• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
IMV only a simpleton believes the bow visor fell off due to a wave, at face value, with no proof.
Click to expand...

Have you looked at the link Captian_Swoop posted yet - the one which lists damage caused to other Baltic ro-ro ferries over the years before the Estonia disaster?

VISBY [...] whilst proceeding from Nynäshamn to Visby in December 1973 - hit a couple of heavy waves which caused the visor to open.
STENA SAILER [...] experienced heavy weather and head sea in January 1974. Speed was reduced but the visor locking devices failed.
SVEA STAR [...] experienced heavy weather in May 1974. A heavy wave lifted the visor. Water collected in the visor but the ramp remained closed
WELLAMO [...] encountered a south-westerly storm on a scheduled voyage from Helsinki to Stockholm [...] the bow visor lifted. [...] about five minutes later the visor lifted again. Speed was immediately reduced from about eight knots to three knots. [...] Next morning in Helsinki it was observed that the locking cleats were torn away and the arms of the visor were partly broken. Side plating on both sides of the visor was dented, as was a light bulkhead inside the visor. There was a small hole on the tanktop, caused by pounding of the visor.
FINLANDIA [...] encountered heavy south-westerly seas south of Hanko. Next morning in Stockholm, the visor did not open and severe damage was found including dented structure on the port side and two broken locking bars on the centre line.
VIKING SAGA [...] was extensively damaged on the fore part and on the lower port side of the bow visor south of Hanko in October 1984, on a scheduled voyage from Helsinki to Stockholm. [...] the vessel was running at 16 knots in heavy bow seas with a wind speed of about 14 m/s. Next morning in Stockholm it was observed that a large part of the port visor shell construction together with a horizontal platform had been dented. A locating horn on the port side was bent towards the centre line and side lockings were damaged.
ILYICH [...] encountered heavy seas with a wind speed of about 18 m/s on a scheduled voyage from Leningrad to Stockholm in December 1984. At a speed of about 17 knots, one of the visor deck hinges failed fully, the other partly and all visor locking devices broke. The visor hung on the hinge and moved up, down and sideways every time the seas lifted the visor. [...] The vessel was also involved in an incident in September 1986 at a speed of about seven knots. In this case, three visor locking bolts broke and other damage occurred.
MARIELLA [...] experienced heavy seas on a scheduled voyage from Helsinki to Stockholm in November 1985. The starboard hinge brackets sheared. Both starboard and port hinge beams were almost fully cut. Locking devices and the hydraulic actuators failed and the visor was forced open.
TOR HOLLANDIA [...] in heavy weather during the winter of 1986/87, experienced failure of the visor bottom attachments and one deck hinge. The condition was observed visually from the bridge and rapid evasive action prevented an accident.
FINNHANSA [...] lost her clam doors in January 1977 in heavy weather close to the Helsinki lighthouse.
SILJA EUROPA [...] damaged her port clam door during the same night or morning as the ESTONIA sank.
Click to expand...

Were they all carrying radioactive waste or attacked by Russian suicide commandos too?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Have you looked at the link Captian_Swoop posted yet - the one which lists damage caused to other Baltic ro-ro ferries over the years before the Estonia disaster?



Were they all carrying radioactive waste or attacked by Russian suicide commandos too?
Click to expand...

It's the same wave - been roaming around the Baltic for years, wreaking havoc.
 
Vixen said:
Er, Lehtola sent out a memo next day saying he had misspoken, so clearly someone briefed him to do so.
Click to expand...

Or, in the light of new data he realised he had been mistaken?

That's how investigations work.
 
Here_to_learn said:
That is your statements. I've shown that your initial statement is wrong, by quoting directly from the JAIC report:


We can all see that their scope was not limited they way you claim it was.




You haven't been able to link to a single statement from a member of JAIC that show that they were forbidden/stopped from investigating inline with the full scope.

Then you claim this:



So exactly what have you changed your statement to now? You agree that your statement about the scope was wrong, and that potential sabotage was within the scope? You agree that nobody in the JAIC was stopped from investigating potential sabotage? You just are not happy with that the final report doesn't mention it?

What else should they have mentioned that they excluded? Hitting an iceberg? Colliding with another ferry? Running aground? Having a controlled demolition remotely initiated from a grassy knoll, after having been signaled by a flag that should't have moved due to lack of wind?
Click to expand...

The JAIC stating, "This final report covers all factors and circumstances considered to have contributed to the development and outcome of the accident." Does not set out the scope at all.

In a project, experiment, report or endeavour the scope should be set out and fully explained. Simply saying 'We've covered all factors' will get you a big fat 'fail'.

Truth is, the entire scope of the JAIC was to set out how 'a few strong waves' could knock off the bow visor and car ramp'. To this end we have pages of illustration of the bow visor and its nuts and bolts.
 
Axxman300 said:
No, someone who could read the side-scan picture clued him in, and he corrected himself ASAP so he didn't look like an idiot later.

People can learn from that.
Click to expand...

You don't seriously believe a lawyer knows how to read a sonar imaging printout? Clearly, he was briefed by the sonar imaging guys of TURSAS, that's why he sent the memo and the press release out saying the visor had been found. Problem is, the Swedes forgot to tell the Finns that - psst! shhh! - the bow visor is not with the wreck, remember what Bildt said? _DOH!
 
Jack by the hedge said:
You really can't seriously imagine that radioactive waste could have destroyed steel parts several centimetres thick in a matter of hours without also killing every human being within tens of metres.

Did the first sailor sent to inspect the car deck notice the eerie blue glow? No.
Click to expand...

No, but if some dodgy crew members did try to open the car ramp, that would explain a lot.
 
Vixen said:
..By diver Stenström, Swedish head engineer and head of Swedish JAIC. He looked at it on the sea bed and threw it back in (so he claims). We literally only have his word for it, examined whilst underwater.
Click to expand...

No, the bolt was recovered, inspected and measured. It was found to be in good condition. It was the lugs that failed, not the bolt.

Please read the report.

Chapter 8 Section 8.6 Damage to the visor and ramp attachment devices

8.6.1 The visor bottom lock

All three attachment lugs for the bottom lock installation had failed. The locking bolt remained attached to the actuating cylinder piston rod, which was bent. The remains of the attachment lugs and the locking bolt were removed from the wreck during the diving operation for close investigation.
When the locking bolt was removed from the actuator piston rod, the actuator was in fully extended, i.e. locked, position. The piston rod was bent upwards, away from the forepeak deck. The hydraulic hoses were connected. The bolt was checked for wear and deformation. The bolt was straight. The general diameter of the bolt was about 78 mm. Only a slight variation in diameter was measured at the contact area between the bolt and the visor lug. No other damage to the bolt was noted.
The mating lug in the visor was attached to the structure but was bent about ten degrees to starboard and the adjacent structure was deformed and cracked. The hole in the lug for the locking bolt had an original diameter of 85 mm while after the accident the hole was oval with dimensions at mid-thickness about 83 x 95 mm. The visor lug was removed from the visor after it had been brought ashore.
The recovered parts have been investigated with regard to properties of the material and characteristics of the fracture surfaces and deformations.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Or, in the light of new data he realised he had been mistaken?

That's how investigations work.
Click to expand...

What, new data overnight? TURSAS already had to cancel one expedition the week before because of bad weather. You can't just go out in the Baltic in October in the middle of the night to check your sonar is correct if you have no reason to believe it incorrect.
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC stating, "This final report covers all factors and circumstances considered to have contributed to the development and outcome of the accident." Does not set out the scope at all.



In a project, experiment, report or endeavour the scope should be set out and fully explained. Simply saying 'We've covered all factors' will get you a big fat 'fail'.



Truth is, the entire scope of the JAIC was to set out how 'a few strong waves' could knock off the bow visor and car ramp'. To this end we have pages of illustration of the bow visor and its nuts and bolts.
Click to expand...
Show me the scope written down as you claim it is. Use primary sources.

I've shown you the joint signed statement from JAIC were they say they could look att all factors.

Your guess means nothing, nor what you would like it to be. We are talking about what it actually was.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Have you looked at the link Captian_Swoop posted yet - the one which lists damage caused to other Baltic ro-ro ferries over the years before the Estonia disaster?



Were they all carrying radioactive waste or attacked by Russian suicide commandos too?
Click to expand...

To see the examples would mean actually reading the report.

Also note, this list is just a partial list of all the ferries that had problems with bow doors, it just considers the Baltic.

There are several that could have ended the same way as the Estonia if the crews had not been on the ball and taken action straight away.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
No, but if some dodgy crew members did try to open the car ramp, that would explain a lot.
Click to expand...

How nd why would they do that in the middle of a raging storm?

I thought it was blown off by explosives?
 
Vixen said:
What, new data overnight? TURSAS already had to cancel one expedition the week before because of bad weather. You can't just go out in the Baltic in October in the middle of the night to check your sonar is correct if you have no reason to believe it incorrect.
Click to expand...

Or, one of the experienced sonar men aboard the ship with access to all the data they had collected told him it wasn't the bow visor?

Are the crew of the survey ship in on the conspiracy now?
 
Vixen said:
No, but if some dodgy crew members did try to open the car ramp, that would explain a lot.
Click to expand...
Why would "dodgy crew members" try and open the car ramp in the middle of the Baltic sea and during a storm?

Does this have anything to do with detonation charges or an entirely scenario completely?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom