• 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 Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
It immediately declared the incident, 'Nobody's fault' and wanted to cover the whole shebang in concrete without recovering the bodies.
Click to expand...


Immediately, you say?

Do you actually realise how long it took to conduct and complete that official investigation, and then to write and release its findings?


(Or in your world, do the official investigators have to wait for, I dunno, ten years or something..... just in case the passage of time reveals "new" information?)



ETA: And once again, the official investigation did not find that the disaster was "nobody's fault". It found no evidence of criminal acts by any person(s), while at the same time finding a whole heap of reliable, credible evidence that the sinking was caused by the cumulative effect of substandard design, substandard construction & substandard maintenance of the bow opening mechanisms for vehicles.

(And on that point: when air accidents are investigated - something I (and JayUtah) know a lot about - unless there is compelling prima facie evidence of a criminal act (in which case law enforcement agencies become involved), the official investigation takes place on a no-personal-repercussions basis. So for example, even if the investigation finds that a named maintenance engineer was personally responsible for mistakenly fitting the wrong bolts resulting in the total loss of the aircraft and those aboard, the whole emphasis is on ensuring that the same mistake does not happen a further time (including recommendations for regulations or even legislation to be changed and/or better enforced) rather than legal action against the engineer. Otherwise, it's easy to see how there'd simply be a culture of silence - which would help nobody connected to the accident, nor any air passengers of the future.)
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I am not answerable to you. When did you start thinking I was?

How amazingly rude of you.
Click to expand...

Hilariously ironic. You declaring someone else's words to be rude? Especially when the posts you're throwing a hissy fit about are polite apart from where I point out your obvious dishonesty.

I don't think you are "answerable" to me, but I can only imagine what you would say if you felt that say, Jay had declined to respond to some of your points. I imagine you would be crowing over it and asking him repeatedly why he was ignoring you.

As part of honest, adult discussion I feel that a participant should do everything they can to answer their critics points. All of them. Not selectively choose which points to discuss.

Nothing on your brazen cowardice then? Deleting posts so that people can't go back and read them is the height of dishonesty. What on Earth makes you think this is acceptable behaviour?
 
Vixen said:
Obviously, it would be going at varying speeds. However, the JAIC said the average speed was 18 knots, so I used that figure.
Click to expand...

Did JAIC say that?

The relevant section gives a series of estimates for the speed over ground of the Estonia. If I read it correctly, the speed is estimated as being above 18 knots from departure to about 10:55pm, after which it drops considerably due to sea conditions. Now, it's possible that averages to 18 kts, but I didn't see that figure in JAIC.

In addition, an average of 18kts seems a bit fast.

The total distance between Tallinn and Stockholm via Sandhamn is 225 nautical miles and via Söderarm 228 nautical miles. To keep the schedule, the required average speed in unrestricted waters between Tallinn and Stockholm was 16.5 knots via Sandhamn and 17.0 knots via Söderarm. The normal time for entering the Stockholm Archipelago by the Sandhamn passage was 0515 hrs at the Revengegrundet lighthouse, and by the Söderarm passage 0425 hrs at the Söderarm lighthouse.
Click to expand...
(This is from the same web page, but in the Timetable section.)

Now, she did leave Tallinn fifteen minutes late that night but made up for it by 10:00pm. Same page, in the Speed section:
The ESTONIA departed from Tallinn 15 minutes late from her normal schedule. The manoeuvre from the port to the Tallinn leading lights is estimated to have taken about 10 minutes. It must be assumed that full service speed, i.e. about 19 knots, was maintained from the Tallinn breakwater to Osmussaar lighthouse, which she passed very close at 2200 hrs. Her estimated speed was still close to 19 knots and she was now a few minutes ahead of normal schedule.
Click to expand...

So, she was going faster than eighteen knots for a while and slower later on. It could be her average was 18kts over ground for the whole journey, but I can't find that estimate.

Aside: They measure the speed of ships by knots in this report, just as God intended. What possesses them to use m/s for wind speed? Here in the States, we use knots for wind speed in marine forecasts (but not in weather forecasts for land, so that's mildly confusing too).

Okay, I just checked NOAA and discovered that if you click on land for the forecast, wind is mph, and if you click on the water, wind is in kts, so I was right about using kts for marine forecasts, but I think that's actually pretty weird that it switches like that. Since sailing is more important than anything that happens on land ever, it should be knots all over.
 
Vixen said:
...
Click to expand...

This was a direct response to me, that made no difference that you deleted it because the good Captain had already quoted it and replied.

Do you think that this is acceptable behaviour in a written discussion? Just straight up deleting posts of yours which I assume you now find inconvenient?

Here's another:

Vixen said:
...
Click to expand...

Shameless.
 
Vixen said:
That claim was made by Finnish Rear Admiral Heimo Iivonen, who reported this to the JAIC. He is/was also head of the Finnish Coastguard, so I doubt very much he was being less than honest about this.
Click to expand...


No. The issue is not to do with whether the Russians were blocking/flooding that radio channel on the night the Estonia sank.

The issue is entirely to do with whether the Russians only blocked/flooded that radio channel on the night of the sinking..


See, if the latter were true, then it would at least be feasible to suggest a link between the jamming of the frequency and the sinking; and by extension it would at least be feasible to suggest Russian involvement at some level.

But if the latter is not true - and if the Russians had been jamming this radio channel not only on the night of the sinking but for several continuous months previously as well (as I gather to be the case) - then it makes no sense whatsoever to link the jamming to the sinking.
 
phiwum said:
Did JAIC say that?

The relevant section gives a series of estimates for the speed over ground of the Estonia. If I read it correctly, the speed is estimated as being above 18 knots from departure to about 10:55pm, after which it drops considerably due to sea conditions. Now, it's possible that averages to 18 kts, but I didn't see that figure in JAIC.

In addition, an average of 18kts seems a bit fast.


(This is from the same web page, but in the Timetable section.)

Now, she did leave Tallinn fifteen minutes late that night but made up for it by 10:00pm. Same page, in the Speed section:


So, she was going faster than eighteen knots for a while and slower later on. It could be her average was 18kts over ground for the whole journey, but I can't find that estimate.

Aside: They measure the speed of ships by knots in this report, just as God intended. What possesses them to use m/s for wind speed? Here in the States, we use knots for wind speed in marine forecasts (but not in weather forecasts for land, so that's mildly confusing too).

Okay, I just checked NOAA and discovered that if you click on land for the forecast, wind is mph, and if you click on the water, wind is in kts, so I was right about using kts for marine forecasts, but I think that's actually pretty weird that it switches like that. Since sailing is more important than anything that happens on land ever, it should be knots all over.
Click to expand...

I got it from here:

Voimakas tuuli — varoitus on voimassa 23.9. klo 0.00–24.00

Kovan tuulen varoitus: Pohjois-Itämeren itäosa, Saaristomeri ja Selkämeri: Etelän ja kaakon välistä tuulta 19 m/s.
Click to expand...
https://www.is.fi/supersaa/suomi/turku/633679/
 
Vixen said:
The fire alarm DID go off and an automatic coded message, 'Mr. Skylight 1' and 'Mr. Skylight 2' did go off. this was a code for the crew to know where their meeting point was to deal with passengers. It would explain the water spraying over the car deck monitors: fire sprays, not seawater.
Click to expand...


The general "ship in peril" alarms went off? Or the fire alarms went off?
 
Vixen said:
That seems to be the consensus of some of the survivors. Sara Hedrenius says she saw the military trucks loading onto the ship. She can' understand why her government has refused to confirm it. Bearing in mind it is supposed to be a simple accident due to a design fault in the bow visor.

Ten years later the government confirmed they had been using the ferry for such a purpose.

Russia was not warning the western agencies off out of Estonia, they were seriously angry that FSU state secrets were being smuggled out to hostile foreign powers.
Click to expand...

Weird.

I say this because both the NSA and MI6 intercept Russian communications, and this is important because Russians don't act independently, they only move on orders from Moscow. There would have been orders from Moscow to sink the Estonia, and they would have been made public because the US, UK, and NATO would use the PR to, at the very least, demand more funding for military goodies. You love to cite past Russian military incidents yet you leave out the part where western countries trot out thier intelligence proving Russian involvement and motives (radio/phone intercepts, radar/sonar tapes, photographs, etc).

The idea that the US, UK, and NATO would remain silent is laughable on every level.

And worse, as I already said, nothing about the Estonia sinking resembles a Spetsnaz operation. Had Spetsnaz been onboard Estonia to recover stolen Russian gear they would have done so, and men and or women in possession of said goods would have either been dispatched and tossed overboard, or drugged, and rolled up in a carpet to be driven off the ship when it docked.

To date, the only time Spetsnaz kills a lot of people is when they're trying to rescue them.
 
Vixen said:
'Mr. Skylight' was the Estonia fire drill code, which the crew practised regularly.
Click to expand...


Uh, no. It wasn't the "fire drill code".

It was the code - which is in general use across passenger-carrying merchant shipping - for a general emergency.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20151217-the-secret-codes-youre-not-meant-to-know


Where did you get the idea that it was specifically a fire-related code? Or did that come from the same special place where you've been getting a lot of your "factual" information in this thread from?
 
Vixen said:
The fire alarm DID go off and an automatic coded message, 'Mr. Skylight 1' and 'Mr. Skylight 2' did go off. this was a code for the crew to know where their meeting point was to deal with passengers. It would explain the water spraying over the car deck monitors: fire sprays, not seawater.
Click to expand...


Oh I almost missed this one.

The spray on the vehicle-deck monitors can easily (and with reference to actual evidence) be explained by the tons and tons of seawater gushing into the vehicle deck on account of the bow visor having broken away and the bow ramp having been severely compromised as the visor broke away.
 
Axxman300 said:
Weird.

I say this because both the NSA and MI6 intercept Russian communications, and this is important because Russians don't act independently, they only move on orders from Moscow. There would have been orders from Moscow to sink the Estonia, and they would have been made public because the US, UK, and NATO would use the PR to, at the very least, demand more funding for military goodies. You love to cite past Russian military incidents yet you leave out the part where western countries trot out thier intelligence proving Russian involvement and motives (radio/phone intercepts, radar/sonar tapes, photographs, etc).

The idea that the US, UK, and NATO would remain silent is laughable on every level.

And worse, as I already said, nothing about the Estonia sinking resembles a Spetsnaz operation. Had Spetsnaz been onboard Estonia to recover stolen Russian gear they would have done so, and men and or women in possession of said goods would have either been dispatched and tossed overboard, or drugged, and rolled up in a carpet to be driven off the ship when it docked.
Click to expand...


GCHQ (Aside from that dreadfully pedantic correction on my part, I agree totally with everything you wrote).



To date, the only time Spetsnaz kills a lot of people is when they're trying to rescue them.
Click to expand...


And that's why I'm reluctant to go to the theatre whenever I'm in Moscow.....
 
LondonJohn said:
I don't think phiwum was asking for supporting evidence for the wind speed.

Phiwum was asking for supporting evidence that the official report had stated Estonia's average speed (over the whole journey up to the point of sinking) was 18kts.
Click to expand...

Simple maths. The distance from Tallinn to Utö is 194 km. = 120.55 miles = 104.76 nm = 16 knots ave over 6.55 hours.

If it was doing 2 knots faster or slower, that would be an increase of 3 miles +/- per hour, so either 18 miles more or 18miles less, giving a range of between 138 miles - 102.55 miles ( 222 km - 165 km) but we know it reached 193 km (Utö) so that fits with the estimated 120.55 miles travelled during that time to end up in the spot it was found.
 
LondonJohn said:
I don't think phiwum was asking for supporting evidence for the wind speed.

Phiwum was asking for supporting evidence that the official report had stated Estonia's average speed (over the whole journey up to the point of sinking) was 18kts.
Click to expand...

Quite right. I discussed wind speed in an aside to complain about units, nothing more. My question was about the ferry's speed over ground.
 
Vixen said:
Common knowledge. Ports are like airports. Shipping lines and airline companies pay to use them.


They are 'authorities' and have legal powers such as customs and security, etc., etc.
Click to expand...

I don't know any port that would 'fine' or charge a ship for not arriving at a set time. Weather and tide are always variables.

Where are you getting this from?
 
LondonJohn said:
Uh, no. It wasn't the "fire drill code".

It was the code - which is in general use across passenger-carrying merchant shipping - for a general emergency.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20151217-the-secret-codes-youre-not-meant-to-know


Where did you get the idea that it was specifically a fire-related code? Or did that come from the same special place where you've been getting a lot of your "factual" information in this thread from?
Click to expand...

Have a read through Silver Linde's witness statement 2002, wherein he explains it very well https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/pdf/Enclosure16.pdf

In addition the shipping line had had bomb threats so this bomb threat scenario was part of the Mr Skylight fire drill. It was nothing at all to do with 'ship sinking!'.
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh I almost missed this one.

The spray on the vehicle-deck monitors can easily (and with reference to actual evidence) be explained by the tons and tons of seawater gushing into the vehicle deck on account of the bow visor having broken away and the bow ramp having been severely compromised as the visor broke away.
Click to expand...

The German Group of Expert put forward the alternative version of a water spray in case of fire.

You can see where the belief that the car deck had some corrosive fumes came from, especially as the stern car ramp had also been opened at the top.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom