane. You don't know what you're talking about, and your professed "triple-niner" intelligence is worthless. Despite this ignorance, you seem to have no problem telling other people including engineers what they're doing wrong. Your "interest" and "curiosity" seem to extend no farther than smack-talking your betters. As soon as the opportunity arises for you to demonstrate the proficiency such an exercise would normally require, you run back to the motte. As soon as you're invited to present and defend a more evident claim—back to the motte. And as soon as the opportunity for you to learn something arises, you run away. "Curiosity" indeed...
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Because It was ordered within a day or two of the accident that all such vessels be inspected immediately and eventually phased out all together. This was before the bow visor was even located and retrieved from the sea bed.
Click to expand...
Why would recovery have been a necessary prior step?

Vixen said:
These vessels are designed to withstand pitching.
Click to expand...
How much pitching?

Vixen said:
The Diana II incident is a 'useful example' only. It hardly proves anything.
Click to expand...
...says the non-engineer with no experience, training, or desire to learn such things.
 
JesseCuster said:
I can't find anything in those newspaper reports about "all such vessels being inspected immediately and eventually phased out all together"

Are you capable of actually quoting or citing something relevant when asked for evidence? Can you not read properly?
Click to expand...
As in my post #1942, the German Group of Experts in their Estonia Ferry Disaster page reported:

"

On 28 September 1994 at 16.00 hours – 14 hours after the sinking – the Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt declared in Turku, that the accident had been caused by a “design mistake”. Shortly later he forced the Seasafety Director Bengt-Erik Stenmark of Sjöfartsinspektionen – see Chapter 6.3.1 of our Report – to resign under humiliating circumstances as he did not react the way the Prime Minister exspected him to do.

When Bildt was interviewed in 1998 by Peter Öhrn’s Analyse Group* - hereafter called the Peter Öhrn Group – he stated according to the protocol: “It was obvious that the bow visor had gone up.” Already on 28 September 1994 at the airport of Turku Bildt discussed this problem with the Finnish Prime Minister Esko Aho. It was an important matter to both of them as most of the Finland traffic was operated by ferries with bow visors.

Bildt’s security adviser Jonas Hafström stated, when interviewed by the Peter Öhrn Group: “Carl Bildt wished Mats Odell** to have investigated by Sjöfartsverket (see Chapter 6.3 of our Report) whether there were other ferries trading with the same construction. It was a Finnish design. Carl Bildt said that there was no other explanation for the casualty.”
Carl Bildt made another phone call from Turku Airport and spoke to the Managing Director of Estline, Hans Laidwa in Stockholm, and informed him that the casualty had been caused by a “design mistake”. This means that the Prime Minister, pretending to have sufficient technical knowledge to make such statements, found it necessary to put the mind of the Managing Director of the Shipping Company responsible for the operation of MV ESTONIA at ease with regard to the cause of the accident. At a time when the wreck was not even (officially) found and definitely not inspected by experts!


Bildt did, via the Swedish Marine Administration order all bow visors to be inspected on Day One and indeed, Silja Europa's was said to be defective. Of course, this is crisis management to be expected. But it can hardly be a conclusion as of that stage, when the bow visor wasn't recovered until 8 Oct 1994 IIRC.

The point being made is that a relatively lowly third or fourth engineer - in terms of ship seniority - was being presented as an expert as to the cause of a disaster, when not only was he on Deck 0 the whole time, he only saw a vague monitor picture of water seeping in through the sides of a closed car ramp, and who claims he didn't leave the ship until 01:30, and by climbing up the funnel straight into the sea, yet was fully survival-suited and had his wallet, passport and warm clothing, ready to join Kadak, Treu and Linde, having also been on the upper deck handing out life jackets and 'calming people down'. He claims to have been on deck 0 fixing some passenger toilets and somehow ended up in the Engine Control Room with Kadak and Treu 'up to their knees in water' (so he told Dagens Nyheter). I would suggest we cannot give much credibility to what Sillaste says, as Linde says Sillaste was on the life raft at 01:20, even as Tammes was making a Mayday call.

All this has been discussed before.
 
Vixen said:
As in my post #1942, the German Group of Experts in their Estonia Ferry Disaster page reported:

"

On 28 September 1994 at 16.00 hours – 14 hours after the sinking – the Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt declared in Turku, that the accident had been caused by a “design mistake”. Shortly later he forced the Seasafety Director Bengt-Erik Stenmark of Sjöfartsinspektionen – see Chapter 6.3.1 of our Report – to resign under humiliating circumstances as he did not react the way the Prime Minister exspected him to do.

When Bildt was interviewed in 1998 by Peter Öhrn’s Analyse Group* - hereafter called the Peter Öhrn Group – he stated according to the protocol: “It was obvious that the bow visor had gone up.” Already on 28 September 1994 at the airport of Turku Bildt discussed this problem with the Finnish Prime Minister Esko Aho. It was an important matter to both of them as most of the Finland traffic was operated by ferries with bow visors.

Bildt’s security adviser Jonas Hafström stated, when interviewed by the Peter Öhrn Group: “Carl Bildt wished Mats Odell** to have investigated by Sjöfartsverket (see Chapter 6.3 of our Report) whether there were other ferries trading with the same construction. It was a Finnish design. Carl Bildt said that there was no other explanation for the casualty.”
Carl Bildt made another phone call from Turku Airport and spoke to the Managing Director of Estline, Hans Laidwa in Stockholm, and informed him that the casualty had been caused by a “design mistake”. This means that the Prime Minister, pretending to have sufficient technical knowledge to make such statements, found it necessary to put the mind of the Managing Director of the Shipping Company responsible for the operation of MV ESTONIA at ease with regard to the cause of the accident. At a time when the wreck was not even (officially) found and definitely not inspected by experts!
Click to expand...
I can't find any evidence in the quoted text that says that within a day or two of the Estonia sinking, there was an order that "all such vessels are to be inspected immediately".
 
Vixen said:
Then as an expert in London you should know that cockney slang consists of more than just the rhyming type; extensive backslang, for example. As an aside, as for Stanley Unwin getting his Unwinese from his Bethnal Green-born mother, given she came out with 'falloloping' and hurting her 'kneeclabbers', and the fact her parents are listed as 'unknown' but née 'Brand' (unlike his father who is generations English), that indicates to me she was second generation cockney, and as with so many who arrived in the East End, was possibly a newcomer, using the half-remembered words of her parents or grandparents, which given the sheer number of syllables - 'falloloping'; 'kneeclabbers' - indicates a germanic language origin, which together with the name, 'Brand' indicates to me a Swedish or Danish origin. Entirely within keeping of cockney slang if others pick it up and start using it, too.
Click to expand...
Pointless gibberish.

Ok Vixen, you say kemo sabe is cockney slang? Show us. Find one example, anywhere, of someone using it as such.

No, your possibly mythical "cockney" from Dartford who may or may not be multiple people who may or may not be villains doesn't count.
 
Vixen said:
You can do a search and discover that this is factually correct.
Click to expand...
Or you could just post the evidence.

Instead you've posted 2 blocks of text which say no such thing. Why?

This is an admission that the text you've quoted says nothing about an order with 1 or 2 days of the sinking for all such vessels to be inspected immediately, otherwise you would explain why I'm wrong about your references saying no such thing.
 
Vixen said:
Yes, because you claimed he had no cockney roots and was from South Africa, when Unwin had cockney roots all along, just I as I discerned.
Click to expand...
No, that's not what happened. I am continually amazed at your ability to be wrong about everything, even when the information is easily available.

You introduced him as "an expert on slang", when in fact he is known for creating his own language.
Vixen said:
This guy was an expert on slang. Bit like the guy who does Ogden Nut's Gone Flake for the Small Faces.
Click to expand...

I did not say he had no cockney roots, just that he wasn't a cockney (yes, he was born in South Africa, meaning he clearly couldn't have been born in the sound of Bow Bells, regardless of wind direction, but it wasn't me who said that).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom