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

[Andy_Ross]

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:

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.

You didn't read it did you?

All the incidents in the report are from before the Estonia sinking.

From the report

SILJA EUROPA, a passenger ferry built in 1993, damaged her port clam door during the same night or morning as the ESTONIA sank. The damage was noted after arrival in Stockholm on 29 September 1994, when efforts were made to open the bow doors. The starboard bow door opened as normal, while the port side door could be opened only about 0.4 m. Among the damage were dented plates in the hinge arm and in a support frame. The exact time of the damage is not known. The shipowner claims that the damage occurred during the ESTONIA rescue operation

Europa had clam doors, not a visor. It was damaged during the rescue.

 

[Vixen]

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.

So how would you explain Kari Lehtola's early memo and press release that the bow visor had been found. How would he have known next day that it had NOT been found?

2.10.1994 2:00

According to the echo image, Estonia did not break

Salmi Hannu 2.10.1994 2:00

According to the first sonar images taken from the wreck of Estonia, the ship is in one piece, ie it did not break when sinking on Wednesday night. The image taken diagonally from above on the north side of the wreck shows the right side of the ship as the darkest area. To the right is a bow pointing west. The propeller is shown in black on the left.

HS

Obviously, someone instructed him to retract it.

 

[Here_to_learn]

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

Normally, I'd like to point out that we should have a certain standards here on the board, where statements are properly sourced. But I think I'll let this one slide...

 

[Vixen]

You didn't read it did you?

All the incidents in the report are from before the Estonia sinking.

From the report



Estonia had clam doors, not a visor. It was damaged during the rescue.

It's no good constantly referencing the JAIC generically, which is dozens of pages long. It just comes across as passive-aggressive.

As I said, many defects were found in the aftermath of the accident in other ferries - mass hysteria - and caused one inspector to declare that if he could see any light through the bow doors, it was dangerous.

So safety was improved in that respect, which is good. However, Estonia already had the recommended extra 'gate' that was lacking in The Herald of Free Enterprise as from three years before that accident (=the bow visor). It also had the lights for the bridge to know the car ramp was shut and when open.

The fact there are faults found does not mean it was the primary cause of the accident. We know that for the car deck to be engulfed with sea water, not only did the bow visor have to come off, but so did the car ramp. The JAIC even then was forced to admit that even this would not be enough to capsize the ship, so they had to come up with all sorts of hypotheses about the windows smashing (bear in mind ships have heavily reinforced glass) and inner dividers and doors breaking down, without actually demonstrating that this happened. It even had the ship floating on its superstructure rather than investigate the very reasonable probability that there was a breach in the hull which explained the sequence of events far better. What did the JAIC have against investigating the starboard hull?

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's no good constantly referencing the JAIC generically, which is dozens of pages long. It just comes across as passive-aggressive.

As I said, many defects were found in the aftermath of the accident in other ferries - mass hysteria - and caused one inspector to declare that if he could see any light through the bow doors, it was dangerous.

So safety was improved in that respect, which is good. However, Estonia already had the recommended extra 'gate' that was lacking in The Herald of Free Enterprise as from three years before that accident (=the bow visor). It also had the lights for the bridge to know the car ramp was shut and when open.

The fact there are faults found does not mean it was the primary cause of the accident. We know that for the car deck to be engulfed with sea water, not only did the bow visor have to come off, but so did the car ramp. The JAIC even then was forced to admit that even this would not be enough to capsize the ship, so they had to come up with all sorts of hypotheses about the windows smashing (bear in mind ships have heavily reinforced glass) and inner dividers and doors breaking down, without actually demonstrating that this happened. It even had the ship floating on its superstructure rather than investigate the very reasonable probability that there was a breach in the hull which explained the sequence of events far better. What did the JAIC have against investigating the starboard hull?

All my references to the report have chapter and section titles.

All those listed in the report were previous to Estonia.

What 'mass hysteria'?

Don't you think being able to see daylight through the bows of a ship is dangerous?

We know thre was a breach, the entire bow was missing.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So how would you explain Kari Lehtola's early memo and press release that the bow visor had been found. How would he have known next day that it had NOT been found?

How would anyone know anything? What is there to explain? You're the one quoting a timeline of events here, not me. If he said it appeared the visor had been located and the next day withdrew and said it probably hadn't been, then the obvious implication is he was passing on information he received and which was revised. There's nothing obviously sinister about it.

Obviously, someone instructed him to retract it.

Well, if you put that kind of spin on it then you can make it look sinister, but that's your invention rather than the bare facts.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's no good constantly referencing the JAIC generically, which is dozens of pages long. It just comes across as passive-aggressive.

He didn't. He provided a link to the exact page he described. I followed the link and read it, you plainly didn't. Then you posted the above complaint still clearly without noticing that the link provided was specific.

 

[GlennB]

Obviously, someone instructed him to retract it.

A devoted CTist might come to that conclusion. Others might think that he listened to other opinions or realised his own mistake.

 

[Steve]

I am fascinated by this magical JAIC report. It is accurate when it suits Vixen's purposes and arguments, and wrong, even intentionally deceptive, when it contradicts Vixen's posts. A remarkable report indeed.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I am fascinated by this magical JAIC report. It is accurate when it suits Vixen's purposes and arguments, and wrong, even intentionally deceptive, when it contradicts Vixen's posts. A remarkable report indeed.

Like NASA to moon hoaxers and flat earthers.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Ah yes, the commitment to primary-source accuracy for which your clown-city CT website is so famous........

 

[LondonJohn]

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?

I imagine that's exactly what Vixen's CT version demands, yes.

Together with someone from the Shadowy Forces Of Evil getting to Lehtola and forcing him to change his opinion, of course.

LOL


ETA: Oh looky! I was absolutely right about that second element haha

 

[LondonJohn]

So how would you explain Kari Lehtola's early memo and press release that the bow visor had been found. How would he have known next day that it had NOT been found?

HS

Obviously, someone instructed him to retract it.

Yes, "obviously". There's literally no other option that makes any sense.

LMAO

 

[LondonJohn]

He didn't. He provided a link to the exact page he described. I followed the link and read it, you plainly didn't. Then you posted the above complaint still clearly without noticing that the link provided was specific.

Together with what might be politely termed an *inaccurate understanding* of what the phrase "passive aggressive" actually means......

 

[phiwum]

So how would you explain Kari Lehtola's early memo and press release that the bow visor had been found. How would he have known next day that it had NOT been found?

2.10.1994 2:00

According to the echo image, Estonia did not break

Salmi Hannu 2.10.1994 2:00

According to the first sonar images taken from the wreck of Estonia, the ship is in one piece, ie it did not break when sinking on Wednesday night. The image taken diagonally from above on the north side of the wreck shows the right side of the ship as the darkest area. To the right is a bow pointing west. The propeller is shown in black on the left.

HS

Obviously, someone instructed him to retract it.

I don't see that as having anything to do with the bow visor. "The ship is in one piece" means simply that the ship didn't break in two, not that the bow visor was still intact. Similarly, "a bow pointing west" is about the general position of the ship and not about the location of any bow visor.

 

[Vixen]

No, you can divide the result by 6.6.

Where did you get "10" from? Do you know how to do that calculation?


And........

Do you actually know how the bottom lock failed, Vixen? And therefore which parts would have been relevant from a salvage perspective?

(Hint: it had nothing to do with the bolt itself)

You were using GlennB's ridiculous figure of 150kg (apx) so you simply divide it by ten to reach the correct 15kg one.

 

[Vixen]

According to the report



So it wasn't just the bolt that was recovered as it was still attached to the actuating cylinder piston rod.
It weighed considerably more than Vixen is trying to imply.

Also in the report



So contrary to Vixens claim that it wasn't inspected we see that it inspected and the bolt itself was found to be in good condition.
It wasn't the bolt that was the problem it was the welds securing the whole assembly that failed.

The Atlantic lock is the bolt. It was a bolt lock. The bolt is indeed key to the whole thing, as the JAIC has the bow visor hanging from this bolt. Thus we need to see it. It was available. It was not 'too big for the helicopter' . Even if it had weighed a ludicrous 150kg it is still only the weight of two people (or one heavyweight boxer).

 

[Vixen]

If the error was in thinking a bar's diameter was in cm rather than mm then the error in its mass would be a factor of one hundred, not ten. As the error seems to be taking the diameter to have been 200mm rather than 78-79mm then the error would be about 6.5, and still not ten.

There are 10mm in one cm.

 

[Vixen]

You missed out the mass of radioactive waste that burned a hole through the bow.

ninja'd

...many a true word said in jest.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, why are you quoting Anders Bjorkman as an authority? The man is a loon.

Translated: "this guy whupped me in debate...?"