[Continuation] The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[SteveAitch]

I did finally make it all the way through Drew Wilson's The Hole. And yes, it's spy pulp. That's apparently what Vixen is relying on for the political angle. There's little if any technical expertise evident in the book. Plenty of attempts, to be sure, but no substance.

Let's just hope no-one sends her a copy of Nadine Dorries' The Plot - just think of the thread she generate from that...

 

[Axxman300]

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.

Nope. And that's not what he said, nor implied. Quit putting words into people's mouths.

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.

But was proven. And the new report doubles down on this fact along with slack safety inspections.

The Captain of nearby Silja Europa said the weather was normal for that time of year

Clearly bad enough. Plus, the MS Estonia was not designed to sail in those conditions.

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

At a much slower speed. I wonder why that was?

Captains Thoresson and Makela confirm they could see each other.

And?

Neither of these Captains mention a 'strong wave' or any such 'super wave'

Okay, so you don't anything about rogue waves, nor have you bothered to do even the most casual research on the topic. I'll use small words. A rogue wave is caused by winds, and storm effects on the ocean, and other factors like the convergence of currents, and gyres at specific locations. There is a spot at the southern tip of Africa that is legendary for giant rogue waves sinking huge ships. Rogue waves are not like Tsunamis, which can stretch for miles in both directions from the plate action. There is no miles-long wall of water, or "super wave" (that's just dumb, BTW). Rogue waves are localized, which is one of the reasons it took Marine Science so long to recognize their existence, even in the face of hundreds of years of stories from sailors of their ships being damaged or sunk by suck freak waves.

Fact is we know it was a rogue wave based on the survivor testimonies, and the fact that MS Estonia now lies on the bottom of the Baltic.

And this is from last December:

https://www.cruisehive.com/cruise-ship-damaged-by-rogue-wave-loses-power/119075

MS Maud, finishing a 14-night “Northern Lights” expedition cruise roundtrip from Tilbury, UK, was struck by a rogue wave at approximately 4 p.m. on Thursday, December 21, 2023. The wave broke out several windows on the ship’s bridge, which caused a temporary loss of power and navigational ability, setting the ship briefly adrift.

Authorities were quickly alerted to the emergency, and multiple nearby vessels and rescue personnel responded to the situation.

Unlike Estonia, this ship was designed for open ocean transit, and it still got beat up

And thanks to the many changes after the Estonia disaster, the crew did what the Estonia's crew did not:

“In line with our robust operational protocols, the crew immediately carried out thorough safety checks and technical assessments, in addition to making sure that everyone on board is as well as the conditions allow,” a statement from the cruise line read. “Further assessments are now being made for onward sailing.”

No serious injuries have been reported and the ship is considered in stable condition, though unable to navigate independently. The vessel is being steered manually from the engine room. Tow assistance is being arranged as soon as it is safe to do so.

And here's the most important part of the story, and the difference between sinking, and surviving:

Satellite tracking data shows the 16,151-gross-ton cruise ship moving at just 2-3 knots (2-4 miles per hour / 4-6 kilometers per hour). At the ship’s current location, wind is reported at approximately 35 knots (40 mph / 65 kph).

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.

Estonia was sailing at flank speed to make up for lost time. That speed combined with the open bow ramp acted to scoop sea water into the car deck.

Golly, almost as if once the bow visor fell off and the bow ramp was open the car deck filled with water, causing the Estonia to roll over and sink. The reason the good captain was surprised was the bridge crew of Estonia never reported just how bad their situation was in any of their radio calls.

Seriously, no duh.

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

You're the only one hand waving away the facts in order to fill the void with conspiracy claptrap.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Its not humble bragging, nor is it bragging. I simply stated that i have some sailing experience and i think you're lying about yours. You're lying again. Quote me saying I have sailed extensively. Go on, quote it.

I, one the other hand have sailed extensively and I do brag about it.
I'm not a humble man.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No. I've explained that I based my flippant comment on the fact you're a self aggrandising liar.

I, on the other hand do base it on that.
Is it bragging to say that I have never been lost at sea?

 

[Vixen]

No. From my well-experienced perspective, it is a very accurate presentation of the sorts of conditions that persist and from which accidents such as MS Estonia invariably arise. These are documented facts, regardless of your desire to ignore them and the suggestion that you're smart to do so. You've presented nothing to contradict the conclusion that the loss of MS Estonia was a "normal accident," in Charles Perrow's terminology.



Oh, knock it off.

You fasten on each conspiracy theory du jour without respect to any sort of viable alternate theory or even consistency on a daily basis. You're not trying to solve a problem. It's been solved, and by better people than you. You're trying to prolong the illusion of a problem because it validates your "armchair detective" role and makes you feel important. It's all about you.



From the "simple current affairs" perspective there really is nothing to see here. It was an accident. It was investigated thoroughly and the root causes found. The root causes include chronic problems in engineering and transportation that we practitioners are quite familiar with. We can talk about them accurately and knowledgeably without "dismissing" anything. Being able to see patterns in failure is a strength, not a dodge.

On the other hand, you seem to desperately want there to be something more and nefarious to it, apparently so you can pat yourself on back for being so clever in discovering it. It's literally all about what you are choosing to believe, often in contravention of self-evident fact, and usually in contravention of what you said you believed yesterday.

Utter nonsense. I started a couple of threads in current affairs, which were current affairs (this one and the Luton Airport Fire) - hardly controversial. There are no hidden meanings or hidden depths. Straightforward news stories. Factual. Problem solving. I don't do naval-gazing (no pun intended). I look outwards. I see reality for what it is because I look at it objectively.

I am guessing if someone was interested say, 'Dinosaurs and their extinction' someone is sure to want to shut it down and troll the OP just because they themself cannot see what is interesting about it. Nothing to feel threatened about by it someone wants to go beyond the daily newspapers and find out more.

 

[Vixen]

That doesn't change the fact that you merely assumed she had done her homework. You told us that's what you did, then you tried to tell us you didn't.

We've addressed the other contributions you mention at length. I want to hear from you why you think you can tell us you're fair-minded about Rabe and at the same time just give her the benefit of the doubt for sensationalist claims such as the captain being shot in the head.

You make the same common mistake as a lot of people. You think that reading a certain book or newspaper or article means you endorse that publication or person or agree with their views or what they are trying to put across. It is quite possible to read an eclectic range of material quite objectively without prejudgment. I do that all time. How else do you build up a BS detector if you never acquaint yourself with how to read critically.

 

[JayUtah]

I see reality for what it is because I look at it objectively.

No. You habitually start conspiracy threads in non-conspiracy sections and then throw tantrums when they are appropriately moved where they belong.

You aren't objective. As we pointed out, you bend over backwards to let conspiracy authors take liberties with the facts.

You aren't simply interested. All the other participants in this thread are bringing personal experience and professional qualifications to the table, while you remain absolutely impervious to all of it. You pretend to be an expert and refuse to admit even the slightest error.

You aren't simply going beyond the daily newspapers. In fact, you insist we take initial media coverage as accurate, despite facts developed later. You insist we take inexpert media coverage as dispositive, rather than the statements of actual experts. In claiming to reach beyond mainstream coverage, you accept any and all nonsense so long as it casts doubt on the conventional narrative. You can't even keep them consistent or recognize when they are obvious satire.

 

[JayUtah]

You make the same common mistake as a lot of people. You think that reading a certain book or newspaper or article means you endorse that publication or person or agree with their views or what they are trying to put across.

You are specifically endorsing Rabe as a competent journalist. When faced with examples of her incompetence, you spin assumptions that you think rehabilitate her. And then you try to backpedal when those assumptions contradict your assertive claims to intellectual virtue.

 

[Vixen]

Braidwood's analysis of the diving footage is available and has been evaluated by other diving experts. The flaws with it have been presented here, but you ignored them. I addressed Braidwood's summary of the metallurgical data and have shown several times how it does not support the conclusions Braidwood wishes to draw from it. You have been unable to address any of that,

What you say you have—that no one else has—are the actual reports of the forensic laboratories upon which Braidwood based his findings. They were apparently appendices to Braidwood's original report, but were omitted when it was digitized. These you say contain the information showing that Braidwood's questionable conclusions are nevertheless defensible, and therefore only you can know that for sure.

You're making a lot of hay out of what you think those reports contain and prove. But let's face it: you're not competent to evaluate them, or to determine whether Braidwood correctly evaluated them. And you seem reluctant to get the information into our hands so that we can address your claims or draw our own conclusions from positions of expertise. Yes, I saw into ordering the book for myself, but it's only available from a single overseas publisher with whom I can't seem to find a way to arrange payment.

I'll try and get hold of a copy for you and send it on.

I am not 'making hay'; I took the trouble to read it. Likewise Prof Ida Westerman and Professor Amdahl (_sp?) they might be right, they might be wrong but they all strike me as acting in good faith and not trying to 'con' anyone.

 

[Vixen]

Well, maybe if accountants were running everything.

What a logical world that would be!

 

[Mojo]

What a logical world that would be!

Every bean counted.

 

[Vixen]

Let's just hope no-one sends her a copy of Nadine Dorries' The Plot - just think of the thread she generate from that...

I did look it up on Kindle but it was too expensive. I am not afraid of reading people I do not agree with.

 

[JayUtah]

I'll try and get hold of a copy for you and send it on.

I'm asking only for certain dispositive reproductions of a book you say you have on hand. I don't want "a copy." I want proof that (a) you have and have read the book you say, and (b) it contains the material you claim it does. Don't change the assignment.

I am not 'making hay'; I took the trouble to read it.

And you are making great hay out of the notion that no one else has, and that because you are privy to information you think no one else has, you are the only one competent to determine whether that information supports the conspiracy theory.

When I and others with appropriate background take issue with the material we can see, you ignore it entirely.

Likewise Prof Ida Westerman and Professor Amdahl (_sp?) they might be right, they might be wrong but they all strike me as acting in good faith and not trying to 'con' anyone.

You misrepresented Westerman and continue to do so. You are not competent to evaluate Amdahl's work, as you demonstrated.

 

[Vixen]

Nope. And that's not what he said, nor implied. Quit putting words into people's mouths.




But was proven. And the new report doubles down on this fact along with slack safety inspections.




Clearly bad enough. Plus, the MS Estonia was not designed to sail in those conditions.



At a much slower speed. I wonder why that was?



And?



Okay, so you don't anything about rogue waves, nor have you bothered to do even the most casual research on the topic. I'll use small words. A rogue wave is caused by winds, and storm effects on the ocean, and other factors like the convergence of currents, and gyres at specific locations. There is a spot at the southern tip of Africa that is legendary for giant rogue waves sinking huge ships. Rogue waves are not like Tsunamis, which can stretch for miles in both directions from the plate action. There is no miles-long wall of water, or "super wave" (that's just dumb, BTW). Rogue waves are localized, which is one of the reasons it took Marine Science so long to recognize their existence, even in the face of hundreds of years of stories from sailors of their ships being damaged or sunk by suck freak waves.

Fact is we know it was a rogue wave based on the survivor testimonies, and the fact that MS Estonia now lies on the bottom of the Baltic.

And this is from last December:

https://www.cruisehive.com/cruise-ship-damaged-by-rogue-wave-loses-power/119075



Unlike Estonia, this ship was designed for open ocean transit, and it still got beat up

And thanks to the many changes after the Estonia disaster, the crew did what the Estonia's crew did not:



And here's the most important part of the story, and the difference between sinking, and surviving:




Estonia was sailing at flank speed to make up for lost time. That speed combined with the open bow ramp acted to scoop sea water into the car deck.

Golly, almost as if once the bow visor fell off and the bow ramp was open the car deck filled with water, causing the Estonia to roll over and sink. The reason the good captain was surprised was the bridge crew of Estonia never reported just how bad their situation was in any of their radio calls.

Seriously, no duh.



You're the only one hand waving away the facts in order to fill the void with conspiracy claptrap.

Maybe maybe not. IMV the JAIC is all guess work. They wondered what could have caused the accident and worked backwards. Must have been a storm. Must have been a strong wave that knocked off the bow visor. Windows on deck four must have smashed because otherwise the water on the car deck would not have been enough to capsize it, etc.,etc. It's the would-could-should-might syndrome all over again. Must have been a fault in the design. That might be reasonable except the shipbuilders strongly deny it. As you might claim of course they did but Meyer Werft have enough insurance cover and massive reserves on the Balance Sheet to just settle out of court and have done with it. But they did not. So let's see both sides of the argument.

 

[JayUtah]

IMV the JAIC is all guess work.

You are not competent to offer that evaluation.

They wondered what could have caused the accident and worked backwards.

You are not competent to determine that this is what they did, or that their approach was incorrect or unacceptable in the field.

So let's see both sides of the argument.

A second investigation has been conducted that substantially confirms the findings of the first. Your insistence that the questions somehow remain forever open seems to have more to do with you having something to talk about than in solving problems or finding the truth.

 

[Vixen]

I, one the other hand have sailed extensively and I do brag about it.
I'm not a humble man.

Put it this way. My family has owned an island for as long as I can remember. It does not have a helicopter pad. It does not have an aeroplane runway, It does not have a ferry connection. It is too far out to swim to. Pause for a minute and ask yourself how we access it and how we spend long summer days in and around it. So some young pup born in the 1990's reckons he's done more sailing than me. Gimme a break.

 

[Mojo]

Maybe maybe not. IMV the JAIC is all guess work.

 

[Vixen]

I, on the other hand do base it on that.
Is it bragging to say that I have never been lost at sea?

Well, I was lost at sea as a baby. Then another time on a speedboat. Top that, if we are going to do oneupmanship.

 

[Vixen]

You are specifically endorsing Rabe as a competent journalist. When faced with examples of her incompetence, you spin assumptions that you think rehabilitate her. And then you try to backpedal when those assumptions contradict your assertive claims to intellectual virtue.

I am neither for nor against Rabe. I am sure she has some traits that are unlikeable but it is not to do with personality. I respect her going out and doing some shoe work. Like many good investigative journalists, such as John Pilger, she was driven by the urge to find out more, I didn't always read Pilger but the stuff I read I respected, and regarded his perspicacity with awe, because we need people who do have the determination to look beyond newspeak, which the rest of us may not even find particularly interesting and to report back on what they experienced..

 

[junkshop]

... So some young pup born in the 1990's reckons he's done more sailing than me. Gimme a break.

Just to clarify, who is the "young pup" that you are claiming was "born in the 1990's", and on what basis are you making that claim?

Is it Andy_Ross, or is it MarkCorrigan?

 

[Steve]

Just to clarify, who is the "young pup" that you are claiming was "born in the 1990's", and on what basis are you making that claim?

Is it Andy_Ross, or is it MarkCorrigan?

When you are really old almost everyone is a "young pup".

 

[JayUtah]

I am neither for nor against Rabe.

You specifically endorsed her as a responsible journalist. However, when presented with examples of her journalistic incompetence, you offered favorable assumptions to attempt to salvage her credibility. Despite your claim of agnosticism, you rebuke others for expressing an unflattering opinion of her credibility. You clearly want her to be seen as a reputable source.

...but it is not to do with personality.

Correct. This has nothing to do with personality. You are presenting her as a competent journalist. You are unable to do more than speculate when presented with examples of her incompetence as a journalist.

I respect her going out and doing some shoe work.

Performative acts do not compensate for failing to corroborate key accusations.

Like many good investigative journalists, such as John Pilger, she was driven by the urge to find out more...

And you're still speculating in an effort to rehabilitate her. You have no idea what motivated her.

because we need people who do have the determination to look beyond newspeak...

I'm bringing decades of professional experience to the table, yet you don't seem the least interested.

...which the rest of us may not even find particularly interesting and to report back on what they experienced..

She didn't experience anything that supports her claim that the captain of MS Estonia was shot in the head. As nearly as we can tell, she just made that up. The sine qua non of good journalism is not to wear out shoe leather. It's that the journalist get the correct information from reliable sources by whatever means is appropriate. Rabe didn't do that, therefore it doesn't matter what ocean voyages she may have undertaken for lolz.

 

[JayUtah]

Just to clarify, who is the "young pup" that you are claiming was "born in the 1990's", and on what basis are you making that claim?

Is it Andy_Ross, or is it MarkCorrigan?

I was already a seasoned sailor by 1990.

 

[junkshop]

...So some young pup born in the 1990's reckons he's done more sailing than me. Gimme a break.

Just to clarify, who is the "young pup" that you are claiming was "born in the 1990's", and on what basis are you making that claim?

Is it Andy_Ross, or is it MarkCorrigan?

I am so very annoyed with myself. I missed the obvious, & (contextually, at least) better response. It starts "OK..."

 

[Andy_Ross]

Put it this way. My family has owned an island for as long as I can remember. It does not have a helicopter pad. It does not have an aeroplane runway, It does not have a ferry connection. It is too far out to swim to. Pause for a minute and ask yourself how we access it and how we spend long summer days in and around it. So some young pup born in the 1990's reckons he's done more sailing than me. Gimme a break.

Who was born in the 90s?

I'm 61.
I was aboard ships before I could walk and learned to sail a dinghy when I was about 5.
Not counting my professional career in the RN and my time in the South Atlantic, I have crewed and skippered sailing yachts across the Atlantic, Caribbean and Mediterranean. I have sailed the North Sea, Channel, Irish Sea and Minches and Sea of Hebrides so often I almost don't need a chart.

My family have had sailing boats as long as I can remember and I am currently joint owner with my brother of a 37ft Moody.

If you want to compare experience or swap sailing stories I'm your man.

 

[Axxman300]

Maybe maybe not. IMV the JAIC is all guess work. They wondered what could have caused the accident and worked backwards.

Oh, please do explain how one should go about conducting an accident investigation without working backward.

Seems like you form a team of experts, some interview surviving crew and passengers, and some look through the relevant paperwork (maintenance logs, inspection reports, cargo and passenger manifests, etc). And in this case you get out to the wreck site to image the wreck with sonar, and DSRVs. Eventually they sent divers down to survey the ship, recover items from inside. And they pulled up the bow visor.

I will also point out that sending divers down into the wreck is dangerous. Thanks to conspiracy nutjobs, they sent more divers down into the wreck. For pretty much no reason.

Thanks to conspiracy loons divers were put into danger to chase a ghost story. Shame on them.

Must have been a storm. Must have been a strong wave that knocked off the bow visor.

It was both. Definitively both. No explosives, no submarines.

Windows on deck four must have smashed because otherwise the water on the car deck would not have been enough to capsize it, etc.,etc.

It only took 18 inches of water to make the ship unstable, and capsize. There is no disputing this fact.

It's the would-could-should-might syndrome all over again. Must have been a fault in the design.

That's what the report said, and the new one will emphasize. Estonia should never have sailed into that storm. Period.

That might be reasonable except the shipbuilders strongly deny it. As you might claim of course they did but Meyer Werft have enough insurance cover and massive reserves on the Balance Sheet to just settle out of court and have done with it. But they did not.

Weird, so you're saying the people who designed and built a ship for river and near-shore transit refuse to accept liability for signing off on their product for use in open ocean. Wonder why they'd be touchy about that.

So let's see both sides of the argument.

No argument, only facts. The ship was never designed to sail in that storm, and the weakest part of it's design led to it sinking. That's it. That's the story. The long list of changes in maritime safety after the disaster underlines the truth in the matter.

 

[JayUtah]

Oh, please do explain how one should go about conducting an accident investigation without working backward.

Specifically, you form hypotheses and test them. You can almost never prove them, but you can frequently conclusively eliminate some of them. Then you soberly evaluate the inductive leaps of the remaining ones and make a choice if you can.

Hypotheses have prior probabilities, regardless of the ignorant beliefs of some in this thread that the only valid investigation would start with a clean sheet of paper and a blindfold. In this case, engineers and operators were already quite familiar with the problems in bow-visor ro-ro ferries and the symptomology of their foundering. It makes sense for that to be the lead hypothesis for MS Estonia. It would be irresponsible to ignore prior probabilities where (as you note) there is considerable cost and risk to obtaining and developing evidence.

What Vixen gets wrong is the notion that this is equivalent to starting with a predetermined conclusion and filtering the data according to how well it supports such a conclusion. As JAIC and subsequent investigations noted, there was a substantial hypothesis set in addition to the lead hypothesis. The competing hypotheses were falsified as far as possible with evidence. The lead hypothesis, however, was not falsified. It's not some gross miscarriage of justice when the macro picture of evidence favors the hypothesis with the greatest prior probability. That's kind of where prior probabilities come from.

How it might have turned out differently is if there had been data to falsify the bow-visor hypothesis. For example, if the bow visor had been found on the wreck fully attached and in good condition, that would tend to falsify the bow-visor hypothesis. Finding irrelevant evidence (e.g., post-wreck holes in the hull) doesn't doom the lead hypothesis. You need falsifying evidence. And there isn't any to falsify the bow-visor hypothesis. Outlier evidence apparently favoring other hypotheses (i.e., rumors that the captain was shot in the head or that the USSR might have been smuggling cesium isotopes) doesn't become dispositive or falsificatory of another simply because the other hypothesis is more exciting than the prosaic one.

The problem here, however, is Vixen simply up and deciding from her Armchair of Ignorance that she knows so much better than professionals what the epistemology of investigation should look like. It's arrogant, rude, and self-serving.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Put it this way. My family has owned an island for as long as I can remember. It does not have a helicopter pad. It does not have an aeroplane runway, It does not have a ferry connection. It is too far out to swim to. Pause for a minute and ask yourself how we access it and how we spend long summer days in and around it. So some young pup born in the 1990's reckons he's done more sailing than me. Gimme a break.

Who are you talking about here?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Who are you talking about here?

Swallows and Amazons?

 

[Steve]

Who are you talking about here?

Herself, it appears. Surprised?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Swallows and Amazons?

African or European amazons?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

African or European amazons?

Not sure, I'd have to see their coconuts.

 

[junkshop]

Come on now, people. This is a very serious and sober social issue and / or current event (that is temporarily residing in the conspiracy theory subforum for administrative purposes).

This is no place for silliness. In this thread we discuss entirely non-silly things, including (but not limited to);

Submarines with tracks

Radioactive contraband melting hinges

The extraordinary rendition of the very ordinary crew of a ferry, for reasons opaque, by forces unspecified

And so on and so forth forever, and ever, and ever...

As I said, this is no place for silliness. Stop that.

 

[The Common Potato]

This is important:

 

[The Common Potato]

Right, back to the second part of this mega-thread.

 

[junkshop]

This is important:

Now thats more like it, an entirely non-silly and well reasoned argument. Not only that, but it is very current, as is this event..

Thank you.

 

[catsmate]

I am entirely objective and have an open mind. I have not yet had an answer to my questions about this case.

Bollocks. You repeatedly cite cranks and debunked nonsense and ignore demonstrated facts that contradict your dogma.

We are talking about Captain Arvo Andresson.

I note, with absolutely no surprise, that you refuse to address the actual post.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Bollocks. You repeatedly cite cranks and debunked nonsense and ignore demonstrated facts that contradict your dogma.
.

Thanks for quoting, otherwise I'd have missed that comedy gold.

 

[Mojo]

I am entirely objective and have an open mind.

Only in the sense that it often appears that your brain has fallen out. Not open enough to accept anything that rebuts your conspiracy theories.

 

[Myriad]

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.

Quite the contrary. Most vessels are not operated in waters they weren't designed to negotiate. Few people (and fewer sane ones) would attempt to paddle a rubber raft around Cape Horn, or steam a Carnival Cruise ship down a class 4 rapids. The pontoon party boats on the lake a mile north of me are never seen in the salt-water bay a mile south from me. The center-console sport-fishers popular on that bay are never seen on the shallow lake. The most capable Mississippi Riverboat would be at high risk steaming between Caribbean Islands, but the most seaworthy ocean ferry wouldn't do very well on the Mississippi either.

Most vessels are not operated in all weather conditions. This is mostly true for pleasure craft (most of those, here in New England, are in storage all winter, for instance) but commercial ships have limitations too. Even a year-round fishing vessel will put into port for a nor'easter, and even the biggest cargo ships will divert around a hurricane. This is especially true when that first factor is in play, i.e. the vessel is less than ideal for the marine environment. When Harbo and Samuelsen rowed the skiff Fox across the Atlantic Ocean in 1896, it was in summertime. (And even so, they ran into a storm and capsized, and barely survived.)

I can't say for certain that most commercial vessels are well maintained. Many are, but many others aren't. As far as I can tell, that's an issue throughout the industry. But the investigation findings regarding the final operating conditions of Estonia, especially the bow mechanisms, show that it was unusually poorly maintained.

Most vessels do not steam with marginal trim (imbalance along the port-starboard axis) conditions. This is known to be extremely hazardous. A list, or a need to max out the trim adjustment system to avoid a list, means the vessel is already on the verge of capsizing. Leaving port in that condition is like setting off in a plane with a known fuel leak ("but it's only a slow leak and the tank's full now").

Most commanders do recognize and take into account that the severity of the effects of wind and wave conditions on the ship depends on the vessel's course and speed. During the age of sail, surviving a storm sometimes required a ship to run downwind, even if that meant going hundreds of miles out of the way (and heaven forfend any lee shore in the path)! In extreme weather conditions even modern vessels must change course or slow down. The weather on the night of the sinking might not have been extreme for the Baltic Sea, but (remember that first factor?) was quite extreme compared to the operating conditions the hull was designed for. Very large Baltic Sea waves travel at about 40 knots, while Estonia steamed at about 20 knots. The bow-on impact would have therefore been about three times faster than a stern impact ((40+20)/(40-20)) and about nine times the kinetic energy compared to a following sea. (If the actual waves were a more ordinary size for the Baltic Sea, then they were also slower than 40 knots so the differential between bow and stern impacts at a 20 knot flank speed was even greater. For instance, ((30+20)/(30-20)) which is a fivefold difference in speed and 25-fold in kinetic energy.

Short of turning around, a 5-knot reduction in speed would have reduced the kinetic energy of the impacts considerably. If the waves were 40 knots, 16% less kinetic energy. If 30 knots, 19% less. The bow faring might have survived the crossing (most likely, to fail some other day if nothing else was done, but that's still a better scenario).

Most ships do have vigilant crews, at least in adverse conditions. Self-preservation is a common concern. The seeming indifference to same among the Estonia crew is to me the single strangest aspect of the disaster.

We do not expect such sinkings every day because like I said, the key here is the accumulation of adverse factors (and, as JayUtah has been expertly pointing out, the concomitant erosion of safety factors). One ship might be in poor repair but operated cautiously. Another might be poorly designed but well maintained. Another might set an aggressive course in bad weather but the alert skipper and eager crew responds expertly to every anomaly and every potential hazard to keep the ship safe. All those ships will almost certainly survive. The problem with Estonia wasn't one thing going wrong, it was everything going (and being done) wrong at the same time.

And while not a daily occurrence, sinking of oceangoing vessels is more than a weekly occurrence, for the reasons JayUtah explained. Most don't drown 1000 people, of course, but that's for many reasons, including the fact that most oceangoing vessels don't carry 1000 people, and most that do have far better passenger safety systems than Estonia did.

[*]The Captain of nearby Silja Europa said the weather was normal for that time of year

So? Snow is normal this time of year in New England, but if you go out driving in it, and you don't take precautions like slowing down and using snow-capable tires, you'll more likely to end up in a ditch (or worse). What's normal doesn't matter, whether your equipment your usage of it are appropriate for the actual conditions does.

[*]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

So? Were the other vessels designed to operate in those conditions? Were they in good repair? Did they have proper trim? Were their crews vigilant? If so, they were not subject to the same cumulative risks as Estonia was.

[*]Captains Thoresson and Makela confirm they could see each other.

So? What do their romantic lives have to do with conditions at sea?

[*]Neither of these Captains mention a 'strong wave' or any such 'super wave'

So? If your ship is weak, all waves are strong. It doesn't take a super wave to break fatigued metal. The specific wave that displaced the visor might not have been any larger or stronger than the ten or 100 previous waves. The straw that breaks the camel's back doesn't need to be heavier than the other straws.

[*]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.

Normal in a sinking ship? What's normal is for a ship not to sink, as you yourself pointed out earlier.

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

It's those details that tell us the ship wasn't designed for the open Baltic Sea, that it was in poor repair, that it was in poor trim, that it steamed at flank speed into the waves without altering course or slowing down, and that the officers and crew acted indifferent not only to the conditions but also to the early signs of things going lethally wrong.