Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

[KDLarsen]

I have to admit, the continuing references to the front bow visor falling off is giving me a serious Clarke & Dawe vibe.

 

[autumn1971]

Your mantra is ridiculously childish as well as boorish.

The Herald of Free Enterprise sank within four minutes because the bosun was asleep in his cabin and didn't put up the gate.

wiki

Had it not ended on its side it would have floated upside down, because that is how vessels are designed.

I’m fairly sure that ships are expressly designed to float right-side-up.
But please, post more genius-level theories

 

[Mojo]

The Herald of Free Enterprise sank within four minutes because the bosun was asleep in his cabin and didn't put up the gate.

Why would this have caused the HOFE to capsize and sink rapidly?

 

[Steve]

I’m fairly sure that ships are expressly designed to float right-side-up.
But please, post more genius-level theories

Seems that there are somewhat fewer openings in the hull than in the superstructure.
.
.
.
.
.
.
But this is likely lost on someone who indicated way upthread a rather "interesting" idea of what constitutes a ship's hull.

 

[Axxman300]

Perhaps explain why the Swedish and Estonian government decided to reopen the case last year if 'everyone' knows 'the official report says you are wrong'.

The answer is simple. They reopened the investigation to shut up conspiracy theorists, who have made the Estonia a cottage industry to make money off the grieving families, and various anti-western types.

And because the wreck has been off-limits, there has been a lack updated forensic, and now archeological data that can now be comprehensively filled out. This data already proves the original report was correct. The only changes come from the wreck slowly rolling on the bottom due to where she came to rest, at the edge of a ridge. Those holes the CT's (such as yourself) got excited about are stress fractures from the impact with the rock outcropping on the bottom, and the stresses of the benthic environment over time.

The new survey is just smart. Always a good idea, when possible, to take a fresh look at a shipwreck, even when the cause of the sinking is well documented.

 

[lobosrul5]

Why would this have caused the HOFE to capsize and sink rapidly?

I wonder if Vixen even realizes that the massive hole left open on the HOFE was indeed above sea level... Like on the Estonia. That it took so long for Estonia to sink might be the more puzzling question, rather than in such a short amount of time.

 

[Blue Mountain]

I wonder if Vixen even realizes that the massive hole left open on the HOFE was indeed above sea level... Like on the Estonia. That it took so long for Estonia to sink might be the more puzzling question, rather than in such a short amount of time.

Just to be pedantic, the bow door and loading ramp are above the waterline. And curiously, is is entirely possible for a ship to be completely below sea level and still be perfectly serviceable: the Caspian Sea (28 m below sea level,) Laguna del Carbón in Argentina (105 m below sea level,) the Sea of Galilee (212 m below sea level) and the famous Dead Sea (430 m below sea level.)

 

[lobosrul5]

Just to be pedantic, the bow door and loading ramp are above the waterline. And curiously, is is entirely possible for a ship to be completely below sea level and still be perfectly serviceable: the Caspian Sea (28 m below sea level,) Laguna del Carbón in Argentina (105 m below sea level,) the Sea of Galilee (212 m below sea level) and the famous Dead Sea (430 m below sea level.)

I stand corrected, and of course that's what I meant. I've been on a sailing boat at approximately 7,000 feet above sea level after all lol.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I stand corrected, and of course that's what I meant. I've been on a sailing boat at approximately 7,000 feet above sea level after all lol.

First wheeled submarines, now flying sailing ships! This thread has it all. You didn't swoop down 6,980ft and ram a hole above the waterline in any other ships by any chance?

 

[lobosrul5]

First wheeled submarines, now flying sailing ships! This thread has it all. You didn't swoop down 6,980ft and ram a hole above the waterline in any other ships by any chance?

Yes we teleported from Eagle Nest Lake NM to the Baltic in a tiny fiberglass sailing boat! I was wrong though, its actually at 8,200 feet above sea level. Finally caught after all these decades

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Yes we teleported from Eagle Nest Lake NM to the Baltic in a tiny fiberglass sailing boat! I was wrong though, its actually at 8,200 feet above sea level. Finally caught after all these decades

I knew we'd eventually find a sensible explanation! Well, relatively anyway.

 

[Here_to_learn]

The interim report has been published today:

https://www.havkom.se/en/investigat...m-foerlisningen-av-passagerarfartyget-estonia

The report concludes by drawing preliminary conclusions, the most important of which are:
• The wreck of MV ESTONIA is in a poor condition with severe structural damage.
• The location of the outcropping bedrock under the hull matches the location of the deformation on the hull.
• Based on the evidence gathered so far, there is no indication of a collision with a vessel or a floating object.
• Based on the evidence gathered so far, there is no indication of an explosion in the bow area.

 

[Here_to_learn]

The interim report has been published today:

https://www.havkom.se/en/investigat...m-foerlisningen-av-passagerarfartyget-estonia

There are also comments on the seaworthiness:

The seaworthiness of MV ESTONIA was re-assessed by SHK and OJK, based on the JAIC report, concluding that MV ESTONIA was not seaworthy.
– An inspection of the bow parts was not performed. The related certificate should not have been issued unless such an inspection had been carried out, which means that MV ESTONIA was not seaworthy. If such an inspection, following regulations, had been carried out, the flaws of the visor construction could have been discovered, and the accident would probably not have occurred.
-The location of the bow ramp as the upper extension of the collision bulkhead was based on a practical decision for an exemption from the regulations. Such an exemption entails a condition, which must be recorded in certificates but was not. Therefore, MV ESTONIA was not seaworthy and the certificate was incorrect. If the condition had been noted in the relevant certificate, the vessel would not have been trading the Tallinn–Stockholm route.

 

[Steve]

But what about the conspiracies? sabotage? murders? nukes? disappeared crew? Surely they must all be mentioned prominently?

This surely cannot be the report that Sweden and those other governments paid so handsomely for!

 

[Vixen]

The interim report has been published today:

https://www.havkom.se/en/investigat...m-foerlisningen-av-passagerarfartyget-estonia

It is a preliminary report.

“It looks like it has been damaged by the impact when it hit the seabed,” said Mr Backstrand of the wreck, as he presented the intermediate report on the preliminary assessment in Tallinn, Estonia.

“We are not done yet,” he said, adding this was only a preliminary conclusion and more investigations are planned.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/n...as-no-collision-and-no-explosion-1422584.html


Only the most naive would expect him to announce anything other than this.

 

[Vixen]

There are also comments on the seaworthiness:

So it was correct all along that Estonia was not seaworthy. The JAIC said it was seaworthy.

 

[Here_to_learn]

So it was correct all along that Estonia was not seaworthy. The JAIC said it was seaworthy.

Adressed in the intermediate report, chapter 6:

The JAIC report handles seaworthiness following a then-common practice, i.e., making a statement whether a vessel, involved in an investigation, was seaworthy. The explanation in the case of MV ESTONIA is that there were “no outstanding items” either from authorities or the classification society (JAIC 5.2).

The following conclusions are restated from the JAIC report:
• The bow visor was not fully built according to the approved drawings with respect to its structural members and materials.
• The ship was not built according to the SOLAS Convention with respect to the location of the bow ramp, as a collision bulkhead, and the visor.
• These deviations in construction meant that the vessel and its passenger safety certificate were not in full compliance with the SOLAS Convention, because the requirements for an upper extension of the collision bulkhead were not satisfied.

 

[zooterkin]

So it was correct all along that Estonia was not seaworthy. The JAIC said it was seaworthy.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The interim report has been published today:

https://www.havkom.se/en/investigat...m-foerlisningen-av-passagerarfartyget-estonia

Thanks for posting it.

Looks as if this preliminary report is not raising any expectations of surprising revelations to come in the full report.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So it was correct all along that Estonia was not seaworthy. The JAIC said it was seaworthy.

For the umpteenth time the JAIC report said it was certified seaworthy, which it was. You have constantly relied on that certification to support your various fairy tales of other reasons why the ship sank since, being seaworthy, it couldn't have just failed and sunk on its own. Now this reassessment says that certification ought not to have been issued as the ship was not properly inspected.

I note it was also correct all along that there was no indication of any bombs or torpedoes or ramming or other violent attacks or sabotage.