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

[Here_to_learn]

You need to create an account and log in to see any documentation younger than 110 years for data protection reasons.

Yes. I have linked to this site before, since it's the public archive from Sweden. I don't think there is any restrictions on who can create an account, at least I had no trouble doing it.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Why would the Finnair incident of 1987 have been suppressed until 2014, or the Swedish government smuggling of former Soviet Union espionage secrets in 1994 until 2005?

Compare and contrast how the The Herald of Free Enterprise and the recent Scot Carrier incidents are both immediately under prosecutor investigation. Criminal proceedings were brought against The Herald of Free Enterprise owners, Townsend Thoresen, who changed their name to P&O ferries as a consequence. The Herald of Free Enterprise in addition to not bothering with shutting the car ramp regularly in order to achieve a high turnaround, also had a habit of boarding an excess number of passengers, unlike the Estonia on the night running at about half capacity.

Think about it, the Swedish government immediately announced that 'No-one is to blame' as did their hastily convened JAIC who stuck rigidly to the 'bow visor hit by strong wave' line from Day One. Instead, an easily disprovable claim it was a design fault (cf Hoffmeister, University of Hamburg report) leaving the victims' relatives zero means of redress.

You do not think that the slightest bit odd?


Cui bene?

The culprit of course!

Well, this thing is of course that you are wrong .

The Swedish Prosecution agency started an investigation about Estonia directly after the accident. It did not end until feb 18th 1999. Documents related to the criminal investigation can be read at https://sok.riksarkivet.se/estonia?Fritext=SE/SPF/1/ES/28&page=1#tab

The reason for closing the investigation was:

Hans motiv till detta var att han inte kunnat finna något som talade för att ett uppsåtligt brott varit orsak till olyckan. Inte heller ansåg han sig kunna utreda vårdslöshet i sjötrafik eftersom ansvariga befäl omkom i samband med att fartyget sjönk

My transation: "[The prosecutors] reason was that he had not been able to find anything that indicated that any criminal intent was behind the accident. Nor could he investigate negligence in maritime traffic since the responsible commanding officers did not survive the sinking of the ship"

 

[Myriad]

'It depends' might be salient to your tax accountant or IRS. However, if you were expected to investigate an accident which killed 852 very suddenly, people want definite answers. Not, 'it depends'.

Definite answers, produced without adequate knowledge or analysis of the factors upon which the correctness of those answers depends, are lies.

Yes, some people want them anyway. That is, they want to be lied to. It's still wrong to lie to them.

 

[Mojo]

Oh yes, I did.

"It listed heavily to starboard [?] the whole time and we never saw its superstructure windows smashing as a result." ibid

Spot the question mark?

You put a question mark against the correct statement that it listed to starboard, but not your erroneous claim that it looked as if it was listing to port. You really need to learn Healey’s first law.

 

[Mojo]

He shot himself in the foot and cited a post he knew (?) was the wrong one.

Nope. He was responding to this claim of yours:

I do not make false claims,

He cited a post in which you made a false claim. The post you now want him to cite was one in which you questioned a true claim. The one he cited was relevant, the one you want cited isn’t, although it does manage to dig you in a little deeper.

 

[Andy_Ross]

reading the Rockwater report.

It confirms that "many of the ports and windows had been broken, opened or removed in the sinking providing unimpeded access to some areas of the vessel" Some windows had to be broken at the stern and bow to gain access. Bear in mind that the port side was not the one that was getting hammered by the waves and was not the side that submerged first.

Access was from the port side as the attitude of the vessel made openings on the starboard side inaccessible.

Diving was done by saturation divers using a 'wet bell' and surface supply breathing.
9 bell runs were made with 3 divers on each run and those entering the hull were 'wet tended' by a diver in the water.

Some holes and hatches were cut to allow access and some windows although open or broken had to be enlarged with an oxy-arc cutter to allow safe access for the divers.

In places where there was a danger of buoyant material escaping the holes were covered by metal plates held by gravity, beams were welded across the backs of the plates to stop them sliding off.

 

[Mojo]

Where did I say it was a false claim about you?

For some reason it seems that Vixen’s questioning of the Oceanos listing to starboard was somehow relevant to the allegation of false claims about herself, even if the claim about it listing to port wasn’t.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I can see nothing wrong with his basic calculations on buoyancy and Finite Elements calculation.

Is there any reason to think that you *would* be able to spot anything wrong with them, even if they were completely riddled with problems?

If I were to say: "I can see nothing wrong with Arthur Anderson's handling of Enron's accounts" or: "I can see nothing wrong with Stanley Lombardo's translation of Homer's Iliad", how impressed would you be?

 

[carlitos]

"Turtled" is not "street slang" at all. Maybe someone is thinking of "Jive Turkey?"

 

[Vixen]

We know that it wouldn't, but there wasn't just water on the car deck.
Once it was flooded water found it's way down ventilators, machinery air intakes and exhausts, air conditioning intakes and hatchways. Once it was far enough over the waves breaking against the starboard side smashed windows which allowed more water in to the ship.

A ship is not watertight from above.

So you have said. However, the JAIC never looked at the issue of water finding its way down the ventilation pipes and other sundry intakes, when even if this type of flooding is slower (cf Oceanos) it should at least claim to have actually investigated this area.

It is all very well you and the JAIC saying 'once 18,000 tonnes of water entered the superstructure it would irreversibly sink. However, that is working backwards from knowing that the Estonia's reserve bouyancy is 18,000 tonnes fully loaded, or it wouldn't float in the first place.

So the circular reasoning seems to be, "Let's see, the Estonia had 18,000 reserve buoyancy, therefore there must have been at least 18,000 tonnes of water ingressing (and extremely rapidly for it to sink within 0h 33' of doing so!)".

 

[Vixen]

Where do they claim this?



Water went down the air intakes, ventilators, machinery intakes and exhausts and hatchways.
Nobody is claiming that there was only water on the car deck.

See Section 12.

The JAIC does not mention the air intakes, ventilators, machinery intakes and exhausts and hatchways.

 

[junkshop]

"Turtled" is not "street slang" at all. Maybe someone is thinking of "Jive Turkey?"

I'm sorry, but I'm going to need some evidence before I can accept that 'someone' is thinking.

 

[Vixen]

But that isn't the JAIC conclusion. What makes you think it is?
You mean the collisions and explosions you claimed earlier never actually happened?

Not what the JAIC stated.

It is impossible for a vessel to sink then, right?

How can you make that claim when you clearly know nothing about it?

The JAIC states the ship was seaworthy.

 

[Vixen]

Can you quote the bit of the report where Sheen said the that The Herald of Free Enterprise would have turned over completely but for the sand bar on its port?

Where it says the vessel turned over 90°.

 

[abaddon]

Nope. It doesn't

 

[junkshop]

Can you quote the bit of the report where Sheen said the that The Herald of Free Enterprise would have turned over completely but for the sand bar on its port?

Where it says the vessel turned over 90°.

Hi Vixen,

Firstly: that is not a quote, you were asked for a quote.

Secondly: a list of over 90^° is not 'turned over completely'.

Sidebar: I hope you appreciate that I have, as you requested, quoted the post you were replying to, in order to preserve for posterity the context of your answer.

 

[Vixen]

The supplements to the JAIC report are available on this site: https://sok.riksarkivet.se/estonia?infosida=jaics-haverirapport-och-supplement

Supplement 2 has the stability calculations from what I can see.

As you will see on page 433 it clearly states that a simulation of the final ingress of water - after that of the car deck - was impossible to calculate accurately.

 

[Vixen]

In which case it is impossible for a ship to “turn turtle” and float upside down, as it will have sunk before it becomes inverted.

The edge of the hull touching the water on the starboard or port side is the point it capsizes. At 90° it is level with the surface of the water. Once it is beyond 90° - as Justice Sheen said The Herald of Free Enterprise was before it landed on the sand bar - it is inevitable the vessel will turn over ceteris paribus (i.e., no slow flooding, explosions or hull breaches) as it has a negative arm reach between the centre of gravity and centre of buoyancy.

 

[junkshop]

The JAIC states the ship was seaworthy.

I may well be wrong on this, but I was under the impression that the JAIC report said that the Estonia had been certified as seaworthy (according to specific criteria) by the relevant body. The JAIC itself had no authority to certify seaworthiness, especially retrospectively on a ship that was already at the bottom of the sea.

Better qualified compatriots, please correct me where I have erred. I thirst for your knowledge.

ETA: that last bit may have come across a bit creepier than intended. Sorry 'bout that.

ETA2: crap, I forgot the all important context quote. Sorry Vixen, here it is:

But that isn't the JAIC conclusion. What makes you think it is?
You mean the collisions and explosions you claimed earlier never actually happened?

Not what the JAIC stated.

It is impossible for a vessel to sink then, right?

How can you make that claim when you clearly know nothing about it?

 

[Vixen]

Nope. He was responding to this claim of yours:


He cited a post in which you made a false claim. The post you now want him to cite was one in which you questioned a true claim. The one he cited was relevant, the one you want cited isn’t, although it does manage to dig you in a little deeper.

You note he actually cut my sentence in half to remove all context, just so that he could score a point.

Little things please little minds.