The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Andy_Ross]

Thetis was a bran new sub. It was a 'secret weapon' Of course they didn't want details in court.

Escape chambers work the same way now, you can only have one man at a time using it.
At the depth of the Kursk it would have been fatal to even try.

I did the escape tower at HMS Dolphin. (Not called that now, the MOD contracted submarine escape training out to a private contract years ago)

 

[Vixen]

Thetis was a bran new sub. It was a 'secret weapon' Of course they didn't want details in court.

Escape chambers work the same way now, you can only have one man at a time using it.
At the depth of the Kursk it would have been fatal to even try.

I did the escape tower at HMS Dolphin. (Not called that now, the MOD contracted submarine escape training out to a private contract years ago)

One thing that is striking about M/S Estonia is that the Estonian crew seemed to be very well-versed in 'escape' (some even find it suspicious that the crew were ready-dressed in warm clothing and waterproofs and had a better survival rate than the passengers, implying perhaps some had foreknowledge of the accident/attack). As with the Thetis, the Kursk and the Estonia, 'poor crew training' was blamed. However, isn't that always the easy explanation for any public transport accident? One Finnish guy Per-Erik Ehrnsten, who escaped, said he had on four life vests.

I rinsed into the sea. The waves threw at me, but I never sank under the water. I wore four life jackets, two on and two in my hands. I always bounced to the surface. I went swimming furiously farther from the ship. I was afraid that as Estonia sank, the vortex would drag me into the depths. The fear was futile. In a hard wave, no vortex could occur.

When I was at the top of the wave, I could see life rafts at a glance. I try to swim towards, but I didn’t get caught at all. I came across a piece of plastic mat. I caught it and got some kind of melancholy from it. Soon I ran into the life raft floating in the wrong direction. The rope around the ferry was under water, I couldn’t catch it.


I drifted at sea for about half an hour. It is impossible to say the exact time. Then I reached another life raft and got a grip on the rope. The ferry pushed on me, water came to my face. I couldn’t breathe, but I realized that if I let go now, another raft might never come. It was the last tram. Now is a bad place. He realized it somehow very concretely.

Soon I noticed that the ferry had a dark figure. The man was sitting outside the ferry. He was able to help me up. It turned out that he was a Finnish guy.

Ilta-Lehti [google translate]

Of course, safety is now much improved and the life rafts better designed, with proper supplies on each. However, it seems to have helped to have had military training, as all young Swedish and Finnish guys have to do compulsorily. Know how to swim (drowning rates are very high due to the sheer number of lakes in the region). Book an upper deck cabin. Sleep in your clothes. Have tannoy warning announcements in more than one language. Prepare to evacuate the vessel early, not at the last minute.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

One thing that is striking about M/S Estonia is that the Estonian crew seemed to be very well-versed in 'escape' (some even find it suspicious that the crew were ready-dressed in warm clothing and waterproofs and had a better survival rate than the passengers, implying perhaps some had foreknowledge of the accident/attack).

Do what?! How is this even remotely suspicious? What should the crew have been wearing? What non-suspicious level of familiarity with escape procedures on their own ship should they have had?

 

[Vixen]

Do what?! How is this even remotely suspicious? What should the crew have been wearing? What non-suspicious level of familiarity with escape procedures on their own ship should they have had?

It's not me that's saying it, I'm just the messenger. However, it is striking that the Finnish guy, Per-Erik Erhsten ran out in his underpants just in time to jump into the sea, whilst the crew claim they had time to get dressed (in these northerly parts in winter you need at least three layers of clothing plus a waterproof coat to stay warm, not to mention proper footwear, including thick socks and waterproof rubber soled boots. It takes a long time to get ready to go out in Winter.) They were near the upper deck, presumably to be near the bridge and deck, as and when required. In addition, they had windows that opened, unlike the passengers, so they were able to climb out to safety when using a window if the door route was water flooded. M/S Mariella, who came to the rescue at first light of dawn (it couldn't see anything in the dark) took a list of survivors (40 in all) which included a list of nine crew found in a life boat (the passengers could not get to a proper life boat and had to depend on the self-inflating rubber rafts instead). These nine crew went on to 'vanish'. I am not saying this is 'suspicious', just sayin'.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

It's not me that's saying it, I'm just the messenger. However, it is striking that the Finnish guy, Per-Erik Erhsten ran out in his underpants just in time to jump into the sea, whilst the crew claim they had time to get dressed (in these northerly parts in winter you need at least three layers of clothing plus a waterproof coat to stay warm, not to mention proper footwear, including thick socks and waterproof rubber soled boots. It takes a long time to get ready to go out in Winter.) They were near the upper deck, presumably to be near the bridge and deck, as and when required. In addition, they had windows that opened, unlike the passengers, so they were able to climb out to safety when using a window if the door route was water flooded. M/S Mariella, who came to the rescue at first light of dawn (it couldn't see anything in the dark) took a list of survivors (40 in all) which included a list of nine crew found in a life boat (the passengers could not get to a proper life boat and had to depend on the self-inflating rubber rafts instead). These nine crew went on to 'vanish'. I am not saying this is 'suspicious', just sayin'.

If it is not suspicious, then what is your point in bringing it up? What relevance does any of this "just sayin'" have?

 

[Vixen]

If it is not suspicious, then what is your point in bringing it up? What relevance does any of this "just sayin'" have?

I am claiming it has a lot of relevance, M'Lud, as the only witnesses allowed for the JAIC report were the crew.

Do you see the problem here?

 

[Steve]

I am claiming it has a lot of relevance, M'Lud, as the only witnesses allowed for the JAIC report were the crew.

Do you see the problem here?

The problem seems to be that, despite your claims to the contrary, you are developing quite the shot gun approach to your incoherent conspiracy theory. Throwing all kinds of unsubstantiated crap at the wall to see what sticks. Maybe you have noticed that no one else here is buying it.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I am claiming it has a lot of relevance, M'Lud, as the only witnesses allowed for the JAIC report were the crew.

Do you see the problem here?

The question I asked was: What relevance does what the crew was wearing or their knowledge of emergency procedures have?

Your response is: "the only witnesses for the JAIC report were the crew".

Okay. Let's drill down on that. What bearing does what the crew was wearing have on the JAIC's reliance on crew testimony?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Thetis was a bran new sub. It was a 'secret weapon' Of course they didn't want details in court.

Sounds like a lame excuse to me. After all, it's not as though there were any hostile nations that were using or might have used submarines to attack the UK in 1940, and whose own designs might have benefitted from such information.

Escape chambers work the same way now, you can only have one man at a time using it.

This is a minor point, but I recall reading that because there were so many civilians and other non-submariners aboard Thetis, those trapped actually attempted to escape in pairs, with one qualified submariner assisting one non-submariner. Only the first two pairs succeeded.

 

[Vixen]

The question I asked was: What relevance does what the crew was wearing or their knowledge of emergency procedures have?

Your response is: "the only witnesses for the JAIC report were the crew".

Okay. Let's drill down on that. What bearing does what the crew was wearing have on the JAIC's reliance on crew testimony?

We were discussing means of escape. In that respect, the crew had a head and shoulders advantage over the passengers. The Joint Accident and Investigation Committee that was set up by Sweden, Estonia and Finland heard only the crew as witnesses to the accident, and even then, left out any witness statements that did not fit with their own narrative (for example, crewmen Sillaste and Linde state they heard bangs at about 1:00am; this didn't seem to fit in with the JAIC's 'finding' that the bow didn't fall off until 1:15am, so they left these observations out). None of the passengers' witness statements are included in the report. Can it be possible that all of the crew were reliable witnesses and that none of the passengers were?

As the passengers were ordinary people like you and me, what are the odds of that? Police are generally happy to have ordinary people come forward who might have witnessed a car crash, for example.

The other issue is, the crew, who were allocated blame for not being properly trained were actually insured by their employers, hence the loved one's of the crew victims received £44m to share between them. The families of the passengers have had their application for compensation denied on the grounds that 'no-one can be held liable'. The cause of the accident was found by the JAIC report to have been a design fault in the bow visor's bolts but because they were designed before maritime regulations regarding same came into effect, the shipbuilders are exempt from vicarious liability.

The whole issue revolves around passenger safety and their right to expect that their means of travel conforms with safe passage. This includes a right to be heard at subsequent public inquiries.

The public are also entitled to understand the issues of escape routines and how passengers' access to escape differed from the crew and why. Some of course will be due to specialised naval school training, such as intricate knowledge of how water pressure, trim, buoyancy - and, dare I say it, Archimedes Priniciple - etcetera, works in direct connection with the vessel involved.

Maybe you are of the view 'it is not in the public interest' to know. But many would disagree with you.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

We were discussing means of escape. In that respect, the crew had a head and shoulders advantage over the passengers. The Joint Accident and Investigation Committee that was set up by Sweden, Estonia and Finland heard only the crew as witnesses to the accident, and even then, left out any witness statements that did not fit with their own narrative (for example, crewmen Sillaste and Linde state they heard bangs at about 1:00am; this didn't seem to fit in with the JAIC's 'finding' that the bow didn't fall off until 1:15am, so they left these observations out). None of the passengers' witness statements are included in the report. Can it be possible that all of the crew were reliable witnesses and that none of the passengers were?

As the passengers were ordinary people like you and me, what are the odds of that? Police are generally happy to have ordinary people come forward who might have witnessed a car crash, for example.

The other issue is, the crew, who were allocated blame for not being properly trained were actually insured by their employers, hence the loved one's of the crew victims received £44m to share between them. The families of the passengers have had their application for compensation denied on the grounds that 'no-one can be held liable'. The cause of the accident was found by the JAIC report to have been a design fault in the bow visor's bolts but because they were designed before maritime regulations regarding same came into effect, the shipbuilders are exempt from vicarious liability.

The whole issue revolves around passenger safety and their right to expect that their means of travel conforms with safe passage. This includes a right to be heard at subsequent public inquiries.

The public are also entitled to understand the issues of escape routines and how passengers' access to escape differed from the crew and why. Some of course will be due to specialised naval school training, such as intricate knowledge of how water pressure, trim, buoyancy - and, dare I say it, Archimedes Priniciple - etcetera, works in direct connection with the vessel involved.

Maybe you are of the view 'it is not in the public interest' to know. But many would disagree with you.

None of this explains what if anything was suspicious about the crew's attire and gear, nor their familiarity with escape procedures.

You suggested that the fact that the crew was appropriately geared-up indicated some sort of illicit foreknowledge. Why should anyone believe that it indicates that? What would the crew have been wearing if that weren't the case? What should their knowledge of escape procedures have been, if everything were on the up-and-up?

 

[Andy_Ross]

As for hearing 'bangs' fifteen minutes before the bow fell off, if the fastenings were failing due to the working of the waves you would expect to hear noises before it actually parted company.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Sounds like a lame excuse to me. After all, it's not as though there were any hostile nations that were using or might have used submarines to attack the UK in 1940, and whose own designs might have benefitted from such information.




This is a minor point, but I recall reading that because there were so many civilians and other non-submariners aboard Thetis, those trapped actually attempted to escape in pairs, with one qualified submariner assisting one non-submariner. Only the first two pairs succeeded.

Also, every sub now has a device on the inner cap of a torpedo tube called the 'Thetis Screw'.
It stops a cap being opened more than a fraction and can only be released after a cap has been opened a set amount. If the outer cap is open then water will be evident leaking in and the cap can be screwed shut again.

If you watch the film Ice Station Zebra, a major plot point was an inner cap being opened and the sub flooding.
In the film they didn't have a Thetis Screw but instead a small 'test cock' that had been sabotaged by the bad guy. A crewman opened the little tap and no water came out and they opened the cap and disaster!
This was supposed to be a modern nuclear boat and the whole scene was pure invention.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

None of this explains what if anything was suspicious about the crew's attire and gear, nor their familiarity with escape procedures.

You suggested that the fact that the crew was appropriately geared-up indicated some sort of illicit foreknowledge. Why should anyone believe that it indicates that? What would the crew have been wearing if that weren't the case? What should their knowledge of escape procedures have been, if everything were on the up-and-up?

Also, where are you getting the claim that the JAIC only looked at crew testimony and not passengers? Section 6.3 of the final report reports on passenger testimony.

 

[Steve]

Also, where are you getting the claim that the JAIC only looked at crew testimony and not passengers? Section 6.3 of the final report reports on passenger testimony.

You hush up! It is not fair to actually check up on these things.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

You hush up! It is not fair to actually check up on these things.

I'm just wondering if her source is a guy whose name rhymes with "yonder sporkman"

 

[SpitfireIX]

I am claiming it has a lot of relevance, M'Lud, as the only witnesses allowed for the JAIC report were the crew.

JAIC Report, 6.3 Summary of testimonies by surviving passengers and off-duty crew members:

One witness, in a starboard forward cabin, heard some hard thumping and something banging. She thought it was strange and spoke to her friends about it. She had a horrid feeling and left her cabin. Her friends said they would follow. She went up to deck 7 and sat in a chair for a few minutes when she suddenly heard a heavy blow and the ship started to heel over. . . .

Another witness went forward along the starboard corridor followed by his parents and his girlfriend. When he came to the entrance area there were many people there. He estimated the list at this time to be about 10 - 15 degrees. The lights were still on. . . .

In another forward cabin a man and his wife were awakened by a sound as of large sheets of metal beating together. Soon after this, the ship developed a list. The couple, in their night clothes, rushed out into the corridor. They noticed others leaving their cabins, some running back and forth and others falling and crawling. The list increased by jerks and somewhere along their way out, the wife lost sight of her husband. . . .​

I've chosen a few quotations that clearly indicate that the witness was a passenger. There are several others. Additionally, many other summaries could only have come from passengers, as they are from decks where there were no crew cabins.

Do you see the problem here?

The problem is that you clearly didn't bother to read, or even skim, the report, before you started your ridiculous conspiracy-mongering.

ETA: Ninja'd by Reformed Offian.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

JAIC Report, 6.3 Summary of testimonies by surviving passengers and off-duty crew members:

One witness, in a starboard forward cabin, heard some hard thumping and something banging. She thought it was strange and spoke to her friends about it. She had a horrid feeling and left her cabin. Her friends said they would follow. She went up to deck 7 and sat in a chair for a few minutes when she suddenly heard a heavy blow and the ship started to heel over. . . .

Another witness went forward along the starboard corridor followed by his parents and his girlfriend. When he came to the entrance area there were many people there. He estimated the list at this time to be about 10 - 15 degrees. The lights were still on. . . .

In another forward cabin a man and his wife were awakened by a sound as of large sheets of metal beating together. Soon after this, the ship developed a list. The couple, in their night clothes, rushed out into the corridor. They noticed others leaving their cabins, some running back and forth and others falling and crawling. The list increased by jerks and somewhere along their way out, the wife lost sight of her husband. . . .​

I've chosen a few quotations that clearly indicate that the witness was a passenger. There are several others. Additionally, many other summaries could only have come from passengers, as they are from decks where there were no crew cabins.




The problem is that you clearly didn't bother to read, or even skim, the report, before you started your ridiculous conspiracy-mongering.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/17060474efd47d7e6b.jpg[/qimg]

ETA: Ninja'd by Reformed Offian.

That's what happens when you actually put some work in your post and provide documentation. It's why I almost never do it.

 

[lobosrul5]

One thing that is striking about M/S Estonia is that the Estonian crew seemed to be very well-versed in 'escape' (some even find it suspicious that the crew were ready-dressed in warm clothing and waterproofs and had a better survival rate than the passengers, implying perhaps some had foreknowledge of the accident/attack). As with the Thetis, the Kursk and the Estonia, 'poor crew training' was blamed. However, isn't that always the easy explanation for any public transport accident? One Finnish guy Per-Erik Ehrnsten, who escaped, said he had on four life vests.

Yes, it would have been mighty suspicious if the entire crew of about 170 survived, only they didn't. Only a minority did. The captain and first mate were among the dead. Also, if there was some sort of conspiracy someone 25 years later among the survivors would've blabbed by now, especially on a death-bed type confession. Its human nature.

Professional seafarers having a better survival rate than landlubbers is hardly suspicious. Nearly all of the passengers to survive were youngish fit men, which I have little doubt described most of the crew.

The other points you've raised about the crew not giving adequate warning or assistance to the passengers may have some validity but it doesn't equate to foreknowledge of the sinking.

 

[lobosrul5]

Also, every sub now has a device on the inner cap of a torpedo tube called the 'Thetis Screw'.
It stops a cap being opened more than a fraction and can only be released after a cap has been opened a set amount. If the outer cap is open then water will be evident leaking in and the cap can be screwed shut again.

If you watch the film Ice Station Zebra, a major plot point was an inner cap being opened and the sub flooding.
In the film they didn't have a Thetis Screw but instead a small 'test cock' that had been sabotaged by the bad guy. A crewman opened the little tap and no water came out and they opened the cap and disaster!
This was supposed to be a modern nuclear boat and the whole scene was pure invention.

You mean modern nuclear subs don't have a sweetening cock like on the HMS Surprise to keep Dr Maturin happy?? Shocked I am.