The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Mojo]

Hell I'd bet that I've done more sailing than Vixen has.

How do you work that out?

Remember, Mark, that Vixen has been lost in the Baltic twice. I bet you haven't even managed it once.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Remember, Mark, that Vixen has been lost in the Baltic twice. I bet you haven't even managed it once.

True, I have not.

I have however been sailing on numerous occasions, including passing a sailing certification thing.

I know what vixen has claimed, but I don't actually believe it.

 

[zooterkin]

Motes and beams, ducky.

I guess we add 'invective' to the list of words you don't understand.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

But the thing is, tv recordings can be seized and wiped.

The thing is, this is a nothingburger.

This isn't the X-files. Seizing an already-broadcast news report in a country where the footage did not originate would not magic it out of existence. Its presence on YouTube hints that claims of its destruction may be somewhat absurd.

 

[JayUtah]

It's about careless disregard for the obvious and ominous accumulation of multiple needless risk factors.

This is an extremely accurate depiction of the complacency factors we find time and again when investigating accidents. As much as people want to point to single precipitating events, and as much as people want to downplay the effects of individual factors, what we see almost all the time is an accumulation of seemingly acceptable individual allowances that collectively erode the safety margin down to nothing. Diane Vaughan coined the term "normalization of deviance" to describe this phenomenon.

Safety margins are meant to absorb individual and momentary departures from a safe operating envelope. When they are used to absorb ongoing departures, there effectively is no safety margin anymore. The next momentary departure in some variable or subset of variables from their safe operating envelope produces a nonlinear response in the system, usually in the form of some kind of accident. The normalization of deviance arises because individual (and even most chronic) incursions into the safety margin produce no adverse consequence. That's the function of a safety margin: to allow you to observe and respond to an incursion without suffering tightly-coupled consequences. Aside from sustainable regulatory penalties or stern talkings-to, no memorable consequence follows. There is then created in the minds of operators the illusion that the system can be operated safely well inside the safety margin. Operators often realize a greater operational efficiency by doing so, and thereby are tempted to continue doing it. A false assurance of safety is speciously reckoned from the lack of catastrophe inherent to the safety margin—the absence of memorable consequence.

In short, what we usually see in operators implicated in accidents is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and intent of a safety margin. This is what we saw in the MS Estonia case. Operators were blind to the cumulative effect of individually sustainable conditions that had been allowed to become chronic in order to expand production efficiency. In this predicament, the precipitating event need not have been singularly catastrophic, or even especially deviant. With no effective safety margin to absorb it, even a seemingly incremental degradation can cause the system to respond in a nonlinear manner.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Remember, Mark, that Vixen has been lost in the Baltic twice. I bet you haven't even managed it once.

I haven't been to the Baltic but I have crossed the Atlantic, wandered all over the Caribbean and Med and ventured in to the Indian Ocean and nosed around the Norwegian coast, north sea and various Scottish island groups., there was a war involved at one point.


Lots of big storms weathered but I've never been lost at sea though.

 

[Steve]

This is an extremely accurate depiction of the complacency factors we find time and again when investigating accidents. As much as people want to point to single precipitating events, and as much as people want to downplay the effects of individual factors, what we see almost all the time is an accumulation of seemingly acceptable individual allowances that collectively erode the safety margin down to nothing. Diane Vaughan coined the term "normalization of deviance" to describe this phenomenon.

Safety margins are meant to absorb individual and momentary departures from a safe operating envelope. When they are used to absorb ongoing departures, there effectively is no safety margin anymore. The next momentary departure in some variable or subset of variables from their safe operating envelope produces a nonlinear response in the system, usually in the form of some kind of accident. The normalization of deviance arises because individual (and even most chronic) incursions into the safety margin produce no adverse consequence. That's the function of a safety margin: to allow you to observe and respond to an incursion without suffering tightly-coupled consequences. Aside from sustainable regulatory penalties or stern talkings-to, no memorable consequence follows. There is then created in the minds of operators the illusion that the system can be operated safely well inside the safety margin. Operators often realize a greater operational efficiency by doing so, and thereby are tempted to continue doing it. A false assurance of safety is speciously reckoned from the lack of catastrophe inherent to the safety margin—the absence of memorable consequence.

In short, what we usually see in operators implicated in accidents is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and intent of a safety margin. This is what we saw in the MS Estonia case. Operators were blind to the cumulative effect of individually sustainable conditions that had been allowed to become chronic in order to expand production efficiency. In this predicament, the precipitating event need not have been singularly catastrophic, or even especially deviant. With no effective safety margin to absorb it, even a seemingly incremental degradation can cause the system to respond in a nonlinear manner.

Very well said.

Unfortunately this is beyond the comprehension of some people, who will continue to insist that there was a singular, likely intentional, cause of the sinking that subsequently required an extensive cover up.

 

[JayUtah]

Unfortunately this is beyond the comprehension of some people, who will continue to insist that there was a singular, likely intentional, cause of the sinking that subsequently required an extensive cover up.

Hence why armchair detectives are worse than useless.

 

[Blue Mountain]

My first serious sailing experience was sailing tall ships on the Great Lakes. People who don't respect the power and anger of the "mere" lakes tend to become the dead that the lakes are infamous for not giving up.

But were you sailing when the gales of November came early?

 

[Vixen]

It wasn't about the Baltic being the most violent sea on the planet. It's about careless disregard for the obvious and ominous accumulation of multiple needless risk factors. People who underestimate cumulative risks drown in placid ponds as well as tsunamis, crash on suburban streets as well as racetracks, and die on Mount Washington as well as Mount Everest.

You might get away with operating a vessel in waters it was never designed to operate in, if you were careful to avoid sailing in bad weather.

You might get away with operating a vessel in waters it was never designed to operate in, in bad weather, if you were careful to keep her well maintained.

You might get away with operating a vessel in waters it was never designed to operate in, in bad weather, when poorly maintained, if you were careful to keep it in perfect trim.

You might get away with operating a vessel in waters it was never designed to operate in, in bad weather, when poorly maintained, and in an unbalanced trim condition, if you were steaming with a following wind and waves.

You might get away with operating a vessel in waters it was never designed to operate in, in bad weather, when poorly maintained, and in an unbalanced trim condition, straight into oncoming wind and waves, if you reduced your speed.

You might get away with operating a vessel in waters it was never designed to operate in, in bad weather, when poorly maintained, and in an unbalanced trim condition, straight into oncoming wind and waves, at full speed, if your crew were continuously vigilant about the operating condition of every critical part of the vessel and responsive to all warning signs.

You might get away with operating a vessel in waters it was never designed to operate in, in bad weather, when poorly maintained, and in an unbalanced trim condition, straight into oncoming wind and waves, at full speed, with you and your crew slacking off and disregarding warning signs, if you were very lucky.

But we know the vessel, crew, and passengers were not very lucky that night. The reason luck was left as their only (and ultimately inadequate) hope for collective survival was all those other factors that the people who should have known better idiotically allowed to stack up against them without even noticing until it was too late.

Luck...? Whilst it is useful to understand the general reasons for accidents, reading the above, anyone would think the sudden drowning of up to a thousand people within half an hour was an everyday occurence.

We do not need to look at generalisations for a specific case. The JAIC have already looked at the retrospective generalisations as to why the accident happened and it guessed, ' a strong wave', a particularly bad storm and a particularly fast speed. So that is why the bow visor suddenly fell off. It must have been bad workmanship or bad maintenance. Ah, well shrug. None of this was proven. In fact:

• The Captain of nearby Silja Europa said the weather was normal for that time of year
• The Captains of Viking Mariella (Thoresson) and Silja Europa (Makela) confirmed the three vessels were travelling more or less side by side to Stokholm as per normal
• Captains Thoresson and Makela confirm they could see each other.
• Neither of these Captains mention a 'strong wave' or any such 'super wave'
• On approaching the stricken vessel, Capt Makela said he was shocked to not see any sign of it at all, as would be normal in a sinking ship.

So ascribing sweeping generalisations into a specific case, where we know many of the details, just doesn't succeed in hand waving it away.

 

[Vixen]

Hell I'd bet that I've done more sailing than Vixen has.

Explain why you have named me in particular.

 

[Vixen]

Hence why armchair detectives are worse than useless.

Jutta Rabe, Harri Ruotsalainen, Margus Kurm and Henrik Evertsson, et al, are hardly 'armchair detectives'.


A virtual thank you to these guys and all those who have been determined to bring out into the open the truth of what happened to the M/V Estonia.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Explain why you have named me in particular.

What do you mean by that?

Also if you're going to try to use Rabe as a source you need to show evidence for her claims and explain why they read like a terrible pulp spy novel and aren't remotely close to the reality of the intelligence community.

 

[Vixen]

So, the Maritime Executive implies that we will not be getting any further report. You recall the Arikas/Sandback one was 'preliminary' and a full report was due in January 2024? It now seems this will not actually be made public (so what happened to the 30,000 or so images that were being taken?) if this is what is being claimed when it reports the Swedish prosecutor 'has closed the case'.

However, a joint Estonian, Finnish and Swedish report released in 2023 pushed back on these controversial claims and endorsed the original conclusion: the bow visor failed due to mechanical fatigue.

Swedish prosecutors have now accepted this conclusion as well, and have declined to reopen the case, citing lack of evidence for an alternative explanation.

"Based on the actions of the investigative bodies, there is no indication that a collision with a ship or floating object or an explosion on the bow occurred. There's also nothing else to suspect that a crime was committed. Therefore, preliminary investigations will not start, and the case will be closed," said lead prosecutor Karolina Wieslander.

Since when was it in the hands of the Swedish Prosecutor, other than as of the time of the accident, when they closed their investigation then? If it is true we will not be hearing any more of the Arikas investigation then to my mind it proves that (a) there is something to hide and they cannot produce the report for fear of being found to be deliberately misleading in the years to come so instead they announce 'case closed' (b) they are not being straight with the relatives of the 500 or so Swedish victims or the 300 or so Estonian victims plus dozens of victims of other nationalities.

So IMV they should show us the proof the holes in the hull were produced by rocks.

If the 'case is closed', as seems to be the case, it is an outrage.

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
― Abraham Lincoln

 

[Vixen]

What do you mean by that?

Also if you're going to try to use Rabe as a source you need to show evidence for her claims and explain why they read like a terrible pulp spy novel and aren't remotely close to the reality of the intelligence community.

You wrote:

"Hell I'd bet that I've done more sailing than Vixen has."

Why?



You are not even familiar with Rabe. You did a 'cock of the walk' thing and declared her 'an insane crank' without knowing anything about her and as if you are the arbiter.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... reading the above, anyone would think the sudden drowning of up to a thousand people within half an hour was an everyday occurence.

No. No reasonable person would read it and think that.

The reasons for the sinking are painfully clear and further investigation has confirmed rather than confounded that. Your unceasing efforts to cram nonsense into the mouths of the investigators (superwave? really?) and turn this tragedy into some fantastical movie thriller are nonsense.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You wrote:

"Hell I'd bet that I've done more sailing than Vixen has."

Why?

Because I don't believe your stories, and I have some experience sailing, albeit much less than Andy or Jay.

You are not even familiar with Rabe. .

Wrong. Hilariously wrong. Stop trying to pretend you're the only one who knows what they're talking about. Remember when you tried that with the book I owned?

You did a 'cock of the walk' thing

Laughable attempt to poison the well by presenting me as a smug idiot. Again, its really obvious what youre trying to do Vixen. Youre really really crap at it.

and declared her 'an insane crank' without knowing anything about her and as if you are the arbiter.

Nope. Just plain not true. I did know that she had produced a wildly implausible book of conspiracy twaddle and I declared her such because of said wildly implausible conspiracy twaddle.

Also stop trying to reverse the burden of proof here. You are attempting to use her as a source, it is on you to show that her writings are reasonable and not paranoid 007 fanfiction.

 

[Vixen]

Because I don't believe your stories, and I have some experience sailing, albeit much less than Andy or Jay.

Wrong. Hilariously wrong. Stop trying to pretend you're the only one who knows what they're talking about. Remember when you tried that with the book I owned?
Laughable attempt to poison the well by presenting me as a smug idiot. Again, its really obvious what youre trying to do Vixen. Youre really really crap at it.

Nope. Just plain not true. I did know that she had produced a wildly implausible book of conspiracy twaddle and I declared her such because of said wildly implausible conspiracy twaddle.

Also stop trying to reverse the burden of proof here. You are attempting to use her as a source, it is on you to show that her writings are reasonable and not paranoid 007 fanfiction.

Oh really? You can read German or Swedish? The book was nothing at all to do with 'pulp fiction' it was a descriptive narrative, together with the laboratory reports , graphs and tables of international metallurgy labs, and a reproduction of a report written by naval explosions expert, Brian Braidwood and naval expert Michael Fellowes. The metallurgy samples were retrieved by divers on a vessel commandeered by Rabe and Gregg Bemiss (look him up: he is one of America's most respected mariners).


How do you work out you have more experience of sailing than specifically, myself?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Oh really? You can read German or Swedish?

You do know translations and summaries exist right?

The book was nothing at all to do with 'pulp fiction'

It reads like it. Its a badly thought out pulp spy novel, not serious journalism.

it was a descriptive narrative, together with the laboratory reports , graphs and tables of international metallurgy labs, and a reproduction of a report written by naval explosions expert, Brian Braidwood and naval expert Michael Fellowes. The metallurgy samples were retrieved by divers on a vessel commandeered by Rabe and Gregg Bemiss (look him up: he is one of America's most respected mariners)

It advances conspiracy theories without evidence and Braidwood never saw the site, just the pictures. We went over this.

How do you work out you have more experience of sailing than specifically, myself?

I answered this. Because I don't believe your stories about yourself. You routinely lie to make yourself seem more important than you are and routinely lie about what others say. Again, remember the IRA farce or the incident with the book I own?

 

[Here_to_learn]

So, the Maritime Executive implies that we will not be getting any further report. You recall the Arikas/Sandback one was 'preliminary' and a full report was due in January 2024? It now seems this will not actually be made public (so what happened to the 30,000 or so images that were being taken?) if this is what is being claimed when it reports the Swedish prosecutor 'has closed the case'.



Since when was it in the hands of the Swedish Prosecutor, other than as of the time of the accident, when they closed their investigation then? If it is true we will not be hearing any more of the Arikas investigation then to my mind it proves that (a) there is something to hide and they cannot produce the report for fear of being found to be deliberately misleading in the years to come so instead they announce 'case closed' (b) they are not being straight with the relatives of the 500 or so Swedish victims or the 300 or so Estonian victims plus dozens of victims of other nationalities.

So IMV they should show us the proof the holes in the hull were produced by rocks.

If the 'case is closed', as seems to be the case, it is an outrage.

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
― Abraham Lincoln

This was all explained from the link I posted from the Swedish Prosecutor.

The Prosecutors have investigated the (reopened) legal case, and based on the information they have received from the combined Estonian/Swedish ongoing accident investigation, they have decided that there is no case to drive from the legal perspective.

The investigation performed by the Estonian Safety investigation Bureau together with the Swedish Accident Investigation Authority is still ongoing.