The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Andy_Ross]

We were talking about the list at the start of the journey. Presumably the JAIC ruled a list of 0.5 was in the margins of safety.

Not if you have already used your ballast to try and correct it

 

[lobosrul5]

A mere ten percent, excluding the crew. 9/10 chance of dying.

The crew didn't react quickly to the first indications something was wrong. And the warning put over the ships intercom was barely intelligible. I believe even your star witness, the UK citizen, confirms this. Why do you think it was inevitable that exactly 9 10ths of the passengers died?

 

[Andy_Ross]

No. Those passengers were doomed. Whoever was responsible made sure of that.

Yes, the negligence of the captain and first mate and the ferry company for not ensuring their crews were properly trained.

 

[Kid Eager]

You are still not understanding that the JAIC findings are effectively expunged or there wouldn't be a new investigation. The JAIC report clearly says that lorries were lashed in accordance with the weather conditions, whereas because of the tight packing, car drivers were merely told to apply a hand brake and put the vehicle in reverse gear.

Where does it say the JAIC findings are expunged?

 

[Vixen]

The crew didn't react quickly to the first indications something was wrong. And the warning put over the ships intercom was barely intelligible. I believe even your star witness, the UK citizen, confirms this. Why do you think it was inevitable that exactly 9 10ths of the passengers died?

Staff and crew always get blamed whenever there is a disaster. However, if it was an act of terrorism, sabotage or an intelligence exercise that went wrong, no matter how heroic the staff or crew, they can only saved the few out of hundreds unless they themselves die. One of the survivors, Kent Horstedt (_sp?) who became an elected politician relates that he feels enormous guilt because whilst he was at the top of some stairs helping to pull people up there came a point when he had to say, 'no more' and save his own life. In the Bow Belle Thames riverboat disaster, it transpired that fit young men trampled over the weak and the elderly because that is what people do in a panic to save their own lives. The alert in Estonian on the Estonia ferry came very late in the day. By the time the ships emergency horn was blaring it was already about 70° list. If people didn't get up onto the deck - to jump off the ship - a frightening event in itself - into dark stormy waves, within a ten minute slot after the sound of the jolt and first huge lilt to starboard, then they were doomed anyway. The alert was much later than that and almost an afterthought. Truth is, when there is an act of terror or sabotage it is largely unforeseen and unexpected. When I got caught up in the 7/7 London tube bombings, I was at Euston Square tube station and couldn't understand why my train didn't appear (it was blown up at Edware Road) then considered getting a bus from nearby Tavistock Place to get myself into work in the City then decided against it (thankfully, as a bus from there was blown up shortly after, and a later colleague actually witnessed the roof coming off). It wasn't until I had walked all the way home - as all public transport had now stopped and the mobile phone lines were jammed - couldn't get through to my workplace to say I was running late - there was really no explanation until I saw the live news on TV, other than passersby in the street yelling at each other about something terrible having happened. There is no alert. Acts such as this just happen, and it is tough if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

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.

Where is any of this mentioned? You never provided a link to the Aftonbladet article in question, and the part you quoted in post #2657 does not say this. Indeed, you not only quoted, but emphasized with large colored font and highlight, the words: “Eight humans Kenneth Svensson managed to pick up from the sea,” from that article. And the point of that emphasis seemed at the time to be your wish to highlight (figuratively as well as literally) an alleged discrepancy between this early report and the JAIC report, wrt how many people Svensson rescued.

Except there is no such thing. The JAIC report also credits Svensson with picking up eight humans from the sea. One of those humans unfortunately, never made it into a helicopter alive; he broke loose and fell back in the water, subsequently dying while Svensson tried to re-rescue him. You may dispute the JAIC report’s account, but that does not entitle you to mischaracterize it.

The only difference between the JAIC report's account and the text you quoted from the Aftonbladet in post #2657 is the timing of when Moberg pulled Svensson out of the water. The news article places this event at the end of Svensson's rescuing spree (of pulling eight humans out of the water), whereas the JAIC report has this happening earlier.

Now you want to revise the total of people Svensson saved and when. Are you now saying your own source is wrong when it says that Svensson pulled eight humans out of the sea? That he really rescued sixteen, plus the one dead body recovered? Where is your evidence for this earlier sortie by Y64? Where is it mentioned that Y64 brought nine people to Huddinge in the wee hours of the morning? Does the article really detail that, or did you make that up?

Even if it does say that, why should we not in that case consider the very good possibility that the article simply got it wrong? Early news reports get things wrong all the time; it’s why newspapers have errata. What's more, the article in question reads like a human interest piece. Inaccuracies wouldn't be terribly surprising.

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.

Indeed. And it is also not only possible, but likely, that *you* got the details wrong. The text you quoted at me earlier credits Svensson with having picked up "eight humans from the sea". The JAIC gives the same number. Your missing crew are not here. Apparently, the discrepancy is documented in some other text you have yet to provide.

You need to provide the additional text from the Aftonbladet that supports your new contentions here.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, the negligence of the captain and first mate and the ferry company for not ensuring their crews were properly trained.

Captain Arvo Andresson was actually very strict. He had a reputation for being authoritarian and a stickler for crew doing the right thing. Trained at a Russian naval school. The crew were just ordinary people going about their work. Some naval trained, others, experienced engineers. Nobody knows what happened to Captain Andresson as he wasn't around to take the May Day. How do we know the bridge wasn't hijacked. A body under a cabinet had a tattoo on his hand and nobody could identify him. One diver said he saw Andresson with a bullet through his head.

I thought you said it was all right for the crew to put their own safety first.

 

[Kid Eager]

If it was sabotage or a collision then the speed of the vessel and the training of the crew wouldn't make a hap'worth of difference.

This is one of the more absurd statements made so far and doesn't even make sense when paying the persistent contrarian.

The response after an incident can make a significant difference, which is why getting trained and keeping trained is so important.

People aren't running around saying "What caused the list/flood/failure/stoppage?" They're saying "Here's what we need to to to mitigate it." if they're trained, or "What the hell are we going to do?" if they're not.

 

[GlennB]

Where does it say the JAIC findings are expunged?

Ah, you fell for it! Vixen said 'effectively expunged', which means it's down to her judgement regarding the expungifying. She always has an out.

 

[Vixen]

Where does it say the JAIC findings are expunged?

Once the Treaty was sealed, it was never going to be repealed. However, under Swedish law - similar to that of most western countries - when compelling new evidence comes to light which has a reasonable prospect of success of overturning the conclusions that led to the Treaty - the JAIC verdict that 'no-one was to blame but there was a design fault in the bow visor bolts', in this case. The Treaty would not have been amended to allow for this new investigation if it were merely a 'conspiracy theory'.

Think about how vanishingly rare it is for a final verdict to get overturned years later except when new evidence/information comes to light that there is no choice but to send it back because the new evidence will almost certainly quash the original 'final' finding. It almost never happens. The three sovereign states involved have adamantly refused to review their determinations for twenty-six years and now they have no choice but to. They certainly would not do that if it was frivolous or arguable. Certainly not for a 'conspiracy theory'.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Staff and crew always get blamed whenever there is a disaster. However, if it was an act of terrorism, sabotage or an intelligence exercise that went wrong, no matter how heroic the staff or crew, they can only saved the few out of hundreds unless they themselves die. One of the survivors, Kent Horstedt (_sp?) who became an elected politician relates that he feels enormous guilt because whilst he was at the top of some stairs helping to pull people up there came a point when he had to say, 'no more' and save his own life. In the Bow Belle Thames riverboat disaster, it transpired that fit young men trampled over the weak and the elderly because that is what people do in a panic to save their own lives. The alert in Estonian on the Estonia ferry came very late in the day. By the time the ships emergency horn was blaring it was already about 70° list. If people didn't get up onto the deck - to jump off the ship - a frightening event in itself - into dark stormy waves, within a ten minute slot after the sound of the jolt and first huge lilt to starboard, then they were doomed anyway. The alert was much later than that and almost an afterthought. Truth is, when there is an act of terror or sabotage it is largely unforeseen and unexpected. When I got caught up in the 7/7 London tube bombings, I was at Euston Square tube station and couldn't understand why my train didn't appear (it was blown up at Edware Road) then considered getting a bus from nearby Tavistock Place to get myself into work in the City then decided against it (thankfully, as a bus from there was blown up shortly after, and a later colleague actually witnessed the roof coming off). It wasn't until I had walked all the way home - as all public transport had now stopped and the mobile phone lines were jammed - couldn't get through to my workplace to say I was running late - there was really no explanation until I saw the live news on TV, other than passersby in the street yelling at each other about something terrible having happened. There is no alert. Acts such as this just happen, and it is tough if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If the captain and first mate had done their jobs properly and made sure the crew were properly trained, emergency equipment was in good condition, the ship properly loaded and made suitable allowance for the conditions the passengers would in all probability survived.
If the owners had made sure the ship was in good condition and a competent captain and first mate were in command it might not have sunk at all.

We have many examples of ships sinking and those aboard have been saved by a competent crew.

 

[Vixen]

This is one of the more absurd statements made so far and doesn't even make sense when paying the persistent contrarian.

The response after an incident can make a significant difference, which is why getting trained and keeping trained is so important.

People aren't running around saying "What caused the list/flood/failure/stoppage?" They're saying "Here's what we need to to to mitigate it." if they're trained, or "What the hell are we going to do?" if they're not.

So where were the NATO search and rescue bunch? Even if it took them an hour or more to get there, why didn't they? Does that mean they, too, were ill-prepared despite this being the second year running for this extension exercise.

 

[Vixen]

If the captain and first mate had done their jobs properly and made sure the crew were properly trained, emergency equipment was in good condition, the ship properly loaded and made suitable allowance for the conditions the passengers would in all probability survived.
If the owners had made sure the ship was in good condition and a competent captain and first mate were in command it might not have sunk at all.

We have many examples of ships sinking and those aboard have been saved by a competent crew.

Of the people who made it to the upper decks, 93 were recovered drowned or died of hypothermia or internal injuries. Those 93 were the only further survivors that could have been saved had the life rafts been properly equipped and the life vest properly fitted.

Unfortunately 630 - probably more as it was normal for young children not to have tickets or friends of the crew (or even a suspected 174 illegal immigrants/ asylum seekers) - were stuck inside the ship and there was no way to save them. None.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Captain Arvo Andresson was actually very strict. He had a reputation for being authoritarian and a stickler for crew doing the right thing. Trained at a Russian naval school. The crew were just ordinary people going about their work. Some naval trained, others, experienced engineers. Nobody knows what happened to Captain Andresson as he wasn't around to take the May Day. How do we know the bridge wasn't hijacked. A body under a cabinet had a tattoo on his hand and nobody could identify him. One diver said he saw Andresson with a bullet through his head.

I thought you said it was all right for the crew to put their own safety first.

Strict does not mean competent. His crew weren't trained, his cargo was not loaded correctly and his ship was faulty.
There were no proper procedures in pace to evacuate.
As for the crew being 'ordinary people' They were qualified to do their job or they wouldn't be there. they need a valid ticket to do their job.

Now you are adding hijacked bridges and assassinated captains?

 

[Axxman300]

Captain Arvo Andresson was actually very strict. He had a reputation for being authoritarian and a stickler for crew doing the right thing.

And yet he failed to order an eyes-on inspection of the bow ramp area after the report of a loud bang after a wave-strike followed by surging water. His expert Russian training had him telling the engineering crew in the engine room to check their video monitors.

Then he went to bed.

Russian Naval training at its finest.

The crew were just ordinary people going about their work. Some naval trained, others, experienced engineers.

This describes everyone working as a member of a crew on every large vessel at sea at this moment. A little bit of training goes a long away. Regular, quality training makes all the difference in the world. Estonia's crew displayed no professionalism beyond the individual level.

Nobody knows what happened to Captain Andresson as he wasn't around to take the May Day.

He drowned trying to get back to the bridge.

How do we know the bridge wasn't hijacked.

Why would hijackers issue a Mayday call?

A body under a cabinet had a tattoo on his hand and nobody could identify him. One diver said he saw Andresson with a bullet through his head.

You need to cite sources when stating these kinds of claims.

 

[GlennB]

So where were the NATO search and rescue bunch? Even if it took them an hour or more to get there, why didn't they?

This has been discussed at length. The highlighted word is key, even if they had been prepared or even able to react. I believe you proposed locations where the choppers might have refuelled, as they would have needed to, and those refuelling sites were hardly shortcuts to the Estonia's location. In fact, having checked a map at the time, I do believe you picked those locations almost at random in order to write something that was superficially plausible.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Strict does not mean competent.

*coughCaptainBlighcough*

 

[Axxman300]

If it was sabotage or a collision then the speed of the vessel and the training of the crew wouldn't make a hap'worth of difference.

How do you live on an island nation yet know so little about maritime history?

The crews of the USS Stark, the USS Cole, the USS Fitzgerald, and the USS John McCain underline how wrong this statement is.

Training is everything.

 

[Andy_Ross]

*coughCaptainBlighcough*

Bligh was a very good sailor and ran his ship well.

 

[Andy_Ross]

How do you live on an island nation yet know so little about maritime history?

The crews of the USS Stark, the USS Cole, the USS Fitzgerald, and the USS John McCain underline how wrong this statement is.

Training is everything.

[qimg]https://media.giphy.com/media/l2Je1VeTWJKWKtsAw/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47f9l434uj2wku0nd0newucwlly2v3e9yq082qkbpb&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g[/qimg]

HMS Nottigham ran aground on Wolf Rock in 2002. A 160-foot (49 m) hole was torn down the side of the vessel underwater from bow to bridge, flooding five of her compartments. Overall length of the ship was 410 feet (125m)
The accident happened in poor weather after a set of manoeuvres to allow a sailor with an emergency medical condition to be evacuated by Helicopter to Lord Howe Island. In the manoeuvring the ships position was mis plotted and she hit the rock.

Damage control parties worked to shore bulkheads and decks, all one involved crew were mustered ready to abandon ship.

Although found partly responsible for the grounding the 1st officer along with other members of the crew were awarded medals for their part in saving the ship.

Here is a link to the full board of enquiry report.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/cy/r...ch/3/BOI Grounding of HMS NOTTINGHAM 2002.pdf

Page 7 onwards details the response to the grounding and the steps taken to save the ship.
Page 13 is a summary of the damage control measures. A detailed account is in Annex C.
It's a textbook response, It shows how a well trained crew should react.