[ad_1]
DEBATE. Several experts have pointed in the same direction in the debate after the documentary “Estonia: the finding that changes everything”. The naval engineer Hans Lidén is one of them. In DN, under the headline “May Estonia Rest In Peace”, it speculates that Estonia may have slipped off a cliff at the bottom and caused the hole. He believes the sinking process is explained in the Accident Investigation Board report that the bow visor simply came loose and lowered the boarding ramp into the open position.
Unfortunately, Lidén is completely wrong.
Excluded that a rock caused the hole
The seabed where Estonia is located, and two square kilometers around it, consists of a 20 meter thick layer of soft clay and mud. This is shown by the extensive background study by the Swedish Maritime Administration in 1995. It was even so mild that they complained that it was difficult to get an anchorage. There are no rock formations or cliffs. A 15,000-ton ship doesn’t “slide” either. Estonia sank first with the stern and then gently lay down, the air coming out of the bow.
The theory that the bow visor opened the ramp is also not true. The ramp was attached to hydraulic and safety cables and tucked into a pocket in the visor. The Accident Investigation Board speculation was that the forces of the waves against the bow visor were so enormous that they pierced through a thick tire. And when the visor came off, it would have lowered the ramp into the open position.
The security cable is intact
But the bow visor that was salvaged did not show any markings inside the pocket where the top of the ramp was during large sawing movements. In the SHK B40e film from the Accident Investigation Board, one of the safety cables can also be seen intact in its holder, with the bolt screwed into the shackle. Therefore, it has not worn out at all, as the Accident Investigation Board claims. One of the evidence supporting the theory of the visor that caused the accident is therefore incorrect.
Find out who, immediately after the sinking, fell next to the wreck and tried / gained access to the cargo deck.
A 1,000-5,000 ton object must have entered the Estonian side at 2-4 knots to make the large 4 x 1.2 meter hole in Estonia, according to Professor Jörgen Amdahl from the Norwegian Institute of Technical Sciences / Natural University of Trondheim.
This hole is not included in the Accident Investigation Board report and there is no documentation of the helmet. Speculation that the bow visor broke the forward ramp and thus the entire bow of the ship was launched by the Swedish Prime Minister the day after the sinking.
Who fell next to the shipwreck shortly after?
To achieve clarity, a new comprehensive investigation is required. You need to investigate whether the collision with Estonia also damaged the empty ballast tank on the starboard side which is in the same area.
A new investigation should also discover who was responsible for the military cargo on board during the night of the sinking and who immediately after the sinking was in the wreck and tried / gained access to the cargo deck.
Let other countries investigate
But countries and expert authorities whose 1994 accident investigation failed in the three most basic investigations, such as the hull inspection, the cargo deck inspection and the interviews with all witnesses, have no credibility. It’s enough. Let the IMO (United Nations International Maritime Organization) designate an independent and transparent investigation and let Sweden, Estonia and Finland have observer status.
By Lars Ångström
Former Member of Parliament (MP) on the Defense Committee
