• 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 Reopened Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
SO it wasn't 'higher' than the government then?

What are you trying to say?

A head of state is closely advised by the intelligence services.

Bildt was not sent a pager from a press agency, TT, to tell him of the accident or what Sillaste said, as claimed by Here_To_Learn in his link, and that is how he knew of the accident. His defense force advisors - probably Svensson - notified him both of the accident and what the crew said.
 
In Sweden this is illustrated by Johan Hirschfeldt, Appeal Court Judge being co-opted by the democratically elected Swedish Riksdag
Wrong. The investigation was initiated by the Swedish Government (Regering), not the Parliament (Riksdag).

to investigate the issue of Former Soviet Union smuggling by Sweden on the Estonia ferry on two specific dates only (as reported by a Customs Manager),
Wrong. As can be read in his report, the scope was the month of september 1993.

and this he did and announced his findings to the Riksdag accordingly, and is minuted.
Wrong. He submitted his report to the Government. As such it's public, and available at Riksarkivets site, as well as Riksdagens site.



Problem is, Hirschfeldt had no power to investigate the KSI,
Wrong. KSI is part of the Swedish Armed Forces (Försvarsmakten), and that was within his power, and was covered in his investigation. In the report KSI is even mentioned, including the name of the person that was interviewed.

who would have been the secret services intelligence agency who likely arranged the consignments and who had the power to order the government-governed Customs to ignore the democratically laid down law on customs clearance, as it has nothing to do with the democratic establishment.
Wrong again. There was an agreement set up between the two government agencies (The Swedish Armed Forces and the Swedish Customs) that described how the transport was to happen, what notifications was necessary, and how the customs could inspect the goods transported.

Thus the organisation behind the smuggling can not be held accountable to the Riksdag and thus does not have to answer to the citizens of the kingdom.
And wrong. Held accountable for exactly what? What was illegal about it?

Your whole post is just conspiracy ********. Try to read the source material instead of trusting conspiracy authors descriptions of it.
 
Here is a link to the archive of all the interviews.

Lots of links for you to have a go at.

they were summarised for the report as a lot of them are audio recordings.
There are dozens of interviews.
Lists of all those interviewed are available.

https://sok.riksarkivet.se/estonia?infosida=vittnesmal

There are only two passengers linked there. The JAIC claim to have contacted all survivors but many say it was just a quick phone call and Paul Barney has never been contacted at all.
 
Where is your evidence for this?

Where is your evidence that anything contrary to the report was excluded?

It is well documented.

"I don't trust the Commission any longer", said Bengt Schager, psychological expert of the 'Estonia' Commission, who resigned from the investigation under protest. Now the 'Estonia' Report, which will be submitted to the printing house shortly, risks loosing much of its credibility.
Bengt Schager is of the opinion that the commission did not properly investigate the safety culture onboard of 'Estonia'. The question was much too sensitive. "There has been a preparedness to talk matters and circumstances unfavourable for the crew to their advantage."
EFD


Nope, that doesn’t say anything about witness statements being excluded. Try again.

Incidentally, is this “Bengt Schager” anything to do with the “JAIC-appointed psychologist, Bengt Shager” who you accused of putting the witnesses statements “into his own words”?

That's another problem with the JAIC report, the JAIC-appointed psychologist, Bengt Shager, was taksed with simply summarising the witnesses' statements. IOW he put it into his own words. They are summarised and anonymised. Any that did not fit the JAIC narrative were excluded as being too confusing. Without citing the name of the supposed witnessed, how is anyone able to cross reference them for accuracy?


And is either of them anything to do with the “JAIC psychologist” you accused of “rewriting history”?

The 'metallic thuds' wording is the JAIC psychologist rewriting history.
 
How does that work?
How would the boat be 'more weighed down at the stern' before the bow was lost and it started to take on water?

Ships tend to go down by the stern as the machinery spaces are the biggest single space in the hull, they tend to be at the stern, When they flood a large part of the reserve buoyancy is lost.

The boat was listing heavily, remember? It was listing to starboard and to the stern. In other words, water would be weighing it down in one corner, according to the JAIC scenario. The more the stern is weighed down, the more the lift to the bow.
 
Bollocks. 99% of the power lies with the elected part.


Ah but it's a classic component of so many CTs: there are shadowy unaccountable forces about whom the public know almost nothing, and these forces are the "true" puppet-masters and tune-callers. Elected officials are just a sham to make the sheeple believe their country is a democracy.

As you so correctly say, that is right old smelly pair of bollocks. There's never been any such thing as "deep state" in any western country after around the 1970s (and even before that time, intelligence agencies' rogue activities were only ever directed against foreign regimes, and not their own nations).

For a very long time now, intelligence agencies have been totally accountable to the executive, legislature and judiciary of their country. Often, the public isn't allowed full disclosure because it might jeopardise national interests and/or individuals' safety if some of this became public knowledge. But one of the (many) tenets of representational democracy is that we the public implicitly trust our elected representatives and our courts to act on our behalf and make well-considered & well-informed judgements. And our politicians and judiciaries do indeed perform a valuable oversight and command/control function over intelligence agencies.
 
A head of state is closely advised by the intelligence services.

Bildt was not sent a pager from a press agency, TT, to tell him of the accident or what Sillaste said, as claimed by Here_To_Learn in his link, and that is how he knew of the accident. His defense force advisors - probably Svensson - notified him both of the accident and what the crew said.

What has that go to do with the 'higher than the government' claim you made?
 
A head of state is closely advised by the intelligence services.

Bildt was not sent a pager from a press agency, TT, to tell him of the accident or what Sillaste said, as claimed by Here_To_Learn in his link, and that is how he knew of the accident.
That is a lie.

First of all. You used the source to support one of your arguments. I used it to show that you read it wrong. It's "Analysgruppens" report.

Second of all. The TT news agency flash was not about notifying Bildt that an accident had happened. He was already on the flight to Finland when the specific flash was sent out. The flash was about that a surviving crew member saying that the bow visor possibly had failed.

His defense force advisors - probably Svensson - notified him both of the accident and what the crew said.
You haven't said "IMV" so show us your source.

In reality we can read from the source you have used, starting on page 28.
 
It had rubber seals which AIUI were worn out.

In addition, the inner car deck, whereby access was via doors at the centre of the ship, leading to a centre hallway and stairway, had gaskets of 20cm high (circa 9"), thus the water would need to rise above this level to even begin to seep below, bearing in mind, whilst at a list, the incoming water would accumulate to the side it is listing to (in this case, starboard), thus, away from the centre. Likewise it weighted aftwards, meaning that the bow would need to pitch ever more lower, forwards, for the same levels of water to penetrate the top of the presumed ajar car ramp.
No. The doors had sills 20cm high. Not rubber seals 20cm high. And it would be foolish to assume those doors were the only route for water to leave the car deck.
 
There are only two passengers linked there. The JAIC claim to have contacted all survivors but many say it was just a quick phone call and Paul Barney has never been contacted at all.

There are links to:

List of all interrogations of survivors and a list of persons in Estonia interrogated by the Estonian part of JAIC

It also states that 137 people - passengers and people from the crew - survived the sinking of M / S Estonia. All survivors have been questioned by the police in Finland and / or Estonia and Sweden. In some cases, survivors have been questioned by police in other countries.

To seek clarification of the cause of the accident, JAIC has interrogated or had conversations with a number of survivors from the crew. Some of the crew have been questioned several times. In a few isolated cases, representatives of JAIC have also had conversations with passengers.

Only a small number of survivors will have any information useful to the enquiry board. Most will just be accounts of their escape and survival.
 
Last edited:
There are only two passengers linked there. The JAIC claim to have contacted all survivors but many say it was just a quick phone call and Paul Barney has never been contacted at all.

How far down the page did you look?

...
Transcript of interrogation on October 1, 1994 with Leif Bogren, passenger

Transcript of interrogation on October 2, 1994 with Sara Hedrenius, passenger

Transcript of interrogation on 13 October 1994 with Mats Hillerström, passenger

Transcript of interrogation on October 2, 1994 with Kent Härstedt, passenger

Swedish translation of interrogation in Riga on November 4, 1994 with Valter Kikuste, a passenger who saw the visor move

Transcript of interrogation on October 1, 1994 with Eckard Klug, passenger

...
 
The boat was listing heavily, remember? It was listing to starboard and to the stern. In other words, water would be weighing it down in one corner, according to the JAIC scenario. The more the stern is weighed down, the more the lift to the bow.


Are you incapable of understanding the sequence of events here?

The ship only became unbalanced and out of trim.....once it became flooded with, and weighed down by, all the sea water that came in through the now-open bow. At the time when all the water was flooding into the ship, it was still in its normal trim configuration*.

Once the ship began listing hard to starboard and became stern-heavy, the damage was already done. All the water was already within the ship.

Sheesh.


* Not forgetting though that the ship was rising and falling (and its bow-stern axis was pointing significantly above and below the horizontal) every time it mounted an oncoming swell then dived into the trough on the other side of that swell. This is precisely how the ship managed to scoop up such a large gulp of sea water each and every time it rode down a trough and slammed into a wall of water from the next oncoming swell.
 
Having exited at the funnel, how did Treu manage to get himself up to the port side, now horizontal - where the escaping passengers had gathered...unless he left the vessel a lot earlier than he claimed.


Huh what? It would have been rather easy for him to have done so.
 
I can't find any mention of 'reinforced windows' on that site.

If you look under its heading 'Safety' it refers you to the High Speed Craft Code, which a quick google takes you to it. See Section 3.1 and 15.3.

3.1 General
This Section covers those elements of hull and superstructure which provide longitudinal and other primary and local strength of the craft as a whole and
also important components such as foils and skirts which are directly associated with the hull and superstructure...

C3.1 General
C3.1.1 Introductory comments
.1 This Section contains the requirements for
structural scantlings of the craft to which these Rules
apply, i.e. to craft for which V ≥ 7,16 Δ1/6. Craft for
which V/ L ≥ 10 shall be individually considered by
GL (V in knots, Δ in tonnes, L in metre).
For what concerns multihull craft, this Section provides the requirements for scantlings of catamarans
and trimarans. Other craft will be considered in each
separate case by GL.
.2 The requirements for scantlings of hydrofoils and air-cushion vehicles are contained in Appendices C3A1 and C3A2. Unless otherwise specified, the requirements of this Section apply to such
craft only as far as the provisions regarding limit
operating conditions, materials and construction
criteria are concerned.
.3 The scantlings indicated in the following
paragraphs apply to craft constructed of steel, aluminium alloy or fibre reinforced plastic, as specified in
C3.2.
C3.1.2 Direct calculations
C3.1.2.1 General
.1 GL may require direct calculations to be
carried out, if deemed necessary.
Such calculations are to be carried out based on structural modelling, loading and checking criteria described below. Calculations based on other criteria
I - Part 3
GL 2012
Section 3 Structures Chapter 1
Page 3–1
may be accepted if deemed equivalent to those laid
down by GL.
.2 In order to increase the flexibility in the
structural design of ships GL also accepts direct calculations with computer programs. The aim of such
analyses should be the proof of equivalence of a
design with the rule requirements.
.3 Direct calculations may also be used in order
to optimise a design; in this case only the final results
are to be submitted for review.
C3.1.2.2 General programs
.1 The choice of computer programs according
to "State of the Art" is free. The programs may be
checked by GL through comparative calculations
with predefined test examples. A generally valid
approval for a computer program is, however, not
given by GL.
.2 Direct calculations may be used in the following fields
– global strength
– longitudinal strength
– beams and grillages
– detailed strength
.3 For such calculation the computer model,
the boundary condition and load cases are to be
agreed upon with GL. The calculation documents are
to be submitted including input and output. During
the examination it may prove necessary that GL perform independent comparative calculations.
.4 GL is prepared to carry out the following
calculations of this kind within the marine advisory
services:
.4.1 Strength
Linear and/or non-linear strength calculations with
the FE-method:
For an automated performance of these calculations,
a number of effective pre- and post processing programmes is at disposal:
– calculation of seaway loads as per modified strip
method or by 3 D-panel method
– calculation of resultant accelerations to ensure
quasi-static equilibrium
– calculation of composite structures
– evaluation of deformations, stresses, buckling
behaviour, ultimate strength and local stresses,
assessment of fatigue strength
.4.2 Vibrations
Calculation of free vibrations with the FE-method as
well as forced vibrations due to harmonic or shock
excitation:
– global vibrations of hull, aft ship, deckhouse, etc.
– vibrations of major local components, such as
rudders, radar masts, etc.
– local vibrations of plate fields, stiffeners and
panels
– vibrations of simply or double-elastically mounted aggregates
A number of pre- and post processing programs is
available here as well for effective analyses:
– calculation of engine excitation forces/moments
– calculation of propeller excitation forces (pressure fluctuations and shaft bearing reactions)
– calculation of hydrodynamic masses
– graphic evaluation of amplitude level as per
ISO 6954 recommendations or as per any other
standard
– noise predictions
C3.1.2.3 Specific programs related to Rules
GLRP (GL RULES and Programs) is available on
CD-ROM. It includes the wording of GL-Rules and
an elementary program for dimensioning the structural members of the hull.
C3.1.3 Units
.1 Unless otherwise specified, the following
units are used in the Rules:
− thickness of plating [mm]
− section modulus of stiffeners [cm3]
− shear area of stiffeners [cm2]
− span and spacing of stiffeners [m]
− stresses [MPa]
− concentrated loads [kN]
− distributed loads [kN/m] or [kPa]
C3.1.4 Documents for Approval
The following documents are to be submitted. To
facilitate a smooth and efficient approval process
they shall be submitted electronically via GLOBE 1.
In specific cases and following prior agreement with
GL they can also be submitted in paper form in triplicate.
.1 Midship section
The cross sectional plans (midship section, other
typical sections) shall contain all necessary data on
the scantlings of the longitudinal and transverse hull
structure as well as details of anchor and mooring
equipment.
––––––––––––––
1 Detailed information about the secured GL system GLOBE
can be found on GL’s website www.gl-group.com/globe.
Chapter 1
Page 3–2
Section 3 Structures I - Part 3
GL 2012
.2 Longitudinal section
The plan of longitudinal sections shall contain all
necessary details on the scantlings of the longitudinal
hull structure and on the location of the watertight
bulkheads and the deck supporting structures, the
arrangement of superstructures and deck houses.
.3 Decks
Plans of the decks showing the scantlings of the deck
structures, length and breadth of cargo hatches, openings above the engine and boiler room, and other
deck openings. On each deck, deck load caused by
cargo is to be defined as assumed in determining the
scantlings of the decks and their supports.
.4 Shell
Drawings of shell expansion, containing full details
on the location and size of the openings and drawings
of the sea chests.
.5 Bulkheads
Drawings of the transverse, longitudinal and wash
bulkheads and of all tank boundaries, with details on
densities of liquids, heights of overflow pipes and set
pressures of the pressure or vacuum relief valves (if
any).
.6 Bottom structure
Drawings of single and double bottom showing the
arrangement of the transverse and longitudinal girders as well as the water and oil tight subdivision of
the double bottom.
.7 Engine and boiler seatings
Drawings of the engine and boiler seatings, the bottom structure under the seatings and of the transverse
structures in the engine room, with details on fastening of the engine foundation plate to the seating, as
well as type and output of engine.
.8 Appendages
Drawings of rudder, shaft brackets, stabilizers including supports, bearing materials and propeller details.
.9 Longitudinal strength
Maximum and minimum still water bending moments, shear forces and, if necessary, torsional moments. This includes the mass distribution for the
envisaged loading conditions and the distribution of
section moduli and moduli of inertia over the ship's
length.
.10 Materials
The drawings mentioned in 1 – 8 and 13 shall contain
details on the hull materials (e.g. hull structural steel
grades, standards, material numbers). Where higher
tensile steels or materials other than ordinary hull
structural steels are used, drawings for possible repairs have to be placed on board.
.11 Weld joints
The drawings listed in 1 – 8 and 13 shall contain
details on the welded joints e.g. weld shapes and
dimensions and weld quality. For the relevant data
for manufacturing and testing of welded joints see
Rules for Welding.
.12 Lashing and stowage devices
Drawings containing details on stowage and lashing
of cargo (e.g. containers, car decks). In the drawings
the location of the connections and the appropriate
substructures at the ship shall be shown in detail.
.13 Substructures
Drawings of substructures below steering gears,
windlasses and chain stoppers as well as masts and
boat davits, supporting structure of cargo masts,
cranes, etc. together with details on loads to be transmitted into structural elements.
.14 Additional information for fibre reinforced plastic (FRP) craft
For FRP craft, the drawing and documents to be
submitted for examination and listed in C3.1.4 are to
contain the following additional information:
− arrangement of laminate for the various structural
elements: thickness, definition of successive layers of reinforcement, areal weight of reinforcement layers, mass or volume fraction of reinforcement layers, directions of roving layers and
unidirectional reinforcements, decreasing in
thickness between layers
− direction of laminate in relation to craft structure
− structure of oil tanks or other liquid tanks which
are integrated into the hull
− details of connection among various structural
elements and details of attachment to the hull of
supplementary reinforcing elements
− pillars
Suppliers’ technical specifications with indication of
types, trademarks and references of resins and gelcoats, reinforcements and core materials are to be
supplied.
These specifications are to give the following information:
− resins: type (orthophthalic or isophthalic), specific gravity, Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio,
breaking strength and elongation at break
I - Part 3
GL 2012
Section 3 Structures Chapter 1
Page 3–3
− reinforcements (mats, woven rovings, unidirectional reinforcements): quality (glass or other material, with specific gravity, breaking strength of
the elementary fibre, Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio), mass per square metre, thickness and
possibly weft-warp distribution
− core materials: type and quality; specific gravity;
tensile, compressive and shear strength and elasticity moduli
C3.1.5 Definitions and symbols
The definitions of the following terms and symbols
are applicable throughout this Section and its Appendices and are not, as a rule, repeated in the different
paragraphs. Definitions applicable only to certain
paragraphs are specified therein.
− “Moulded base line”: The line parallel to the
summer load waterline, crossing the upper side of
keel plate or the top of skeg at the middle of
length L.
− “Hull”: The hull is the outer boundary of the
enclosed spaces of the craft, except for the deckhouses, as defined below.
− “Chine”: For hulls that do not have a clearly identified chine, the chine is the hull point at which
the tangent to the hull is inclined 50° to the horizontal.
− “Bottom”: The bottom is the part of the hull between the keel and the chines.
− “Main deck”: The main deck is the uppermost
complete deck of the hull. It may be stepped.
− “Side”: The side is the part of the hull between
the chine and the main deck.
− “Deckhouse”: The deckhouse is a decked structure located above the main deck, with lateral
walls inboard of the side of more than 4 per cent
of the local breadth. Structure located on the main
deck and whose walls are not in the same longitudinal plane as the under side shell may be regarded as a deckhouse.
− “Wet deck”: For multihull craft, the wet deck is
the bottom structure connecting the hulls which is
defined as cross-deck.
− “Deadrise angle αd”: For hulls that do not have a
clearly identified deadrise angle, αd is the angle
between the horizontal and a straight line joining
the keel and the chine. For catamarans with nonsymmetrical hulls (where inner and outer deadrise
angles are different), αd is the lesser angle.
− “Fore end”: Hull region forward of 0,9 L from the
aft perpendicular.
− “Aft end”: Hull region abaft of 0,1 L from the aft
perpendicular.
− “Midship area”: Hull region between 0,3 L and
0,7 L from the aft perpendicular.
L = Rule length [m], equal to LWL which is the
waterline measured with the craft at rest in
calm water and, for SESs, in the off-cushion
condition, for trimarans L will be defined in
each separate case at the discretion of GL.
FP = forward perpendicular, i.e. the perpendicular
at the intersection of the waterline at draught
T and the foreside of the stem
AP = aft perpendicular, i.e. the perpendicular located at a distance L abaft of the forward perpendicular
B = the greatest moulded breadth [m], of the craft
Bw = the greatest moulded breadth [m], measured
on the waterline at draught T; for catamarans,
Bw is the breadth of each hull; for trimarans,
Bw will be defined in each separate case at the
discretion of GL.
D = depth [m], measured vertically in the transverse section at the middle of length L from
the moulded base line of the hull(s) to the top
of the deck beam at one side of the main deck
(if the main deck is stepped, D will be defined
in each separate case at the discretion of GL)
T = draught of the craft [m], measured vertically
on the transverse section at the middle of
length L, from the moulded base line of the
hull(s) to the full load waterline, with the craft
at rest in calm water and, for SESs, in the offcushion condition
Δ = moulded displacement at draught T, in sea
water (mass density = 1,025 t/m3) [t]
CB = total block coefficient, defined as follows:
B
W
C
1,025 L B T
Δ = ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
For catamarans, CB is to be calculated for a single
hull, assuming Δ equal to one half of the craft’s displacement; for trimarans the calculation of CB depends on the distribution of displacement of each
hull. It will be defined in each separate case at the
discretion of GL.
V = maximum service speed [kn]
g = acceleration of gravity, equal to 9,81 m/s2
LCG = longitudinal centre of gravity of the craft.
C3.1.6 Rounding-Off Tolerances
Where in determining plate thicknesses in accordance
with the provisions of this Section the figures differ
from full or half mm, they may be rounded off to full
or half millimeters up to 0,2 or 0,7; above 0,2 or 0,7
mm they are to be rounded up.
Chapter 1
Page 3–4
Section 3 Structures I - Part 3
GL 2012
If plate thicknesses are not rounded the calculated
required thicknesses shall be shown in the drawings.
The section moduli of profiles usual in the trade and
including the effective width according to C3.7.4
may be 3 % less than the required values according to
the following rules for dimensioning.
C.3.1.7 Workmanship
C3.1.7.1 General
.1 Requirements to be complied with by the
manufacturer
.1.1 The manufacturing plant shall be provided
with suitable equipment and facilities to enable
proper handling of the materials, manufacturing
processes, structural components, etc. GL reserve the
right to inspect the plant accordingly or to restrict the
scope of manufacture to the potential available at the
plant.
.1.2 The manufacturing plant shall have at its
disposal sufficiently qualified personnel. GL is to be
advised of the names and areas of responsibility of all
supervisory and control personnel. GL reserve the
right to require proof of qualification.
.2 Quality control
.2.1 As far as required and expedient, the manufacturer's personnel has to examine all structural
components both during manufacture and on completion, to ensure that they are complete, that the dimensions are correct and that workmanship is satisfactory
and meets the standard of good shipbuilding practice.
.2.2 Upon inspection and corrections by the
manufacturing plant, the structural components are to
be shown to the GL Surveyor for inspection, in suitable sections, normally in unpainted condition and
enabling proper access for inspection.
.2.3 The Surveyor may reject components that
have not been adequately checked by the plant and
may demand their re-submission upon successful
completion of such checks and corrections by the
plant.
C3.1.7.2 Structural details
.1 Details in manufacturing documents
.1.1 All significant details concerning quality and
functional ability of the component concerned shall
be entered in the manufacturing documents (workshop drawings, etc.). This includes not only scantlings but - where relevant - such items as surface
conditions (e.g. finishing of flame cut edges and weld
seams), and special methods of manufacture involved
as well as inspection and acceptance requirements
and where relevant permissible tolerances. So far as
for this aim a standard shall be used (works or national standard, etc.) it shall be harmonized with GL.
This standard shall be based on the IACS Recommendation 47 Shipbuilding and Repair Quality Standard for New Construction. For weld joint details, see
Section C.3.2.4.1
.1.2 If, due to missing or insufficient details in
the manufacturing documents, the quality or functional ability of the component cannot be guaranteed
or is doubtful, GL may require appropriate improvements. This includes the provision of supplementary
or additional parts (for example reinforcements) even
if these were not required at the time of plan approval
or if - as a result of insufficient detailing - such requirement was not obvious.
.2 Cut-outs, plate edges
.2.1 The free edges (cut surfaces) of cut-outs,
hatch corners, etc. are to be properly prepared and are
to be free from notches. As a general rule, cutting
drag lines, etc. shall not be welded out, but are to be
smoothly ground. All edges should be broken or in
cases of highly stressed parts, should be rounded off.
.2.2 Free edges of flame or machine cut plates or
flanges are not to be sharp cornered and are to be
finished off as laid down in 2.2.1. This also applies to
cutting drag lines, etc., in particular to the upper edge
of shear strake and analogously to weld joints,
changes in sectional areas or similar discontinuities.
.3 Cold forming
.3.1 For cold forming (bending, flanging, beading) of plates the minimum average bending radius
shall not fall short of 3 t (t = plate thickness) and
shall be at least 2 t. Regarding the welding of cold
formed areas, see C3.6.1.2.6.
.3.2 In order to prevent cracking, flame cutting
flash or sheering burrs shall be removed before cold
forming. After cold forming all structural components and, in particular, the ends of bends (plate
edges) are to be examined for cracks. Except in cases
where edge cracks are negligible, all cracked components are to be rejected. Repair welding is not permissible.
.4 Assembly, alignment
.4.1 The use of excessive force is to be avoided
during the assembly of individual structural components or during the erection of sections. As far as
possible major distortions of individual structural
components should be corrected before further assembly.
.4.2 Girders, beams, stiffeners, frames, etc. that
are interrupted by bulkheads, decks, etc. shall be
accurately aligned. In the case of critical components,
control drillings are to be made where necessary,
which are then to be welded up again on completion.
.4.3 After completion of welding, straightening
and aligning shall be carried out in such a manner
that the material properties will not be influenced
I - Part 3
GL 2012
Section 3 Structures Chapter 1
Page 3–5
significantly. In case of doubt, GL may require a
procedure test or a working test to be carried out.
C3.1.8 Protection against corrosion
.1 Scantlings stipulated in C3.7 assume that the
materials used are chosen and protected in such a
way that the strength lost by corrosion is negligible.
.2 The Shipyard is to give GL a document
specifying all the arrangements made to protect the
material against corrosion at the construction stage:
coating types, number and thickness of layers, surface preparation, application conditions, control after
completion, anodic protection, etc. The GL Guidelines for Corrosion Protection and Coating Systems
(VI-10-2) are to be observed.
.3 This document shall also include maintenance arrangements to be made in service to restore
and maintain the efficiency of this protection, whatever the reasons of its weakening, whether incidental
or not.
.4 All such maintenance operations are to be
listed in a book shown to GL surveyor at each visit
.

15.3 Field of Vision from the Operating Compartment
15.3.1 The operating station shall be placed above
all other superstructures so that the operating crew
are able to gain a view all round the horizon from the
navigating workstation. Where it is impractical to
meet the requirements of this paragraph from a single
navigating workstation, the operating station shall be
designed so that an all-round view of the horizon is
obtained by using two navigating workstations combined or by any other means to the satisfaction of the
Administration.
15.3.2 Blind sectors shall be as few and as small as
possible, and not adversely affect the keeping of a safe
look-out from the operating station. If stiffeners between windows are to be covered, this shall not cause
further obstruction inside the wheelhouse.
15.3.3 The total arc of blind sectors from right
ahead to 22.5° abaft the beam on either side shall not
exceed 20°. Each individual blind sector shall not
exceed 5°. The clear sector between two blind sectors
shall not be less than 10°.
15.3.4 Where it is considered necessary by the Administration, the field of vision from the navigating
workstation shall permit the navigators from this
position to utilize leading marks astern of the craft for
track monitoring.
15.3.5 The view of the sea surface from the operating station, when the navigators are seated, shall not
be obscured by more than one craft length forward of
the bow to 90°on either side irrespective of the craft's
draught, trim and deck cargo.
15.3.6 The field of vision from the docking workstation, if remote from the operating station, shall
permit one navigator to safely manoeuvre the craft to
a berth.

Vixen,
Please identify what in the above sections that you cited led you to
...feel sure those [the Uber Boats on the Thames] have got reinforced windows
 
Nope, that doesn’t say anything about witness statements being excluded. Try again.

Incidentally, is this “Bengt Schager” anything to do with the “JAIC-appointed psychologist, Bengt Shager” who you accused of putting the witnesses statements “into his own words”?




And is either of them anything to do with the “JAIC psychologist” you accused of “rewriting history”?



LMAO

It's wheels within wheels, man!
 
But Sillaste and Treu are presented as the main witnesses by the JAIC. In addition, a passenger survivor has less motive than a member of the crew to cover anything up or try to paint themself in a good light, as a random passenger survivor has no fear of losing his or her job with the shipping line. In Estonia, unemployment was very high.



In addition, the shipping line, Estline, together with the commercial shipping interests of the Estonian members of the JAIC (a conflict of interest surely)_were loathe to criticise any staff and were highly sensitive as to their image, given their wonder ship was called Estonia and businesses know that 'reputation risk' is one of the key destroyers of an enterprise, hence, most such companies quickly assembling 'crisis management' boards to appease public unease (for example, as with a product recall).



The JAIC appointed psychologist, Bengt Shager resigned in frustration for what he perceived was a cover up of how shockingly bad the crew were. He was restrained from criticising them so he threw in the towel.
Blah, blah they were loathe to criticise any employees except of course the one they sacked for saying the wrong thing, except of course you can't substantiate that claim either.
 
There are links to:

List of all interrogations of survivors and a list of persons in Estonia interrogated by the Estonian part of JAIC

It also states that 137 people - passengers and people from the crew - survived the sinking of M / S Estonia. All survivors have been questioned by the police in Finland and / or Estonia and Sweden. In some cases, survivors have been questioned by police in other countries.

To seek clarification of the cause of the accident, JAIC has interrogated or had conversations with a number of survivors from the crew. Some of the crew have been questioned several times. In a few isolated cases, representatives of JAIC have also had conversations with passengers.

I stand corrected. It is not just two passengers. It is three. Out of 79 rescued.

The police statements are classified and cannot be accessed, unless already released to the public domain by whomever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom