The naval architect Anders Björkman, M.Sc., writes to John Graffman wondering about the ongoing research study on the Sinking Sequence of MV Estonia

From: "Anders Björkman" anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr

To: "John Graffman" John.Graffman@VINNOVA.se

Re: VINNOVA - Research Study on the Sinking Sequence of MV Estonia - part reports 15 March 2007

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:57:53 +0100

Hallo John,

Regarding the subject, I would be much obliged to receive copies of the SSPA and HSVA consortia latest reports how their studies progress.

I have been informed that the SSPA group has started model tests to establish the water ingress into the superstructure of Estonia with open ramp in the given weather and that preliminary results indicate four times greater inflow than concluded by the JAIC in their investigation and in line with my calculations. I assume that this finding has been discussed by the SSPA IPE and I look forward to their conclusions what to do now.

In my view the finding means that SSPA has identified a serious error in the JAIC Final report that makes it very doubtful. As the studies shall be based on the information in the Final report, you wonder if this is really possible?

The minister Mona Sahlin said the following 3 April 2002:

"I do not know how many times during the past four years when I have been responsible in the government and have participated in discussions about Estonia that we have directed; discussions with technicians, with responsible authorities, with relatives, with Estonia, with Finland, with the IMO and with researchers. With these facts we have with a safe heart concluded to say no to the request of a new investigation. I will still repeat that we shall follow the IMO (laws) all the time - and I think we have done that all the time - but we must continue to reconsider this if there is other information."

("... Jag vet inte hur många gånger under de här fyra åren som jag har varit ansvarig i regeringen och deltagit i diskussioner om Estonia som vi har fört, diskussioner med tekniker, med ansvariga myndigheter, med anhöriga, med politiska partier, med Estland, med Finland, med IMO och med forskare. Med detta faktaunderlag har vi med tryggt hjärta kommit fram till att säga nej till kravet på en ny utredning. Jag vill fortfarande upprepa att eftersom vi ska följa IMO hela tiden - och det tycker jag att vi har gjort hela tiden - måste vi fortsätta att pröva detta om det skulle komma fram andra uppgifter." Mona Sahlin 3 april 2002 i förhör i Konstitutionsutskottet).

Actually the latest finding of the SSPA put serious doubts about the JAIC Final report. It is in my view not possible for the consortia to explain the sinking according to the JAIC report if the actual water ingress is four times bigger than alleged by the JAIC. One possibility is then to abandon the studies and simply request and carry out a complete new accident investigation as per IMO rules to first verify the JAIC alleged facts and conclusions and then to find out what really happened.

Because it is not only the water ingress that has been falsified. Also the wave loads on the visor in the given weather have been falsified = increased 10-20 times, to enable the JAIC to conclude that wave loads damaged locks and attachments, etc. It is simply impossible that the alleged wave loads presented by the JAIC in its Final report apply to the visor. Such loads would have stopped the vessel and pushed it backwards! Every serious person with knowledge of wave loads/impacts on visors in a seaway knows the infernal noise associated with such loads ... and no such noise has ever been reported by any witness or the JAIC.

Furthermore, also the stability calculations of the JAIC with water loaded inside the superstructure are falsified. You cannot simply load >1600 tons of water there, as then the vessel turns upside down = end voyage. The proposal by JAIC that >5000 tons (and by Sjöling/Rosenius > 10 000 tons) are loaded without capsize or sinking is so unrealistic that you wonder how anybody can suggest it. The vessel drifting 2 miles after losing the visor and the the sudden listing is also not possible.

Evidently the JAIC and Sjöling/Rosenius reports were never subject to any peer reviews - and strangely enough the SSPA and HSVA consortia have not bothered to to the same check themselves. Suggest that it is time that SSPA and HSVA really checks the alleged 'facts' by JAIC and Sjöling/Rosenius (and then abandon their studies).

I therefore suggest that Vinnova reports to the government that you have difficulties with the studies and that it is better that a new accident investigation is done to establish the real facts.

Kind regards

Anders Björkman, Heiwa Co - European Agency for Safety at Sea.

PS - the RINA publication The Naval Architect has published some articles in its January 2007 issue that are of interest for your study. You find them at :

http://estonia.kajen.com/Naval_Architect_Jan_07.pdf