The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Vixen]

Steel hulls don't have buoyancy its the air between them that does. When its filled with water the ship sinks.

Exactly, except 'water in the hull' was not the cause of the ship sinking, according to the JAIC. It doesn't mention the hull at all, or that Seaman Sillaste had said he turned on the bilge pumps (which are in the hull). In fact any water in the hull can be pumped out if done fast enough.

 

[lobosrul5]

Exactly, except 'water in the hull' was not the cause of the ship sinking, according to the JAIC. It doesn't mention the hull at all, or that Seaman Sillaste had said he turned on the bilge pumps (which are in the hull). In fact any water in the hull can be pumped out if done fast enough.

Are you... serious? I can't even fathom what else would cause the ship to sink. Bilge pumps would be massively overwhelmed by the bow visor and front ramp of a ship being torn off. The ship sank very very quickly, I'm not an expert but that gash pictured in the wreck would've likely taken much longer to cause a ship that size to sink.

 

[Myriad]

Exactly, except 'water in the hull' was not the cause of the ship sinking, according to the JAIC.

Water in the hull is the cause of pretty much every ship sinking ever.

 

[theprestige]

I'm betting the car deck is in the superstructure, and the superstructure isn't being counted as part of the hull, and this is a "technically correct is the worst kind of correct" situation. (BTW, the next time someone is tempted to derail a productive discussion on a technicality, keep in mind that this is what that looks like.)

 

[Vixen]

I'm betting the car deck is in the superstructure, and the superstructure isn't being counted as part of the hull, and this is a "technically correct is the worst kind of correct" situation. (BTW, the next time someone is tempted to derail a productive discussion on a technicality, keep in mind that this is what that looks like.)

That's correct, the car deck was 2 metres above the water line and part of the superstructure.

The hull consisted of fourteen water-tight compartments, including the engine room.

So when the car deck flooded ceteris paribus one would have expected the vessel to immediately capsize and turn belly up, floating.

 

[lobosrul5]

I'm betting the car deck is in the superstructure, and the superstructure isn't being counted as part of the hull, and this is a "technically correct is the worst kind of correct" situation. (BTW, the next time someone is tempted to derail a productive discussion on a technicality, keep in mind that this is what that looks like.)

My argument isnt even with you but the superstructure is well above the waterline. Ive never heard of a superstructure that is below the waterline. Plans of the Estonia show vehicle areas in the hull.

Eta: or perhaps vehicles right on the normal waterline which will not be in heavy seas.

 

[Andy_Ross]

That was a different type of car ferry and after that accident in 1987 regulations were tightened.



It sank immediately on leaving the port.

The Estonia left Tallinn at circa 7:00pm and didn't sink until between 1:15 - 1:50 (according to the JAIC). Unlike the Herald of Free Enterprise, it had not only a bow visor, it had a car ramp (the bow comes down, the ramp goes up) The car ramp has eight hooks/locks designed to withstand a force of 25 tonnes each, It is independent of the bow visor, so the bow visor falling off wouldn't impact the car ramp. The JAIC said the visor falling off distorted the top of the ramp by a metre and the water came in through the top.

Even if the car deck had completely flooded, it should have done so within about two minutes, capsized and then floated upside down because of the buoyancy in an intact hull. But it didn't, it listed 40° to starboard and then righted itself to port by 15°, giving people who felt the severe list, a further ten minutes or so to get out. Those who got out were predominantly the young people who preferred to spend the night on deck, to save money (now, you have to buy a cabin ticket by law, if overnight), the crew, whose cabins were near the upper decks, plus they had windows that opened that they could climb out [plus they knew where the correct stairs to the upper deck were and to dress warmly] plus those in the expensive cabins in floor six and seven. The sheer speed at which the Estonia sank, meant very few on the lower decks, mostly people with children or the more elderly, had any chance.

The fact, the Estonia did not capsize - like the Herald of Free Enterprise - indicates it was a breach in the hull, as it sank like a stone, stern first.

You don't get it. Both ships had water come in the bows. Both ships turned over and sank.

In one case the bow was left open, in the other the bow fell off.

Car ramps are not watertight or structural.

Results were the same.

Herald sank in 87, Estonia was built in 1980.

It was built well before the changes to construction that the Herald sinking brought in.

 

[Vixen]

My argument isnt even with you but the superstructure is well above the waterline. Ive never heard of a superstructure that is below the waterline. Plans of the Estonia show vehicle areas in the hull.

No, no car deck in the hull. The green bits in the diagram are the hull.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Exactly, except 'water in the hull' was not the cause of the ship sinking, according to the JAIC. It doesn't mention the hull at all, or that Seaman Sillaste had said he turned on the bilge pumps (which are in the hull). In fact any water in the hull can be pumped out if done fast enough.

Water in the hull is the cause of all ships sinking.

Bilge pumps will not pump anything after the power has gone off.

Bilge pumps will not keep remove thousands of tons of water high in the hull, they are as their name suggests in the bilges.

If bilge pumps could keep up with a ship flooding then no ship would ever sink.

 

[Vixen]

You don't get it. Both ships had water come in the bows. Both ships turned over and sank.

In one case the bow was left open, in the other the bow fell off.

Car ramps are not watertight or structural.

Results were the same.

Herald sank in 87, Estonia was built in 1980.

It was built well before the changes to construction that the Herald sinking brought in.

You are still not getting it. The Herald of Free Enterprise capsized. Had it been in deeper water, it would have turned belly up.

The Estonia did not capsize nor did it turtle.

It sank like a stone, stern first. This is what would happen if the hull was breached.

 

[Andy_Ross]

That's correct, the car deck was 2 metres above the water line and part of the superstructure.

The hull consisted of fourteen water-tight compartments, including the engine room.

So when the car deck flooded ceteris paribus one would have expected the vessel to immediately capsize and turn belly up, floating.

Which it pretty much did.

 

[Andy_Ross]

My argument isnt even with you but the superstructure is well above the waterline. Ive never heard of a superstructure that is below the waterline. Plans of the Estonia show vehicle areas in the hull.

Eta: or perhaps vehicles right on the normal waterline which will not be in heavy seas.

Yes, but vehicle decks are above the waterline. As keeps being pointed out to us they were 2 metres above the usual waterline.
that doesn't help when waves are 6 to 7 meters high and the bows are missing though.

A part flooded car deck on a ferry, high above the waterline and stretching the full length and bean of the ship is the worst thing you can have in a rolling ship.

 

[Vixen]

Water in the hull is the cause of all ships sinking.

Bilge pumps will not pump anything after the power has gone off.

Bilge pumps will not keep remove thousands of tons of water high in the hull, they are as their name suggests in the bilges.

If bilge pumps could keep up with a ship flooding then no ship would ever sink.

The JAIC doesn't mention the bilge pumps at all except to mention they cleared water from the car deck, which is obviously an error - as there are none in the car deck - the report says the flooding of the car deck because of the bow visor falling off is the sole cause of the accident. The bow visor and the car deck have no connection to the hull.

So, if that was the case, then the vessel should have capsized and turtled, like this capsized cargo ship off the coast of Georgia, Ho Chi Minh, Korea.

 

[Vixen]

Which it pretty much did.

It didn't capsize.

 

[Myriad]

No, no car deck in the hull. The green bits in the diagram are the hull.

The green bits in the diagram are only part of the hull. The car decks are in the hull. The hull of a ship extends higher than the waterline.

 

[lobosrul5]

That's correct, the car deck was 2 metres above the water line and part of the superstructure.

The hull consisted of fourteen water-tight compartments, including the engine room.

So when the car deck flooded ceteris paribus one would have expected the vessel to immediately capsize and turn belly up, floating.

Setting aside that the car decks are part of the hull, if the hull was made of 14 water tight compartments, why did one tear in the hull cause it to sink?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The JAIC doesn't mention the bilge pumps at all except to mention they cleared water from the car deck, which is obviously an error - as there are none in the car deck - the report says the flooding of the car deck because of the bow visor falling off is the sole cause of the accident. The bow visor and the car deck have no connection to the hull.

So, if that was the case, then the vessel should have capsized and turtled, like this capsized cargo ship off the coast of Georgia, Ho Chi Minh, Korea.

The bow visor has no connection to the hull? Of course it does, as does the car deck.

What do you understand the hull of a ship to be?

A capsize doesn't have to be a full 180 degree turn. It depends on the flooding and how fast it sinks.

A ship turning 90 degrees on to it's beam ends and then sinking is pretty much capsized.

 

[lobosrul5]

The bow visor has no connection to the hull? Of course it does, as does the car deck.

What do you understand the hull of a ship to be?

A capsize doesn't have to be a full 180 degree turn. It depends on the flooding and how fast it sinks.

A ship turning 90 degrees on to it's beam ends and then sinking is pretty much capsized.

Eyewitnesses say it went beyond 90 degrees to about 135.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/05/a-sea-story/302940/

 

[RolandRat]

You don't get it. Both ships had water come in the bows. Both ships turned over and sank.

In one case the bow was left open, in the other the bow fell off.

Car ramps are not watertight or structural.

Results were the same.

Herald sank in 87, Estonia was built in 1980.

It was built well before the changes to construction that the Herald sinking brought in.

Unless you can find an exact size, decks, crew and colour match, it seems any comparable example will be dismissed.

 

[Vixen]

The bow visor has no connection to the hull? Of course it does, as does the car deck.

What do you understand the hull of a ship to be?

A capsize doesn't have to be a full 180 degree turn. It depends on the flooding and how fast it sinks.

A ship turning 90 degrees on to it's beam ends and then sinking is pretty much capsized.

The car deck on the Estonia was not part of the hull it is considered to be part of the superstructure.

Here's what I think, following on from the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise, in 1987, still fresh in everybody's minds, and a ro-ro ferry, seven decks high, the JAIC seized on the theory of = 'it's the same accident as the one that happened on the Herald of Free Enterprise' from day 1, because it was plausible and they have kept to this hard line ever since. But why? When, being a public transport accident killing 852 or more, a public inquiry should be open and transparent, yet it never looked at anything else. To explain how the water could have got into the car deck, it had to make out that the bow visor fell off when hit by a wave (the highest wave recorded on the Baltic is only 7.7 metres high) and the storm only a Beaufort Scale 7, which the crew will have known about from the shipping forecast and been appropriately prepared. So after three years of shoe-horning the facts to fit the 'theory' that 'it was just like the Herald of Free Enterprise, it became official. And they know the public are happy with anything deemed 'official'.

The Finns led by lawyer Kari Lehtola - a smug character if ever there was one - are neutral, they know all about finlandisation - they are careful not to upset east-west relations. It was for the Germans and Americans to actually look at it and say, hang on, it doesn't add up.

Indeed, Meyer-Werft, one of the world's largest shipbuilders, of huge repute, claim there is no way it happened as the JAIC said it did. It offered to salvage the wreck for free, which was declined. Meyer-Werft claim the panelling it reclaimed definitely had traces of explosive material and in their view, there was some kind of device that must have caused a hole in the hull...and sure enough, when the German/USA team went down...they found the hole. As this hole was not mentioned at all in the JAIC report, this has led to the revisit of the ship. (Incidentally Germany, almost alone of the Baltic states, did not sign the Estonia Treaty).

Whilst the bow visor was later found separated from the ship - as predicted from day 1 - that doesn't mean it was the cause of the sinking. For the theory, 'it was just like the Herald of Free Enterprise' to work, of course, the bow visor and car ramp would need to be found removed.