The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Reformed Offlian]

Y74 was Olli Moberg. Y64 was Svensson,

Moberg became injured and could not continue work, whereupon Svensson, who was already on Y74, took over the work. It was he who went on to rescue all six people that Y74 eventually brought up (not counting himself). Again, read the section detailing Y74's actions.

Y 74 had difficulties in locating Y 64 since the OSC lacked exact information on the position of each helicopter. The Y 64 rescue man was holding onto a body, which was winched up to Y 74 with the assistance of Y 74's own rescue man. When the body had been recovered, the Y 74's rescue man fell about one metre, receiving a heavy blow from the harness to the lower part of his body. Nonetheless, he requested that he be lowered to bring up one more body. This body, however, had become badly tangled with the ropes on the raft and could not be winched up.
At this stage the pilot decided to interrupt the recovery of the body, since there might still be survivors in the sea and on rafts. Finally a spare harness was lowered to the Y 64's rescue man and used to winch him up to the helicopter. The injury to the Y 74 rescue man proved so serious that he was unable to do more. The work was continued by Y 64's rescue man.

"Y 64's rescue man" is Svensson. He then went on to rescue six people -in Y74.

who was proclaimed a hero who winched 8 or 9 up in the very early hours. JAIC doesn't mention him until much later, circa 5:22.

That may have something to do with the fact that Y64 didn't even take off until 0445.

Then it confudges him with Moberg, when in fact according to Aftonbladet 29.8.1994, it was Svensson who rescued eight or nine individuals who suddenly ceased to be mentioned and instead in the JAIC report we have Svensson seeming to retrieve two bodies and one survivor and Y74 takes over and rescues a few more, including Svensson himself.

Nope. The only confudging is being done by you. Moberg was injured *while* he was rescuing Svensson and could not continue rescue work thereafter. Svensson, aka "Y 64's rescue man" who had been rescued by him, volunteered to take over the rescue work. It was he who rescued all six people that Y 74 eventually saved. Moberg had to sit it out because he was hurt.

The six people he saved in Y 74, plus the one he saved in Y64, plus the dead body he brought up, equals eight. Most likely, that is where your newspaper got the number.

Fact is, not only were nine extra persons reported surivivors in the early days by several authorities - and how can a pilot make a log that he took nine people to hospital but mysteriously they were never rescued in the first place AND also be hailed a hero by the Swedish press at the time? Then later, his tally is brought down to one survivor. It is good he got a medal for that one but he should be credited with all nine.

None of these are facts. And I still have to wonder about an accountant who thinks that eight minus one equals nine.

 

[JesseCuster]

This is what Vixen was referring to. It has absolutely no relevance to anything being discussed in this thread and it's just another red herring thrown out to confuse things.

First Vixen incorrectly claimed that her remark about the Estonia being "the most reliable in a storm" was about the Baltica at which time she made the remark about the Baltica being used as a "war ship" which has no bearing on anything in this thread, notwithstanding it being a rather overblown claim about the Baltica being a "war ship".

My mistake, Vixen was referring to a different ship, not the one I referenced here.

I still have no idea what relevance it has that the ship she mentioned being a passenger on in the 1980s having once been a "war ship" (whatever that means) has to the topic at hand.

Perhaps Vixen can explain.

 

[GlennB]

My mistake, Vixen was referring to a different ship, not the one I referenced here.

You admitted to making a mistake ?????

What kind of sceptic are you?? Hand in your sceptics club membership card at the door!

 

[Kid Eager]

It had no faults when it was built or operated by Viking Line. Even it it developed a problem with a leaky car ramp, it doesn't follow that was the cause of the accident.

Nothing of which invalidates the conclusion in the report.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Hmm, who to believe, noted conspiracy theorist with absolutely no relevant expertise?

Or the side containing a famous noted engineer, a former member of the armed forces with knowledge of ships and other assorted experts.

What a stumper!

 

[Axxman300]

And that would be Silver Linde coming on duty at 1:00am changing watch. the crew man who changed his story with every sitting. Sillaste and Treu originally said they were knee deep in water in the engine room, which is in the hull. Sillaste originally claimed he ran up to deck 7 or 8 in two minutes. His story changed to climbing up the chimney funnel. Linde claims he was handing out life vests on the deck. Another guy claimed he'd found a protection suit on the life raft (really?). Paul Barney and Rolf Sormann seemed surprised to recount their life rafts had crew fully kitted out in survival gear.

The report of the loud bang was reported at 00:55.

Nothing you wrote here is relevant to the sinking.

 

[Axxman300]

Okay, sports fans, I stumbled across an article on a website called Safety4Sea, and it was written by an adult. In this piece he lays out the problems with the official report without the hysterics.

https://safety4sea.com/the-estonia-...Fe451MYl6Kc-1629689266-0-gqNtZGzNAhCjcnBszQil

He also illustrates the design problems of the older Ro-Ro Ferries by listing the various accidents they've had, including Estonia's- almost- sister ship:

The crew on board a large ro-ro ferry, Diana II, discovered that the bow visor locks had failed, allowing seawater to enter. Luckily the vessel was sailing into calmer waters and major technical repairs were carried out in port. The problem seemed to have been solved.

However, Diana II was not “one of a kind”. She was very similar to another vessel, which could almost be considered her sister vessel. This younger “sister” was the ro-ro ferry MS Estonia. She had practically the same bow visor as Diana II but was owned and operated by another company. The crew of Estonia were therefore unaware of the problems experienced on board Diana II when they sailed into a heavy storm on 28 September 1994.

The accident investigation conclusion

The author discusses the failure of the captain to be passive over safety concerns.

On the night of the Estonia accident, there were two other ro-ro ferries in the same area of the Baltic Sea. These were Mariella and Silja Europe. Both reduced their speed due to the heavy weather. Estonia was 15 minutes late leaving Tallinn and the captain expressed concerns that they would arrive late in Stockholm. The engines were kept at full speed through the heavy head-on swells, until the ship developed a list. This implies that the Dilemma of keeping to schedule was evident onboard Estonia.

And then the author asks a good question about the sinking:

The official accident investigation report did not reflect some of the survivors’ key observations. Firstly, the survivors are convinced that the time sequence in the accident report does not match what they experienced; they claim that the accident happened much faster in reality. Secondly, several survivors observed water on the cabin deck below the cargo deck. The investigation does not fully explain how the water got there.

The decks below the car deck were subdivided into 14 watertight compartments. This means that even capsizing should not in theory have caused the vessel to sink. However, it is common in major accidents that watertight doors are not properly closed, thus disabling this safety barrier. This happened in the European Gateway sinking, the Costa Concordia capsize in 2012 and several other accidents. But such failures are normally well documented by the accident investigations. The Estonia report only states that the officer on watch started to close the watertight doors when a list developed. It is unclear if this operation was successful and, if not, which watertight doors were not properly closed. It might be that open watertight doors explain the water below the car deck.

He covers some of the CTs but never drifts off the deep end.

What I want to know is why intelligent discussion like this has not been brought into this conversation?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Okay, sports fans, I stumbled across an article on a website called Safety4Sea, and it was written by an adult. In this piece he lays out the problems with the official report without the hysterics.

https://safety4sea.com/the-estonia-...Fe451MYl6Kc-1629689266-0-gqNtZGzNAhCjcnBszQil

He also illustrates the design problems of the older Ro-Ro Ferries by listing the various accidents they've had, including Estonia's- almost- sister ship:



The author discusses the failure of the captain to be passive over safety concerns.



And then the author asks a good question about the sinking:



He covers some of the CTs but never drifts off the deep end.

What I want to know is why intelligent discussion like this has not been brought into this conversation?

Part of the problem is the machinery spaces, water will always get in there as if the engines are running they are not watertight from above.
Similarly with any watertight compartments on a merchant ship. Closing the horizontal doorways is easy but while the ship is operating there is a temptation to keep deck hatches open as they are harder to close and a lot more inconvenient on an operating ship.

As for the ship's speed in the conditions. Royal Navy Manual of Seamanship volume two has an entire chapter on ship handling in adverse conditions. reducing speed isn't always the thing to do, it depends on the sea conditions, pitch, roll and buoyancy characteristics of the hull, disposition of cargo, fetch of the sea and other parameters.
Each ship has different 'sweet spots' and a captain should be familiar with them.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The author discusses the failure of the captain to be passive over safety concerns.

Are you sure that's what you meant to write?

 

[Axxman300]

Are you sure that's what you meant to write?

Nope. It was late.

I should have wrote that the Captain was passive in is response.

 

[Axxman300]

Part of the problem is the machinery spaces, water will always get in there as if the engines are running they are not watertight from above.
Similarly with any watertight compartments on a merchant ship. Closing the horizontal doorways is easy but while the ship is operating there is a temptation to keep deck hatches open as they are harder to close and a lot more inconvenient on an operating ship.

As for the ship's speed in the conditions. Royal Navy Manual of Seamanship volume two has an entire chapter on ship handling in adverse conditions. reducing speed isn't always the thing to do, it depends on the sea conditions, pitch, roll and buoyancy characteristics of the hull, disposition of cargo, fetch of the sea and other parameters.
Each ship has different 'sweet spots' and a captain should be familiar with them.

What interests me is the poor loading of the car deck which led to the list once she was underway. I wonder what kind of stress this added to the ship in that weather?

 

[Andy_Ross]

What interests me is the poor loading of the car deck which led to the list once she was underway. I wonder what kind of stress this added to the ship in that weather?

If they counter flooded ballast to try and correct it the reserve buoyancy would have been reduced.

 

[JayUtah]

If they counter flooded ballast to try and correct it the reserve buoyancy would have been reduced.

And possibly also their ability to combat further listing by counterballasting. The tanks can only get so full.

 

[lobosrul5]

And possibly also their ability to combat further listing by counterballasting. The tanks can only get so full.

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere, but can't remember the source, that even with full counter ballast tanks Estonia was still at a 2 to 3 degree list when leaving port.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere, but can't remember the source, that even with full counter ballast tanks Estonia was still at a 2 to 3 degree list when leaving port.

Then the first mate and captain were incompetent criminals.

 

[lobosrul5]

Then the first mate and captain were incompetent criminals.

Axxman's last post certainly raises the point that they may have been negligent. I'm not familiar enough with maritime law to determine if it could be criminal or not. Looooong ways from proving a conspiracy involving explosives, or rammed by phantom subs or fishing boats.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere, but can't remember the source, that even with full counter ballast tanks Estonia was still at a 2 to 3 degree list when leaving port.

Yes, the starboard list leaving port is documented, and I vaguely recall it. My impression when I read it at first was that they noted a slight list to starboard, but corrected it by ballasting. If the facts are that the ship was listing 2-3 degrees to starboard after exhausting its capacity to correct it by counter ballasting, then that would be an extremely dangerous trim condition and the ship's officers would indeed be quite negligent in sailing under those conditions. But I don't think that's what happened.

 

[Vixen]

Moberg became injured and could not continue work, whereupon Svensson, who was already on Y74, took over the work. It was he who went on to rescue all six people that Y74 eventually brought up (not counting himself). Again, read the section detailing Y74's actions.




"Y 64's rescue man" is Svensson. He then went on to rescue six people -in Y74.



That may have something to do with the fact that Y64 didn't even take off until 0445.



Nope. The only confudging is being done by you. Moberg was injured *while* he was rescuing Svensson and could not continue rescue work thereafter. Svensson, aka "Y 64's rescue man" who had been rescued by him, volunteered to take over the rescue work. It was he who rescued all six people that Y 74 eventually saved. Moberg had to sit it out because he was hurt.

The six people he saved in Y 74, plus the one he saved in Y64, plus the dead body he brought up, equals eight. Most likely, that is where your newspaper got the number.



None of these are facts. And I still have to wonder about an accountant who thinks that eight minus one equals nine.

Nope Y64 (Svensson) saved nine people 'just after two' according to Aftonbladet and airlifted them to hospital in Huddinge. The persons saved by Y74 (Moberg) refers to a time circa 4:00-5:00am when Moberg, too, saved six - eight persons. All Svensson did after that, as both men were injured was airlift Moberg's rescued, from Utö Island to TYKS Hospital in Turku, all off which is mainland Finland, albeit one an island of Korpo, part of Parainen. Rescued survivors, and recovered bodies, were taken by Mariella and the sister ship, Symphony to Utö, which was the nearest land to the accident.

What the JAIC seem to have done is to delete the rescue by Svensson at 3:00am-ish and to make it seem as though he together with Moberg rescued just nine between them, one of which was Svenssons and six Moberg, the others having died, thus the number of official survivors reduced by nine.

OK, it is possible Aftonbladet got all the details wrong.

 

[Vixen]

Okay, sports fans, I stumbled across an article on a website called Safety4Sea, and it was written by an adult. In this piece he lays out the problems with the official report without the hysterics.

https://safety4sea.com/the-estonia-...Fe451MYl6Kc-1629689266-0-gqNtZGzNAhCjcnBszQil

He also illustrates the design problems of the older Ro-Ro Ferries by listing the various accidents they've had, including Estonia's- almost- sister ship:



The author discusses the failure of the captain to be passive over safety concerns.



And then the author asks a good question about the sinking:



He covers some of the CTs but never drifts off the deep end.

What I want to know is why intelligent discussion like this has not been brought into this conversation?

Reads like low-level reportage to me. The author doesn't mention who owned the Diana II and there is very little detail.

 

[Vixen]

Part of the problem is the machinery spaces, water will always get in there as if the engines are running they are not watertight from above.
Similarly with any watertight compartments on a merchant ship. Closing the horizontal doorways is easy but while the ship is operating there is a temptation to keep deck hatches open as they are harder to close and a lot more inconvenient on an operating ship.

As for the ship's speed in the conditions. Royal Navy Manual of Seamanship volume two has an entire chapter on ship handling in adverse conditions. reducing speed isn't always the thing to do, it depends on the sea conditions, pitch, roll and buoyancy characteristics of the hull, disposition of cargo, fetch of the sea and other parameters.
Each ship has different 'sweet spots' and a captain should be familiar with them.

When there has been an accident of any sort, it is easy in retrospect to say the 'driver was going too fast' (although driving above speed limit is a major cause of road accidents) or that the crew were not prepared. Just knowing those facts doesn't ipso facto tell us the cause of the accident.