The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[phiwum]

At my local church, whenever a parishioner dies and is about to be brought to the chapel of rest awaiting the funeral, the church bells ring for a full eight minutes and it is of such a high volume you can hear it a kilometre away and heaven help your ears if you are next to it. However, although at the top of the decibel range, there is no way anyone would describe it as a 'bang'.

I suppose that if he had said that every loud noise caused by things striking one another is a "bang", you'd have a point.

He'd be just as wrong as someone who said the "correct" term for "bang" is "explosion"... if that is what he said.

 

[phiwum]

Vixen, let me postulate a hypothetical to you.

Let's say we have an event in which people reported seeing a bright flash of light. No one doubts that there was a bright flash of light, and that the witnesses are recounting said flash as accurately as they are able to do so. What can we conclude? We can conclude that something happened and it caused a bright flash of light that witnesses saw.

I hope you're following me and agreeing so far.

Then let's say we have someone come to a discussion of the event and say "I've spoken to an expert in flash photography and he says that the descriptions of the flash of light is consistent with flash photography".

Do you think this is sufficient to conclude that it was a camera flash?

More to the (well, my) point, do you think this is sufficient to conclude that the witnesses reported seeing a camera flash?

Because Vixen keeps saying that the survivors reported explosions.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

More to the (well, my) point, do you think this is sufficient to conclude that the witnesses reported seeing a camera flash?

Because Vixen keeps saying that the survivors reported explosions.

Shh, stop giving away my point.

 

[phiwum]

Shh, stop giving away my point.

Oh, it's fine. I'm confident she still won't get it. Or will pretend not to.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The M/S Estonia sank in Sept 1994 and on 14 June 1999 the JAIC issued its report. Why didn't it mention the hole in the starboard? A Finnish newspaper Kaleva reported it in 1997.

Ilta Sanomat (Kaleva is under a paywall)

You saw the Evertsson documentary wherein we can see the towels from the swimming pool area wedged within the aperture.

So not anything to do with wear and tear. Prof Amdahl said such a hole could not have been caused by a 55 tonne visor (which anyway would have immediately sunk, whether it hit the bulbous nose or not).

See swimming pool and sauna area in deck 0 well below the water line.

The hole was not caused by the visor, it is the result of the ship settling, it is along one of the weld seams. it is above the waterline.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Loud bangs do not cause shaking and vibrations. The survivors went to great pains to describe exceptionally loud bangs in quick succession.


'Oh it's OK, Honey, it was just the bow visor.'

Hefty impacts, such as from a loose bow door being repeatedly slammed against the ship by waves, cause loud bangs and shaking and vibrations.

What part of that is even slightly hard to grasp?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Cyclic deformation seems to be a fancy way of saying, 'metal fatigue'. However, the JAIC plainly states the vessel was seaworthy. In any case, I am rather sceptical that a deformation caused by an explosive or explosives would look exactly the same as 'metal fatigue' on a ship deemed as 'seaworthy'.

The early de Havilland Comets were airworthy right up until they fell out of the sky due to undetected metal fatigue. You seem to think you have a "gotcha" with the ship being described as seaworthy as if that meant that no circumstance could cause any part of it to fail. I am underwhelmed by your supposed checkmate.

 

[JayUtah]

Because the JAIC had already deemed Werft not liable.

What does that have to do with liability as determined by a court?

In addition, it deemed the ship's inspectors and insurers, Veritas, as being in the clear when it declared and certified the vessel as seaworthy.

You're hanging an awful lot on this peg. "Seaworthiness" doesn't mean the ship is known to be free of defects.

Clearly Werft didn't agree with the JAIC findings because in their mind it didn't add up.

And you can read their minds? I asked how you know what their motives are, not what you infer them to be. In your vast experience with forensic engineering investigations, can you tell us how often parties implicated in an accident carry out their own investigations?

 

[JayUtah]

I am sceptical that a ship can be certified as seaworthy, yet show deformations consistent with a high velocity detonation...

Cleary the ship is not seaworthy after that occurs. You seem to have the order of operations reversed. And you seem to be reading a lot of superstitious intent into a certification of seaworthiness. It's not a guarantee that nothing is wrong with the ship.

Werft produced papers to show it had never been shot blasted...

Straw man.

If the metal in the bow was in such poor condition in which way is it solely the bow visor bolts at fault?

No one is claiming this.

 

[JayUtah]

The M/S Estonia sank in Sept 1994 and on 14 June 1999 the JAIC issued its report. Why didn't it mention the hole in the starboard? A Finnish newspaper Kaleva reported it in 1997.

You're deflecting again. You are being shown examples of ships that have failed structurally in ways that you apparently think are not possible. So you deflect and start talking about the starboard-side hole again. Keep your eye on the ball, please.

So not anything to do with wear and tear.

That is not the claim. You're conflating pre-accident damage to the visor with the starboard-side hole as if they are somehow connected.

Prof Amdahl said such a hole could not have been caused by a 55 tonne visor...

I provided the math which says differently. You did not address it. In any case, there is no evidence that the starboard-side hole occurred on the surface.

...which anyway would have immediately sunk, whether it hit the bulbous nose or not.

You keep saying this is what would have happened. Prove it.

 

[GlennB]

Americans use the wod 'bang' very differently from the Brits, who would call it 'slamming the door'.

Interesting:

The word bang looked up on lexico.com which is powered by the Oxford English Dictionary.:


A sudden loud, sharp noise.
‘the door slammed with a bang’

Thats using the UK English drop down box FYI.

Yep. This Brit (who, incidentally, has several years experience of teaching English) would say that 'slam' describes a loud closing of the door, with the door remaining closed when the catch engages. Thus, I might remind MrsB that our new car has excellent doors that don't need to be slammed like the clunky doors in the old car. If a door bangs it suggests to me that it's loose and repeatedly hitting the frame. I left our garden shed door open in the wind some days ago and it banged until I went out and bolted it. I wouldn't describe that noise as slamming.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If we have a breeze from the east and there is a window open in the back of the house, the front door definitely bangs if you don't keep hold of it. The whole house shakes

 

[Andy_Ross]

When we were hit by a Soviet Krivak Destroyer the ship lurched but there was no bang. It was more of a soft 'crunch' with a creaking squeal over the top. No holes though and it was a soft lurch, no throwing out of bunks.

When I was a cadet aboard a minesweeper that was pushed in to a quay end as it was docking (mixup with the wake of a passing tug and sloppy handling by the Old Man, there was a huge lurch and bang. But we were only doing about a knot and the stop was very sudden. No holes though, people did stagger.

 

[phiwum]

If we have a breeze from the east and there is a window open in the back of the house, the front door definitely bangs if you don't keep hold of it. The whole house shakes

Ergo, the door weighs a lot or the house doesn't. Because a much lighter object (like, oh, a bow visor) couldn't make a big noise in a larger structure (a ferry, say).

 

[phiwum]

When we were hit by a Soviet Krivak Destroyer the ship lurched but there was no bang. It was more of a soft 'crunch' with a creaking squeal over the top. No holes though and it was a soft lurch, no throwing out of bunks.

When I was a cadet aboard a minesweeper that was pushed in to a query end as it was docking (mixup with the wake of a passing tug and sloppy handling by the Old Man, there was a huge lurch and bang. But we were only doing about a knot and the stop was very sudden. No holes though, people did stagger.

Is "query" s'posed to be "quay"?

 

[Axxman300]

I'm quite sure that's untrue... since plenty of ships of sunk in fresh water.

I should have said "in the ocean".

Most ships on the bottom of the ocean were "sea worthy" at the time of their sinking.

I work a mile away from the US Navy's Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center whose job is to provide real-time weather data to all of our ships to keep them from sailing into hurricanes, tropical storms, typhoons, and other weather situations that can put a multi-billion dollar ship on the bottom of the sea.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Is "query" s'posed to be "quay"?

Yes. I will fix it. Doing this on a phone in the pub while having a half time break in the weekly quiz

 

[lobosrul5]

Yep. This Brit (who, incidentally, has several years experience of teaching English) would say that 'slam' describes a loud closing of the door, with the door remaining closed when the catch engages. Thus, I might remind MrsB that our new car has excellent doors that don't need to be slammed like the clunky doors in the old car. If a door bangs it suggests to me that it's loose and repeatedly hitting the frame. I left our garden shed door open in the wind some days ago and it banged until I went out and bolted it. I wouldn't describe that noise as slamming.

Yes, American English is the same. I'd never say someone "banged the door" I'd say slammed. But if its flapping in the wind I'd say its banging in the wind.

 

[phiwum]

Yes. I will fix it. Doing this on a phone in the pub while having a half time break in the weekly quiz

I only asked because I was trying to understand. While I sail these days, I was raised far inland and am still trying to get the terminology down.

Crap summer. Boat almost sunk due to a lightning strike in July and had to be hauled out. Very short season.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, let me postulate a hypothetical to you.

Let's say we have an event in which people reported seeing a bright flash of light. No one doubts that there was a bright flash of light, and that the witnesses are recounting said flash as accurately as they are able to do so. What can we conclude? We can conclude that something happened and it caused a bright flash of light that witnesses saw.

I hope you're following me and agreeing so far.

Then let's say we have someone come to a discussion of the event and say "I've spoken to an expert in flash photography and he says that the descriptions of the flash of light is consistent with flash photography".

Do you think this is sufficient to conclude that it was a camera flash?

I was woken up at 5:00am with a flash of light across my eyes. I realised there was a storm going on so went back to sleep. Later I discovered the storm had created some rather nasty havoc with a barn near our summer cottage being burnt to a crisp (not ours). With the triple glazing I didn't hear the thunder. This is very different from the flash bulb of a camera. I used to be into amateur photography with all the gadgets including flash. Flashbulbs are nothing like lightning.

However, say a whole bunch of people are at an event and there is an incident, after which people are asked for an eye witness account. You are not asking them for their conclusion, you just want to know what they saw, which should be in their own words, not yours. If some people relate they saw lightning, it simply confirms there was a flash of light. Your aim isn't to berate them for mistaking a flashlight of a camera with a lightning strike. 'Wrong! It was a flashbulb, not lightning, you twit!'

What you will have are a whole load of witness statements from which you can glean the sequence of events (a time line) what time, what did they see, what direction did the flash of light appear from, where was it directed, what happened next, why did you think it was lightning, etcetera, etcetera.

So, if a whole bunch of passenger survivors, a reasonably good cross section of the public, albeit, nobody under twelve or much older than 65, and few females, ranging from barmen, to policemen, to PhD students, to musicians, report a series of 'bangs' and feelings of collision, why should you object to it just because it doesn't fit the narrative of a bow visor falling off?

Incidentally, several of the crew also reported similar experiences, for example, the ship's accountant found herself on the floor and got the hell out.

Nobody on the Herald of Free Enterprise reported any of this, the 'terrible noise' they heard being people screaming and glass shattering, with a grinding engine.