• 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.

The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

In most ferry designs the cars are chained to the deck as part of the loading process.
I have sailed in/on many many ferries, likely more than 100. My car has never been chained to a deck and I have never seen any other car chained. Are you perhaps referring specifically to ferries that sail large open bodies of water?
 
I have sailed in/on many many ferries, likely more than 100. My car has never been chained to a deck and I have never seen any other car chained. Are you perhaps referring specifically to ferries that sail large open bodies of water?
I’m vaguely recalling my experience decades ago in the Mediterranean. I’m happy to be wrong in general. I just wanted to say that those undocumented diagrams shouldn’t necessarily be faulted because they don’t show shifted cargo.
 
I have sailed in/on many many ferries, likely more than 100. My car has never been chained to a deck and I have never seen any other car chained. Are you perhaps referring specifically to ferries that sail large open bodies of water?
Yeah, my only car ferry experience comes from cross-channel (England-France, or the other way about) ferries. Nothing was chained down. Granted, that was a while ago, and that crossing isn't prone to bumpy water.

I thought of another (and much more recent): Malta to Gozo. Again, no chaining, and again short and not bumpy. It occurs to me that maybe things were chained down after we'd buggered off upstairs, and were unchained before we were allowed back onto the car deck.

TLDR: I never saw it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
 
Last edited:
A. Bjorkman's earlier mentioned book.
So yes, you are using Anders Björkman as an expert source even as we speak. And no, you're not just using the "diagrams" innocently. The diagrams illustrate Björkman's naive claims.

ETA: Those pages appear to be photographed and posted by you from a printed book. Do you own a printed copy of Anders Björkman's book?
 
Last edited:
No, I haven't cited him in a long time. His name is kept in the frame by posters who remember him from 9/11 threads, which I have never taken part in. IOW they have a personal dislike of him, which they think is rational to use here.
Except for a couple of days ago, of course
Anders Björkman, qualified ship architect.

No, I haven't cited him in a long time. His name is kept in the frame by posters who remember him from 9/11 threads, which I have never taken part in. IOW they have a personal dislike of him, which they think is rational to use here.
And again today...
A. Bjorkman's earlier mentioned book.
 
Jay, do those diagrams make sense? Yes, no, or need more info?
No, they make no sense. They tell a story, but the story omits all the assumptions that would be needed to have the story come out that way. I'll add more detail later when I have time. Björkman is trying to say, "This is what should have happened." But someone with knowledge of the field can say, "No, not necessarily." For example, the progression implied for steps 1E and 1F is purely fanciful. But it's presented as the expected outcome.
 
Last edited:
I found this website, maybe it's been posted before, but I'll post the link anyway:


It charts the investigation, and features an interactive 3D model of the ship, and seemingly endless photos of the wreck. This also links to the Stockholm University report, which has been posted before, but I'll post it again because it details the hull damage cause by impact with the sea floor:


100% Bjorkman free.
 
Some time ago there was a discussion about the JAIC report not naming the involved people (crew, passengers).

On the Swedish Accident investigation Authority home page it's possible to search for old reports. I found 27 published reports (in Swedish) before year 2000. I have checked a random selection of 9 of them - not a single one of them names those involved. Instead they are referred to by their title/role.

From my random selection, it seems to be to be a standard procedure in Swedish accident reports not to name those involved. For this reason I do not see that the Estonian JAIC report is an anomaly.
 
Last edited:
She'll have to tell us her source. It's not anything from the JAIC, so I wonder why she posted them in response to a request for where the JAIC allegedly said something. You'd think it would be a citation to the JAIC.


Yes, it's pain either way. You have to position the cars and chain them down at loading, and then unchain them for unloading. You don't want your cargo shifting too much during a voyage. But for stability calculation purposes you can assume the cars in this case would reasonably stay put.
I've never seen the chaining down in practice, but the hardware and fastening points I've seen when driving onboard.

Chapter 12.6.1in the JAIC report does talk about cargo shift.
0_bit.gif
The influence of cargo shifting was also investigated in separate studies. Due to the distribution of vehicles on deck, the maximum transverse shifting of cargo centre of gravity could have been of the order of just a few metres. Two metres of cargo shift would have the effect that the progressive flooding of deck 4 started with about 10 % less water on the car deck
 
So yes, you are using Anders Björkman as an expert source even as we speak. And no, you're not just using the "diagrams" innocently. The diagrams illustrate Björkman's naive claims.

ETA: Those pages appear to be photographed and posted by you from a printed book. Do you own a printed copy of Anders Björkman's book?
Yes. As I said, open-minded.
 

Back
Top Bottom