Here_to_learn
Illuminator
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.
Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part IV
- Thread starter Andy_Ross
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ms estonia
- Status
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
Illuminator
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:
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"
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
Mostly harmless
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
Mostly harmless
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.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,741
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.
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
Mostly harmless
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
Master Poster
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?
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
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
Penultimate Amazing
See Section 12.
The JAIC does not mention the air intakes, ventilators, machinery intakes and exhausts and hatchways.
junkshop
Otto's Favourite
I'm sorry, but I'm going to need some evidence before I can accept that 'someone' is thinking.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
The JAIC states the ship was seaworthy.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Nope. It doesn't
junkshop
Otto's Favourite
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
Penultimate Amazing
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.
Attachments
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
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
Otto's Favourite
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:
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
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.
- Status