• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
Now all of a sudden the captain was 'hated'? If he was such an authoritarian why weren't his crew trained?

I think you ar emaking this up.
Click to expand...

I never make anything up. All of my comments are sourced, unless I state 'IMV'.


Arrogant, nonchalant and not very competent
Arvo Andresson, Master of "Estonia", was in many respects an extraordinary master. He took care that discipline and order on board were properly upheld. However, he had a little problem: He mixed up port and starboard. He, as well as his relief Avo Piht, were described as little Gods on board. Under the old Russian system, of which practically the entire crew was a product, the master's word or orders were never questioned. In particular during his absence this could become quite serious. On board a vessel certain things have to be carried out immediately in order not to endanger the safety. But if the master was not present and could not be asked, the result could be that nothing at all was done. It was better to do nothing instead of doing something which could cause the master to see red. Such a system certainly has its advantages, if the master is fully competent. But was Captain Arvo Andresson fully competent? This is questioned by someone who has worked with Andresson.
When the Estonian Shipping Company ESCO took over "Estonia" the Swedish part owner of Estline, N&T, employed a number of advisers, actually assistant masters and crew members working in other functions, who were to train and control the Estonian crew members to make sure that they really knew what they were doing.
Initially N&T wanted to have a Swedish master, chief officer and chief engineer for the vessel, although sailing under Estonian flag, however, ESCO refused to accept that. Instead, the Swedish "advisers" were employed.
One of the Swedish assistant masters, Anders Andersson, worked for quite some time with Arvo Andresson. He has described the Estonian master to the Joint Accident Investigation Commission as having been arrogant and nonchalant, and having strictly upheld discipline and the hierarchy on board. He pursued this so rigorously that he even changed the crew in the hotel and restaurant sections, even if the results were catastrophic.


As master, Arvo Andresson was dominant and authoritarian. The mates never dared even to come close to the sticks (Note: pitch controls), not even the chief officer who normally has to be able to manoeuvre the vessel. Andresson was a product of the Soviet system. Once when he damaged the quay at Frihamn in Stockholm with the aft of the vessel, he did not accept to write a report to the ship owners. "I will be able to persuade my mates to testify that the damages to the quay were already existing when we arrived", he said.
The Swedish captain describes the difference between an Estonian and a Swedish or Finnish vessel as follows: "On a Swedish ferry the mate first reduces the speed and does thereafter inform the master about what he has done. As regards "Estonia", it was the other way round."
Generally, there was a poor ability to take initiatives within the crew, probably as a result of the old system. Nobody dared to take his own initiative.
Click to expand...
Estonia Ferry Disaster com
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
They didn't have just ten minutes from the first signs of a problem.
There was no bomb.

A well trained crew would put on their survival suits, it's the first thing they should do. A well trained crew would have been alerted and know what their jobs were supposed to be.
All the evidence is they weren't well trained and the bridge crew were negligent and incompetent.

Read the Nottingham report.

All watertight openings were immediately closed and within five minutes of the impact a preliminary report on the damage was made by the engineering officer and the crew were already working to stabilise the ship and stop the flooding.
Click to expand...

Suppose there had been a bomb, a torpedo or a major collision. Do you think a crew could get 850 sleeping passengers to safety within a time frame of about ten minutes?

It is all very well blaming crew but they are not superheroes.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I think I can see some wisps of straw stuffing sticking out of your question hinting that if you can't save everyone you shouldn't bother trying.

If they had reacted to the initial reports of something going wrong at the bow door more effectively than just looking at a video monitor, they might have saved the ship. Even if your fantasy sabotage had happened 15 minutes later they would at least have already been alert to danger.
Click to expand...

If the car ramp door was in the habit of being leaky, why would the crew show any special concern about it?
 
Vixen said:
I never make anything up.
Click to expand...

Most of what you say about eyewitness testimony is made up. You staunchly resist being told anything else about it, even from the best authority.

All of my comments are sourced, unless I state 'IMV'.
Click to expand...

Well, you just misrepresented Arikas' quote, and you had no problems "rewriting" Amdahl's statements to suit your uninformed flight of fancy. So quotation doesn't seem to be your strong suit. Yes, it's usually clear when you're stating your view. The problem is that you expect your view to be taken as fact even when it's patently incompetent.
 
JayUtah said:
Most of what you say about eyewitness testimony is made up. You staunchly resist being told anything else about it, even from the best authority.



Well, you just misrepresented Arikas' quote, and you had no problems "rewriting" Amdahl's statements to suit your uninformed flight of fancy. So quotation doesn't seem to be your strong suit. Yes, it's usually clear when you're stating your view. The problem is that you expect your view to be taken as fact even when it's patently incompetent.
Click to expand...

At least I have the ability to recognise the difference between a current affairs news item and conspiracy theory.
 
So how about this translation then:


Estonia wreck survey summary: Starboard side 'crushed' significantly

<snip>

A dive robot provided evidence that only a small part of the ramp is still attached to its hinge, while the ramp as a whole has, as noted, fallen fully open, for reasons still to be established.

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.

<snip>

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.
Click to expand...
ERR (probably from the same agency press release)
 
Vixen said:
At least I have the ability to recognise the difference between a current affairs news item and conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
Rogue KGB agents getting revenge, collisions with UK or Swedish submarines escorting the Estonia, a Russian submarine spying on the Estonia and colliding with it, a submarine firing torpedoes at the Estonia, someone hijacking the bridge of the Estonia, Russian submarines being sold to inexperienced buyers colliding with the Estonia, bomb(s) planted on the Estonia and sinking it, crew members being mysteriously disappeared after the sinking, a NATO naval exercise refusing to take part in the rescue, etc.

Those are all "current affairs news items"?

These are all wild-eyed conspiracy theories you're throwing out there as fast as you can dream them up. It doesn't matter if someone else came up with the ideas or if you're just speculating (cf. "just asking questions"), you're giving those ideas credence they don't deserve.
 
JesseCuster said:
Rogue KGB agents getting revenge, collisions with UK or Swedish submarines escorting the Estonia, a Russian submarine spying on the Estonia and colliding with it, a submarine firing torpedoes at the Estonia, someone hijacking the bridge of the Estonia, Russian submarines being sold to inexperienced buyers colliding with the Estonia, bomb(s) planted on the Estonia and sinking it, crew members being mysteriously disappeared after the sinking, a NATO naval exercise refusing to take part in the rescue, etc.

Those are all "current affairs news items"?

These are all wild-eyed conspiracy theories you're throwing out there as fast as you can dream them up. It doesn't matter if someone else came up with the ideas or if you're just speculating (cf. "just asking questions"), you're giving those ideas credence they don't deserve.
Click to expand...

They are the theories of respected persons in office, not my theory. It was the government-sponsored Rockwater divers who reported an unknown person on the bridge. I am afraid these are all reported news items.
 
Vixen said:
Absolute rubbish. I paraphrased Arikas and I did so correctly.
Click to expand...

No. You read into it something that was not there. Further, you did not address my rebuttal of your assertion that those are mere synonyms. Keep in mind that you are not competent in physics, so your judgment on the point I raised is not evidence.

Vixen said:
So how about this translation then:
Click to expand...

Still says force, not impact. Force can be static and can include such effects as sagging or hogging. Impact necessitates dynamic loading, which is orders of magnitude greater than static loading.
 
Vixen said:
They are the theories of respected persons in office, not my theory.
Click to expand...
Being a theory of "respected persons" does not mean something isn't a conspiracy theory. That fact that someone is a "respected person in office" does not mean that their crackpot ideas are not crackpot ideas.

It was the government-sponsored Rockwater divers who reported an unknown person on the bridge. I am afraid these are all reported news items.
Click to expand...
I never said anything about an "unknown person on the bridge". I did say something about a possible hijacking of the bridge, because you suggested that possibility.

"Unidentified body on the bridge" is not the same as "the bridge was possibly hijacked". You do realise that, right?

Are you saying that the bridge of the Estonia possibly being hijacked is a "reported news item". Where was it reported? Or did you come up with that hypothesis?
 
JesseCuster said:
Being a theory of "respected persons" does not mean something isn't a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

Plenty of conspiracy theories are reported in the press. They don't stop being conspiracy theories just because someone writes an article about them. If you read the article and subscribe to the conspiracy theory it espouses, you believe and advocate a conspiracy theory. Trying to rewrite it as a "current news event" and not a conspiracy theory mistakes the framing of the story for its essential nature. The mental gymnastics required to try to separate a conspiracy theory in general from a conspiracy theory reported in the media is too much.
 
JayUtah said:
No. You read into it something that was not there. Further, you did not address my rebuttal of your assertion that those are mere synonyms. Keep in mind that you are not competent in physics, so your judgment on the point I raised is not evidence.



Still says force, not impact. Force can be static and can include such effects as sagging or hogging. Impact necessitates dynamic loading, which is orders of magnitude greater than static loading.
Click to expand...

Aww man, I go to lunch with my parents and miss all the fun. At any rate, I have nothing to add to this response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom