The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[theprestige]

This thread is more like "The Stinking of MS Estonia", am I right?

 

[gypsyjackson]

As for NATO. It was in the region 28 Sept - 7 October 1994. It must have had M/S Estonia on their radar. Why didn't they come to help the stricken ship?

Skagerrak is at least 500nm from where Estonia sank, with Danish islands Funen and Zealand in the way. The Norwegian Sea considerably further than that.

 

[Vixen]

Skagerrak is at least 500nm from where Estonia sank, with Danish islands Funen and Zealand in the way. The Norwegian Sea considerably further than that.

They have to say they kept to the North Sea and Skagerrak, as neither Sweden nor Finland are in NATO. (However, Finland will join in 2025.) Technically, it couldn't say it planned to enter those areas. I'm not saying these fifteen NATO military vessels had anything to do with the incident, however, one or two could well have been in the area IMV. International waters, after all, but have to be politically sensitive. Fact remains there was a NATO event 28 Sept - 11 Oct 1994. Relevant? Maybe. Maybe not.

A friend of mine has a husband who was in the Royal Navy and who spent a lot of time in submarines on top secret missions.

So if any submarines were involved we wouldn't hear about it.

 

[Steve]

They have to say they kept to the North Sea and Skagerrak, as neither Sweden nor Finland are in NATO. (However, Finland will join in 2025.) Technically, it couldn't say it planned to enter those areas. I'm not saying these fifteen NATO military vessels had anything to do with the incident, however, one or two could well have been in the area IMV. International waters, after all, but have to be politically sensitive. Fact remains there was a NATO event 28 Sept - 11 Oct 1994. Relevant? Maybe. Maybe not.

A friend of mine has a husband who was in the Royal Navy and who spent a lot of time in submarines on top secret missions.

So if any submarines were involved we wouldn't hear about it.

And won't in the future either.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

They have to say they kept to the North Sea and Skagerrak, as neither Sweden nor Finland are in NATO. (However, Finland will join in 2025.) Technically, it couldn't say it planned to enter those areas. I'm not saying these fifteen NATO military vessels had anything to do with the incident, however, one or two could well have been in the area IMV. International waters, after all, but have to be politically sensitive. Fact remains there was a NATO event 28 Sept - 11 Oct 1994. Relevant? Maybe. Maybe not.

A friend of mine has a husband who was in the Royal Navy and who spent a lot of time in submarines on top secret missions.

So if any submarines were involved we wouldn't hear about it.

In which case you have no basis for suggesting that they "must have had" Estonia on their radar. You have no actual reason to think that's true, other than that you can imagine how it could be.

 

[Steve]

In which case you have no basis for suggesting that they "must have had" Estonia on their radar. You have no actual reason to think that's true, other than that you can imagine how it could be.

But a husband of a friend of Vixen's spent time on submarines. What could be more reliable than that?

 

[theprestige]

But a husband of a friend of Vixen's spent time on submarines. What could be more reliable than that?

Anders Bjorkman's blog, apparently.

 

[Belz...]

Skagerrak is at least 500nm from where Estonia sank, with Danish islands Funen and Zealand in the way. The Norwegian Sea considerably further than that.

500 nanometers is pretty damned close!!

 

[Steve]

500 nanometers is pretty damned close!!

"Tis. Nautical miles, on the other hand.....

 

[Vixen]

In which case you have no basis for suggesting that they "must have had" Estonia on their radar. You have no actual reason to think that's true, other than that you can imagine how it could be.

Fair enough comment. Seems the NATO exercise was more on the Norwegian Sea side.

Skagerrak is a heavily trafficated strait, with c. 7,500 individual vessels (excluding fishing vessels) from all over the world visiting in 2013 alone. Cargo ships are by far the most common vessel in Skagerrak at c. 4,000 individual ships in 2013, followed by tankers, which are nearly half as frequent. When viewed in combination with the Baltic Sea area, ships from 122 different nationalities visited in 2013, with most of these carrying cargo or passengers within Europe, regardless of their flag state.[8]

Wiki


You would have to go through it to reach the Baltic from the North Sea.

 

[Vixen]

But a husband of a friend of Vixen's spent time on submarines. What could be more reliable than that?

Forget I mentioned it.

 

[Vixen]

Compare and contrast:

The M/S Estonia sank in water 74 - 80 metres deep.

Fast forward to 12 Aug 2000, the Russian submarine K-141 Kursk, sank 104 metres, in the Barents Sea. Both the British and the Norwegian navies offered to help with the rescue. However, the Russians declined. Seemed twenty-four of the men in the ninth compartment had survived for a while. One of them, the captain, had written a list of their names.

A consortium formed by the Dutch companies Mammoet and Smit International[22] was awarded a contract by Russia to raise the vessel, excluding the bow. They modified the barge Giant 4 which raised Kursk and recovered the remains of the sailors.[23]

Wiki

So the Kursk was raised and the Estonia, not. Especially when you consider the Kursk was contaminated with all kinds of highly dangerous stuff.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Deleted

 

[RolandRat]

Compare and contrast:

The M/S Estonia sank in water 74 - 80 metres deep.

Fast forward to 12 Aug 2000, the Russian submarine K-141 Kursk, sank 104 metres, in the Barents Sea. Both the British and the Norwegian navies offered to help with the rescue. However, the Russians declined. Seemed twenty-four of the men in the ninth compartment had survived for a while. One of them, the captain, had written a list of their names.

Wiki

So the Kursk was raised and the Estonia, not. Especially when you consider the Kursk was contaminated with all kinds of highly dangerous stuff.

Hmm I wonder why the Kursk was raised? Perhaps it might have something to do with that "highly dangerous stuff".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/08/kursk.russia

 

[Andy_Ross]

Plus there is a lot of difference between the hull of a sub and that of a ferry.
One of them is extremely strong and designed to operate hundreds of meters below the surface, the other is thin plate designed to float on the surface.

Plus, they only raised part of it

It was the strength of the hull that allowed them to lift it. Cables were passed through the hull
That would not work on a ship. It would rip apart

 

[Vixen]

Hmm I wonder why the Kursk was raised? Perhaps it might have something to do with that "highly dangerous stuff".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/08/kursk.russia

This is shocking: failure to rescue crew that were still alive:

He disputed tests on the bodies by the government pathologist, who concluded that the level of glycogen indicated they went into extreme shock at the moment the blast took place, and that they lived only between four and a half to eight hours longer, making the rescue operation futile.

Mr Kuznetsov said the severe stress could have begun much later. "Why should it start at the moment of the explosion? Why not the moment when they discovered that they do not have enough diving suits for them all to get out? Or when they understood that help was not coming?"

Letters written by the sailors hours after the blast showed no sign of extreme panic, and should be subjected to psychological and linguistic tests as part of a new investigation.

The most compelling evidence the crew were alive after eight hours was the knocking noises registered by the navy during "the first, second and in the morning of the third day after the catastrophe", he said.

The noises were hailed as SOS calls by survivors, but later dismissed as coming from other ships.

GUARDIAN

It makes me wonder how many of the passengers of M/S Estonia managed to stay alive in watertight compartments (such as the public toilets) or air spaces between floor and ceiling - or angles thereof - holding out hope for a rescue that never came.

 

[Vixen]

Plus there is a lot of difference between the hull of a sub and that of a ferry.
One of them is extremely strong and designed to operate hundreds of meters below the surface, the other is thin plate designed to float on the surface.

Plus, they only raised part of it

It was the strength of the hull that allowed them to lift it. Cables were passed through the hull
That would not work on a ship. It would rip apart

There is a lot of difference between an ensign who has signed up to the navy and expects to come into contact with warheads, torpedoes and weapons and an ordinary passenger just going about their every day life.

 

[Andy_Ross]

At the pressure the Estonia was at any air pockets would have killed them. Oxygen is toxic at atmospheric concentration at that depth. Any sealed compartments would have ruptured.the hull of a ferry is designed to be watertight at the surface.

 

[Andy_Ross]

As for rescuing them. Look up the submarine HMS Thetis. Crew were alive but could not be rescued even when the stern was breaking surface at low tide.

It is very rare for anyone to have escaped from a sunken submarine

 

[Vixen]

As for rescuing them. Look up the submarine HMS Thetis. Crew were alive but could not be rescued even when the stern was breaking surface at low tide.

It is very rare for anyone to have escaped from a sunken submarine

That's interesting:

In order to effect an escape from the stricken vessel, the escaping crew were required to enter the submarine’s only escape chamber, which could only accommodate one person at a time. As the pressure outside the submarine was greater than the pressure inside, this had to be equalised before the outer door of the escape chamber was opened. The escape chamber was flooded with the occupant having to wait until the chamber was completely full of water. Only then would the pressure within the escape chamber be equal to the outside sea pressure.[2]

In the case of HMS Thetis, 4 members of the ship’s company, three RN personnel (Lieutenant Woods, Captain Oram and Leading Stoker Arnold) and one Cammell Laird’s employee (Fitter Shaw) successfully used the escape chamber. During the 5th attempt to escape the occupant of the chamber panicked and tried to open the outer escape hatch before the chamber had completely flooded. As a result, the increased pressure outside the submarine caused an in-rush of sea water, thus drowning the escapee. Because the outer escape hatch remained partially open it rendered the escape chamber inoperative, preventing the escape of any other crew members.[2]

The incident attracted legal action from one of the widows, who brought a claim of negligence against the shipbuilders, for not removing the material blocking the valve.[5] Unfortunately for her the Admiralty successfully invoked Crown Privilege (now termed Public Interest Immunity) and blocked the disclosure of, amongst other items, 'the contract for the hull and machinery of Thetis as evidence in court, on the basis that to do so would be 'injurious to the public interest'.[6] The case is one of interest in English law, as the judges in this case accepted the Admiralty's claim at face value with no scrutiny, a ruling later overturned.[2]

wiki


This idea that investigators are merely being 'diplomatic' and not wanting to cause upset is the key root of the discontent we see in both the Estonia and the Kursk and the patronising idea that the public will be happy with an anodyne explanation. In the case of Estonia, 'Oh, it was just like the Herald of Free Enterprise'. Tantamount to saying, 'Granny has gone to live with the angels' instead of telling your kid the truth. At the end of the day, people can accept the truth, even if it is unsavoury.