• 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.
Hull/superstructure/"bulkhead hull":

So the Estonia being a RORO ferry probably has a design that is different than many other ships. Namely the decks in which the cars go which are just above the waterline could not, practically, be divided into watertight compartments. Cargo ships generally have water tight bulkheads that go above the waterline. Not sure if modern cruise liners have then, but Titanic's, for example, appear to go 3 decks above the waterline for some of the bulkheads, but just 1 deck for others.

Vixen said:
If the car ramp was tied in place by a hawser then the bow visor could not pull it away.
Click to expand...

It couldn't? Your saying no amount of force could break the hawser??
 
lobosrul5 said:
So the Estonia being a RORO ferry probably has a design that is different than many other ships. Namely the decks in which the cars go which are just above the waterline could not, practically, be divided into watertight compartments. Cargo ships generally have water tight bulkheads that go above the waterline.
Click to expand...

There's nothing structurally that requires a hull to be compartmentalized. We just recognize it universally as a safer design. What defines the hull structurally is the framing. The hull goes as high as the frames go. Superstructures are framed differently. That's what naval architects and shipwrights regard as the distinction. Hydrodynamicists only care about the part of the hull below the waterline (ETA: and elements of the bow), and don't care about framing or other behind-the-scenes structural details. Hydrodynamics has something to say about stability in ship designs, but most of the stability argument is going to come from the naval architect, with input from hydrodynamics.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
There's nothing structurally that requires a hull to be compartmentalized. We just recognize it universally as a safer design. What defines the hull structurally is the framing. The hull goes as high as the frames go. Superstructures are framed differently. That's what naval architects and shipwrights regard as the distinction. Hydrodynamicists only care about the part of the hull below the waterline, and don't care about framing or other behind-the-scenes structural details. Hydrodynamics has something to say about stability in ship designs, but most of the stability argument is going to come from the naval architect, with input from hydrodynamics.
Click to expand...

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the hull need be compartmentalized for structural integrity. Just that the car decks on a RORO ferry can't practically be compartmentalized into a bunch of water tight compartments. Water coming in through a hole big enough to drive a truck through at the bow will be able to flow the entire length of the ship. Same with the HOFE which capsized even quicker than the Estonia. But in Vixens world a ship going down in 35 minutes is some sort of unusual aberration when in reality ships sink much quicker all the time (I'm sure she'll be along to re-post a list of cherry picked ships that took longer to sink as if thats relevant).
 
lobosrul5 said:
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the hull need be compartmentalized for structural integrity. Just that the car decks on a RORO ferry can't practically be compartmentalized into a bunch of water tight compartments.
Click to expand...

Right, which is why the notion of "bulkhead hull" really doesn't exist in shipping. The heights of any bulkheads that may be in the hull does not determine the height of what may properly be be called the hull. The hull is the part of the ship that has hull framing.

Water coming in through a hole big enough to drive a truck through at the bow will be able to flow the entire length of the ship.
Click to expand...

Yes, the necessary lack of bulkheads will make the free-surface effect much more pronounced.

But in Vixens world a ship going down in 35 minutes is some sort of unusual aberration when in reality ships sink much quicker all the time...
Click to expand...

Indeed, real flooding models go into much greater necessary detail than simply tipping one's hat to Archimedes and declaring absolutes.
 
JayUtah said:
There's nothing structurally that requires a hull to be compartmentalized. We just recognize it universally as a safer design. What defines the hull structurally is the framing. The hull goes as high as the frames go. Superstructures are framed differently. That's what naval architects and shipwrights regard as the distinction. Hydrodynamicists only care about the part of the hull below the waterline (ETA: and elements of the bow), and don't care about framing or other behind-the-scenes structural details. Hydrodynamics has something to say about stability in ship designs, but most of the stability argument is going to come from the naval architect, with input from hydrodynamics.
Click to expand...

A good example would the be difference between the Iowa class battleships and HMS Vanguard, the last battleship ever built.

Iowas 860 feet and 108 ft beam and 212,000 shp compared to Vanguard's 814 ft length, identical beam and 130,000 shp. Beam was almost identical
Vanguard had a transom stern rather than the theoretically hydrodynamically more efficient rounded stern.

That extra length and all those extra horsepower got the Iowas just 3 more knots in calm weather but considerably less speed and greater plunge and roll in heavy weather wit Vanguard being a much better sea boat,.

Forward of the armour the Iowas longer narrower form could be seen to flex in heavy weather and there was talk of reducing the length and widening the bow.

Iowas were more fuel efficient though with a longer range for work in the Pacific whereas the Vanguard was optimised for Atlantic storms and had access to all the RN supply bases around the world.

A long way of saying that like everything else, hull design is always a compromise.

A Roro ferry is optimised to have as big a car deck as possible, that's where the money is made.
Certain aspects of the seakeeping and structural integrity are compromised to allow them to do their job economically.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the hull need be compartmentalized for structural integrity. Just that the car decks on a RORO ferry can't practically be compartmentalized into a bunch of water tight compartments. Water coming in through a hole big enough to drive a truck through at the bow will be able to flow the entire length of the ship. Same with the HOFE which capsized even quicker than the Estonia. But in Vixens world a ship going down in 35 minutes is some sort of unusual aberration when in reality ships sink much quicker all the time (I'm sure she'll be along to re-post a list of cherry picked ships that took longer to sink as if thats relevant).
Click to expand...


Yes. And this is a design issue with vehicle ferries (even those that are not RO-RO). Firstly, as you say, it's extremely difficult - and commercially undesirable - to compartmentalise a vehicle deck. It goes without saying that it's impossible to have fixed watertight compartments on such a deck. It's possible in principle to have something like heavy dividers which rise (or fall) into place once the vehicles are all loaded; but in practice, this too is difficult and commercially undesirable, since it's difficult enough for crew to load a wide-open vehicle deck optimally - if you add in the requirement for the crew to ensure a number of horizontal gaps on the deck (to allow for these dividers), it would be exponentially more difficult to load the deck.

And secondly, the issues of mass and the ship's centre of gravity play a big role. One might suppose that a way of mitigating the potential for an open vehicle deck to flood would be to place that deck higher above the waterline (with, obviously, the vehicles being loaded/offloaded from a greater height relative to the quayside). But a full (or even partially-full) deck of vehicles has a mass which would cause significant problems if it was placed higher away from the waterline - it would raise the ship's centre of gravity to a level that would present real problems wrt the balance and trim of the ship.

So as a consequence of all of the above, vehicle ferries are effectively stuck with having to have a wide open vehicle deck at a height that's only marginally above the laden waterline. And, importantly, this means that the only way to mitigate/minimise the risk is to make the ingress/egress doors reliably strong and watertight. On RO-RO ferries, it's easy to see that the bow ingress/egress door is much more critical in this respect than the stern. Which is why there are often double- or triple-redundancies in the bow door mechanism.

As a result, almost all vehicle ferries sail safely throughout their working lives. But every so often, a horrible chain of mistakes (and it's almost always a chain of mistakes, rather than one single catastrophic mistake) leads to the bow door being compromised. In a vehicle ferry, unless the situation is spotted and corrected extremely quickly (in a matter of seconds), the inevitable conclusion is the loss of the vessel. That's what happened with HOFE, and that's what happened with the Estonia.
 
Vixen said:
Then how come these two guys claim to have climbed down the car ramp? In addition, the JAIC says the car ramp was shut but deformed one metre at the top (I guess they had to get the water into the car deck somehow to fit the foregone conclusion).


If the car ramp was tied in place by a hawser then the bow visor could not pull it away.
Click to expand...

It was ripped open by the visor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmX8seNKVQo

That whole weight and mass vs gravity thing.
 
Latest Current Affairs news: An Estonian group including former chief Prosecutor Margus Kurm and includes the families of the victims and survivors - the majority of them Swedes - are now planning to run a parallel investigation, claiming it will provide 'constructive competition' to the current one.

Kurm claims that as the wreck is in international waters and the law is under Swedish jurisdiction then it would not be illegal to visit the site. They plan to send down four divers.

Kurm expressed a lack of confidence in the official probe organised by Estonia, Sweden and Finland but promised to share all the findings with the authorities and suggested that the private investigation could be “constructive competition”.

“Any parallel investigation will benefit them as well,” he said.

Kurm, a former state prosecutor of Estonia and former head of the committee investigating the sinking, is the manager of the SA Mare Liberum fund that was created by relatives in July.

The expedition is funded by several private sector companies.

Its biggest sponsor is Estonian media concern Postimees Grupp.

<snip>

Lennart Berglund, a member of the board of the SEA, confirmed the Estonian operation is due to start on Sept 18.

“There won’t be anyone from the SEA or the Swedish side as it’s still illegal for Swedes to take part in dives on the Estonia. But the Estonians don’t have that problem,” he said.

The two-week expedition will use a research ship rented out by the German company RS Offshore and its equipment includes four underwater robots.

Four divers will act as support.

The goal is to map the damages on the hull of Estonia, create a 3D-scan of the hull and study the surrounding area.

Findings will be studied by Singapore-based Andrzej Jasionowski, previously a member of the scientific consortium SSPA that carried out MS Estonia-related research ordered by the Swedish government.
Click to expand...
Macaubusiness com


Looking forward to this thread being moved back into current affairs.
 
Vixen said:
Latest Current Affairs news: An Estonian group including former chief Prosecutor Margus Kurm and includes the families of the victims and survivors - the majority of them Swedes - are now planning to run a parallel investigation, claiming it will provide 'constructive competition' to the current one.

Kurm claims that as the wreck is in international waters and the law is under Swedish jurisdiction then it would not be illegal to visit the site. They plan to send down four divers.

Macaubusiness com


Looking forward to this thread being moved back into current affairs.
Click to expand...

Why would it be?
 
Vixen said:
Latest Current Affairs news: An Estonian group including former chief Prosecutor Margus Kurm and includes the families of the victims and survivors - the majority of them Swedes - are now planning to run a parallel investigation, claiming it will provide 'constructive competition' to the current one.

Kurm claims that as the wreck is in international waters and the law is under Swedish jurisdiction then it would not be illegal to visit the site. They plan to send down four divers.

Macaubusiness com


Looking forward to this thread being moved back into current affairs.
Click to expand...

A private "investigation" into the same thing doesn't make it less CT.

It follows form exactly.

Who's funding it? Will they promise results and, upon experiencing "delays" by "obstructing officials who want the truth hidden," need some more money, repeat ad nauseum?
 
SA Mare Liberum - the new Estonia group - have seven issues they aim to address, according to this report:

Kurm pointed out seven questions to which the expedition will look answers for:

Why and when did the visor disconnect from the ship?

Did the ramp completely open before the sinking of the ship?

What exactly are the damage locations on the right [starboard] deck, when and what caused such damage?

Why and when did intermediary walls of the abaft [in or behind the stern] and car deck of the ship become damaged?

Does the hull of the ship have any more damaged locations of which we do not know?

What objects are located around the wreck and in the assumed trajectory of the sinking of the ship, and what is their connection with the sinking of the ship?

How exactly did different parts of the ship get filled with water?


Kurm noted that the expedition’s goal was “not necessarily to challenge the results of the state-led investigation” or “debunk previous official versions”.

“We agree to extensively cooperate with safety investigation bodies during the conduct of our investigations and collection of evidence,” he said. “Nevertheless, we are confident that evidence must be analysed, and conclusions must be made separately, preferably by a number of different international expert groups. This way we will not allow a situation where governments again form a state commission which, despite offering all parties a satisfactory compromise, will not find the truth.”
Click to expand...
Estonian World


The naval architect who will analyse the results is Andrzej Jasionowski.

Materials gathered during the investigation will be analysed by Andrzej Jasionowski, a forensic naval architect. His Singapore-based company, SophusQuorum, specialises in expert examinations of sea accidents. From 2005-2008, Jasionowski was a member of the scientific consortium that conducted a number of different studies regarding MS Estonia on behalf of the Swedish government.
Click to expand...
ibid
 
Delphic Oracle said:
A private "investigation" into the same thing doesn't make it less CT.

It follows form exactly.

Who's funding it? Will they promise results and, upon experiencing "delays" by "obstructing officials who want the truth hidden," need some more money, repeat ad nauseum?
Click to expand...

It is being funded mainly by a large media group.

Mare Liberum said its investigation was funded from donations and the sale of media rights – its biggest supporter in Estonia is Postimees Grupp, one of the largest privately owned media organisations in the country.
Click to expand...
Estonian World

Why the opposition? Families of the 900 people dead want answers.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Why will their results be any different?
Click to expand...

Did you not understand that Henrik Evertsson's documentary has brought about the amendment in the Treaty?

But in 2020, it all suddenly changed, causing the Estonian, Swedish and Finnish governments make u-turns. It all came down to a Swedish documentary, “Estonia: The Discovery that Changes Everything” that premiered on a Swedish TV channel and showed the wreck of MS Estonia had a large hole in the hull. The footage revealed four metres high and 1.2 metres wide hole in the ferry’s hull, on the starboard side – that until then, had never been mentioned or documented.
Click to expand...
Estonian World

Given survivors' narratives mention 'bangs' and a 'collision' it becomes clear that this aspect should have been looked at ATT. Or, it probably was but was labelled 'classified' by the PTB at the time: Bildt, Clinton, Major. (Lots seem to have been 'classified' under Clinton. Just sayin'.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom