The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[theprestige]

You do know that these ferry operators in the Baltic do not go out in a storm if the weather warning is severe. They do listen to the weather forecast for shipping. Both the Silja Europa and the Viking Mariella were also traversing in the area that night, weather no problem.

There's also a huge difference between equipment that is properly maintained and operated, and equipment that isn't. I see no conflict between "the ship should have been able to handle these conditions no problem" and "but the visor was improperly secured, so it didn't".

 

[Steve]

That ship half capsized. It's not the least bit relevant to a ferry on a regular run that isn't stable enough to keep the cars from sliding together.

Ferries on their regular runs in suitable weather are stable enough to keep cars from sliding together. Has someone claimed otherwise?

 

[theprestige]

Er, the Swedish government was using an Estonian passenger ferry to smuggle out Russian armaments. What could possibly go wrong when the Russians realise their defence secrets are being conveyed to foreign powers.

It was 1994. The Soviet Union had just collapsed. The Warsaw Pact was in shambles. Russian military secrets were already scattered to the four corners of Eurasia. Russia was in no position to care, let alone do anything about, whatever rando frontline electronics the Swedes would have been able to lay their hands on in the confusion of the time. I doubt there was anything on that ferry that Russia hadn't lost a hundred times over already, just from Ukraine becoming an independent state.

 

[theprestige]

The Titanic, over a hundred years ago, with holes in the hull, hitting an iceberg, weak materials and with a fire in the engine room still took two hours and forty minutes to sink.

Didn't the Titanic sink because a torpedo broke its keel?

 

[Andy_Ross]

That ship half capsized. It's not the least bit relevant to a ferry on a regular run that isn't stable enough to keep the cars from sliding together.

Ferries are the same as transporters, the vehicles are not lashed down.

 

[Andy_Ross]

This is what happens when a torpedo hits a ship.

Ex Australian Navy HMAS Torrens being sunk as part of a training exercise.

She was a Leander Class Frigate, a Royal Navy design but also used by Australia and Netherlands navies.

 

[Vixen]

Lots of words, some unfounded speculation/guessing in spite of my request, and no actual evidence. You really do not understand naval architecture. No such thing as a sealed hull

Yes, there is:

The 'Estonia' (weight about 12 000 tons) floated on the watertight hull, which had 12000 tons of buoyancy
force and 6 000 tons of reserve buoyancy and was subdivided into 14 watertight compartments indicated in
green and blue and purple in the figure 1.9.1 below by watertight bulkheads. The top of the hull was the
watertight car deck no. 2, which was >2 meters above the waterline.

Water in the watertight compartments of the hull was pumped out by bilge pumps.

The car deck no. 2 freeboard deck (>2 meters above
the waterline) was protected by a weather tight
superstructure with a ramp at the forward end. The
superstructure space is indicated in red in the figure
1.9.1. Water on the car deck (one open space) inside
the superstructure entering at the forward ramp
would collect at the lowest point on the deck and
would make the ship list and trim and could not flow
down into the hull below.
Small amounts of water in the superstructure flowed
normally out through scuppers in the car deck by
gravity. [Fig. 1.9.1 - Various parts of the 'Estonia']
On top of the superstructure was the deckhouse (decks 4-8). The deckhouse was >8 meters above the intact
waterline and neither watertight nor weather tight, as it was fitted with windows and doors and other
openings. The deckhouse is evidently indicated in white (with blue stripes) in figure 1.9.1.]

Source https://heiwaco.tripod.com/ pdf

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ferries on their regular runs in suitable weather are stable enough to keep cars from sliding together. Has someone claimed otherwise?

Claimed or have been misleading at best.

Several posts here talk about sliding all over ships as in it is the norm. None of said posts specifically said, "But not ferries", despite the fact the thread is about a ferry.

 

[Steve]

Claimed or have been misleading at best.

Several posts here talk about sliding all over ships as in it is the norm. None of said posts specifically said, "But not ferries", despite the fact the thread is about a ferry.

I think you are mistaken.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ferries are the same as transporters, the vehicles are not lashed down.

I know they're not lashed down. Ferries are common here.

But people keep saying sliding all over a ship is normal. If it is normal how can that be if it is a ferry?

 

[Vixen]

I'm reaching?

When have cars ever been tied down on a ferry?

What does Titanic have to do with anything? it was not a storm, it was a much bigger ship than the ferry.

It never had a fire in an 'engine room' There was a smouldering fire in a coal bunker, not an uncommon event on coal fired ships.
Titanic had twenty-four double-ended boilers and five single-ended boilers. that used 850 tons of coal per day.
You might as well say it had 53 fires in the 'engine rooms'.

As for no others sinking within minutes Herald of Free Enterprise would disagree.

Also how many others lost their bows in a storm?

You seem to think Estonia was some kind of super ship when evidence shows it's bow fell off and it sank just like any other ship taking on thousands of tons of water in a storm.

To get round this you are implying it was sunk by some kind of foul play involving the Russian military and MI6.

From your example of the Lestari Maju:

The untied vehicles located on the upper deck aggravated the listing.[3]


The investigation also revealed that the vessel involved in the sinking was actually a converted 10-tonne cargo vessel.

Wiki


Do check your own citations before using them as examples. It is really tiresome when you keep citing vessels that have been misused, are very old and sold off to third world countries to end their lives or sank because of a typhoon, of all things!

As for the Titanic, did you not see the TV documentary about this?

A fire began in one of Titanic's coal bunkers approximately 10 days prior to the ship's departure, and continued to burn for several days into her voyage.[13][14] Fires occurred frequently on board steamships due to spontaneous combustion of the coal.[15] The fires had to be extinguished with fire hoses, by moving the coal on top to another bunker and by removing the burning coal and feeding it into the furnace.[16] This event has led some authors to theorize that the fire exacerbated the effects of the iceberg collision, by reducing the structural integrity of the hull and a critical bulkhead.[17][18]

wiki

 

[Steve]

Yes, there is:

Source https://heiwaco.tripod.com/DIP.pdf

If compartments were water tight then water could not enter and there would be no need for bilge pumps. Does not the phrase "water in the water tight compartments" strike you as a little odd?

 

[Vixen]

Well, their bows didn't fall off so there is that.

A wave hit the bow visor and it fell off.

 

[Vixen]

It was the Russians doing dastardly things it seems.

That's your projection.

 

[Vixen]

There's also a huge difference between equipment that is properly maintained and operated, and equipment that isn't. I see no conflict between "the ship should have been able to handle these conditions no problem" and "but the visor was improperly secured, so it didn't".

"A gust of wind blew the wing off the plane".

Oh, that's all right then.

 

[Steve]

I know they're not lashed down. Ferries are common here.

But people keep saying sliding all over a ship is normal. If it is normal how can that be if it is a ferry?

I have not seen this here. Can you confirm?

 

[Andy_Ross]

From your example of the Lestari Maju:

Wiki


Do check your own citations before using them as examples. It is really tiresome when you keep citing vessels that have been misused, are very old and sold off to third world countries to end their lives or sank because of a typhoon, of all things!

As for the Titanic, did you not see the TV documentary about this?

wiki

I chose that example because it's sinking had similar characteristics. Free surface effect on the car deck. In that instance though the captain and crew did a far better job than the crew of the Estonia did.

Do you think all of the hundred or more ships that sink every year are all old or sink in typhoons?

Who gives a **** about the titanic? It was a different ship in different circumstances. For a start it was a much bigger ship and it sank in calm weather. How long would it have lasted in a storm?

Face it Estonia was faulty, it's bows fell off in a storm, it took thousands of tons of water on to the car deck which capsized it and it sank.

Ships sink all the time.

 

[Andy_Ross]

A wave hit the bow visor and it fell off.

You mentioned two other ferries that were in the Baltic at the same time and commented that they didn't sink.
We know, their bows didn't fall off.

 

[Andy_Ross]

That's your projection.

Then what point are you trying to make?

Why keep making the claim that it was carrying secret Russian electronics? If the Russians didn't interfere with the ship it has no bearing on the sinking. Every vehicle on the ship could have been stuffed with secret Russian electronics and it would make no difference to the sinking.
If there was no foul play anywhere the ship sank for the reasons given. It's bows fell off in a storm and it took on water that capsized it.

 

[Vixen]

It was 1994. The Soviet Union had just collapsed. The Warsaw Pact was in shambles. Russian military secrets were already scattered to the four corners of Eurasia. Russia was in no position to care, let alone do anything about, whatever rando frontline electronics the Swedes would have been able to lay their hands on in the confusion of the time. I doubt there was anything on that ferry that Russia hadn't lost a hundred times over already, just from Ukraine becoming an independent state.

Check out who was head of KGB and then check out who was Prime Minister/President of Sweden. Whether it was cold war Russia or Sweden we may never know but ask yourself, what's with the lack of transparency with the Swedes? It eventually admitted it had taken Russian stuff out of the country via Estonia and using a passenger ferry. Military blunder? Paul Barney approached the British Government under the Freedom of Information Act and received no reply. An investigative reporter called Davis noticed:

the Estonia Agreement. Signed the year after the sinking, two years before the official inquiry concluded, it is an international agreement prohibiting people from approaching the wreck. Signatories are Baltic nations, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Denmark and Russia, plus the UK.
Davis says the treaty is illegal because the wreck is in international waters.
He asked himself, and then the UK government, why a non-Baltic nation was a signatory.

Normally, when there is an accident involving public transport the public inquiry is exactly that, public. Why would you be against it. It is now being carried out properly, yet already you want to shut it down. That is not being a 'sceptic' that is called being a 'cynic'.