Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part III

[Vixen]

Great. What is their travel time? Or do you somehow think they could be "johny on the spot" instantaneously? Ships somehow operate as speedboats? You die in five minutes in such waters. I wait to hear how it is that you think that any Finnish coast guard wessel could get there faster, Mr. Chekov.

It proves Russia was economical with the truth as to whether it had any vessels in the area as of the time of the accident.

 

[junkshop]

65 NM at a top speed of 7.2 knots is 9 hours.

Dammit, you googled faster than me!

 

[Vixen]

The first MAYDAY was transmitted at 01:22, with a second at 01:24.



[source] https://onse.fi/estonia/chapt01.html

And this:



This is all you need to know. The Mariella was nine miles away, and was the CLOSEST VESSEL. Both the Mariella and the Silla Europa had Estonia on their radars until she went under at 01:50.

The buoys were not a factor in this story. Sure, they might have helped a little, but not in any meaningful way.

All that matters was the actions of the captain and crew that night. Period.

It's not enough to just call Mayday. As has been revealed, the quick-thinking Capt Thornroos of the Mariella received the Mayday Tammes sent but had no coordinates. The convention is to say mayday three times and to speak in English. When he could not get a reply back, Thornroos took the initiative to radio MRCC Turku (coordinated rescue centre coast guard) on both Channel 16 and then on 2182. No response. He then managed to call direct on his NMT handset. This was excellent reaction insofar this was within two minutes of Tammes desperate call. MRCC Turku and Nauvo needed to swing the rescue into action officially - as explained by a poster - and it wasn't until 0140 almost TWENTY MINUTES later, Europa was able to tell Helsinki Radio the coordinates of Estonia. Think about that. MRCC Turku then instructed Helsinki Raido circa 0148 iirc to put out the official Mayday on behalf of Estonia and they put out a pan-pan at 0154; I don't know whether this was a gap in training or because of a technical reason. MRCC Turku did not get through to Stockholm until about 0200 and this requisition for helicopter rescue is logged by Stockholm Operations as 0202. As I recall, according to JAIC although Stockholm is only a short flight to Turku, the first didn't arrive until almost two hours later 0350iirc, although Aftonbladet 28 Sept 1994 has Y4 departing just after two, which I believe is correct.


It is quite misguided to claim the communications were in anyway normal and as a recommendation the JAIC, together with the authorities, brought out an updated protocol that if a ship was stricken, then MRCC shouldl immediately put out an official notice of a mayday on its behalf - having to go via third parties was a factor in the massive half an hour delay.

The question remains: there were four senior naval officers as well as the captain: all highly qualified and trained. Yet why was the mayday made on a presumed hand held walkie talkie by the third or fourth officer? Why didn't the captain send it? Where was he?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It proves Russia was economical with the truth as to whether it had any vessels in the area as of the time of the accident.

Only if the Russians think ships more than 100km away are still "in the area".

 

[LondonJohn]

The question remains: there were four senior naval officers as well as the captain: all highly qualified and trained. Yet why was the mayday made on a presumed hand held walkie talkie by the third or fourth officer? Why didn't the captain send it? Where was he?

Possibly because the Master and the Chief Officer were both drunk/asleep/lazy/panicking their heads off (delete as appropriate) at that point.

Not for any malevolent reason though. Obviously.

 

[Steve]

Only if the Russians think ships more than 100km away are still "in the area".

Whether the Russians think that is irrelevant. The only relevance to this thread is that Vixen thinks that.

 

[Axxman300]

One thing of note: whilst the Russians denied there had been any Russian vessels within the region at the time, Sweden has never issued a denial that any of its submarines were in the area.

It's the flippin' Baltic Sea. Why wouldn't Sweden have a submarine in the Baltic? Why wouldn't the Russians have ships in the Baltic?

This is like noting the California Highway Patrol never issued a statement they didn't have any patrol vehicles on the 405 yesterday.

This is a worthless factoid.

 

[Vixen]

This report echoes most of what I wrote early on in the last thread when I looked that the Bathymetry of the area. The fractures in the hull are CLEARY from impact with the granite outcrops. The report says Estonia lies at a downward angle with her midsection on bedrock, and her bow and stern in soft sediment, and the angle means that part of the ship is exposed to corrosive conditions while the other half is protected by depth.

In short: Estonia hit the bottom on her starboard side, striking the granite outcropping causing the gashes in her side, and over the years the uneven support of the hull has caused the wreck to bend. The expedition recorded strong currents at the wreck site, and Estonia rests at the top of a box canyon which leads into a deeper canyon which means it is subject to dramatic current shifts and upwelling year-round.

Spoiler Alert: That wreck will eventually roll down into the box canyon and put itself out of reach of salvage teams within thirty years [this is my personal observation]

While interesting as far as marine archeology goes, this whole thing has been a farce.

I beg to differ. The people expressing amazement that there are rocky outcrops near the vessel and 'that explains it all' do not know their north European geography. The Last Glacial Maximum (Ice Age) was centred around the northern mountains of [what we now call] Sweden at its thickest layers of ice. When this gradually melted, the underlying smooth rock (crags, mountains) were heavily eroded - smashed into boulders, rocks and pebbles - and the land gradually rose out of the sea (or, if you like, the sea receded). However, because of the geology, the archipelago around Sweden and Finland consists of over 25,000 islands, skerries and rocks. Finland is the 'land of 100,000 lakes' because of this ice age geography, likewise, Norway has deep fjords in the west due to the same geological erosions. In fact, it would be shock if there were no rocky outcrops where Estonia lies, not matter where it sank. Had it sunk in the English Channel, or the Pacific Ocean, then a rocky outcrop might look like the culprit of any damage.

What needs to be ascertained is which damage is because of the rocky outcrop and then we will start getting a clear picture.

Poser for you: if an imaginary ship is torpedoed in the archipelago and it hits a rocky outcrop on the seabed, does that mean the new cause of the damage the rocky outcrop or would the torpedo still remain the primary cause of the salient damage that one is interested in?

Pic from Wikipedia

 

[Vixen]

What is your source that MRCC was in contact with the Russian ship? The link you have provided say no such thing.

OK, so it was the Jussarö Coast Guard Station near Hangö. I made an assumption it was Turku MRCC because it was headed for rocks. I see it was a bit further to the east by about 1°. The thrust remains that they were alerted by coastguards and their position noted.

 

[Vixen]

Effective? How soon they forget. We have done this already.

Do you not remember any of the previous times when we discussed how long it could take for COPAS-SARSAT to triangulate the position of an EPIRB? Was it seconds? No. It could take a couple of hours. By that time, rescue ships were already on the scene thanks to the mayday calls.

Any potential rescuer who was still waiting for a 406MHz beacon to be located was not going to be any help, even if the beacons had been activated, because all the information they could have provided was already known before the ship sank and they floated free.

That's not the point. That is like saying, 'there is no point having epirbs at all!'.

 

[Vixen]

Plus it was not 'there' it was over 100 kilometers away.

The idea is fetching help. When the Kursk accident happened, several countries immediately offered to go to their assistance, as the crash registered on the seismic monitors in the area.

 

[Axxman300]

It's not enough to just call Mayday. As has been revealed, the quick-thinking Capt Thornroos of the Mariella received the Mayday Tammes sent but had no coordinates. The convention is to say mayday three times and to speak in English. When he could not get a reply back, Thornroos took the initiative to radio MRCC Turku (coordinated rescue centre coast guard) on both Channel 16 and then on 2182. No response. He then managed to call direct on his NMT handset. This was excellent reaction insofar this was within two minutes of Tammes desperate call. MRCC Turku and Nauvo needed to swing the rescue into action officially - as explained by a poster - and it wasn't until 0140 almost TWENTY MINUTES later, Europa was able to tell Helsinki Radio the coordinates of Estonia. Think about that. MRCC Turku then instructed Helsinki Raido circa 0148 iirc to put out the official Mayday on behalf of Estonia and they put out a pan-pan at 0154; I don't know whether this was a gap in training or because of a technical reason. MRCC Turku did not get through to Stockholm until about 0200 and this requisition for helicopter rescue is logged by Stockholm Operations as 0202. As I recall, according to JAIC although Stockholm is only a short flight to Turku, the first didn't arrive until almost two hours later 0350iirc, although Aftonbladet 28 Sept 1994 has Y4 departing just after two, which I believe is correct.

The time from the first MAYDAY until the coordinates were known was 5 minutes. So they knew where Estonia was and were steaming in her direction, more than an hour away.

From the report you clearly have never read:

At 0129 hrs the ESTONIA's position became known, and after receiving the distress message vessels in the vicinity turned towards the scene of the accident. The MARIELLA was by that time about nine nautical miles away from the ESTONIA. The Silja Europa, which had direct radio contact with the ESTONIA during the distress traffic, assumed control of the distress radio traffic and at 0205 hrs MRCC Turku designated her master as the On-Scene Commander (OSC).
After receiving the distress call MRCC Turku alerted rescue units and those responsible for the management of the rescue services. The first units to be alerted were the coast guard patrol vessel TURSAS at 0126 hrs and stand-by maritime rescue helicopter OH-HVG in Turku at 0135 hrs. The helicopter took off at 0230 hrs. MRCC Turku formally designated the situation as a major accident at 0230 hrs and the appropriate alarms were initiated.
At 0142 hrs the MARIELLA informed Helsinki Radio about the accident. Instead of transmitting a Mayday Relay Helsinki Radio transmitted a Pan-Pan message at 0150 hrs.
Maritime Rescue Subcentre (MRSC) Mariehamn informed MRCC Stockholm of the accident at 0152 hrs, whereupon the alerting of Swedish maritime rescue helicopters was initiated. The first of these, stand-by helicopter Q 97, took off at 0250 hrs.
MRCC Helsinki notified MRCC Tallinn of the accident at 0255 hrs.

[source: https://onse.fi/estonia/chapt07_1.html#1]

I'll say it again, the buoys played no factor in this disaster whatsoever. Zero, nada. The closest ships converged on the scene at best speed. The first rescue chopper had problems anyway. You are wasting time and effort on something that, in the scope of this tragedy, is mostly nothing more than background decoration speaking to the many failures of the crew.

The question remains: there were four senior naval officers as well as the captain: all highly qualified and trained. Yet why was the mayday made on a presumed hand held walkie talkie by the third or fourth officer? Why didn't the captain send it? Where was he?

You're the one claiming he was on the bridge. You tell me. Or maybe he left bridge at shift change because that's what Russian-trained officers would do.

 

[Vixen]

It's not "of note" in the slightest.

Just as, for example, it's not of note that the US has never issued a denial that any of its classified focussed-ultrasonic-beam attack vessels were in the area that night.

You do know the USA has discreet 'listening stations' in the region (SOSUS) which keeps an eye - or should I say ear - on the comings and goings of Russian vessels. Surely it must be known what submarines were in the area that night, identified or unidentified. One of the Stockholm University pictures shows what looks like submarine tracks along the bed and Jutta Rabe saw some, too, on her expedition, so there are submarines coming and going all the time.

So did the JAIC access the SOSUS logs?

 

[Vixen]

65 NM at a top speed of 7.2 knots is 9 hours.

A high-sided ship is not going to be much use in a rescue without a helicopter deck and a coordinated response. However, it could have alerted help from the Russians.

 

[Axxman300]

I beg to differ. ]

Big shock.

The people expressing amazement that there are rocky outcrops near the vessel and 'that explains it all' do not know their north European geography.

You would be at the top of that list.


The Last Glacial Maximum (Ice Age) was centred ...[ edited for pointless cut and paste geology clap trap]

In fact, it would be shock if there were no rocky outcrops where Estonia lies, not matter where it sank. Had it sunk in the English Channel, or the Pacific Ocean, then a rocky outcrop might look like the culprit of any damage.

Here's the thing: Nobody is shocked by the presence of granite and other rocky outcrops in the Baltic. Nobody. So stop it.

What needs to be ascertained is which damage is because of the rocky outcrop and then we will start getting a clear picture.

1. It wasn't there when the ship sank.
2. The fracture is right along the seam indicating a stress break from either impact, or the hull shifting or both.
3. The photographs show fractured granite directly below the gash, and all of the radar data indicates the wreck has shifted ion the 20 years on the bottom.

Poser for you: if an imaginary ship is torpedoed in the archipelago and it hits a rocky outcrop on the seabed, does that mean the new cause of the damage the rocky outcrop or would the torpedo still remain the primary cause of the salient damage that one is interested in?

Whut?

How about this? A large ocean liner side-swipes an iceberg rupturing enough hull plates to sink. Seventy years later it is discovered in two pieces (the official report claimed it sank intact), and the forward section has two gaping holes on each side. Do we assume it's from a torpedo, or from the impact of the massive section plowing into the sea floor at 30 knots?

I ask only because nobody said there was an explosion, and while nobody has ever asked, but I'm sure Sweden didn't have a submarine in the area.

Or how about this scenario: A ferry sets out in a storm with a bad list which gets worse in the 4-meter high seas, and extreme high winds. The ship capsizes and sinks with only a handful of survivors. The official report blames the crew and the seaworthiness of the vessel although this has been challenged a few times in court. The ship lies on her side at the bottom of the Baltic, but a significant hole has been recorded. Do we assume the official report covered this hole up, or should we assume structural failure after sinking?

 

[phiwum]

That's not the point. That is like saying, 'there is no point having epirbs at all!'.

No, there's value in EPIRBs in many situations, even back when it took two hours to get a coordinate fix on one.

This wasn't one of those situations and so disabling the EPIRBs would have been a useless task, unless Estonia was intended to sink quite slowly.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Vixen]

The time from the first MAYDAY until the coordinates were known was 5 minutes. So they knew where Estonia was and were steaming in her direction, more than an hour away.

From the report you clearly have never read:



[source: https://onse.fi/estonia/chapt07_1.html#1]

I'll say it again, the buoys played no factor in this disaster whatsoever. Zero, nada. The closest ships converged on the scene at best speed. The first rescue chopper had problems anyway. You are wasting time and effort on something that, in the scope of this tragedy, is mostly nothing more than background decoration speaking to the many failures of the crew.



You're the one claiming he was on the bridge. You tell me. Or maybe he left bridge at shift change because that's what Russian-trained officers would do.

Axxman300, do read what you quote. Read this carefully:

"At 0129 hrs the ESTONIA's position became known, and after receiving the distress message vessels in the vicinity turned towards the scene of the accident. The MARIELLA was by that time about nine nautical miles away from the ESTONIA. The Silja Europa, which had direct radio contact with the ESTONIA during the distress traffic, assumed control of the distress radio traffic and at 0205 hrs MRCC Turku designated her master as the On-Scene Commander (OSC)."

Look at the times. Estonia sank - disappeared from radar - at 0148.

All these posters saying, 'ah but JAIC say 14 targets heard the mayday and this happened this time and that time".

But the salient times are the

• First mayday call (received) 1:21:55
• second mayday call received shortly after with coordinates
• MRCC coastguard got mayday phonecall from Mariella NMT but says he hear it anyway
• twenty minutes is now spent with Helsinki Radio trying to discover the coordinates
• Helsinki Raidio gets the coordinates from Europa
• 0148 - Estonia has sunk like a stone completely
• 0148 MRCC Turku instructs Helsinki Radio to put ut the formal Mayday notice
• 0154 Helsinki Radio puts out a pan-pan (=this is the formal mayday/pan-pan)
• Stockholm and Helsinki coordinate helicopters on instruction at circa 0200

Instead of being blinded by the list of all these people hearing all this messages, the fact of the matter is the Mayday Proper was not actioned until 0154 some six minutes after Estonia was already at the bottom of the see.


No matter how busy you try ot make everybody look, the fact staring at you is that telecommunications were down no matter if 14 or 14444 people heard Tammes on his walkie-talkie. What is salient is when the mayday came into effect. Stop pretending all ran smoothly.

I don't know if Captain Andresson was on the bridge or not. However, it was his official watch, as from 0100 to I believe 0400, together with two of the other four senior officers. We had Ainsalu and Tammes calling the mayday. They both escaped from the bridge. Ainsalu's body has never been found, Tammes' body was recovered. That leaves us to presume one of the bodies on the bridge was likely Juhan Herma, who was the voice calling out the coordinates to Tammes. It is likely one is Kaunasaar and possibly Kikas, which is three bodies.

So where was Andresson? Some reports say divers actually noted five bodies, one pulled out of the doorwell as they entered the bridge and one with a cabinet on top of him, with a tattoo on his hand, which none of the officers had. A Finnish diver is reported to have seen Andresson with a bullet in his head, which sounds plausible to me, given when the Wilhelm Gustloff sank, military personnel started shooting their wives and children dead rather than have them face the fear of drowning, and gunshots could be heard from the lower decks as the ship went down.

 

[Vixen]

Big shock.




You would be at the top of that list.


The Last Glacial Maximum (Ice Age) was centred ...[ edited for pointless cut and paste geology clap trap]



Here's the thing: Nobody is shocked by the presence of granite and other rocky outcrops in the Baltic. Nobody. So stop it.





1. It wasn't there when the ship sank.
2. The fracture is right along the seam indicating a stress break from either impact, or the hull shifting or both.
3. The photographs show fractured granite directly below the gash, and all of the radar data indicates the wreck has shifted ion the 20 years on the bottom.



Whut?

How about this? A large ocean liner side-swipes an iceberg rupturing enough hull plates to sink. Seventy years later it is discovered in two pieces (the official report claimed it sank intact), and the forward section has two gaping holes on each side. Do we assume it's from a torpedo, or from the impact of the massive section plowing into the sea floor at 30 knots?

I ask only because nobody said there was an explosion, and while nobody has ever asked, but I'm sure Sweden didn't have a submarine in the area.

Or how about this scenario: A ferry sets out in a storm with a bad list which gets worse in the 4-meter high seas, and extreme high winds. The ship capsizes and sinks with only a handful of survivors. The official report blames the crew and the seaworthiness of the vessel although this has been challenged a few times in court. The ship lies on her side at the bottom of the Baltic, but a significant hole has been recorded. Do we assume the official report covered this hole up, or should we assume structural failure after sinking?

I seem to recall that in an earlier post you stated that IYV the vessel landed on its starboard side and struck a granite rock, hence the damage. What are your assumptions it fell on its starboard side, when all of the indications and eye witnesses said it landed stern first and then face forward? The bottom of the hull appears intact, so whilst the starboard side has remained hidden (claim the JAIC) it doesn't follow that is the side that landed heaviest or first. Sure there can be momentum as a ship sinks and it twists but saying it must have done so just because there is a rocky ridge - which was actually anchoring the vessel in place by the bridge being hooked over it, doesn't mean it did.

 

[Axxman300]

I did read what I posted and I stick by it, the buoys would have been redundantly worthless.

The Mariella was on scene by 02:12, at 02:30 the Silja Europa joined her.

All of your histrionics can't change this fact.

The lag in the rescue operation is a secondary issue unrelated to the fact the bow visor was knocked off in rough seas because the captain chose to sail at flank speed into the waves.

The issue is the bow visor and why it took so much damage, followed by the actions of the command and engineering crew.

 

[Axxman300]

I seem to recall that in an earlier post you stated that IYV the vessel landed on its starboard side and struck a granite rock, hence the damage. What are your assumptions it fell on its starboard side, when all of the indications and eye witnesses said it landed stern first and then face forward? The bottom of the hull appears intact, so whilst the starboard side has remained hidden (claim the JAIC) it doesn't follow that is the side that landed heaviest or first. Sure there can be momentum as a ship sinks and it twists but saying it must have done so just because there is a rocky ridge - which was actually anchoring the vessel in place by the bridge being hooked over it, doesn't mean it did.

I assure there are no witnesses to the ship hitting the bottom.

And the idea that the bridge is strong enough to anchor the wreck to anything is an obvious structural impossibility.