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

[P.J. Denyer]

'device-looking package'?

One looks like an old, taped up cardboard box, the other is something square.

What kind of 'device' do they look like?

If they are explosives why are they there?
If they exploded they wouldn't be there.
If they didn't explode how did the bow come off?

OMG! My wife is collecting UXBs in the Xmas Cupboard!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Where is the quote that mentions "undersized"? I can't find it?

Sorry about that. Autocorrect insisted "undersize" was "undersized" and I didn't go back and check to argue with it. I see you found it nevertheless.

 

[Vixen]

The Swedish JAIC report specifically say that it is a translation from English, and that if the Swedish text is different from the English text, the English text is the official one.

We are talking about their committee memorandums here.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

We are talking about their committee memorandums here.

Are we? Are we talking about the JAIC at all?

Here_to_learn just identified the 78mm undersize quote as being from the "Finnish Board of Navigation" via the "German group of experts", with whatever translations that involved.

 

[Here_to_learn]

We are talking about their committee memorandums here.

No, that is not correct, that is not the subject of the discussion. As can been seen, the discussion was about the 78mm undersized, that that is actually from a Finnish source, shared with the german group of experts. So you are wrong.

 

[Vixen]

No, that is not correct, that is not the subject of the discussion. As can been seen, the discussion was about the 78mm undersized, that that is actually from a Finnish source, shared with the german group of experts. So you are wrong.

The Finnish JAIC made a point of writing in Swedish. See Kari Lehtola's memos, for example.

 

[Here_to_learn]

We are talking about their committee memorandums here.

Ok, so I checked on that.

There is a memorandum in the Swedish archive at https://sok.riksarkivet.se/bildvisning/ES000036_00001#?c=&m=&s=&cv=&xywh=-2205,-195,6924,3880

This is from a JAIC meeting in Åbo on the 30th of september. #4 on that page say that the meeting agreed that each country would individually create their own memorandums and file them.

I don't know if the Finnish or Estonian groups have published their complete set of documents in the same manner as the Swedish archive has? But the memorandums in Finnish and Estonian should be found in their archives.

Is you claim that those archives contain memorandums in Swedish?

 

[Here_to_learn]

The Finnish JAIC made a point of writing in Swedish. See Kari Lehtola's memos, for example.

Still missing the point. The specific quote under discussion (about undersized bolts) is not from the JAIC at all. So what language was used to memos in JAIC has absolutely no relation to the quote about undersized.

Now, if you can find the actual Finnish report that was shared with the German group, you would be able to see where the language comes from.

 

[Vixen]

Ok, so I checked on that.

There is a memorandum in the Swedish archive at https://sok.riksarkivet.se/bildvisning/ES000036_00001#?c=&m=&s=&cv=&xywh=-2205,-195,6924,3880

This is from a JAIC meeting in Åbo on the 30th of september. #4 on that page say that the meeting agreed that each country would individually create their own memorandums and file them.

I don't know if the Finnish or Estonian groups have published their complete set of documents in the same manner as the Swedish archive has? But the memorandums in Finnish and Estonian should be found in their archives.

Is you claim that those archives contain memorandums in Swedish?

Obviously, the committee needed to communicate in the interim. See attached memorandum from Kari Lehtola re the bow visor sonar image 9.10.1994, when he retracted his claim the bow visor had been sonar imaged by TURSAS indicating it was lying just below the bulbous bow of the wreck.

Notandum: the sonar imaging even seems to show the exact area of damage on the bow visor, yet the bow visor was not 'found' until a week or so later.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Where is the quote that mentions "undersized"? I can't find it?

Anyway - I found the "part-report" - it's actually in my view a bad name. It's a sub-report/partial-report/progress-report and not about "parts" as in "components". At least that name confused me.

https://sok.riksarkivet.se/bildvisning/ES000202_00011#?c=&m=&s=&cv=10&xywh=-1012,-240,6656,3869
Section 2.3, page 19.



In the final report information on the lock is in a number of places.

Chapter 3 The Vessel
Section 3.3 Bow visor and ramp installation
3.3 Bow visor and ramp installation

Chapter 8 Observations after the accident
Section 8.5 Damage to the Wreck
Section 8.6 Damage to the visor and ramp attachment devices

Chapter 12 Overview of separate investigations
12.7 Investigation of visor attachment

Chapter 13 Development of the accident
13.2.3 Condition of visor and ramp closure
13.2.5 Separation of the visor

Chapter 15 Strength evaluation of the visor and ramp attachments 15.3 Evaluation of the bottom locking device
This last is the most important

https://onse.fi/estonia/chapt15.html

 

[Andy_Ross]

Where is the quote that mentions "undersized"? I can't find it?

Anyway - I found the "part-report" - it's actually in my view a bad name. It's a sub-report/partial-report/progress-report and not about "parts" as in "components". At least that name confused me.

https://sok.riksarkivet.se/bildvisning/ES000202_00011#?c=&m=&s=&cv=10&xywh=-1012,-240,6656,3869
Section 2.3, page 19.

In the final report information on the lock is in a number of places.

Chapter 3 The Vessel
Section 3.3 Bow visor and ramp installation
3.3 Bow visor and ramp installation

Chapter 8 Observations after the accident
Section 8.5 Damage to the Wreck
Section 8.6 Damage to the visor and ramp attachment devices

Chapter 12 Overview of separate investigations
12.7 Investigation of visor attachment

Chapter 13 Development of the accident
13.2.3 Condition of visor and ramp closure
13.2.5 Separation of the visor

Chapter 15 Strength evaluation of the visor and ramp attachments 15.3 Evaluation of the bottom locking device
This last is the most important

https://onse.fi/estonia/chapt15.html

Chapter 11 Bow Door failures and incidents is also worth reading
It covers a number of incidents involving failure or part-failure of bow visor attachment devices have occurred in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea during the history of the ro-ro ferries.

https://onse.fi/estonia/chapt11.html

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Notandum: the sonar imaging even seems to show the exact area of damage on the bow visor, yet the bow visor was not 'found' until a week or so later.

Do you have a reference for this claim please? Who said the sonar image was detailed enough to show damage on the visor when in reality the visor lay undiscovered far away and was not even in the image?

 

[Vixen]

Still missing the point. The specific quote under discussion (about undersized bolts) is not from the JAIC at all. So what language was used to memos in JAIC has absolutely no relation to the quote about undersized.

Now, if you can find the actual Finnish report that was shared with the German group, you would be able to see where the language comes from.

The EFD version must have been a retranslation from German as when translated into English, German does have a particular sentence structure that can be identified as being of German origin.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Ok - found it:
This quote is not from the JAIC report, but rather from the report of the "German group of experts" at https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia/index.html

And actually, it's not their text either, they say it's a report from the Finnish Board of Navigation (F.B.N.). The quote is on this page: https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia final report/chapter33.htm

The 78mm mentioned here has nothing to do with the size of the bolt on board Estonia. Instead the "undersize" part comes from a Finnish investigation into the bow-locks on other ferries, an investigation that was done as a follow up to the Estonia disaster.

Chapter 11 Bow Door failures and incidents
https://onse.fi/estonia/chapt11.html

 

[Vixen]

Do you have a reference for this claim please? Who said the sonar image was detailed enough to show damage on the visor when in reality the visor lay undiscovered far away and was not even in the image?

From the following report:

Analysis of the sonar pictures taken of the wreck. The picture shows a big object13 with the
same size and shape as the visor attached to / very close to / on top of the bow of the ship.
The AgnEf organization received a drawing from Sjöfartsverket where a sonar image of the
wreck had been copied onto a map of the sea floor (creating a working material for the
planned covering of the wreck). This explains why the level curves from the sea floor are visible through ship and visor. The level curves (1 m) of the object correlate with the size of the
visor. The angle of the object in relation to the sea floor is the same as between the wreck and
sea floor. Even the damage to the visor can be seen on the sonar picture. This image has given rise to argumentation. GGE, the German group of experts and IFG, the Independent Fact
Group both claim that the bow visor was still attached to the ship as she sank. In support of
that claim they refer to witness by survivors. Also, to a fax communication14 between Finland
and Sweden which shows that the visor was found and filmed very early and not the 18th of
October as claimed by JAIC.

seainfo 2021

A sonar image may not be perfect but as of the the time, how would Lehtola have been informed by someone to retract his memo the bow visor had been found to one that states he spoke in error and that it had NOT been found?

So whilst the Swedish navy (?) knew the bow visor had fallen off early on, that information was not privy to Lehtola which made him think the sonar imaging taken by the Finnish vessel TURSAS showed the bow visor under the bulbous bow (which was upside down, so made sense). He then had to do a volte face. At the same time, the JAIC never did explain how such a mistake happened. For example, a simple sentence saying, 'it turned out to be a sundry piece of scrap metal'. Once again, it is just not mentioned ever again.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Chapter 11 Bow Door failures and incidents
https://onse.fi/estonia/chapt11.html

That dismal catalogue of broken latches, hinges and locators makes me wonder why anyone would be surprised that eventually the Estonia disaster happened.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Because he interpreted the image incorrectly. With more data he modified his opinion.
That's how things are supposed to work.

What point do you think you are making?

Do you think someone went down quick and moved the bow visor?

 

[Andy_Ross]

That dismal catalogue of broken latches, hinges and locators makes me wonder why anyone would be surprised that eventually the Estonia disaster happened.

Yes, it's generally best practice not to have a bow that can fall off.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

From the following report:

seainfo 2021.

I see that report says "The original of this picture needs to be found to confirm or reject alternative theories". The image used appears to be some kind of composite with a drawing of the ship laid onto it. So yes, the original scan data would be more useful if you hope to draw any detailed conclusion from it.

 

[Vixen]

Chapter 11 Bow Door failures and incidents
https://onse.fi/estonia/chapt11.html

We know about the bow door failures. After the Estonia incident, a post-haste inspection was taken of all the ferries and Europa was one found to be deficient. I think it was Diana II who sailed with a whole load of water coming in, yet it reached port two hours later without having capsized or sunk.

From HS 29.9.1994:

Viking Line's level of safety has been inspected and certified by the Maritime Administration, and a similar "warranty certificate" is also in the pipeline for Silja. The Director-General believes that the accident will again highlight the mandatory listing of passengers. After all, Parliament rejected the project last spring. Harri Kulovaara, Chief Operating Officer of Silja Line, sees no reason to interfere with the passage of his ferries either; traffic continues as normal. Efforts have been made to improve the safety of passenger rafts, especially after the Herald of Free Enterprise crashed after hawking water through its bow gate on a car deck in 1987 and the Scandinavian Star burned in the Oslo Fjord in 1990.

The problem with ferries is precisely the car deck, which is a large uniform space at the end and side of the ship. Although the rest of the ship is divided into watertight compartments, the division does not extend to the car deck - so the water can move and accumulate unhindered. Enterprise, for example, was turned down by the amount of water that, if spread evenly, would have covered the car deck thinly, by some counts only about an inch a floor. Immediately after the Enterprise accident, there was talk that the car deck should also be compartmental. However, it is considered too difficult a solution for the transport of cargo. On the other hand, the stability of the vessels, i.e. the ability to survive, has been improved.

In 1990, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) adopted standards which also apply to old ships. A key figure shall be calculated for the vessel. This is determined by the fact that the ship will have to comply with the new regulations at the latest. The grace period for the "most wedges" expires as early as the beginning of Next October, there is time for the best modifications to start October 2005, and the latest equipment is suitable as such. Estonia's forecast was also provisionally calculated in Finland: there would be time around 1998 - not an impossible jar. And according to Silja Line, for example, Estonia was a ship that was considered silja Starina and wasa king. According to those who worked on the ship, it didn't even roll badly in rough seas.

Free Enterprise had its bow gate left open. To prevent this, ships were assigned warning lights and TV cameras to tell up the bridge about the status of the gates. In its inspection in 1987, the Turku Maritime District concluded that Viking Sally already had lights. The ships also developed checklists in which the check-out was used to check out the departure operations. In 1987, an English seafarer condemned baltic sea ferries on a BBC programme by the prestigious English broadcaster BBC. In his opinion, the development of the ships had not gone as close to its borders as in Finnish and Swedish traffic, and the design of the ships does not forgive the crew for any mistakes. The programme called the Swedish ferries 'floating coffins'. In particular, the Englishman's eyes had been affected by the fact that the ships were moving at sea so that watertight doors were open in the engine room below the waterline. Finnish maritime authorities, shipping companies and shipyards rejected the programme's claims and stressed that the world's safest equipment is moving in Swedish traffic. Car cover as a problem Add seriousness to bow gate monitoring

HS

Given PM Carl Bildt announced it was a bow visor fault on Day One and a repeat of the The Herald of Free Enterprise disaster, then having 'managed expectations', the mass media then went into a frenzy - understandably - about the safety of car ferries. However, as you see above, the Finnish-Swedish line ferries already had the safety features, which BBC assumed they did not.