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

[Axxman300]

This is like wading through treacle. If a ship sinks with zero prospect of rescue, then do you not think sabotage should be investigate, especially with the highly surprising - to marine experts - lack of radio network and EPIRB's not automatically activating when triggered by two fathoms of water...

You need to stop.

Rescued crew members and at least one passenger told authorities that the bow visor ha come off. There were no reports of explosions, AND they surveyed the bow claps, the bow, and recovered the bow visor. All of the video footage from the first dive, along with the new videos show NO EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES.

Investigations follow the evidence.

and the complete disappearance of the vessel when professional training and academic examinations has scientifically taught you (a) the time it takes for a capsized vessel to sink with its hull intact ceteris paribus and (b) the physics of sinking and floating, bearing in mind the Wilhelm Gustloff which was triple torpedoed in the hull took 45 minutes to sink completely and the Titanic, broken in two and having hit an iceberg, causing damage to its watertight bulkheads and weakening its rivets, took almost three hours to sink.

Again, this is embarrassing.

Not a scientist, but I'll wager actual marine engineers will tell you every sinking of a large vessel has its own unique set of circumstances, and that an investigation into an individual sinking must focus on the events surrounding the event.

The Estonia was not torpedoed, neither was it an ocean liner. The open car deck faced directly into the waves, and wind, and proceeded at flank speed scooping sea water into her interior at a catastrophic rate forcing her to capsize. She continued to flood until she sank.

The Titanic sank in a flat-calm. The Titanic had a crew of able-bodied sailors, many came from families with a tradition of sailing, and the captain was one of the best in the business. While nobody knows the true extent of the damage which sank Titanic, we know the water-tight bulkheads were damaged, they were simply a poor design as they didn't reach high enough, and there was a service passage which extended from below the bridge all the way aft. This hallway was a smaller version of the car deck, but it took longer for the water to reach it. Why?

The first mate brought Titanic to a halt, slowing the flow of water into her hull. I'm not sure what the timeline is but the crew went to work getting the passengers alerted, and into life vests. Had the Titanic more lifeboats, more passengers would have survived (and yes, many of the lifeboats could have held more people - there were no lifeboat drills before Titanic, so none of the crew knew).

The only factor Titanic shares with the Estonia is both were sailing at an unsafe speed for the conditions they were in. Had both slowed down, both would likely never sank.

 

[Here_to_learn]

According to the journalist guy from Utah:

Flashes in the Night - Jack A Nelson

The book with no sources? The author that according to you didn't understand that Turku and Åbo is the same place, or that there are different timezones involved? Right - what a source! It says a lot about you that you claim disturbances based on that. Especially when primary sources are available.

So we can read the final report on helicopter operations (my translation) at https://sok.riksarkivet.se/bildvisning/ES002173_00006#?c=&m=&s=&cv=5&xywh=-2627,-201,7791,3893 (A login seems to be needed, but is free. But this is scanned copies of a typed report).

So first of all, what we are talking about here is Flygräddningscentralen/Cefyl. It's the Aeronautical Rescue Coordination Centre at the time. So not air trafic control that you stated (or quoted from the book).

In the report I link to above, you can see that they have some issue with the HF link, that they don't expect VHF to work due to the distances, but that they had no trouble what so every working with the OSC. They knew were to go, and when on site they had work to do.

Let's look at the end of that quote you had again:

They had little guidance in finding the accident site, and only a vague knowledge of where the Estonia had gone down. Those who found the wreckage had to guide the later helicopters there.

THis doesn't make sense at all, the wreck wasn't found during the night of the rescue. So either your quote is wrong, or this is another example of the author being careless with facts.

 

[Axxman300]

Weird, I called this in the first thread:

https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/18/ms-estonia-new-expedition-confirms-official-accident-report

A new research expedition to the wreck of the M/S Estonia ferry that sank in the Baltic Sea in 1994 has not provided fresh evidence contradicting the official accident investigation report, the Estonian, Finnish, and Swedish safety investigation authorities said on Tuesday.

And...

Presenting the preliminary results of a dive by underwater robots in July, Rene Arikas, executive director of the Estonian Safety Investigation Bureau, said the ferry's wreck did have a hole of 22 metres long and four metres high, but that it was not self-inflicted.

Arikas specified that the wreck is resting on a slope on the seabed and that the position of the wreck has changed due to changes in the seabed over the years.

Deformation on the hull has therefore become more visible. New knowledge that the seabed was so rocky was also a surprise to investigators.

With the help of a study by Martin Jakobsson, professor of Marine Geology and Geophysics at Stockholm University, Jonas Bäckstrand, deputy director-general of the Swedish Accident Investigation Authority, considers it possible that the injuries were caused by the ship's contact with the sea bottom.

"I would say that based on the report of Stockholm University there is a high probability at least that the damage to the starboard side of the ship could have occurred due to contact of the sea bottom," Bäckstrand noted[/B.

But by all means, continue to argue about buoys being tampered with becase reasons...

 

[Andy_Ross]

You need to stop.

Rescued crew members and at least one passenger told authorities that the bow visor ha come off. There were no reports of explosions, AND they surveyed the bow claps, the bow, and recovered the bow visor. All of the video footage from the first dive, along with the new videos show NO EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES.

Investigations follow the evidence.



Again, this is embarrassing.

Not a scientist, but I'll wager actual marine engineers will tell you every sinking of a large vessel has its own unique set of circumstances, and that an investigation into an individual sinking must focus on the events surrounding the event.

The Estonia was not torpedoed, neither was it an ocean liner. The open car deck faced directly into the waves, and wind, and proceeded at flank speed scooping sea water into her interior at a catastrophic rate forcing her to capsize. She continued to flood until she sank.

The Titanic sank in a flat-calm. The Titanic had a crew of able-bodied sailors, many came from families with a tradition of sailing, and the captain was one of the best in the business. While nobody knows the true extent of the damage which sank Titanic, we know the water-tight bulkheads were damaged, they were simply a poor design as they didn't reach high enough, and there was a service passage which extended from below the bridge all the way aft. This hallway was a smaller version of the car deck, but it took longer for the water to reach it. Why?

The first mate brought Titanic to a halt, slowing the flow of water into her hull. I'm not sure what the timeline is but the crew went to work getting the passengers alerted, and into life vests. Had the Titanic more lifeboats, more passengers would have survived (and yes, many of the lifeboats could have held more people - there were no lifeboat drills before Titanic, so none of the crew knew).

The only factor Titanic shares with the Estonia is both were sailing at an unsafe speed for the conditions they were in. Had both slowed down, both would likely never sank.

One of the main takeaways from Titanic is that boats should be filled with whoever is available to fill them
'Women and children first' resulted in lots of boats only being part full.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The book with no sources? The author that according to you didn't understand that Turku and Åbo is the same place, or that there are different timezones involved? Right - what a source! It says a lot about you that you claim disturbances based on that. Especially when primary sources are available.

So we can read the final report on helicopter operations (my translation) at https://sok.riksarkivet.se/bildvisning/ES002173_00006#?c=&m=&s=&cv=5&xywh=-2627,-201,7791,3893 (A login seems to be needed, but is free. But this is scanned copies of a typed report).

So first of all, what we are talking about here is Flygräddningscentralen/Cefyl. It's the Aeronautical Rescue Coordination Centre at the time. So not air trafic control that you stated (or quoted from the book).

In the report I link to above, you can see that they have some issue with the HF link, that they don't expect VHF to work due to the distances, but that they had no trouble what so every working with the OSC. They knew were to go, and when on site they had work to do.

Let's look at the end of that quote you had again:

THis doesn't make sense at all, the wreck wasn't found during the night of the rescue. So either your quote is wrong, or this is another example of the author being careless with facts.

I think in this instance 'wreckage' means stuff floating on the surface.
A correct term would be 'flotsam'.

 

[abaddon]

Where can I read more about Arlanda Airport/air traffic control being down? Specifically of course how it did affect the rescue operation?

According to the journalist guy from Utah:

Tragically, when Swedish helicopters headed to the area they were dogged by communication problems and equipment that did not function well. The helicopter crews could not communicate with the flight commanders in Arlanda, the international airport near Stockholm with extensive radar control, because its short wave radio was not working at the time. They had little guidance in finding the accident site, and only a vague knowledge of where the Estonia had gone down. Those who found the wreckage had to guide the later helicopters there.

Flashes in the Night - Jack A Nelson

So Arlanda was closed down for flights that night?

Evidence for this wild claim please. Because if it couldn't talk to aircraft it would have no choice but to cease operation completely.

 

[phiwum]

You have been provided with numerous on-site and expert citations. So I am not going to argue any further. If they were 'manual-operation-only' buoys there would not be any mystery. You can have the last word.

Another oddity related to the alarm also occurred in connection with the accident. The ship had an alarm and position buoy for the sarsat-cospas system, which automatically transmits the alarm via satellite while sending the coordinates of its own position.
Kalle Pedak , the director general of the Estonian Maritime Administration , thinks that the buoy was not released into the water, but that it must have gone to the bottom with the ship.


Backman Nils-Eric
29.9.1994 2:00

HS

Did you notice the very paragraph that you cite has an obviously false statement in it? In 1994, EPIRBs had no GPS and hence could not "send the coordinates of its own position", though the satellites could (eventually) calculate that position and send them.

I wonder if that's evidence that the journalist isn't particularly well-informed regarding EPIRBs.

 

[abaddon]

I think in this instance 'wreckage' means stuff floating on the surface.
A correct term would be 'flotsam'.

Flotsam and jetsam. Jetsam is stuff intentionally chucked overboard. Flotsam is stuff unintentionally chucked overboard. Under maritime law, flotsam legally belongs to the original owner. Jetsam belongs to whoever finds it.

 

[abaddon]

Did you notice the very paragraph that you cite has an obviously false statement in it? In 1994, EPIRBs had no GPS and hence could not "send the coordinates of its own position", though the satellites could (eventually) calculate that position and send them.

I wonder if that's evidence that the journalist isn't particularly well-informed regarding EPIRBs.

Also the EPIRBs were recovered at sea by two fishing vessels, not at the bottom with the wreck and not on some beach covered by sand as Vixen claims. Also note the dates. The two EPIRBs were recovered on the second of October, but the report is from 29th September.

So other posters have made the point that early reports are often wrong. This is a case in point.

HS seems to be an abbreviation for "Hilarious Speculation"

 

[Andy_Ross]

Anything left on the surface after a ship sinks is flotsam and belongs to whoever picks it up.

 

[abaddon]

Anything left on the surface after a ship sinks is flotsam and belongs to whoever picks it up.

Not under maritime law it doesn't.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/flotsam-jetsam.html

 

[Andy_Ross]

Not under maritime law it doesn't.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/flotsam-jetsam.html

You learn something every day.

 

[JayUtah]

What they don't say is that the discoverer of flotsam is entitled to a reasonable salvage fee and may hold the property until the fee is paid.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Not under maritime law it doesn't.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/flotsam-jetsam.html

Looking further in to this, some recent judgements have indicated that an individual that has found it can lay claim to it.
A container ship that went aground in the Channel and lost containers that washed ashore set a precedent in UK courts.

 

[abaddon]

You learn something every day.

It's an odd one, to be sure. I don't recall where I first stumbled across the reference, but I found it somehow amusing in a weird way. Apparently it is important to beachcombers and such.

 

[abaddon]

Looking further in to this, some recent judgements have indicated that an individual that has found it can lay claim to it.
A container ship that went aground in the Channel and lost containers that washed ashore set a precedent in UK courts.

I would have to go look it up, but by default flotsam belongs to the original owner, but if they do not claim it the finder can claim it. There is some period defined for that.

 

[JayUtah]

Looking further in to this, some recent judgements have indicated that an individual that has found it can lay claim to it.
A container ship that went aground in the Channel and lost containers that washed ashore set a precedent in UK courts.

My understanding is that it depends on the type of claim of ownership the original owner makes. The original owner has unequivocal title to it, but may relinquish it or lose it due to laches.

 

[junkshop]

Random thought: is there some etymological between jetsam being jettisoned, and flotsam floating away?

 

[abaddon]

Looking further in to this, some recent judgements have indicated that an individual that has found it can lay claim to it.
A container ship that went aground in the Channel and lost containers that washed ashore set a precedent in UK courts.

Well see the container load of plastic ducks that went overboard. Nobody claimed it, but it added a ton of scientific knowledge about ocean currents.

Have a one minute youtube summary, it's also amusing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uuMpVf2R8E

 

[JayUtah]

Random thought: is there some etymological between jetsam being jettisoned, and flotsam floating away?

Yes.