This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Key Estonia questions In-depth | DAMAGE STABILITY


Margus Kurm Estonia’s Chief State Prosecutor and chairman of the committee of experts reporting on the Estonia investigation believes that the official report was “unsatisfactory”. Has the time come to look again at the Europe’s worst ferry accident, the Estonia disaster?


events of 27/28 September 1994 must be re-visited. His view carries significant weight as the man charged with producing the Estonian Government’s report. Mr Kurm stressed that his report


S


was an investigation of the JAIC report and on the evidence gathered by that original enquiry. No further evidence was gathered. However, the committee’s view on


the original JAIC report is far from encouraging. Discussing the question; “What was the basis for the statement by JAIC that the ramp had opened completely, the JAIC falls short.” According to JAIC the visor fell into


the water and in so doing the ramp was pulled open allowing the ingress of water at a rate of about 300-600tonnes/ minute. The ship then heeled in a matter of minutes. Later the ramp was forced closed by the wave motion and it remains closed position at the bottom of the sea. Mr Kurm said: “This scenario


is possible only if we consider the testimony of the three crew members (Margus Treu, hannes Kadak and Henrik Sillaste) to be wrong. I do not say that we cannot do that. We can – but in that case there should be other evidence, stronger evidence that outweighs their statements.” “My question is, do we have such


evidence? The only explanation given for the immediate opening of the ramp is the fact that the upper part of the ramp extended into the visor. Consequently, when the visor fell right down, it had to pull the ramp open.It is not evidence, it is argumentation.” He went on to say: “In my profession, in a court trial, evidence cannot be


28


peaking in Scotland, on 14 May 2007 Margus Kurm gave the strongest indication yet that the


refuted by argumentation, especially in a situation where additional evidence could have been gathered to establish the truth.” According to the Kurm Report there


are three pieces of evidence that could, but have not been gathered that mayhave supported the JAIC’s view. In the first instance a witness who saw the ramp fully open, but no such witness exists, or to test the behaviour of the visor and ramp through model tests, but no such tests have been made, says Mr Kurm to the best of his knowledge. “Third, of course, it could have, and


should have been established that the hull was intact. To show that there were simply no other possibilities for the water to come in. but, there is no film, log or other source of information that indicates that the bottom part of the hull has been investigated and filmed in the fullest possible extent. Neither has anybody confirmed to me that this has been done. Consequently, the hull is never thoroughly investigated, which is a problem, a great problem.” It is stated in the Final Report, section


12.6.1, that the flooding of the cardeck itself would not be sufficient to sink the vessel. “As long as the hull was intact and watertight below and above the cardeck, the residual stability with water on the cardeck would not have significantly changed at large heel angles. Capsize could only have been completed through water entering other areas of the vessel.” So the JAIC believes that the filling of


the lower decks is of “decisive importance from the point of view of the sinking” said Mr Kurm. He added: We hoped to find in the final report or its annexes analyses and calculations on how water exactly flew, when the flooding of a certain compartment began, which amount of water was necessary to sink


the ship etc. In the similar manner as there are calculations about the water inflow through the ramp opening as well as about other important circumstances like the stability of the ship, the strength of the visor locks etc.” He continued: “Yet the Final Report


does not contain any analysis of the flooding of the lower decks with water. In section 13.6, it is only stated that the watertight compartments below the cardeck were flooded from above, as there were connections between decks via staircases and other openings.” As a result Mr Kurm concludes: “I am


not competent to argue what happens with a ship when water cannot get into compartments of the ship below the waterline. But when the investigators themselves write that in such a case a ship would not sink, I can only conclude that it is a very important issue. And if a very important issue has not been investigated, analysed or calculated, the report is not convincing.” Helpfully Margus Kurm summarises


the three key questions and asks whether they are to be treated as facts, opinions or hypotheses. 1. A vessel cannot float on her side with a list of 40 degs without capsizing in a couple of minutes?


2. If the hull is intact and there is no water below the waterline, a capsized vessel would turn upright in seconds?


3. If a vessel capsizes, she cannot sink as quickly as in 10 minutes due to the air inside the bottom decks?


In the following stories we look at


these questions in some depth and then look at the developments that have come about since Estonia was lost and debate whether this type of accident could still be a possibility on some newly designed ships. NA


The Naval Architect September 2010


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164