The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part II

[JayUtah]

Oh please. Anyone who owns a rowing boat knows a bit of water in the boat is normal. These Vikings were master boat builders and sailors. Sure, it may have taken five hundred years to perfect their skill but perfect, they did.

So your supposition trumps historical fact? Did they teach a lot of shipbuilding history in accounting school? Again, the most well-known thing about Viking ships is how important it was to keep them bailed out, lest they founder.

 

[JayUtah]

The attached diagram shows exactly what Professor Westermann examined.

The statements she made about no signs of contact deformation were made specifically in conjunction with the three specimens on which she performed microscopic metallurgical analysis. I watched the press conference.

 

[LondonJohn]

Problem is, there are no witnesses as to when the bow visor fell off and no witnesses as to the car ramp being open, other than a 10º gap at the top, and even this is presumed based on the word of one of the crew who only saw it on a monitor, and even then he described water coming in through the sides, not the top.

There are a lot of assumptions here which have never been proven.

The assumption - which all points to being a false premise - is that it was a facsimile of the Herald of Free Enterprise accident, and therefore they had to postulate that in order for that to have happened, the bow visor and car ramp needed to be not there.

However, there are plenty of doubts about this:

• the Captain didn't steer the ship towards shallow water
• the car ramp was often secured with a hewser as the locks didn't align
• if it was secured to a capstan/windlass then it could not have been torn open (unless you are arguing the waves also cut through thick rope and a cast iron capstan
• the original Rockwater divers found the ramp shut and thus could not enter the car deck (they claimed)
• Arikas of OJK (July 2021) and Kurm for Mare Liberatum (Sept 2021) both found it hanging open
• Kurm discovered that contrary to the JAIC hypothesis water and airpressure smashed Deck 4 windows, the car deck doors can be seen to be intact and shut.

No. Just because you believe that the investigators jumped to the conclusion that the cause of this accident was the same as in the HOFE disaster, and that only then (again, per your belief) did they go searching for things to justify their assumption.....

....doesn't make it actually so. And of course it isn't so.

The true reason why the investigators arrived at their conclusions is that they did a proper investigation. The most important part of that investigation was the survey of the wreck and the surrounding seabed. They found that the bow visor was lying on its own, some considerable distance from the ship. From the bow visor's position, and its position relative to the ship, they could safely conclude that the visor had detached from the ship at surface level, many minutes before the ship sank.

Next, they found that the lugs on the hull-side portion of the visor's bottom lock had catastrophically failed. Further analysis showed that the failure was due to a combination of cumulative fatigue and the stresses placed on the lock that night.

And finally, they found that the bow ramp's structural integrity had been significantly compromised, and that this must have happened when the bow ramp tore itself free from the ship.

And that, Vixen, is how/why the investigators reached the conclusion - the correct conclusion - that the failure/detachment of the bow visor, coupled with the compromising of the bow ramp, had allowed sea water to cascade onto the vehicle deck. And fortunately they - unlike you - understood enough about marine engineering and shipbuilding to be able to calculate the fatal effect that this rate and mass of water ingress would have upon the viability of the ship.

 

[Vixen]

Where is the nearest shallow water to where the MS Estonia sank?

As you can see on the attached relief map, there are some quick shallow waters towards the North East. The wind was a brisk blustery westerly so to turn into it as it did was to turn fully head on to the 6m waves. Had it turned away towards the north east, if the only problem was water on the car deck, that would have had the effect of being able to wash the water away, either through the open car ramp or via the scuppers. That is what the captain should have done. Andresson was highly disciplined and well-trained so the JAIC should have made more of an effort to find out what happened to him. We only have Linde's word he was on the bridge. a most unreliable witness, who originally named three or four guys other than the ones he finally settled on.

 

[LondonJohn]

The Vikings had large steel ships? Maybe you don't possess the critical acumen required.

*sigh*

I had only ever introduced Viking longships as a means to an end (the "end" here being trying to help you understand your ignorance about this whole "turning turtle" nonsense.

But if you wish to keep things strictly to a comparison with Viking ships in this little drift....

.....then a plastic/fibreglass dinghy with sealed air ballast chambers is a totally different kettle of fish from a Viking longship.

Does that help?

 

[Vixen]

How does that stop the boat sinking if it fills with water?
Why do you think the Vikings avoided sailing in rough weather?

Even the Estline, Silja and Viking Line ships in 1994 never sailed when severe weather was forecast.

 

[Andy_Ross]

How would the water 'wash away'? turning away from the waves after the bow visor was gone would have made no difference, the ship would still be plunging in to the sea. Turning away before the bow visor was gone would have eased the strain on it and maybe saved the sghip but in a storm the last thing you do is head in to shallow water or a lee shore.
If the ship had beached in 6 meter waves it would have been pounded to pieces.

 

[Vixen]

So your supposition trumps historical fact? Did they teach a lot of shipbuilding history in accounting school? Again, the most well-known thing about Viking ships is how important it was to keep them bailed out, lest they founder.

Note how they had very strong keels, a quite broad base and high sides.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sorry, are you claiming the Vikings knew nothing about buoyancy?

I strongly advise you to take a good look at the longboat design and then come back and say they knew nothing about buoyancy.

Gosh. This is quite a breathtaking leap of logic from you, even by your standards.

(Or perhaps you'd like to point out to me a) how/why you think I stated or implied that "the Vikings knew nothing about buoyancy" in the post of mine to which you responded here, and/or b) where/how/why I stated or implied that anywhere else in this thread?)

 

[LondonJohn]

The attached diagram shows exactly what Professor Westermann examined.

I think he knows that.

Now, when you take those three bow visor sections combined, what rough proportion of the whole bow visor would you say they comprised?

 

[Vixen]

No. Just because you believe that the investigators jumped to the conclusion that the cause of this accident was the same as in the HOFE disaster, and that only then (again, per your belief) did they go searching for things to justify their assumption.....

....doesn't make it actually so. And of course it isn't so.

The true reason why the investigators arrived at their conclusions is that they did a proper investigation. The most important part of that investigation was the survey of the wreck and the surrounding seabed. They found that the bow visor was lying on its own, some considerable distance from the ship. From the bow visor's position, and its position relative to the ship, they could safely conclude that the visor had detached from the ship at surface level, many minutes before the ship sank.

Next, they found that the lugs on the hull-side portion of the visor's bottom lock had catastrophically failed. Further analysis showed that the failure was due to a combination of cumulative fatigue and the stresses placed on the lock that night.

And finally, they found that the bow ramp's structural integrity had been significantly compromised, and that this must have happened when the bow ramp tore itself free from the ship.

And that, Vixen, is how/why the investigators reached the conclusion - the correct conclusion - that the failure/detachment of the bow visor, coupled with the compromising of the bow ramp, had allowed sea water to cascade onto the vehicle deck. And fortunately they - unlike you - understood enough about marine engineering and shipbuilding to be able to calculate the fatal effect that this rate and mass of water ingress would have upon the viability of the ship.

If only your assumption had some basis in reality! In fact, it was the Estonian members who were the naval and marine experts. The Swedish and Finnish JAIC panel members were a mish mash of lawyers, and sundry such types more used to jaw-jaw than draw-draw. Because of the Swedish refusal to give Finland and Estonia full access or look at any other scenario, this is what lead to the two Estonian successive heads resigning and massive infighting all round. Kurm notified the JAIC, as Chief Prosecutor of the concerning starboard findings. Lehtola promised to look into it and delayed publication but in the end he published Carl Bildt's Day One theory and washed his hands of it.

 

[JayUtah]

Note how they had very strong keels, a quite broad base and high sides.

A strong keel has nothing to do with buoyancy. A broad base has nothing to do with buoyancy, although it does give them greater roll stability. Viking ships had notoriously low sides, leading to little reserve freeboard. That has nothing to do with buoyancy, however. They also had notoriously thin strakes, so the tolerances on the seams were hard to maintain. Hence they often leaked. Hence they had to be constantly bailed or else they would founder. That has everything to do with buoyancy.

And yes, they do teach the history of shipbuilding in engineering school. Also, one of our special projects involving additive manufacturing was to produce a physical model of a Viking longboat with accurate mass properties. And yes of course we float-tested it.

 

[LondonJohn]

If only your assumption had some basis in reality! In fact, it was the Estonian members who were the naval and marine experts. The Swedish and Finnish JAIC panel members were a mish mash of lawyers, and sundry such types more used to jaw-jaw than draw-draw. Because of the Swedish refusal to give Finland and Estonia full access or look at any other scenario, this is what lead to the two Estonian successive heads resigning and massive infighting all round. Kurm notified the JAIC, as Chief Prosecutor of the concerning starboard findings. Lehtola promised to look into it and delayed publication but in the end he published Carl Bildt's Day One theory and washed his hands of it.

What are you referring to as "my assumption" here?

 

[JayUtah]

...it was the Estonian members who were the naval and marine experts. The Swedish and Finnish JAIC panel members were a mish mash of lawyers...

You don't have a problem with Estonian lawyers. You have a major problem with the Estonian naval experts who estimated that the newly discovered hole in the starboard side did not allow a flood rate fast enough to sink the ship in half an hour. Your decision about who is qualified and who is not seems to follow nationality more than it does actual occupational expertise.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Note how they had very strong keels, a quite broad base and high sides.

What does that have to do with them sinking if they fill with water?

 

[JayUtah]

I think he knows that.

Now, when you take those three bow visor sections combined, what rough proportion of the whole bow visor would you say they comprised?

Actually the three "evidence areas" outlined in that photo have nothing to do with Prof. Westermann's three specimens. She did not take a sample from each of those three areas or examine each of those areas in detail. She took three samples from one of the evidence areas, a few centimeters apart. One was a control sample, to provide a baseline for crystallography. She then took two experiment samples, measuring a few centimeters in each dimension. It is these samples that she says are devoid of evidence of contact deformation, comprising at most a few dozen square centimeters of the entire 55-tonne structure.

Vixen is trying to conflate the findings of the metallurgist with the attendant claims by the politician. I have zero interest in what the non-technical participants in the investigation have to say on technical matters.

 

[Vixen]

How owuld the water 'wash away'? turning away from the waves after the bow visor was gone would have made no difference, the ship would still be plunging in to the sea. Turning away before the bow visor was gone would have eased the strain on it and maybe saved the sghip but in a storm the last thing you do is head in to shallow water or a lee shore.
If the ship had beached in 6 meter waves it would have been pounded to pieces.

The car deck is well above the waterline, so any excess water washes away, just like on any other deck on a ship. Nobody knows when the bow visor fell off but the JAIC put the time at 1:15, which means it sunk in just over half an hour at 1:48. Now the Jan Heweliusz a car ro-ro which was in terrible condition (repaired by concrete) capsized, killing about 58. However, that didn't sink for five days, notwithstanding its grossly negligent state. So the Estonia sinking as fast as it did should have been a huge flag.

Now, if an explosive blew the bow visor off, that would also explain the deformation on the car ramp stiffeners, and likewise the preceding/simultaneous breach to the starboard. Now that would explain why the Estonia sank like the Wilhelm Gustloff and not the Jan Heweliusz.

 

[Andy_Ross]

A strong keel has nothing to do with buoyancy. A broad base has nothing to do with buoyancy, although it does give them greater roll stability. Viking ships had notoriously low sides, leading to little reserve freeboard. That has nothing to do with buoyancy, however. They also had notoriously thin strakes, so the tolerances on the seams were hard to maintain. Hence they often leaked. Hence they had to be constantly bailed or else they would founder. That has everything to do with buoyancy.

And yes, they do teach the history of shipbuilding in engineering school. Also, one of our special projects involving additive manufacturing was to produce a physical model of a Viking longboat with accurate mass properties. And yes of course we float-tested it.

They were caulked when the hull was dry and relied on the timber swelling when wet to keep them watertight. Their timbers were always 'working' and there was as you say a constant leak at the seams.
Contrary to popular myth the Vikings were coastal sailors, long open sea passages were quite rare.

 

[Kid Eager]

The car deck is well above the waterline, so any excess water washes away, just like on any other deck on a ship. Nobody knows when the bow visor fell off but the JAIC put the time at 1:15, which means it sunk in just over half an hour at 1:48. Now the Jan Heweliusz a car ro-ro which was in terrible condition (repaired by concrete) capsized, killing about 58. However, that didn't sink for five days, notwithstanding its grossly negligent state. So the Estonia sinking as fast as it did should have been a huge flag.

Now, if an explosive blew the bow visor off, that would also explain the deformation on the car ramp stiffeners, and likewise the preceding/simultaneous breach to the starboard. Now that would explain why the Estonia sank like the Wilhelm Gustloff and not the Jan Heweliusz.

But even *if* explosives were used, it would have made no difference whatsoever because according to Vixen Physics, "The car deck is well above the waterline, so any excess water washes away, just like on any other deck on a ship."

 

[Vixen]

A strong keel has nothing to do with buoyancy. A broad base has nothing to do with buoyancy, although it does give them greater roll stability. Viking ships had notoriously low sides, leading to little reserve freeboard. That has nothing to do with buoyancy, however. They also had notoriously thin strakes, so the tolerances on the seams were hard to maintain. Hence they often leaked. Hence they had to be constantly bailed or else they would founder. That has everything to do with buoyancy.

And yes, they do teach the history of shipbuilding in engineering school. Also, one of our special projects involving additive manufacturing was to produce a physical model of a Viking longboat with accurate mass properties. And yes of course we float-tested it.

Can I ask whether you have considered simulating the Estonia accident?