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

[Myriad]

The main problem was the MS Estonia shouldn't have been out there in the first place. The Captain and the ship's owner should have, at the very least, sailed with caution, and not full steam headlong into a nasty storm.

That's the real meaning and lesson of the tragedy. Overconfidence in protective systems and safety factors that didn't exist because they'd been eroded away to nothing by numerous bad decisions, some going back years and some right in the moment.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's the real meaning and lesson of the tragedy. Overconfidence in protective systems and safety factors that didn't exist because they'd been eroded away to nothing by numerous bad decisions, some going back years and some right in the moment.

Yep. Most transportation disasters are the complex effect of numerous causal elements - some acting in parallel and some in a serial chain. Human factors usually play at least some part; often there are systems which prove to be unfit for purpose; often there are mechanical/electrical failures linked to poor design and/or poor maintenance - and, as you say, complacency often results in a timebomb being left ticking unchecked right up until the day it goes off.

Fortunately, when it comes to the "feedback loop", transportation accident investigators around the world almost always play a valuable role in identifying causes and minimising the chances of repetition. Train, boat and airline travel is now hugely safer, thanks in no small part to the work of accident investigators and the changes implemented in response to their recommendations. But it's an ongoing process. Undoubtedly there are, and will continue to be, numerous ticking timebombs which haven't yet been discovered, and which sadly might not be discovered until/unless they "explode" and cause (or at least help to cause) a tragedy. The 737 MAX 8 disasters immediately spring to mind in this respect.


When it comes to the Estonia, there was a ticking timebomb on the ship that night, in the form of the bottom lock on the bow visor. This lock (and the visor in general) had not been designed for open-seas sailing, and it was a generally poor and unfit-for-purpose design in any event. The failings in its design resulted in cumulative warping over time once the bow was being exposed to Baltic Sea storm forces on a regular basis. And instead of realising that this warping was a clear warning sign, the crew and the maintenance engineers "solved" the problem by jamming in the (now misaligned) locking bolt with sledgehammers - which in itself caused stress and fatigue in the lugs.

The storm into which the Estonia sailed at high speed on that fateful night in 1994 was simply the straw which broke the camel's back. And then once the lock broke and the bow visor came away, pulling the bow ramp with it, a multitude of systemic and human failures exacerbated the situation further. The end result was the total loss of the ship and great loss of lives (many of which could most likely have been saved had the crew reacted with the highest professionalism).

 

[JayUtah]

The Herald of Free Enterprise never completely sank. It fortuitously came to rest on a sand bank on its side.

Lifeboats can drift quite a way from the scene of the location of the sunken ship so is no indicator.

All flotsam floats away, including unoccupied lifeboats. You don't seem to understand how flotsam works. You seem to think a certain kind of damage to the ship precludes the release of flotsam. You seem to think true flotsam will hover over the wreck on the seabed. You seem to have a very uninformed, inexpert set of expectations.

Before Herald of Free Enterprise sank to the seabed, there is evidence its roll stopped. Your contention that the seabed was the only thing that prevented it from turtling is factually and physically incorrect. We have covered this many times. You have demonstrated that you are not competent in the physics of the transverse stability of ships.

 

[Axxman300]

That's the real meaning and lesson of the tragedy. Overconfidence in protective systems and safety factors that didn't exist because they'd been eroded away to nothing by numerous bad decisions, some going back years and some right in the moment.

I've lost count of how many shipwrecks came under the "most experienced captain" in the company. And this goes all the way back to sail. The last one I can think of was the El Faro. The Captain thought his experience in the Gulf of Alaska made him bullet proof in a hurricane. And The Captain of the Titanic was the White Star Line's most senior, and experienced captain on his final sortie before retirement. Ego-Kill is a lesson we continue to re-learn.

 

[JayUtah]

Consider also KLM Capt. van Zanten and the infamous Tenerife air tragedy. No one dared question his judgment, which was questionable.

 

[Mojo]

Let me see if I have this straight: Harri Ruotsalainen is the Finnish guy who told the Estonians he saw an unrolled paper trace of a side sonar scan and says it showed two "queues" of square objects on the seabed which he took to be cargo.

And he's the same guy who thinks the Estonia's drifting back and across its previous course (which most people recognise was due to it's drifting after it lost power) was best explained by someone ordering the captain to reverse course and try to sink his ship directly on top of one item of secret cargo which had somehow been jettisoned previously, as had lots of other cargo, in two "queues".

That guy. Okay.

So what do you think of his idea, Vixen? Do you think it realistic that a sinking ship in heavy seas at night could feasibly navigate back to the spot where it had dropped one particular piece of cargo into the sea and then attempt to finally sink itself right on top of that item, 80+ metres below? What do you reckon are the chances of success? What do you think the chances are of failure, which would lead to the wreck landing as close as they could manage to the secret cargo and thereby increasing the likelihood that the cargo would be spotted when the wreck was investigated?

Here's what Vixen thinks of it:

He's claiming he saw some kind of sonar map when he was a intern in Nov 1994.

He says had the cargo gone through the bow ramp there was the real risk of it colliding with the vessel.

I suspect he is some kind of counter-intelligence agent who has suddenly conveniently popped up after 27 years to spread disinformation.
He's been put forward by some Russian guy. How else do these people get the ear of a State Parliament (the Estonian Riigskugu) and the national press?

His theory seems absurd.

 

[GlennB]

Here's what Vixen thinks of it:

 

[Vixen]

How so?




How so?




Nothing got annihilated. Estonia is still there, at the bottom of the sea, mostly in one piece.




It didn't. Well, not until it hit the sea bed, anyway.




Because it was night-time, and the water was very deep, and Estonia was under it.




Bollocks.

I would say the sudden death by drowning of 852 people was an annihilation when they had virtually zero chance of escape. This included many little children and babies. Can you begin to even think of the sheer distress and terror they will have felt.

 

[Vixen]

What happened to the submarines that deliberately or accidentally crashed into the Estonia and caused the sinking? Has Vixen given up on that idea or pretending that it was never her original theory for the sinking of the Estonia?

Is "military style complete annihilation" (that makes it sound like they (the Russkies presumably) nuked the ship or something) the theory du jour?

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure the Estonia was not completely annihilated. I do believe that it is sitting, still in one piece, at the bottom of the Baltic sea.

As I recall it was an expert in marine engineering and professor at a Norwegian University who modelled the cavity in the hull and calculated that that type of indentation could be compatible with that caused by a submarine. He showed his workings.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, you are correct. But 10 to 15 minutes can be added to the total time:



https://www.multi.fi/estonia/estorap.html#_Toc405839424

So call it 00:45. He sticks around for five minutes, and heads up to the bridge, arriving around 01:00. During his transit from the car-deck to the bridge, the bridge receives reports of loud banging from the the bow. So they order him back down at 01:10 to locate the source of the banging. Then systematic failure comes into play:





The poor guy didn't have direct access to the door he needed to open to return to the car-deck. Not that it would would have made any difference by this time. But the entire report is full of moments like this, when time was so desperately short.

The main problem was the MS Estonia shouldn't have been out there in the first place. The Captain and the ship's owner should have, at the very least, sailed with caution, and not full steam headlong into a nasty storm.

As I recall that would have been Silver Linde. Not the most reliable of witnesses.

 

[Vixen]

"Exceptionally" by what standard?

By the following standards:

Speed of sinking

Here are the ten worst passenger shipping accidents, together with tonnage, cause of the accident and time taken to sink. It is in the order of 'time taken to sink'.


1. Empress of Ireland (UK 1914) 14,191, COLLISION, 14 minutes
2. Admiral Nakhimov (USSR 1986) - 17,053, COLLISION - 15 minutes
3. Don Juan (Philippines 1980) - 2,311 - COLLISION - 15 minutes
4. Lusitania (UK, 1915) - 31,550 - TORPEDO - 15 minutes
5. Royal Pacific (Greece 1992) - 3,176 - COLLISION - 15 minutes
6. Salem Express (Egypt 1991) - 4,771 - COLLISION - 15 minutes
7. European Gateway (UK 1982) - 4,263 - COLLISION - 30 minutes
8. M/S Estonia (Estonia 1994) - 15,598 - "Er, the bow fell off" - 35 minutes
9. Jupiter (Greece 1988) - 6,306 - COLLISION - 40 minutes
10. Express Samina (Greece 2000) - 4,455 - COLLISION - 45 minutes
11. Wilhelm Gustloff (Germany 1945) - 19,350 - TORPEDOES - 50 minutes
12. Brittanic (UK 1916) - 48,158 - EXPLOSION - 55 minutes

Notandum: M/S Estonia is the only vessel that was supposedly 'intact' that sank in less than one hour.

Source: from my notes

Note the Wilhelm Gustloff, a German WWII ship, which was 'torpedoed' four times (of which one failed to go off) striking the vessel in two place by an enemy Soviet submarine, took longer to sink than the M/S Estonia. And you note the military tactic of striking at two separate places - the side and the front, just as Nelson did with his 900mph double-headed hammer striking the sails followed by a cannon to the beam.

 

[Vixen]

Yep. Most transportation disasters are the complex effect of numerous causal elements - some acting in parallel and some in a serial chain. Human factors usually play at least some part; often there are systems which prove to be unfit for purpose; often there are mechanical/electrical failures linked to poor design and/or poor maintenance - and, as you say, complacency often results in a timebomb being left ticking unchecked right up until the day it goes off.

Fortunately, when it comes to the "feedback loop", transportation accident investigators around the world almost always play a valuable role in identifying causes and minimising the chances of repetition. Train, boat and airline travel is now hugely safer, thanks in no small part to the work of accident investigators and the changes implemented in response to their recommendations. But it's an ongoing process. Undoubtedly there are, and will continue to be, numerous ticking timebombs which haven't yet been discovered, and which sadly might not be discovered until/unless they "explode" and cause (or at least help to cause) a tragedy. The 737 MAX 8 disasters immediately spring to mind in this respect.


When it comes to the Estonia, there was a ticking timebomb on the ship that night, in the form of the bottom lock on the bow visor. This lock (and the visor in general) had not been designed for open-seas sailing, and it was a generally poor and unfit-for-purpose design in any event. The failings in its design resulted in cumulative warping over time once the bow was being exposed to Baltic Sea storm forces on a regular basis. And instead of realising that this warping was a clear warning sign, the crew and the maintenance engineers "solved" the problem by jamming in the (now misaligned) locking bolt with sledgehammers - which in itself caused stress and fatigue in the lugs.

The storm into which the Estonia sailed at high speed on that fateful night in 1994 was simply the straw which broke the camel's back. And then once the lock broke and the bow visor came away, pulling the bow ramp with it, a multitude of systemic and human failures exacerbated the situation further. The end result was the total loss of the ship and great loss of lives (many of which could most likely have been saved had the crew reacted with the highest professionalism).

It is incorrect to say:

"This lock (and the visor in general) had not been designed for open-seas sailing, and it was a generally poor and unfit-for-purpose design in any event. The failings in its design resulted in cumulative warping over time once the bow was being exposed to Baltic Sea storm forces on a regular basis."

because

• a. The Atlantic Lock was so-named as it was deemed to make ocean-going safer. Note the name 'Atlantic'.
• b. The Viking Line ferry - as it was before it was sold to Estonia/Sweden - was never designed for the open sea in the first place but merely between Finland and Sweden, of which only 200km was open sea.

 

[Vixen]

Here's what Vixen thinks of it:

That doesn't change the fact that Harri Ruotsalainen was being taken seriously by the Estonian Government working party. To me, the idea that the captain wanted to sink the ship on top of the presumed disposed cargo seems outlandish. However, the Swedish government has now declassified a relevant agreement that Soviet* equipment was being transported on the Estonia passenger ferry and waved through at customs uninspected.

This puts a new light on the 'disposed of cargo' theory.

*We can presume it is Soviet for it to have been classified.

 

[Mojo]

We can presume it is Soviet for it to have been classified.

Why?

And can you link to a copy of this agreement?

 

[Axxman300]

By the following standards:

Speed of sinking

Here are the ten worst passenger shipping accidents, together with tonnage, cause of the accident and time taken to sink. It is in the order of 'time taken to sink'.

I have bad news for you. There is no such thing as a standard for sinking time. All the accidents you've listed are all different. Different conditions, different kinds of ships, made in different eras.

You are really bad at this.

1. Empress of Ireland (UK 1914) 14,191, COLLISION, 14 minutes
2. Admiral Nakhimov (USSR 1986) - 17,053, COLLISION - 15 minutes
3. Don Juan (Philippines 1980) - 2,311 - COLLISION - 15 minutes
4. Lusitania (UK, 1915) - 31,550 - TORPEDO - 15 minutes
5. Royal Pacific (Greece 1992) - 3,176 - COLLISION - 15 minutes
6. Salem Express (Egypt 1991) - 4,771 - COLLISION - 15 minutes
7. European Gateway (UK 1982) - 4,263 - COLLISION - 30 minutes
8. M/S Estonia (Estonia 1994) - 15,598 - "Er, the bow fell off" - 35 minutes
9. Jupiter (Greece 1988) - 6,306 - COLLISION - 40 minutes
10. Express Samina (Greece 2000) - 4,455 - COLLISION - 45 minutes
11. Wilhelm Gustloff (Germany 1945) - 19,350 - TORPEDOES - 50 minutes
12. Brittanic (UK 1916) - 48,158 - EXPLOSION - 55 minutes

There was no explosion. There was no collision. There was no torpedo.

This list is irrelevant.

M/S Estonia is the only vessel that was supposedly 'intact' that sank in less than one hour.

It was not intact. The bow visor had been knocked off. I'm no expert, but that seems like an important part of the ship.

Note the Wilhelm Gustloff, a German WWII ship, which was 'torpedoed' four times (of which one failed to go off) striking the vessel in two place by an enemy Soviet submarine, took longer to sink than the M/S Estonia. And you note the military tactic of striking at two separate places - the side and the front, just as Nelson did with his 900mph double-headed hammer striking the sails followed by a cannon to the beam.

Torpedo = Small hull breach.

Car Deck on Ro-Ro Ferry Wide Open = Big hull breach.

 

[Axxman300]

It is incorrect to say:

"This lock (and the visor in general) had not been designed for open-seas sailing, and it was a generally poor and unfit-for-purpose design in any event. The failings in its design resulted in cumulative warping over time once the bow was being exposed to Baltic Sea storm forces on a regular basis."

Of course you'd say this is incorrect, it's accurate.

because

a. The Atlantic Lock was so-named as it was deemed to make ocean-going safer. Note the name 'Atlantic'.

We've covered this at length and in detail. You're wrong. The company who made the lock has been found at fault, and after the Estonia sank, this lock was redesigned. Again, I'm no engineer, but they rarely redesign something that is doing the job.

 

[Axxman300]

That doesn't change the fact that Harri Ruotsalainen was being taken seriously by the Estonian Government working party. To me, the idea that the captain wanted to sink the ship on top of the presumed disposed cargo seems outlandish. However, the Swedish government has now declassified a relevant agreement that Soviet* equipment was being transported on the Estonia passenger ferry and waved through at customs uninspected.

This puts a new light on the 'disposed of cargo' theory.

*We can presume it is Soviet for it to have been classified.

1. None of this has anything to do with the bow-visor getting knocked off in rough seas due to poor seamanship, and an inferior locking design.

2. To date, the Russians have never made claims of stolen military technology being onboard Estonia, and they are notorious about whining over issues like that.

3. It was just an accident. That's all.

 

[Vixen]

I have bad news for you. There is no such thing as a standard for sinking time. All the accidents you've listed are all different. Different conditions, different kinds of ships, made in different eras.

You are really bad at this.



There was no explosion. There was no collision. There was no torpedo.

This list is irrelevant.



It was not intact. The bow visor had been knocked off. I'm no expert, but that seems like an important part of the ship.



Torpedo = Small hull breach.

Car Deck on Ro-Ro Ferry Wide Open = Big hull breach.

The car deck was not part of the hull, it was a weather deck.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the following standards:

Speed of sinking

Here are the ten worst passenger shipping accidents, together with tonnage, cause of the accident and time taken to sink. It is in the order of 'time taken to sink'.


1. Empress of Ireland (UK 1914) 14,191, COLLISION, 14 minutes
2. Admiral Nakhimov (USSR 1986) - 17,053, COLLISION - 15 minutes
3. Don Juan (Philippines 1980) - 2,311 - COLLISION - 15 minutes
4. Lusitania (UK, 1915) - 31,550 - TORPEDO - 15 minutes
5. Royal Pacific (Greece 1992) - 3,176 - COLLISION - 15 minutes
6. Salem Express (Egypt 1991) - 4,771 - COLLISION - 15 minutes
7. European Gateway (UK 1982) - 4,263 - COLLISION - 30 minutes
8. M/S Estonia (Estonia 1994) - 15,598 - "Er, the bow fell off" - 35 minutes
9. Jupiter (Greece 1988) - 6,306 - COLLISION - 40 minutes
10. Express Samina (Greece 2000) - 4,455 - COLLISION - 45 minutes
11. Wilhelm Gustloff (Germany 1945) - 19,350 - TORPEDOES - 50 minutes
12. Brittanic (UK 1916) - 48,158 - EXPLOSION - 55 minutes

Notandum: M/S Estonia is the only vessel that was supposedly 'intact' that sank in less than one hour.

Source: from my notes

Note the Wilhelm Gustloff, a German WWII ship, which was 'torpedoed' four times (of which one failed to go off) striking the vessel in two place by an enemy Soviet submarine, took longer to sink than the M/S Estonia. And you note the military tactic of striking at two separate places - the side and the front, just as Nelson did with his 900mph double-headed hammer striking the sails followed by a cannon to the beam.

1. Don't you think it would have been intellectually honest to include the Herald of Free Enterprise in your list? After all, it too capsized (and would have entirely sunk if it had been in deeper water) because there was a gaping hole in its bow. Do you know how long - measured from the time of the first ingress of water through the bow - the HOFE took to capsize, Vixen? Shall I tell you? It was 90 seconds.

2. You still seem unable or unwilling to comprehend that a ship with a) a gaping hole in its bow, and b) vast open vehicle decks directly connected to that gaping hole in the bow, take on water extremely quickly and destabilise extremely quickly. See: a torpedo might create a breach in the hull of 2-3 square metres, and that breach would almost always be on the side of the ship. By contrast, a gaping open bow would present a breach of over a dozen square metres, and that breach would be in the very worst place for water ingress (for obvious reasons). And the internal compartmentalisation of "regular" ships - by which I mean ships without vehicle decks - would create numerous baffles which would slow down the passage of water through the ship and therefore provide a form of defence against rapid destabilisation; by contrast, huge volumes of water pouring into an open vehicle deck (which is more-or-less the entire dimensions of the ship) causes rapid destabilisation, since the water can slide across the ship virtually unencumbered - and once the ship starts listing, even if only by several degrees, the water will rush to that low side of the ship and accelerate the list.


In short: you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Vixen]

Why?

And can you link to a copy of this agreement?

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/fo...kan-ha-anvants-till-fler-militara-transporter