• 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 IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
It turned on it's side which increased the flooding rate and it sank. That is also what happened to the Estonia.

Ships do not 'float on their superstructure.
A ship's superstructure is not watertight. A Warship closed down for action comes closest and even then has to have large openings for engine air, air conditioning air and exhausts.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it should have capsized right over as soon as it was at a particular list. JAIC has it at 70° - 90° for a whole twenty minutes and assumes an intact hull.

Compare and contrast to Oceanos or even The Herald of Free Enterprise.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
We know exactly the movements of Y 64.
Click to expand...

So why did Helicopter Y64 go to Huddinge hospital before departing for his 05:00 slot?

I'll tell you why, because he did drop off some people there from his 03:00 rescue and was on his return trip.

The hospitals in Turku and Hanko (for those with bone fractures) were already well-equipped with doctors and nurses.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Because they were lucky, the visor's did not completely detach and the weather was not as rough.

It does establish a pattern though. All the ferries were inadequate in the construction of their bow visors.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with luck. Unlike The Herald of Free Enterprise the Finnish/Swedish/German ferries all had the safety features the latter was lacking already.


Carl Bildt is not a marine expert.
 
Vixen said:
So why did Helicopter Y64 go to Huddinge hospital before departing for his 05:00 slot?

I'll tell you why, because he did drop off some people there from his 03:00 rescue and was on his return trip.

The hospitals in Turku and Hanko (for those with bone fractures) were already well-equipped with doctors and nurses.
Click to expand...

How do you know that?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Water ingress was through the many openings in the upper deck.

If, as you claim the ship was sealed by watertight compartments, how did water from a hole towards the bow get to the engine room?

Also we know the hole was above the waterline in to the car deck. Any water getting through that hole had to find it's way down in to the hull from above.
Click to expand...

The water was obviously coming in through a breach in the hull. Just like the Wilhelm Gustloff or the Titanic. The first passengers to get out were those on Deck 1, together with the three engineers on Deck 0.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
How do you know that?
Click to expand...

The island of Uto where the survivors from the ships' decks were brought, together with the dead, is just 28 miles from the mainland and Turku Hospital within a few kilometres from the coast. Hanko is a little to the east but still quite close by.

Five victims of the accident are being treated at the Western Uusimaa Regional Hospital. According to Chief Physician Lasse Saloranta, all patients were in critical condition but are not in danger of death. "Everyone is under-iced, and most are in shock. They also have various facial and chest injuries and thigh fractures."

The first patients were brought to Ekenäs after 8 a.m. The hospital was on high alert, and the emergency department had a waiting atmosphere throughout the morning, as several dozen patients were expected through Hanko. It was announced this afternoon that no more survivors were coming. A doctor and nurse were sent from Ekenäs to Tulliniemi in Hanko to receive patients brought there by helicopter. They had to assess the condition of the patients on site and send them to the right place of treatment.

However, not much could be done. By the time Dr. Jukka Leinonen got to Hanko, 14 live and one dead had been brought there. After that, six more dead people were admitted to the hospital.

HANKO - Tanko Medical Center brought 13 rescued male passengers this morning. Five of them were sent to the Regional Hospital of Länsi-Uusimaa in Ekenäs due to bone fractures or severe hypothermia. The helicopters picked up almost all of them from the rescue boards at sea and transported directly to the Hanko coast guard station. Among those rescued were also two Finns, a Karelian man in his 30s and a man in his 40s from Helsinki. On the same day, a man from Karjaa was able to return home from Hanko health centre. One Finn living in Sweden, five other Swedes, four Estonians and one Latvian were imported to Hanko. Matti J. According to Saloranna, patients are physically able to be somewhat satisfactory. "Everyone has hypothermia and a few patients also have bone fractures."

TURKU - From the morning onwards, helicopters and ambulances brought tired and meticlothed rescues to Turku University Hospital as a flat ribbon. Many were brought barefoot wearing only blankets, some wearing black plastic bags wrapped to protect their feet.
Click to expand...
HS 29.9.1994
 
Vixen said:
Rockwater Diving Report confirms the EPIRB's were hydrostatically-released ones, which means it is only when water is between three feet to twelve-feet do they get automaticcally relased from their casing to float up and automatically signal.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.


JAIC is silent as to the reason why. All we get is a descriptive narrative of how it was tested. Nowhere does it say they were manually operated only.
Click to expand...
The JAIC says they were recovered by fishermen, they were not activated, they were tested and they were working perfectly. What more do you need to work it out?
 
Vixen said:
Exactly, it should have capsized right over as soon as it was at a particular list. JAIC has it at 70° - 90° for a whole twenty minutes and assumes an intact hull.
Click to expand...

Do the survivors say the ship rolled right over? Do you believe the survivors?
 
Reformed Offlian said:
How long are you going to keep playing dumb?

The number of rescuees on Y 64 is not the same thing as the total number of people Svensson rescued. As I said: he worked from two different helicopters.

Six of the people he rescued were aboard Y 74, not Y 64.
Click to expand...

Y74 was Ollie Moberg

Swedish Navy helicopter Y 74 6

According to the JAIC Y74 did not even arrive until six-forty-two am.

Y 74 (Boeing Kawasaki)
Y 74 took off from Berga at 0546 hrs. Carrying a physician and a nurse from Huddinge Hospital, Y 74 reached the scene of the accident at 0642 hrs. Dawn had already broken. At the beginning of the operation, Y 74 found a raft containing a body with the head under water. At the same time the helicopter received a radio message that Y 64 had had to leave its rescue man in the sea. Y 74 went to assist Y 64.
Click to expand...
JAIC

However, according to Flashes in the Night:

Stefan Olsson with Y74 (Olli Moberg?) was first to leave Berga arriving at 0300 EET.
Click to expand...


So we have Y64 and Y74 making what looks like their second trip as written up in the JAIC report, which has omitted their earlier rescues as that would be nine or ten survivors too many, so instead we have a vague and confusing hotch-potch of an account about people messing about with rafts and winches and the two heroes sharing just six survivors between them.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It they were 'manually operated only' the JAIC would have said so. When it remains silent you know they are lying by omission.
Click to expand...

Garbage. I might equally well claim if they were automatic activation types they would have said so. Obviously they didn't spell it out.

But, if they had been automatic types and had failed to start automatically that would have been notable. The fact that they made no remark other than that the beacons were working normally means we can be confident the beacons did not fail to work as designed.

Your personal assumption of malice on the part of the JAIC does not make an impressive argument.
 
Vixen said:
That is Carl Bildt's baby.
Click to expand...

No. That was your claim.

You repeated it dozens of times, until Here_to_learn posted a direct report (rather than your secondhand version) of the press conference which says Bildt refused to speculate on the cause. You responded to that by eliding your claim to a deliberately vague one that either Bildt or Bildt appointees had made the claim instead. Now you seem to have suffered a reset and returned to claiming it was Bildt again.

Bring evidence or drop the claim.
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
Garbage. I might equally well claim if they were automatic activation types they would have said so. Obviously they didn't spell it out.

But, if they had been automatic types and had failed to start automatically that would have been notable. The fact that they made no remark other than that the beacons were working normally means we can be confident the beacons did not fail to work as designed.

Your personal assumption of malice on the part of the JAIC does not make an impressive argument.
Click to expand...

Not malice, just a simple cover up. No doubt based on the principle of 'honourable deception' (as diplomacy is called).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom