• 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:
Take a look at this video at circa 2.25 in.



AIUI there is a ramp that links the quay to the ship's car ramp so the cars roll on at some height.
Click to expand...

Is that a yes or a no? If it's a yes, how did that crewman manage to carry out his bodged welding job on the lock if it was underwater?

I'm going to go with this picture I found on MS Estonia's wikipedia page which shows the bottom of the visor is above the waterline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Estonia#/media/File:Kuva3_1s.gif
 
Vixen said:
Captain_Swoop said:
After capsizing, which means it couldn't have caused the capsizing.

I've just noticed this:

JAIC

If the winds were southwesterly with the vessel travelling near westerly forwards, thus waves almost full on to the port side of the bow, why would Captain Andresson steer the vessel headlong into the 4m waves? Was he in control fo the vessel or was it someone who had no idea what they were doing. There were four officers on the watch (or should have been): Andresson, Kaunusaar, Ainsalu and Tammes. Hard to believe they had no idea how to turn the ship away from the onslaught. Even if they were only veering to shallower waters, that would have still been towards the east (Finnish coast) and to starboard.
Click to expand...

It was the water on the car deck that caused the capsize. Given the area of the deck a hlf meter depth of water would be around 2000 tons. With the shhip rolling this would all move to the lower side and cause the ship to roll past the point of recovery.
Remember we went in to detail about 'free surface effect'?

It is better to take waves head on rather than not. A ship not head on in to waves will roll. The more towards the beam the sea is being taken the more the ship will roll.

If his course meant taking them on the front quarter rather than head on that's what he would do.
Once there was known to be a problem with the bow he should have come about and put the stern to the sea. As we know the problem with the bow wasn't properly investigated and when the visor was lost it was too late to save the ship.
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
The bow visor lower part (atlantic lock area) would be banging on the bulbous bow area every time the thing moved forward and down.
Click to expand...

Why do you think it would be moving 'forwards'?
What part of the bulb would it be banging on?
 
Vixen said:
I have looked into the JAIC report. It clearly concludes that the water quickly flooded deck four (upper car deck) ...
Click to expand...
Deck 2 and 3 are the car deck. Deck 4 is the accommodation deck above it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Estonia#/media/File:Kuva3_12s.gif

However, it has to assume a broken window to conclude the rapid sinking. The car deck doesn't have windows, so it is assumed the water breached the car deck so violent as to smash windows in the accommodation areas.
Click to expand...

I think your assumption completely misunderstands what they meant. They do not propose that windows on deck 4 were somehow smashed by the violence with which water entered the car deck below. They suggest they were burst in by hydrostatic pressure when the list became so severe that those windows were underwater.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Is that a yes or a no? If it's a yes, how did that crewman manage to carry out his bodged welding job on the lock if it was underwater?

I'm going to go with this picture I found on MS Estonia's wikipedia page which shows the bottom of the visor is above the waterline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Estonia#/media/File:Kuva3_1s.gif
Click to expand...

The top of the bulbous bow area is pretty much on the water line. In a storm or with a heavy cargo it will certainly be below it. When the crew were trying to fix the visor on previous trips I assumed it was from within the car deck.
 
Vixen said:
Take a look at this video at circa 2.25 in.



AIUI there is a ramp that links the quay to the ship's car ramp so the cars roll on at some height.
Click to expand...

How does that answer the question?

The visor is not in contact with the bulb. How would it bang on the bulb?
 
Vixen said:
The top of the bulbous bow area is pretty much on the water line. In a storm or with a heavy cargo it will certainly be below it. When the crew were trying to fix the visor on previous trips I assumed it was from within the car deck.
Click to expand...

So how could it bang on the bulb?
 
Vixen said:
The top of the bulbous bow area is pretty much on the water line. In a storm or with a heavy cargo it will certainly be below it. When the crew were trying to fix the visor on previous trips I assumed it was from within the car deck.
Click to expand...

The bulb on the bow is intended to be underwater since it has to be there to do its job. The visor is not intended to be underwater and it's not at all "certain" that the ship could be loaded until the Atlantic lock was underwater. If you have evidence that it could, by all means present it.

The crew who once bodged a repair on the Atlantic lock could not have been operating from within the car deck as the ramp would have been between them and the lock.

In any case, I have now quite forgotten why it was that you first wanted to claim the bottom of the visor was below the waterline. Can you please remind us whatever point you hoped to make about that?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Deck 2 and 3 are the car deck. Deck 4 is the accommodation deck above it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Estonia#/media/File:Kuva3_12s.gif



I think your assumption completely misunderstands what they meant. They do not propose that windows on deck 4 were somehow smashed by the violence with which water entered the car deck below. They suggest they were burst in by hydrostatic pressure when the list became so severe that those windows were underwater.
Click to expand...

That would be correct.

Re the windows smashing: by the time the vessel was at that type of list for the sea to be in direct contact with the deck 4 windows, that wouldn't be a cause of the ship sinking but a result of it sinking.
 
Vixen said:
Re the windows smashing: by the time the vessel was at that type of list for the sea to be in direct contact with the deck 4 windows, that wouldn't be a cause of the ship sinking but a result of it sinking.
Click to expand...

In those heavy seas, what degree of list do you propose would be required for the sea to be in direct contact with windows on deck 4?

What degree of list did Estonia reach before it sank?

<edit to add> If smashed windows on deck 4 are proposed as the means by which flooding progressed, the one thing we can definitely infer is that the sea would not pour into those windows until such time as it could reach them.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
That would be correct.

Re the windows smashing: by the time the vessel was at that type of list for the sea to be in direct contact with the deck 4 windows, that wouldn't be a cause of the ship sinking but a result of it sinking.
Click to expand...

No it would be a cause as the ship would fill with water at a faster rate and lose buoyancy.
 
Vixen said:
Westermann and myself were referring to the bulbous bow area. See the area in blue.
Click to expand...

not all the blue area is the bulb. Only the bit that is the bulb is the bulb.

It is obviously not in contact with the visor.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
not all the blue area is the bulb. Only the bit that is the bulb is the bulb.

It is obviously not in contact with the visor.
Click to expand...

Let's clarify what area we are talking about:

JAIC 3.3.2:

"The visor pivoted around the two hinges on the upper deck during its normal opening and closing. It was secured in the closed position by three hydraulically operated locking devices at its lower part. One of these was mounted on the forepeak deck and the other two on the hull front bulkhead with mating lugs on the visor. Additionally, two manual locking devices were located in the area of the hydraulic side locks.

Three locating horns, one on the forepeak deck [shown in picture 2] and two on the front bulkhead, engaged recesses in the visor in order to guide the visor to its proper position when being closed and to absorb lateral loads. The visor was supported vertically in the closed position by the two deck hinges and rested further on three points on the forepeak deck. One of these was the solid stem post of the visor, resting on the ice-breaking stem on top of the bulbous bow, the other two were steel pads on the forepeak deck. The three locking devices kept the visor down in its closed position and the locating horns absorbed any side loads that might develop. Longitudinal loads were carried by the hinges, the locking devices and possibly by direct contact between the visor and the front bulkhead of the hull."
Click to expand...
JIAC report

So we are talking about the area at the top of the bulbous bow, not the bulbous bow itself (obviously).

Likewise the banging was coming from this area, according to JAIC:

13.2.5 Separation of the visor

The first indication that something was wrong in the bow area was noted and reported to the bridge about five minutes before one o'clock by the AB seaman of the watch when he, at the forward ramp on his routine watch round, noted a sharp metallic bang from the bow area. This coincided with a heavy upward acceleration that nearly made him fall. He reported this bang to the bridge. Remaining about five minutes near the ramp he then continued on his round to decks 1 and 0 and finally to the bridge. He heard no more unusual sounds, nor made any unusual observations.
Click to expand...
JAIC

So this AB seaman must have been on the car deck or how else could he have been at the 'forward ramp'. Yet, if so, how come he had to watch the water from a monitor? Surely he was standing in it at that point?
 

Attachments

  • bulkhead1.jpeg
    bulkhead1.jpeg
    46.9 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Let's clarify what area we are talking about:

JIAC report

So we are talking about the area at the top of the bulbous bow, not the bulbous bow itself (obviously).

Likewise the banging was coming from this area, according to JAIC:

JAIC

So this AB seaman must have been on the car deck or how else could he have been at the 'forward ramp'. Yet, if so, how come he had to watch the water from a monitor? Surely he was standing in it at that point?
Click to expand...

He wasn't the one watching the monitor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom