estoniaferrydisaster.net

Damage type one

Damages from the yoke as it did not fit to attach to the visor. The yoke can have hit the visor in several places.

Possible damages caused during the first attempt to recover the visor.

Possible explanation of the damages caused during the recovery.

Damage type two

Damage type two. Damages from the yoke as the modified hooks with the sharp lugs have hit the visor. The lugs were bent from hitting the visor. Score marks must have been caused. The hooks can also have ripped and damaged other parts of the visor.

Possible damages caused during the second, third and fourth attempt to recover the visor.

Damage type three

Damages from the yoke as it was forced to attach to the visor beam.

Possible damages caused during the third and fourth attempt to recover the visor.

Damage type four

Damages from the yoke after it was forced to attach to the visor. When lifting the visor it was damaged from bending moment. This caused further separation between trans-verse beams and plating and may also have destroyed the visor bottom plating further more.

Possible damages caused during the last attempt to recover the visor.

Home

Sitemap (Chapters)

Enclosures

Mail us

A. New Evidence

1. The AgnEf Seminar on 29/30.05.2000 in Stockholm

1.2.3 The bottom plating of the visor (recovery damage) - Page 6

The video recordings made before and after the recovery of the visor show that the visor did suffer from further damages during the recovery. The JAIC has not with one word even suspected that there could have been damages caused during the recovery. Neither have they described the recovery operation, why it must have been presumed that the recovery did not affect the visor in any way. Obviously all the damages on the visor have been treated as a result of the accident.
The different damages on the visor have been used by the JAIC as evidence for:

that the visor hit the forepeak deck while loose but still rotating around the visor hinges,
that the visor has been moving up an down 1.4 meters along the front bulkhead during the loss of the visor
that score marks were the result from those actions.

Those damages have been substantial evidence for the accident scenario described by the JAIC. As some of the damages now are proven to be the result from the recovery operation, this is a further argument that the complete scenario concluded by the JAIC must be concluded as unconfirmed.
I find it almost embarrassing to note that the JAIC with their ‘expertise’ didn’t even bother to find out which damages were related to the sinking and which were not."

Note: The above conclusions must be even more embarrassing to the JAIC as Dr. Tuomo Karppinen and Dr. Klaus Rahka, member and advisor to JAIC, had been onboard the “Nordica” all the time during the lifting operation. “Nordica” is the Finnish multipurpose ice breaker, which lifted the visor to the surface by means of the yoke as explained above. The Internet Report about this operation is attached as Enclosure 1.2.3.1.