This damage picture was used by the JAIC for their casualty scenario to prove that the visor had torn open the bow ramp. This was never convincing for two reasons, namely.:
(1) If the profiles P1 – P4 were really bent by contact with the bow ramp this would have been only possible at a rather late stage, i.e. when the visor had moved forward substantially already and the bow ramp inside the visor was wide open, because only then it is possible that the visor becomes twisted to such an extent that one side of the ramp house comes in contact with the bow ramp and the other side not. At an early stage just after the visor hinges were broken and the deck beam at frame 159 had been cut, such a contact just at the port side is not possible due to the construction of the visor. This has been proved by various model tests carried out by the German ‘Group of Experts’ together with Naval Architect Dr. Z. Hirsch.
(2) The bow ramp did not need to be torn open because it had been unsecured already since departure from Tallinn because it could not be locked/secured anymore. See Chapters 1.2.1 and 2.3.3 in this Update and Chapter 29.2 pages 813 ff. of our Report. Also the mating boxes at the bow ramp were not forced open by the security bolts – as alleged by the JAIC – because either the bolts could not enter the mating boxes – after the bow ramp had been closed before departure from Tallinn – due to the severe misalignment of the bow ramp – see Chapter 2.3.3 – or the mating boxes were broken before already.
Therefore it has to be concluded that the bow ramp was not torn open by the visor and the damage to the hp profiles at the port aft side of the ramp house of the visor must have been caused by other circumstances.
There is indeed another possibility how this particular damage picture could have been created: By pressure from the outside. It is a well known phenomenon that profiles bend in case of load from the outside and buckle in case of load from the inside, as demonstrated by the following drawing. |
