• 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 Re-opened Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
The Estonia also had problems with its ballasts (water tanks) because of uneven distribution of the traffic inside the car deck (NB the JAIC say it was properly loaded). Even before it left port, the left hand ballast was full to the top. Thus when the starboard list started shortly after the series of bangs was heard/collision felt, there was no room in the left ballast for more water to right the list.
Click to expand...
Would a competent professional captain have sailed in that condition?


You keep saying the Jan Heweliusz was worse than the Estonia in numerous different ways yet it did not sink for five days.





Estonia sank within about half an hour.
Click to expand...

It sank without its bow door coming off and letting it flood. That's worse right there.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Ships sink because they fill with water. The report suggests the windows on deck 4 broke due to pressure when they were underwater, speeding the flooding. You think these windows were impregnable because it doesn't suit you to believe they weren't. Doors leading off the car deck on the side to which the ship was not listing are not relevant to its flooding.
Click to expand...

Really? If so, how come the Estonia capsized then if by your account 'it sank as soon as it filled with water' like those pictures posted by LondonJohn of boat race rowers.
 
Vixen said:
These were centre doors midships. Bear in mind, they were not expecting to see this so now they know about it they will return in Spring to investigate it further.



Why do you consider the centre doors 'irrelevant'?
Click to expand...
On which side?

I have made it repeatedly clear why I consider the doors on the side of the ship through which it did not flood to be irrelevant to the progress of its flooding. Which part of it still confuses you?
 
Vixen said:
Really? If so, how come the Estonia capsized then if by your account 'it sank as soon as it filled with water' like those pictures posted by LondonJohn of boat race rowers.
Click to expand...

Because Estonia had flooding on the car deck and free surface effect (already covered at great length) made the water flood to the lower side as the ship rolled, that took it past it's point of recovery.
We have been through this in detail a number of times already.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
On which side?

I have made it repeatedly clear why I consider the doors on the side of the ship through which it did not flood to be irrelevant to the progress of its flooding. Which part of it still confuses you?
Click to expand...

I am assuming 'centre doors' refer to doors that lead to the centre stairs that lead to the centre lobby. See diagram showing decks 0 - 5.
 

Attachments

  • Kuva3_12s.jpg
    Kuva3_12s.jpg
    47.4 KB · Views: 5
Vixen said:
Yet it floated belly up for five days - obeying the laws of physics (Archimedes Principle, just so you know what to look up).
Click to expand...

Can you explain which of these 'laws of physics' applies?

What is the 'Archimedes principle'?

It floated for 5 days because it capsized without flooding due to it's already known problems with stability.
 
Vixen said:
I am assuming 'centre doors' refer to doors that lead to the centre stairs that lead to the centre lobby. See diagram showing decks 0 - 5.
Click to expand...

So you don't know?

Why assume?

Did they penetrate that far in to the car deck?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Because Estonia had flooding on the car deck and free surface effect (already covered at great length) made the water flood to the lower side as the ship rolled, that took it past it's point of recovery.
We have been through this in detail a number of times already.
Click to expand...

...at which point it should have turned belly up, just like the MS Jan Heweliusz but it sank to the bottom of the sea instead, in record time.
 
Vixen said:
Really? If so, how come the Estonia capsized then if by your account 'it sank as soon as it filled with water' like those pictures posted by LondonJohn of boat race rowers.
Click to expand...
There you go with more unladylike stuffing of words into people's mouths. Estonia's car deck flooded because the bow door came off and damaged the ramp too. That flooding destabilise the ship making it list, and progressive flooding increased the list and that increased the flooding until it ran out of reserve buoyancy and sank by the stern. The end.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
So you don't know?

Why assume?

Did they penetrate that far in to the car deck?
Click to expand...

Kurm specifically says 'centre doors'.


In the case of the investigation of the car deck, Kurm once again pointed out the fact that the two passenger doors in its central section were closed. Kurm explained that the discovery is important because previous simulations have assumed that the doors broke.
Click to expand...
 
Jack by the hedge said:
The ship was 24m wide. The car deck was not 24m wide, otherwise its doors would have deposited passengers into the sea.

I love that "intellectual error" crap. You stuff words into people's mouths which they never used then tell us they're wrong. It's exasperating but still kinda funny.
Click to expand...

Access to the lower hull and superstructure are along the centre line of the ship.
There is a midships division of the car deck along it's length in the waist of the ship. This houses all the stairs, exhausts, plumbing and electrical ducting etc.
 
Vixen said:
...at which point it should have turned belly up, just like the MS Jan Heweliusz but it sank to the bottom of the sea instead, in record time.
Click to expand...

Why should it have turned belly up when there was flooding in the hull?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom