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

[Mojo]

The superstructure of the Estonia comprises Decks 2 - 8 and the bridge.

We know ships float on their hull, or even upside down but how does it float on its side?

On the evidence, not very well.

 

[Mojo]

Truth is, the only thing that stopped it from capsizing completely (turning over) is the fact that its hull was bottom heavy with water coming in via a probable breach (and the three engineers were all in the Engine Room, Deck0 busy doing something_.

Are you implying that their weight was a significant factor in stopping it capsizing completely, or that it is suspicious that engineers were working in the engine room?

 

[Mojo]

You are the only one claiming a ship will 'float on it's superstructure'

This is what the JAIC claim.

Where?

12.6.1

Even though the list developed rapidly; the water on the car deck would not alone be sufficient to make the ship capsize and lose its survivability As long as the hull was intact and watertight below and above the car deck, the residual stability with water on the car deck would not have been significantly changed at large heel angles. The capsize could only have been completed through water entering other areas of the vessel.
According to the hydrostatic calculations, a continuously increasing amount of water on the car deck would make the aft windows of deck 4 the first possible flooding point to other areas. Soon thereafter the windows and the aft entrance doors of deck 5 would also be submerged. A little less than 2,000 t of water on the car deck would be sufficient to bring the first flooding points down to the mean water surface. In this condition the list would be about 35° . The lowest corner of the ramp opening would here be still a little above the mean water surface.

As soon as water was free to enter the accommodation decks all residual stability would be impaired and the ship in practice lost. Without an intact superstructure above deck 4, the largest possible equilibrium heel angle before a complete capsize would be 40° . This condition would be exceeded with about 2,000 t of water on the car deck.

JAIC

Where does it say that a ship will 'float on it's superstructure'?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

From what Vixen has recently said about it, she regards everything from deck 2 upward to be superstructure and, so far as I can glean, "floating on its superstructure" means floating with any part of the superstructure in the sea.

That would mean when the ship listed far enough that the starboard side of the car deck was below water level, the ship was then "floating on its superstructure". It continued to do this allegedly impossible thing for something like half an hour.

I can't say what the significance of this might be.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

There were over 700 cabins. So not only do the windows need to smash but the dividers to each cabin, too. You saw how the divers had to break into some cabins with a jemmy, so not so easily smashed down.

You recognise, I suppose, that cabin dividers and doors exist for privacy and security, i.e. they are to deter human access. They are designed neither to be watertight nor to withstand hundreds of tons of sea water.

Did you see part of the transcript where the divers broke into a cabin and were instantly and violently swept inside because it turned out still to have been full of air?

Nor did I.

 

[whoanellie]

NT

 

[Steve]

A saboteur wouldn't know that.

How would you know what a saboteur would think? Experience?

 

[Vixen]

You recognise, I suppose, that cabin dividers and doors exist for privacy and security, i.e. they are to deter human access. They are designed neither to be watertight nor to withstand hundreds of tons of sea water.

Did you see part of the transcript where the divers broke into a cabin and were instantly and violently swept inside because it turned out still to have been full of air?

Nor did I.

Actually, sonar imaging captured massive air bubbles coming off the ship. They kept this quiet as they didn't want to give relatives of the victims false hope their loved ones were still alive.

 

[Vixen]

How would you know what a saboteur would think? Experience?

If a potential saboteur was not a crew member, they are hardly likely to be familiar with the ship's maintenance issues, especially as brilliant white glossy paint was applied to the Estonia making it look superficially new.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Actually, sonar imaging captured massive air bubbles coming off the ship. They kept this quiet as they didn't want to give relatives of the victims false hope their loved ones were still alive.

How could they be alive at the that depth?

 

[Andy_Ross]

If a potential saboteur was not a crew member, they are hardly likely to be familiar with the ship's maintenance issues, especially as brilliant white glossy paint was applied to the Estonia making it look superficially new.

How would the saboteur know where to place the explosives?
How would they get access to the locks when the visor was down and the ramp was up?

 

[Steve]

If a potential saboteur was not a crew member, they are hardly likely to be familiar with the ship's maintenance issues, especially as brilliant white glossy paint was applied to the Estonia making it look superficially new.

So mere idle speculation then.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Actually, sonar imaging captured massive air bubbles coming off the ship.

When?

 

[JayUtah]

Actually, sonar imaging captured massive air bubbles coming off the ship.

Are you claiming someone got a sonar return off of air bubbles?

 

[Vixen]

When?

Dr. Jouko Nourteva of the Finnish Naval Research Institute, found the wreck 30 September 1994 by use of his 'sonar fish'. On examining the sonar images, he discovered that waves and air bubbles distorted the sonar images. A Russian institute claimed this probably meant there was a good chance people could be trapped in such air bubbles and that they had specialised equipment that could help rescue them. This offer was turned down. Nuorteva was advised not to mention the air bubbles, so as not to upset the relatives of the victims.

There is a claim - probably urban myth in retrospect of Kursk (Aug 2000), when a group of sailors did leave diaries - that one woman had time to write a farewell letter, although who found it and when, we are not told.

However, it seems possible that someone in a water tight cabin, may have felt the ship sink to the bottom, was unable to open the cabin door, due to pressure and simply had to wait for the oxygen to run out.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Dr. Jouko Nourteva of the Finnish Naval Research Institute, found the wreck 30 September 1994 by use of his 'sonar fish'. On examining the sonar images, he discovered that waves and air bubbles distorted the sonar images. A Russian institute claimed this probably meant there was a good chance people could be trapped in such air bubbles and that they had specialised equipment that could help rescue them. This offer was turned down. Nuorteva was advised not to mention the air bubbles, so as not to upset the relatives of the victims.

There is a claim - probably urban myth in retrospect of Kursk (Aug 2000), when a group of sailors did leave diaries - that one woman had time to write a farewell letter, although who found it and when, we are not told.

However, it seems possible that someone in a water tight cabin, may have felt the ship sink to the bottom, was unable to open the cabin door, due to pressure and simply had to wait for the oxygen to run out.

You said "massive air bubbles coming off the ship". Nobody is daft enough to think there might be people trapped in air bubbles coming off the ship. Looks like you misunderstood what you were reading.

Also there's not likely to be anywhere on the ship that was sealed against outside pressure and at 80m depth nitrogen narcosis would soon render any survivor incapable of writing anything. Not impossible that someone wrote such a note if trapped and before the ship sank, but the tiny chance of anyone having found it suggests its a myth.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Dr. Jouko Nourteva of the Finnish Naval Research Institute, found the wreck 30 September 1994 by use of his 'sonar fish'. On examining the sonar images, he discovered that waves and air bubbles distorted the sonar images. A Russian institute claimed this probably meant there was a good chance people could be trapped in such air bubbles and that they had specialised equipment that could help rescue them. This offer was turned down. Nuorteva was advised not to mention the air bubbles, so as not to upset the relatives of the victims.

There is a claim - probably urban myth in retrospect of Kursk (Aug 2000), when a group of sailors did leave diaries - that one woman had time to write a farewell letter, although who found it and when, we are not told.

However, it seems possible that someone in a water tight cabin, may have felt the ship sink to the bottom, was unable to open the cabin door, due to pressure and simply had to wait for the oxygen to run out.

At the depth of the wreck they would have been dead.
You can't breathe atmospheric air at that depth, the oxygen would be toxic and the nitrogen level would induce 'narcosis'.
Optimum gas mix for 80 meters is a '15/65' hypoxic mix (15% oxygen – 65% helium – 20% nitrogen).

This is a gas mix which containing insufficient oxygen to reliably maintain consciousness at normal sea level atmospheric pressure.
If you are on surface supply the gas mixture can be changed gradually as you descend or ascend. If you are on tanks then you have to switch to different tanks as you descend and again as you ascend.

For a 15 minute dive at 80 meters decompression stop time will total 35 minutes.

To dive between 70 and 80 meters in the UK or it's waters you need to hold a BSAC Advanced Mixed Gas Diver ticket or equivalent from PADI, SAA or SSI

 

[JayUtah]

However, it seems possible that someone in a water tight cabin...

As others have noted, if the pressure on both sides of that allegedly watertight cabin door had equalized, the resulting atmosphere would have been toxic. If the pressure on both sides of that allegedly watertight door had not equalized, maybe you can compute for us what the water pressure on that door would have been at that depth. Then you can look at the typical construction of cabin doors on ferries and realize what a daft suggestion you're making.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Every 10 meters of depth adds another bar to the ambient pressure.

 

[Axxman300]

I've rarely seen someone fetishize a disaster like this.

Nobody was alive by the time searchers located the wreck. To suggest otherwise is to indulge in cruelty.

The ship's bow visor was knocked off by rough seas. The captain and crew did nothing - which included sealing the water-tight hatches. We know there was water below the car deck, and it's no secret the water came from the GAPING OPEN BOW CAR DECK ENTRANCE.

It was a one-off accident where all the worst factors aligned. Nothing more.