Talk:Alexander L. Kielland (platform)

Untitled

I don't know why someone added a screed about "NASCAR" (some racing sport?) to the end of the article, but it's deleted now. Is this some new sort of ratings war conducted by robots?

Capsizing Sequence

"....Suddenly the rig heeled over 30° and then stabilised. Five of the six anchor cables had broken, the one remaining cable was preventing the rig from capsizing. The list continued to increase and at 18.53 the remaining anchor cable snapped and the rig turned upside down....."

A multimedia animation of the capsizing does not include (visually) the role of the mooring cables or their sequence of failure (i.e. breakage). Is there a similar animation or simulation for the Ocean Ranger? What was the equivalent sequence for the Ocean Ranger?

[1] apparently(?) from [2]

Pete318 (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Numbers of rescued men

Of the 212 people aboard 89 survived, but I count only 49 saved in the description of the rescue: 19 in lifeboat #5, 3 from Kielland 's rafts, 13 from Edda 's rafts, 7 by supply boats, and 7 swimmers. There were 40 men then in the one lifeboat that launched, or else how were these other men saved? Yappy2bhere (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

'123 victims of forgotten North Sea disaster'

• "Most of the workers were Norwegian, though there were also British and Americans onboard. Only 89 survived. The mayday call prompted a major response with teams from Scotland, Germany, Denmark and Norway involved. Search and rescue teams from RAF Kinloss co-ordinated a huge part of the operation that included 10 helicopters and 45 support vessels. Andy Loosemore, then a 29-year-old sergeant at RAF Kinloss working as part of the 201 Squadron, remembers being scrambled. “It was a horrible day,” he said. “The disaster happened at teatime and we were called out later in the evening. “It was the worst position to have a disaster in the North Sea. It was so far away. It was a strange situation as it was right on the border.¨“The Norwegian authorities were involved as were the British, but no-one was in control. We’d been briefed that a rig was in trouble but they didn’t say it had turned over. “The only people who knew what had happened were upside down.”, Sunday Post, 21 March 2010

--Mais oui! (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Move to Alexander L. Kielland (platform)?

Why is "wreck" added to this article name? Some other "wrecks": MV Wilhelm Gustloff, German battleship Bismarck, RMS Titanic, HMS Hood (51). These articles all include the sinking of the ships, but no "wrecks". Suggest a move to Alexander L. Kielland (platform). KjellG (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Wreck because the article is about the accident, not the platform itself. I suggest we move it back to Alexander Kielland wreck. Compare with Deepwater Horizon __meco (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The correct name of the platform is Alexander L. Kielland, not Alexander Kielland so it should not be moved back to Alexander Kielland wreck anyway. What is the difference between "the platform itself" and the wreck of the platform itself? If a second move should take place, the article could be moved to Alexander L. Kielland disaster. Still - why not RMS Titanic wreck? Also ALK did not sink! Is there then any wreck? OK it was sunk later, but that was to get rid of some scrap. KjellG (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you confuse the English term wreck with being synonymous with the Norwegian term vrak. A wreck can also mean a collision, i.e. the disaster. So, with the name correction the appropriate name would be Alexander L. Kielland disaster, since it wasn't a collision which caused the accident. __meco (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I was a bit mistaken regarding wreck. Having said that, scanning through some wreck-articles on en:WP, most of them talk about wreckage that often can be visited by divers. There are some "train wrecks" meaning accidents. Regarding ALK platform vs. ALK disaster - I do not have any grate feelings, but most iw use "platform". I think the same discussion will come up on no: soon.
I do not see any need for two articles. This because the informations regarding the disaster also include the need to describe the platform and the platform itself is not of any grate interest but for the accident. KjellG (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see it moved to "disaster", but I won't make the move, for now. We'll see if any more editors have an opinion. __meco (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Death at the cinema

Ok, at least some clarification is required in this article. At about 18:30 rig heeled over 30°, stabilized, started to list again and at 18:53 capsized. Then accident description says - "130 men were in the mess hall and the cinema". Well, I find it hard to believe. Rig heeled over 30°, but regardless they are still eating their dinner and (dear God) watching movies at the cinema?! The way it is written makes it look that way, like they didn't react for 23 minutes. That part of the article needs to be either rewritten or, if they really were so careless about a 30° list, at least some further explanation is required. --nn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.3.109.11 (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

and what about design engineers -did they go to prison? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.34.142 (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alexander L. Kielland (platform). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061110035321/http://www.exponent.com/multimedia/cases/kiel.html to http://www.exponent.com/multimedia/cases/kiel.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)