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

[abaddon]

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?

SOSUS does not have any installations in the Baltic. And it's called IUSS these days. And it's declassified. And Kursk was not picked up by the then SOSUS network, It was first reported by NORSAR. And then by other seismic stations. And SOSUS is not a seismic detection system. And Estonia was not equipped with a torpedo room which exploded, setting off seismometers.

 

[abaddon]

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.

Then why were the converging ships asked to ready their helicopter pads? And why did those vessels also ready their MOB boats? Why would they have those, do you think? And why was this co-ordinated by Silja Europa? And the nearest Russian vessel was at least 9 hours away.

 

[Vixen]

Then why were the converging ships asked to ready their helicopter pads? And why did those vessels also ready their MOB boats? Why would they have those, do you think? And why was this co-ordinated by Silja Europa? And the nearest Russian vessel was at least 9 hours away.

Not until after 0205.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I beg to differ. The people expressing amazement that there are rocky outcrops near the vessel ...

Who? Can you quote anyone here doing this?

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Ehhhh what now? Who's expressing amazement about this matter? In fact, the only participant in this thread who ever expressed amazement about a) there being a rock outcrop which the Estonia demonstrably landed on then slipped off, and b) the notion that it was this rock which caused the damage to the Estonia's starboard hull..... is you, Vixen.

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 the bleeding heck does this cut-and-paste passage and your subsequent piece of "analysis" have to do with the Estonia sinking? As I said, all the well-informed people in this thread already know full well about sea floor geography in general, and about the seafloor where the Estonia came to rest in particular.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 11.

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

It's already pretty obvious as to which damage to the Estonia's hull has been caused by that rock outcrop (and the consequent stresses placed upon the ship's deadweight hull as a result of the rock acting as a sort of fulcrum). We already have a clear picture. It's only you and your fellow travellers who do not.

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?

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the Estonia disaster, so it's entirely irrelevant. We already know with absolute certainty that the hole in the Estonia's hull (and the deformations in that area) were not caused by a torpedo hit. How do we know this? Because a) the split in the hull is far, far too minor to have been made by any sort of post-WWII torpedo (or sea mine, for that matter), and b) the split in the hull is demonstrably above the ship's waterline.

There was no torpedo. There was no mysterious Swedish submarine. There was no subterfuge. This ship sank for the very simple reason that its badly-designed, badly-maintained and badly-operated bow visor failed in rough weather and detached from the bow, critically compromising the bow ramp in the process; this in turn allowed seawater to gush into the vehicle deck in tremendous volumes/mass; and this ultimately caused a sufficient list and a sufficient loss of buoyancy for the ship to capsize and sink.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Your evidence-free low-information assumptions aren't working out too well for you in this thread, are they?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... Had it sunk in the English Channel, or the Pacific Ocean, then a rocky outcrop might look like the culprit of any damage.

I genuinely don't understand what point you are trying to make here. It looks as if you are saying landing on rocks where rocks are rare is more likely to cause damage than landing on rocks where they're common. Obviously that's just silly but I can't tell what you do mean.

 

[Steve]

I genuinely don't understand what point you are trying to make here. It looks as if you are saying landing on rocks where rocks are rare is more likely to cause damage than landing on rocks where they're common. Obviously that's just silly but I can't tell what you do mean.

It's the lead in to a change of topic. Prepare for 14+ pages discussing rocky outcrops in soul numbing detail.

 

[LondonJohn]

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

It's not at all like saying that.

It's saying nothing more than: it so happened that in this particular incident, a correct deployment of the EPIRBs would have actually made no difference to the speed or efficacy of any location-identification and rescue operations.

In tight shipping lanes, relatively close to land masses, with high volumes of traffic, it will almost always be the case that regular shipping radio voice communication will serve as a far quicker and more effective/efficient way of identifying the position of a ship in distress and summoning help. Just as happened in the case of the Estonia.

But where ships are sailing in wide shipping lanes across vast bodies of water (eg the Pacific or South Atlantic oceans), EPIRBs can come into their own as the best/fastest/most effective way of a ship in distress identifying its location and summoning help.

For obvious reasons though, SOLAS and other international maritime regulators cannot apply regulations differentially based on some notion of relative efficacy. And that's why, for example, ferries crossing the incredibly busy shipping lanes between the UK and France/Netherlands - with journey times ranging from 8 hours down to just over 1 hour, and with multiple different ferries and freight ships constantly using those lanes - still have to carry EPIRBs. If one of those cross-channel ferries gets into severe difficulties, it's a racing certainty that the ship's precise location and its request for help will be conveyed most quickly and effectively via regular ship-ship or ship-shore radio - and not by means of activated EPIRBs. But they still carry EPIRBs nevertheless.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... 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.

There's a very large amount of middle ground between "all ran smoothly" and "telecommunications were down".

The argument here is all about people objecting to your repeated insinuations that there was a suspicious series of coincidental failures which together suggest a coordinated deliberate sabotage of communications. People are not pretending that communication worked flawlessly so kindly stop claiming they are. All people are doing is pointing out the flaws in your claim that "communications were down".

 

[abaddon]

Not until after 0205.

Wow.

No less than 5 vessels responded to the call to ready their helicopter decks to receive incoming helicopters. And possibly more, since some were on channel 6 or channel 10.

You want the recording of the channel 16 traffic (that you say was blocked)? Is that what you want? Fine. It is 30 minutes of not very happy listening, but it certainly wrecks your idiotic claims.

For anyone else, it is subtitled for convenience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5tbah19qo8. Yes, On the channel that Vixen claims to be blocked, for helicopter decks she claims they don't have. One even states that hey have readied their conference rooms as reception for casualties.

I did not "yt" tag it. Don't click it, unless you want to see the lies that are spouted by some people.

But 16 minutes in, 5, read it, 5 of the responding ships prepare their helicopter decks. Over a channel that is claimed to be blocked

 

[LondonJohn]

Wow.

No less than 5 vessels responded to the call to ready their helicopter decks to receive incoming helicopters. And possibly more, since some were on channel 6 or channel 10.

You want the recording of the channel 16 traffic (that you say was blocked)? Is that what you want? Fine. It is 30 minutes of not very happy listening, but it certainly wrecks your idiotic claims.

For anyone else, it is subtitled for convenience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5tbah19qo8. Yes, On the channel that Vixen claims to be blocked, for helicopter decks she claims they don't have. One even states that hey have readied their conference rooms as reception for casualties.

I did not "yt" tag it. Don't click it, unless you want to see the lies that are spouted by some people.

But 16 minutes in, 5, read it, 5 of the responding ships prepare their helicopter decks. Over a channel that is claimed to be blocked

Indeed.

In addition, the recording shows that the ships coming to the aid of the Estonia - and, by extension, the shore-based rescue services - had an exact fix on the Estonia's position within some 12 minutes of the first radio distress message from the Estonia.

Far more quickly, in other words, than would have been the case via the EPIRBs, assuming they'd been properly (manually) switched on by the crew of the Estonia concurrent with their first radio distress message.

 

[abaddon]

Indeed.

In addition, the recording shows that the ships coming to the aid of the Estonia - and, by extension, the shore-based rescue services - had an exact fix on the Estonia's position within some 12 minutes of the first radio distress message from the Estonia.

Far more quickly, in other words, than would have been the case via the EPIRBs, assuming they'd been properly (manually) switched on by the crew of the Estonia concurrent with their first radio distress message.

They could have swithed one or both EPIRBS on. The rescuing vessels could not have got there any quicker somehow. Not enough to save any more people. Just how grim it is, did you notice the convo about how it is to avoid running over people? That's a thing in maritime rescue.

 

[Vixen]

Ehhhh what now? Who's expressing amazement about this matter? In fact, the only participant in this thread who ever expressed amazement about a) there being a rock outcrop which the Estonia demonstrably landed on then slipped off, and b) the notion that it was this rock which caused the damage to the Estonia's starboard hull..... is you, Vixen.



.

What the bleeding heck does this cut-and-paste passage and your subsequent piece of "analysis" have to do with the Estonia sinking? As I said, all the well-informed people in this thread already know full well about sea floor geography in general, and about the seafloor where the Estonia came to rest in particular.

There was no cut and paste. They were my own words.

 

[Andy_Ross]

As of the time of the accident, from logs, the Leonid Bykoff was near Hanko as noted by the coast guard station - the Coast Guard being 18nm East of Hanko. The coast guard logs show Leonid Bykoff was at position 59 degrees 46' P [longitude] 23 degrees 45' l [latitude], heading 265 degrees (from Vyberg/Viipuri to Pori, which is just to the northwest of Turku and Rauma). The Estonia wreck is at 59°22′0″N 21°41′0″E, about 40km south of Utö, or 21.6 nautical miles. It was quite near the scene, less than 65 nm as of 0122.


EFD

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.

65 nm is 120 kilometers.

You have no idea.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

65 nm or 120 km is not in the area.

 

[Vixen]

I genuinely don't understand what point you are trying to make here. It looks as if you are saying landing on rocks where rocks are rare is more likely to cause damage than landing on rocks where they're common. Obviously that's just silly but I can't tell what you do mean.

If a rocky outcrop was rare then that is quite different from an area where it is nigh on impossible to avoid.

So, if the Titanic landed on the one big rocky outcrop in the North Atlantic, then there might be some genuine initial excitement from academics that she landed exactly in this spot.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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?

They were all incompetent. They did not realise there was a problem until it was too late to do anything about it.

They used a handheld because when the ship turned on it's side and power was lost that is all they had.

The captain seems to have lost control of the situation very early on.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

What help could a ship over 100k away offer that wasn't already available?

 

[Andy_Ross]

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?

What are 'submarine tracks along the bed' ?

Submarines do not leave tracks, they tend to be floating, not dragging.