Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

[Vixen]

Complete and utter bollocks.

There was a very clear initial suspicion about what had happened. But the JAIC investigators did not take that as their a priori conclusion then look for evidence to support it.

Think of it perhaps this way: imagine that police were called to a house where they found a wife dead on the kitchen floor having been stabbed to death, and the husband with blood on his arms and hands and scratches on his hands and face.

The police would, entirely reasonably, strongly suspect that the wife had murdered by the husband - because that is what the initial evidence suggested. But the police would not decide that this was definitely what had happened, then go on a selective evidence hunt to support their theory. Instead, they'd park their initial hunch and set about gathering all available evidence - and they'd only come to a proper investigative conclusion based on an objective (and not suspect-centric) evaluation of the evidence.


Exactly the same sort of process happened with the Estonia disaster. There was fairly reliable evidence - within hours of the sinking - that the bow visor had detached from the ship and the bow ramp had been yanked open as well. And the investigators knew very well that this was immediately a viable cause (just as, if you know an aircraft's vertical tail fin fell off in flight, this is immediately a viable cause of the aircraft crashing).

But then they set about gathering evidence and witness testimony. They discovered within days that the bow visor was indeed separated from the ship, and lying on the sea bed a considerable distance away from the main wreckage. They could also see the damage to the bow ramp. And, piece by piece, their evidence pointed in one - and only one - direction: that the ship sank because the bow visor and bow ramp failed, allowing the vehicle deck to flood very quickly via the open bow; the combination of water on the vehicle deck (with associated free surface effect) and the mass of water that had travelled down from the vehicle deck to the decks below, ultimately caused a sufficient loss of buoyancy and stability to capsize the ship.


The JAIC investigators, and their experts, were well capable of using proper investigative methods and protocols to reach their conclusion. And they reached the correct conclusion. By contrast, you're hopelessly adrift here - you appear not to understand even the most simple/basic scientific principles at play, let alone perform cogent analysis - so your opinions about why the ship sank are, literally, worthless.

The prima facie evidence of the wife dead on the floor and the husband covered in blood is what gives the police its suspicions and reason for arrest. It still has to go up before a magistrate to continue to detain the guy and arraign him for trial. The guy still gets to present his evidence and the onus is on the State to prove he is the person what done it. It is not a predetermined conclusion. He is not the murderer until the courts declare it.

Likewise, here we have an accident that claimed the lives of ordinary members of the public going about their lives, and as per Statute, an accident investigation inquiry is compulsory by law.

But wait! There is a get out clause. If an event is deemed a 'Section D Notice' ( a High Court application granted for reasons that include 'national security') then the entire trial of the accused can be conducted behind closed doors in camera with the public never knowing any of the details at all. Likewise. if, as I believe, the events surrounding Estonia were labelled classified (and it did come to light ten years later that Sweden was engaged in espionage of Russia and smuggling out its State secrets on the Estonia passenger ferry and in September 1994 on at least two [known] occasions), then there is no obligation for the JAIC to tell the truth.

All the JAIC has done is tell a half-truth - which is still lying by omission - by concentrating on a bow visor, which technically, did fall off, but covering up everything else that surrounds this horrible case., and justifies to itself that it is in the national interest.

 

[Vixen]

I remind you again that your level of physics is that you think that suspending a paper on a wall with three pins is an adequate analogy for the physics of the bow visor in water.

During my undergrad days I took two university level courses in physics and passed them with an average grade (3/5 both). However, you won't see me arguing about physics on this or in any other forum. That is not just because I have forgotten most of what I learned back then, it is because those two courses didn't go deep enough to details. Even if I still had 100% of the knowledge that was taught on those two courses, I would be unqualified to comment on specific models that weren't a part of them.

I know that I'm unqualified to discuss almost all physical models. You are unqualified too, but you don't know it.

I never claimed any special expertise. However, I know how frightened people are of numbers and scary-looking formulae, and that is fine by me as I have made a good living dealing with people's number fears by doing it for them.


The numbers required for calculating the Estonia's metacentric height and its righting leverage are very simple. Just follow the formulae!


Fact is, vessels like the Estonia are designed to be able to withstand the flooding of two lower deck watertight compartments (below the water line). Estonia had fifteen watertight bulkhead compartment. There is no way it could sink in 35" without some kind of unusual event. The bow visor had only been invented in the 1960's so ships were sailing perfectly well without much event before then. Th Herald of Free Enterprise did not have one and the report into that accident recommended that such ror-ros be fitted with some kind of gate outwith the car ramp. Estonia already had this and the German, Swedish and Finnish car ferries already had lights to indicate whether the car ramp was open or shut, together with cctv cameras.


Why people try to pretend that 'oh, the Estonia accident is far too difficult for the ordinary person to understand' strikes me as pure intellectual snobbery, when it should be easy enough to explain it to the public in simple layman terms.


The need to publish hundreds of pages of calculations and bow visor sepcifications, together with wave impact diagrams, is simply a form of browbeating.

 

[Vixen]

https://twitter.com/Eric_Dubay911/status/1481719231695699968

Logical fallacy #1001 ridicule.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Height is relative. I don't know if Sillaste is 1.60m. He could be 1.80m. Standing next to Treu makes him look disproportionately short, or Treu exceptionally tall. I look very short standing next to my son. My last husband was 6'5" and his dad was even taller. Does mentioning it make it 'racist' against people from Sutton Coldfield (or Birmingham in the case of the F-I-L)?

I sympathise deeply with anybody on that vessel that night and Sillaste comes across as sincere in his observations. However, when coming to conclusions about what caused the accident, I am afraid one has to be objective. The fact is, Sillaste on Deck 0 seeing water coming in at the sides of the bow ramp after the bangs doesn't clarify whether the accident was caused by the bow visor falling off or the bow visor falling off because of the severe list and the angle of the ensuing waves perpendicular to the fractured implement therefore wrenching the final lock/bolt/hinge free.

The chronology is that the survivors report a sudden severe list to starboard - causing people to fly out of bed or bang into a wall - and then righting itself (as one would expect) allowing circa ten minutes of steadiness to enable the survivors to race up to the upper decks, before the next steep lilt of 30° - 40°, which could not correct due to the port side ballast being already full to its limit, then it becomes readily apparent that the violent initial list happened before the bow visor came off. Therefore, it cannot be the bow visor falling off that caused the list. Incidentally, although the survivors mention the initial violent list, timing it circa 0100-ish, the JAIC does not.

The JAIC gets its time of the bow visor coming completely loose all in one go after the Atlantic lock broke - of 0115 - from IIIrd engineer Margus Treu, and Kadak got his version which he withdrew, saying he only said he saw water on the deck because that is what Treu said

EFD

In his initial interview motorman Kadak said:

EFD


Yet Sillaste did not see what Treu claims he saw - he saw the car ramp was shut and water was at the sides - and it seems Kadak was told what to say by Treu, and indeed int he television interview, we see Treu standing over Sillaste staring at him with his arms crossed looking quite menacing.

Treu has now disappeared from view.

So Treu comes across as a somewhat intimidating character whose sincerity could be called into doubt as nobody else claimed to see what he claims he saw.

So yes, I did see the pair as a comedy caricature in trying to convince the public, albeit unwittingly, that the cause of the accident was solely the bow visor coming off and free surface water on the car deck the cause of the ship capsizing.


Yet, the body of survivors witnessed the violent lilt before the supposed detachment of the visor at 0115, with Michal Oun saying his travel alarm clock was knocked to the floor by the list, the battery fell out and it stopped at circa 0100. Another survivor said she knew it was 0100 because her cabinmate had set the alarm for 0100 to signify the new time zone of Swedish Midnight and she heard the alarm go off just as the list happened.

Why do you use the EFD as the source for the witness statements rather than the actual report itself?

 

[Vixen]

Hence not "simultaneously."



No, they aren't. You just don't understand how the visor was attached to the ship.

Simultaneoulsy once the Atlantic lock supposedly broke off. The contraption had three locks, two actuator arms and the car ramp six to eight locks, hinges, bolts, bushings, etc: all of which either deformed or broke off 'all at once', according to the JAIC report.

 

[Andy_Ross]

All the shipbuilder and naval architects can do is ensure their product is to the highest safety standards. It cannot mitigate against poor care and maintenance years down the line. If you buy a car and treat it badly, would you blame the manufacturers for a poor design fault when they made a not unreasonable assumption you would use the vehicle as it was mandated to: oil changes, tyre pressure, equilibrium, brake pads, servicing, etc.

If you let it get rusty by parking it in a pool of water that covers its underside, is it the the car manufacturer's fault you develop engine trouble?

The shipbuilders did not make sure it was built to the 'highest standards of safety'
It is made clear in the report that the design and construction of the visor were inadequate for the job.
At the time the ship was built there were no standards in place for offshore ferries with opening bow visors. SOLAS only certified for coastal work.
Sweden and Finland had their own domestic legislation and procedures that allowed ferries to operate offshore without certification.

If the visor design had been adequate it would not have allowed 'up to 100 tons of water' to accumulate and would have sealed adequately against the sea.
It was not built to the design laid down, it changed and modified 'on the fly' as it was built. It had to be repaired and modified over the years to keep it operating.

There is plenty of blame to share between the designers, company that built it and the shipyard that fitted it, shipping line that operated it, Swedish, Finnish and Estonian government inspectors and the crew of the ship itself.

It's almost as if you haven't read the report.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Treu said he came out on the upper deck and then began to help people, except that he was suddenly washed off the deck by a wave and he managed to grab a couple of life vests. See the latest Estonia Catastrophe video here that looks at Treu's testimony in detail (don't worry, this guy is a firm believer in the JAIC report). English subtitles.


Sillaste claims he came out for the funnel, which is surely higher than the upper decks.

Do you think he popped out of the top like a chimney sweep?

The 'funnel' on a ship like this is a casing that encloses trunking that contains a number of exhausts, air intakes, fans, radiators, heat exchangers and emergency engine room escape and access ladders. It is not a single pipe from the engine room to the sky. A funnel has a doorway giving access to the deck.
Can you think of a reason that the engine room and machinery spaces might have an emergency escape leading directly to the upper decks?

 

[Vixen]

And I know a bloke from the pub who has a mate who says the Twin Towers couldn't have collapsed in the way they did from simple aircraft strikes. He says that The 9/11 Commission invented engineering models as a window-dressing exercise, to distract the public from the truth: that the towers were clearly brought down by carefully-placed demolition charges.

I, for one, reckon that all checks out pretty well. My drinking buddy's mate seemed really knowledgeable when he was explaining it all to me. And no, I'm not a "conspiracy theorist" - I just use my eyes and ears and brain, and I don't take official reports for granted: it's well-known that they're usually cover-ups.

[/satire]

Pure intellectual snobbery. I knew someone who left school at fifteen, worked as a barmaid, and who won fantastic amounts of money on the space-invader -type fruit machines in the pubs in which she worked. She unwittingly had the same advanced statistical probability calculation skills of a professional statistician, although she would not have been able to articulate it. (She later did get a first-class degree as a mature student and also a PGCE teaching qualification.)

 

[Andy_Ross]

Because it is all hypothetical. The JAIC never proved that the bow visor falling off was the cause of the accident and nor did it establish that the reason it fell off was because of a strong wave. (And it does say this in so many words.)

You haven't read the report or the supporting documents at all have you?

 

[Vixen]

Yes, we know that you don't understand them so you think they are irrelevant.



When it had Piht? They didn't. Piht drowned in the accident. That's the reason why they didn't interrogate him.

Citation please of where it says Piht drowned in the accident.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Different witness statements claim that AB watchman Linde was told by a bridge officer to notify the lady at reception on Deck 5 to issue an alarm. Linde claims he merely went there to ask her to open the car deck doors.


You decide which version is probably the true one.

Did you read the page from the safety book?

 

[junkshop]

...I don't know if Sillaste is 1.60m. He could be 1.80m. Standing next to Treu makes him look disproportionately short, or Treu exceptionally tall...

Yet previously you posted this:

...How can this guy all of 160cm be the expert opinion on why a 15,500-tonne ship sank?...

You told us that you

...never make anything up...

and that

...All of my comments are sourced, unless I state 'IMV'.

^source
so where are you getting your information about his height?

Height is relative...

Not when you use measurements (even if you did conjure them from thin air). If you had referred to his being 'taller than' or 'shorter than' something or someone, that would be relative. You stated '1.6m'. That is not a relative term.

What relevance does his height have, anyway? Why did you bring it up?

As far as I can tell

...It is all complete and utter nonsense.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The need to publish hundreds of pages of calculations and bow visor sepcifications, together with wave impact diagrams, is simply a form of browbeating.

Whereas a 'just so' story that includes bomb, submarines, assassins, kidnapping, hijacking and nuclear waste is just common sense right?

 

[Vixen]

Yes and yes.

It's funny how CTers can readily dismiss structural engineering models and applied maths/physics without ever having the chops to understand what they mean and how they work.

And of course the flip side is that they can never produce their own modelling that stands up to any rational scrutiny.


(Incidentally, wrt that second point, it's an interesting irony that *had* the Estonia been holed below the waterline by a torpedo or a mine or any sort of placed charge...... that very probably wouldn't have sunk the ship (or it would have taken so damn long to sink that there would have been more than enough time to rescue all aboard). Like all modern ships, the Estonia had watertight compartments with sealable bulkheads up to the waterline, so the hole from a torpedo/mine/charge would only have flooded one (or at the very most two) of the compartments. The ship would very probably have survived and limped back to port.

The terrible consequence of letting water into the vehicle deck by way of an open bow is twofold: not only does the free surface effect of hundreds of tons of water on the open vehicle deck seriously destabilise the ship, but also water can flood down from the vehicle deck across the whole horizontal cross-section of the ship - since this is the area occupied by the vehicle deck. Therefore, water can flood down and make its way into many more than one of the watertight compartments. As the HOFE disaster illustrated all too clearly, the quickest way for a RORO ferry to sink is to let significant amounts of water in through the bow opening to the vehicle deck.)

What dreadful nonsense. The Herald of Free Enterprise was an outlier, not a typical example of a car ferry accident: the accident caused by sheer negligence of the boatswain and his colleagues, together with the corporate culture of loading on excess passengers and superfast turnaround.

The mundane truth is that most shipping accidents happen becuase of some kind of explosion in the lower decks, for example, in the fule tank or the ventilator pipes (see Oceanos, for an example). Did the JAIC even consider there had been such a pedestrian explosion in the Estonia lower decks leading to a breach in the hull? No. Nowhere is this even suggested, despite Sillaste and Treu reportedly telling a Swedish newspaper they had been up to their knees in water in the ECR. Sillaste was supposedly fixing things in the swimming pool area, yet for some reason, he made his way aft to the ECR to join Treu and Kadak. No attempt by the JAIC to clarify why. It is not as if there is any shame in having to deal with a Deck 0 pipe or tank explosion.

IMV the JAIC haven't mentioned this at all because it knows the real cause of the accident and it also knows it will become declassifed in 70 years time, so it can't include an obvious fib, such as claiming the Estonian senior crew survivors did not survive after all (if they actually did) and that bomb/s and or a collision, would be revealed as the real cause. It believes simply stating he obvious, that the bow visor became detached is true up to a certain point, which will keep the demanding public happy for now.

 

[Vixen]

As far as technical, computer modeling for these kinds of things goes, when I wander around YouTube I don't find many computer models which run against the models made in the official investigations. I have to assume the reason for this is the engineering software these days is reliably produced, and the only way to make the model show a different outcome is to change the parameters so far from the facts that the model becomes science fiction.

We've seen it with 9-11 where key components of the structures, and key events are ignored to craft a model which shows their version of events. It seems to be a lot of time wasted, and those who are skilled in using the software don't want to be associated with crazy-town antics since it can cost them future work.

The JAIC version of rate of water and volume of same ingression is now considered to be incorrect, as commissioned via VINNOVA.

 

[junkshop]

The JAIC version of rate of water and volume of same ingression is now considered to be incorrect, as commissioned via VINNOVA.

Source? Citation? Proper reference? IMV?

 

[Andy_Ross]

What dreadful nonsense. The Herald of Free Enterprise was an outlier, not a typical example of a car ferry accident: the accident caused by sheer negligence of the boatswain and his colleagues, together with the corporate culture of loading on excess passengers and superfast turnaround.

Whereas the Estonia was caused by negligence of the captain and his colleagues together with a corporate and government culture of running faulty ships in need of repair and without offshore certification.

The mundane truth is that most shipping accidents happen becuase of some kind of explosion in the lower decks

What is your evidence for this?

By far the biggest cause of ship sinking's is grounding or foundering in storm conditions followed by the failure of through hull joints and pipework, for example the Oceanos which flooded through a fractured sea pipe.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The JAIC version of rate of water and volume of same ingression is now considered to be incorrect, as commissioned via VINNOVA.

Considered by who?

 

[Vixen]

I think a hole in the engine machinery space would have been enough to sink it. I don't think it would have capsized on to it's beam though. That it did is an indication that there wasn't a hole below the waterline.

The ECR was on the aft port side. The Estonia was stricken on the starboard side.

 

[Vixen]

Waves breaking a window on a ferry.

Video in link.

https://twitter.com/ZachCoveyTV/status/1494357522051964931

Heh. I saw that on a German youtube news clip and immediately thought of you and your 'window smashing on a ferry'.


BTW that ferry in Hamburg was a river ferry and merely a local passenger ferry, rather like the horrid 'Uberboats' now commuting between Greenwich and Woolwich on the Thames (although I feel sure those have got reinforced windows).