The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Andy_Ross]

Naval architect, Anders Bjorkman says:

There's your problem.

 

[erwinl]

Naval architect, Anders Bjorkman says:

Hiewaco

As I said, I believe the JAIC simply decided to use the Herald of Free Enterprise model as its blueprint. It is quite shocking that it wilfully ignored the proven hole in the hull, as filme by Henrik Evertsson and crew.

This supposes there are no, as in none, holes in said hull and that it is as waterproof as a submarine.
The placing of the engines with their need to receive fresh air and lose the dirty exhaust proves there are holes in said hull.

 

[erwinl]

The Costa Concordia - another very interesting wreck - happened in January 2012.

wiki

So it took almost three years. However, you note, they thought it worth recovering the body of the brave Mr. Rebello. Who knows what numerous acts of heroism would have been uncovered on the Estonia? I agree it is too late now, and would be incredibly harrowing. However, just think, like the Vasa or the Mary Rose or the Franklin expedition boats in the Northwest Passage, it will likely be dredged up in a couple of hundred years by inquisitive historians and archeologists. That's the irony.

So. In the case of a shipwreck where you could almost walk to it took a rather larger amount than ‘a few days’ for the bodies to be retrieved and the ship to be salvaged.
You still maintain that, in the case of the Estonia, it would have taken a few days?

 

[Architect]

Naval architect, Anders Bjorkman says:

Hiewaco

As I said, I believe the JAIC simply decided to use the Herald of Free Enterprise model as its blueprint. It is quite shocking that it wilfully ignored the proven hole in the hull, as filme by Henrik Evertsson and crew.

For someone who said he wasn't relying on Mr. Bjorkman, you seem to be doing exactly that.

 

[Vixen]

So. In the case of a shipwreck where you could almost walk to it took a rather larger amount than ‘a few days’ for the bodies to be retrieved and the ship to be salvaged.
You still maintain that, in the case of the Estonia, it would have taken a few days?

That's not what I said, I said a Norwegian diving firm offered to salvage the bodies from the wreck in a not-for-profit basis. I didn't say 'it would have taken a few days', I said recovery of the bodies could have started as of the time of the offer, which was 11 October 1984, about twelve days after the accident.

 

[Vixen]

Update- Preliminary Survey Completed

At a press conference summing up their descriptive findings, the team led by Estonian, Rene Arikas, said that the starboard side was quite badly damaged, the side on which the boat is presumed to have landed leaning onto a bank of 30° gradient, with a rocky ridge along the centre of the vessel holding up the bridge (the ship has keeled over to swing face down). The opposite side and the bow are on clay mud, and also shows damage to the hull structure. The slope is on moraine clay, which is quite hard rock and Arikas says, the geology of this appears to match the geometry of the damage. In addition, the ramp which had been partly open was now fully open and hanging on one hinge (if you recall, someone had removed the railings attached to the sides, probably a naval crew). The softer clay supporting the bow and port have shifted at least four times, causing the wreck to move. The tyre of a lorry could be seen through a hatch.

So the null hypothesis now is that the ship’s damage was caused by it hitting the bottom, perhaps a rock to cause the hole and the side fractures, the result of the exterior fracturing due to the ship shifting in the clay. It will also need to scan the visor again, which is being kept in storage by the Swedish navy.

However, the hard bedrock may have been the cause of the ruptures as the stricken vessel impacted the seabed.

Rene Arikas added that: "The rock in the middle part of the wreck is so hard it broke our drill."
<snip>

On the other hand, the softer material below the bow and stern of the wreck of the vessel – which measured over 155 meters when laid down – provide less support. One of the most focused-on findings of the initial dive was that the bow vehicle ramp, previously thought to have been in a "closed" position now lies fully open.

The origin of these areas of damage should be investigated further. With regard to the bow visor, we have conducted theoretical calculations and are planning to carry out a laser scan," Arikas went on, adding that the visor is currently located in a military compound in Sweden.

The official explanation of the sinking is that the ship's bow visor sheared off in heavy seas, allowing water to enter the vehicle deck and compromising the vessel's buoyancy.

The vehicle ramp itself first opened, striking the bow's protruding bulb, and then closed again when the vessel hit the seabed Arikas added.

"According to our knowledge, the ramp was only slightly open, and not fully. The 3D sonar showed, however, that we can see quite far into the wreck, into the car deck," he said.

<snip>

Bow ramp opened when vessel sank, closed on seabed impact

Arikas noted that the survey focused on damage to the starboard side of the vessel, the bow ramp and the car deck. The vessel's bulbous bow had sustained various damage and scrapes, he added.

"The origin of these areas of damage should be investigated further. With regard to the bow visor, we have conducted theoretical calculations and are planning to carry out a laser scan,"

<snip>

"The force that caused damage in the side of the hull, on the other hand, would have to be "enormous", Arikas said, adding that the exact extent of the damage is not known as it could also reach below the hull; the ferry's seventh and eighth decks (of 10) remained inaccessible, he said.

The dive robot also found significant volumes of debris inside the car deck, though it was not able to penetrate further inside, while some of the damage in the hull plating are on the opposite side from that which struck the seabed first, Arikas said.

Stern ramps remain closed

A deformation of 22 meters in length and four meters in height was registered in the middle part of the vessel on the starboard side.

The vessel's plating has outward deformations as well as in some inward ones, while a side fender has been forced inside the vessel. The deformations generally match the local geological profile.

As to the stern, its ramps had remained in a closed attitude.

The wreck rests on a slope with a gradient close to 30 meters. There is a protruding outcrop near the middle segment of the vessel, on which it rests on its starboard side – a fact already known in 1996 after the first investigation.

The soil around the wreck has collapsed on four occasions at different times.

ERR. News

Baltic Times


So now, the experts need to calculate how fast a ship weighing 12,000 tonnes plus extra load of approximately 2,000+ would sink 74 metres to the sea bed slope and at what impact. Would it be of enough due force to cause the hole in the hull? The white paint still seems intact which suggests the vessel has withstood corrosion to some extent.


Their report will be out at the end of next year, whilst in the meantime the investigators will carry on with their analysis until the spring.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

What condition do you imagine the bodies would have been in after 12 days?

Diminishing air pockets and the turbulence of the descent and settling would provide an environment of richly oxygenated water.

The stability of the wreck is a consideration when contemplating sending divers in to search, lest the tragedy grow to claim yet more lives.

Similar to why a victim of a crime can't sit as judge over the trial, those in grief and mourning can't be the ones to determine how to conduct an investigation.

Tragedy befalling a person does not.impart on them authority or wisdom. Sadly, much the opposite is often true.

It is perhaps not "kind" to say that, which owes much to political figures making what gestures they can (however futile).

But there it is.

 

[Belz...]

Saying the bow visor fell off because the bow visor fell off is rather begging the question..?

That's not what the post you quoted said. Read more carefully.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

At a press conference summing up their descriptive findings, the team led by Estonian, Rene Arikas, said that the starboard side was quite badly damaged, the side on which the boat is presumed to have landed leaning onto a bank of 30° gradient, with a rocky ridge along the centre of the vessel holding up the bridge (the ship has keeled over to swing face down). The opposite side and the bow are on clay mud, and also shows damage to the hull structure. The slope is on moraine clay, which is quite hard rock and Arikas says, the geology of this appears to match the geometry of the damage. In addition, the ramp which had been partly open was now fully open and hanging on one hinge (if you recall, someone had removed the railings attached to the sides, probably a naval crew). The softer clay supporting the bow and port have shifted at least four times, causing the wreck to move. The tyre of a lorry could be seen through a hatch.



So the null hypothesis now is that the ship’s damage was caused by it hitting the bottom, perhaps a rock to cause the hole and the side fractures, the result of the exterior fracturing due to the ship shifting in the clay. It will also need to scan the visor again, which is being kept in storage by the Swedish navy.



ERR. News



Baltic Times





So now, the experts need to calculate how fast a ship weighing 12,000 tonnes plus extra load of approximately 2,000+ would sink 74 metres to the sea bed slope and at what impact. Would it be of enough due force to cause the hole in the hull? The white paint still seems intact which suggests the vessel has withstood corrosion to some extent.





Their report will be out at the end of next year, whilst in the meantime the investigators will carry on with their analysis until the spring.

Well, I expect paint used on a ship be specifically designed not to have any cation/anion reactivity with sea water. Meanwhile, the surface of the metal on the inner side was never intended to remain in constant contact with sea water (lightly salted as it may be, it is still electrolytic).

I do hope they also are considering calculations of loss of structural rigidity over time and the slow, but constant, force of gravity. A sudden, high force collision should not be presumed as the only potential cause of tearing and deformation.

 

[Vixen]

What condition do you imagine the bodies would have been in after 12 days?

Diminishing air pockets and the turbulence of the descent and settling would provide an environment of richly oxygenated water.

The stability of the wreck is a consideration when contemplating sending divers in to search, lest the tragedy grow to claim yet more lives.

Similar to why a victim of a crime can't sit as judge over the trial, those in grief and mourning can't be the ones to determine how to conduct an investigation.

Tragedy befallen a person does not.impart on them authority or wisdom. Sadly, much the opposite is often true.

It is perhaps not "kind" to say that, which owes much to political figures making what gestures they can (however futile) but there it is.

From what I understand, some people may have survived initially in an airbubble, where water hadn't completely filled the space. If the rescue operation had began immediately - what was stopping a joint Swedish-Finnish - Estonian operation? - then the relatives could have comfort and closure that their loved ones had been retrieved and could be taken 'home' to their own town. The wreck is within about a thousand metres of Finnish waters, the island of Utö is about 70km from the wreckage, nearest town Parainen (Pargas).

I know that when Finnish soldiers were lost in the war, they were brought back to their home county, no expenses spare. The Scots believe that when you die, your soul travels back home, hence the song You'll take the high road, I'll take the low road, about a Scottish soldier due to be executed at an English castle in Cumbria, is one theory. It's a moot point now.

 

[erwinl]

That's not what I said, I said a Norwegian diving firm offered to salvage the bodies from the wreck in a not-for-profit basis. I didn't say 'it would have taken a few days', I said recovery of the bodies could have started as of the time of the offer, which was 11 October 1984, about twelve days after the accident.

After videoing the underwater wreck, the bodies should have been recovered and the whole thing salvaged within days.

Those are your own words in post #328 of this thread.
Or are they not?

Here you clearly say the complete salvage would only take a few days. To be counted from the moment the videoing was complete.

Or did you not say it would take only a few days?

 

[Andy_Ross]

At a press conference summing up their descriptive findings, the team led by Estonian, Rene Arikas, said that the starboard side was quite badly damaged, the side on which the boat is presumed to have landed leaning onto a bank of 30° gradient, with a rocky ridge along the centre of the vessel holding up the bridge (the ship has keeled over to swing face down). The opposite side and the bow are on clay mud, and also shows damage to the hull structure. The slope is on moraine clay, which is quite hard rock and Arikas says, the geology of this appears to match the geometry of the damage. In addition, the ramp which had been partly open was now fully open and hanging on one hinge (if you recall, someone had removed the railings attached to the sides, probably a naval crew). The softer clay supporting the bow and port have shifted at least four times, causing the wreck to move. The tyre of a lorry could be seen through a hatch.

So the null hypothesis now is that the ship’s damage was caused by it hitting the bottom, perhaps a rock to cause the hole and the side fractures, the result of the exterior fracturing due to the ship shifting in the clay. It will also need to scan the visor again, which is being kept in storage by the Swedish navy.

ERR. News

Baltic Times


So now, the experts need to calculate how fast a ship weighing 12,000 tonnes plus extra load of approximately 2,000+ would sink 74 metres to the sea bed slope and at what impact. Would it be of enough due force to cause the hole in the hull? The white paint still seems intact which suggests the vessel has withstood corrosion to some extent.


Their report will be out at the end of next year, whilst in the meantime the investigators will carry on with their analysis until the spring.

Exactly what you have been told all along, the ship was subject to stresses it was not designed for as it sank. It has been on the sea bed for over 20 years and has moved.

I am surprised it is still in one piece.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not knowing whether to be amused or embarrassed (on behalf of the forum), I'll just state that essentially *everything* Vixen has been claiming over the past several pages of this thread is all kinds of wrong.

I'll set aside (for now, at least) all the nonsensical - and (of course) entirely unsubstantiated & scientifically-illiterate - conspiracy theories about what caused the ship to sink. Instead, I'll point out the total wrongness of Vixen's claims re rescue/recovery/salvage. This ship sank to the sea bed, to a depth of around 80m. In the Baltic Sea, whose temperature at the sea bed almost never gets above 4C, and which is renowned for inclement (and quick-changing) weather conditions and deep currents. Oh and the ship sank below a confluence of several major (and very busy) sea lanes.

As I think some have already pointed out, merely the depth of the wreck means that it's far, far beyond the scope of "regular" scuba reconnaissance or exploration. It's well into the depth zone for what's known as technical diving. I've actually done tech diving training, and it's extremely challenging, even in calm and (relatively) warm waters. It necessitates a breathing gas mixture known as tri-mix, whose main constituent is helium* - and this in itself ramps up the danger factor further still.

For this sort of project, the only way that could even conceivably have been considered would have been to have a team of saturation divers, plus a highly-specialised** - and very expensive indeed - support ship. The dive team lives on-board in a pressurised capsule breathing tri-mix constantly, meaning they only have to decompress once (at the end of the trip). They remain tethered to the support ship throughout the dives, and they'd have to have hot water jackets in their dry suits to be able to cope with the extreme chilling power of 4C sea water at the bottom.

So each diver would need to be wearing very bulky dry suits, with (vital) umbilical cords to the surface. In pitch black. And any exploration of the wreck would necessarily involve gaining entry into the interior compartments/decks (very probably requiring the cutting of holes into the hull) and each diver then having to snake through the labyrinthine interior looking for bodies etc, trying to guard against snagging their vital umbilical lines in the process. And then, presumably, somehow extricating the bodies they discovered by manoeuvring those bodies back through the labyrinth to the entry/exit hole.

All while the support ship sits in the middle of busy shipping lanes, and while bad surface weather might very well develop while the divers were at the sea bed (with potentially disastrous consequences).

In short, there are several huge reasons why human divers could never (and will never) take part in any exploration/recovery operations wrt this ship. And ROVs could never - and very probably will never - be able to perform this sort of operation.

But hey-ho. If you don't understand any of this kind of stuff (or have the good sense to at least do some proper research), then I guess anything's possible, huh?


* I'd explain why tri-mix is mandatory at these depths, but i fear it might go right over *certain* people's heads

** I think that as of right now, there are something like 20 such ships in the world. They're typically booked up several months in advance, usually by oil exploration companies or where there are major problems in deep sea well machinery which can't be fixed by ROVs. There would have been far fewer of them around at the time of the Estonia's sinking.

 

[lobosrul5]

Not knowing whether to be amused or embarrassed (on behalf of the forum), I'll just state that essentially *everything* Vixen has been claiming over the past several pages of this thread is all kinds of wrong.

I'll snip the rest of your comment.... Vixens reliance on an "experts" testimony that a hole in the bow of a ship that's big enough to drive a truck through couldn't possibly be big enough to sink the ship, while a smaller hole in the side could completely discounts him as a plausible expert. But, I'm sure she will say, the bow is above the waterline. OK look at the picture of the crack in the hull. Whats that I see? Lettering! Which is indeed painted above the waterline.

Then of course there are so many parties that would have to have been in on the conspiracy theory... the Estonian government, the Swedish government, the Finish government, the outfit contracted to investigate, the fact that no one in any of those groups has raised suspicions highly suggests that its not a conspiracy. Sweden(!) was smuggling Russian weapons for some purpose... give me a break.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Not knowing whether to be amused or embarrassed (on behalf of the forum), I'll just state that essentially *everything* Vixen has been claiming over the past several pages of this thread is all kinds of wrong.

I'll set aside (for now, at least) all the nonsensical - and (of course) entirely unsubstantiated & scientifically-illiterate - conspiracy theories about what caused the ship to sink. Instead, I'll point out the total wrongness of Vixen's claims re rescue/recovery/salvage. This ship sank to the sea bed, to a depth of around 80m. In the Baltic Sea, whose temperature at the sea bed almost never gets above 4C, and which is renowned for inclement (and quick-changing) weather conditions and deep currents. Oh and the ship sank below a confluence of several major (and very busy) sea lanes.

As I think some have already pointed out, merely the depth of the wreck means that it's far, far beyond the scope of "regular" scuba reconnaissance or exploration. It's well into the depth zone for what's known as technical diving. I've actually done tech diving training, and it's extremely challenging, even in calm and (relatively) warm waters. It necessitates a breathing gas mixture known as tri-mix, whose main constituent is helium* - and this in itself ramps up the danger factor further still.

For this sort of project, the only way that could even conceivably have been considered would have been to have a team of saturation divers, plus a highly-specialised** - and very expensive indeed - support ship. The dive team lives on-board in a pressurised capsule breathing tri-mix constantly, meaning they only have to decompress once (at the end of the trip). They remain tethered to the support ship throughout the dives, and they'd have to have hot water jackets in their dry suits to be able to cope with the extreme chilling power of 4C sea water at the bottom.

So each diver would need to be wearing very bulky dry suits, with (vital) umbilical cords to the surface. In pitch black. And any exploration of the wreck would necessarily involve gaining entry into the interior compartments/decks (very probably requiring the cutting of holes into the hull) and each diver then having to snake through the labyrinthine interior looking for bodies etc, trying to guard against snagging their vital umbilical lines in the process. And then, presumably, somehow extricating the bodies they discovered by manoeuvring those bodies back through the labyrinth to the entry/exit hole.

All while the support ship sits in the middle of busy shipping lanes, and while bad surface weather might very well develop while the divers were at the sea bed (with potentially disastrous consequences).

In short, there are several huge reasons why human divers could never (and will never) take part in any exploration/recovery operations wrt this ship. And ROVs could never - and very probably will never - be able to perform this sort of operation.

But hey-ho. If you don't understand any of this kind of stuff (or have the good sense to at least do some proper research), then I guess anything's possible, huh?


* I'd explain why tri-mix is mandatory at these depths, but i fear it might go right over *certain* people's heads

** I think that as of right now, there are something like 20 such ships in the world. They're typically booked up several months in advance, usually by oil exploration companies or where there are major problems in deep sea well machinery which can't be fixed by ROVs. There would have been far fewer of them around at the time of the Estonia's sinking.

That's an awfully complicated way to say "because this isn't a really bad movie script."

:9

 

[Andy_Ross]

I have a friend that is a saturation diver. He works offshore in the North Sea.
He is an ex RN 'Clearance Diver'
He works aboard a ship that has an entire habitat pressured down on trimix. It has cabins, a lounge room, baths, showers etc.
Divers are pressurised in to it and live in there for weeks. They go down to the bottom in a bell through a 'moon pool' in the bottom of the ship. They are constantly monitored from the surface. Their Bell docks on to the pressurised section of the ship.
The ship uses active 'station keeping' to keep the moon pool within a couple of meters of a point on the sea bad using steerable and hull mounted tunnel thrusters.

As I and several others have already said, there is no way that even saturation divers using a bell and support ship would enter a wreck to try and recover hundreds of bodies.

Trimix gasses are 'anoxic' If you try to breathe them above a certain depth they don't contain enough oxygen to sustain life as pressure reduces.
Their delivery has to be highly controlled and switching from one mix to another as the diver descends or rises is a skilled art.

As an occasional recreational diver who likes the water warm I have nothing but respect, although I am certified for dry suits (you need one in the north sea and I live just a couple of miles away from the biggest manufacturer). I have used a Kirby Morgan 'hard hat' too. It was what they call a 'Superlight' but it weighed about 28 pounds. All relative I suppose)

 

[LondonJohn]

Totally. Tech diving is exponentially riskier than regular scuba diving, even in relatively warm water with great viz and only light tasks to undertake.

When you add into the equation - as you would have to do wrt an Estonia exploration/recovery operation - the notion of saturation diving in one of the coldest bodies of water in the World, connected umbilically to a ship which has to park itself in the middle of a busy shipping lane and potentially subject to the Baltic Sea's notorious bad weather, then you're starting to pile risk upon risk.

And then when you also add in the notion of gaining entrance into the hull, navigating through the maze of cabins, corridors and decks, and searching for bodies - all the while needing to preserve the total integrity of those life-saving umbilical cords - then you're piling on yet more risk.

And then when you add in on top of that the notion of extricating decomposed or skeletonised bodies, getting them outside of the hull via that maze of corridors/cabins/etc, and bringing them up to the surface, you're pushing risk beyond tolerable limits.

I've done a tech diving course but with solo rebreather equipment rather than saturation diving. It's difficult and risky, and the amount of gear you need to take down with you (plus the placement of cylinders at various points on the downline to help with the very long decompression ascent) restricts your movements significantly. In addition, the fact that you're almost always going below 50m on a tech dive (otherwise you'd just do a regular scuba dive, which is safe up to around 35m depth) means that it's a) always extremely dark and b) much colder. I'm glad I did the course, but it certainly didn't make me want to get certification as a tech diver - I'm happy with my PADI scuba certification, and more than happy to dive in warm water on coral reefs and shallow wrecks!

 

[Andy_Ross]

Malta is always a good destination, a couple of 'safe' shallow wrecks but even then they require care and the correct procedures
I the Abaco Islands in the Bahamas too. Pelican Cays Sea Park and Walker’s Cay National Park are spectaculer.

 

[LondonJohn]

Malta's on my list, once the World finally opens up properly. My go-to place is the Red Sea, particularly the waters around the Sinai. It's where I've done most of my certification (currently mid-way through Divemaster), and where I've done two UN shark conservation liveaboard projects. Between August and October, the sea temp is usually so warm (up to 28C sometimes) that I can do four dives a day in nothing but a rash vest and swimming shorts

Incidentally, I've just noticed that this thread is in a curious section of the forum, but I guess it's hard to place into any of the sections (though recent sensationalist *contributions* surely make it a potential candidate for Conspiracies....

 

[Andy_Ross]

I got all my certification in the UK apart from my Nitrox, I go that on Malta.