Research Study of Sinking Sequence of MV Estonia Mile ... - TUHH

1 Summary and Conclusion Page 2
with the bulbous bow, this should have resulted in loud noise and a remarkable impact.
But we could not find any witness who reported such noise after about 01.01 h. We are
convinced that the collision between the visor and the bulbous bow of the ship should
result in the largest impact to the vessel and consequently to the loudest noise or
structural impact. According to our interpretation, this time step at about 01.01h can
therefore be regarded as the begin of significant water ingress on the Main Car Deck due
to the loss of the visor.
According to our interpretation, the information given by the Chief Mate from the ferry
MV AMBER is of relevant importance for the determination of the sinking scenario:
Because it seems to be highly probable that there was already water on the Main Car Deck
when the watertight integrity was lost, because due to the high speed and the resulting
strong pitching motion the ship was observed to collect water on the forecastle, which
may have found its way trough the visor on the Main Car Deck before the visor fell off.
This strong pitching motion of the vessel could also be noted by our calculations of the
ship motions.
From the data available, a product model was generated that allowed for initial
hydrostatical calculations. During the model generation, some smaller discrepancies
between TUHH calculations and other sources were identified. One of these
discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on
even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such takes different values if cross curves
and righting levers on a free trimming basis were used. In this respect, it needs to be
mentioned that the ship was converted in 1990/91, and also after the conversion or
during the inclining experiment, new hydrostatic tables or cross curves were not
determined. With respect to other uncertainties, especially the weight assumptions of the
load case, the effect may be of a magnitude that plays a minor role at the present stage of
the investigations. Further, it should be mentioned that the JAIC hydrostatic calculations
were based on a specific water density of 1.010t/m³, where the correct value should be
about 1.004t/m³. Again, this is small with respect to the present stage of the
investigations.