Welcome to a chapter of the e-book Disasterinvestigation.
Summary of Part 2
· The survivors' testimonies about the course of events are trustworthier than the alleged sequence of events of the Final Report (5) based on four crewmembers' testimonies.
· The reason, why the 'Estonia' first heeled and later sank, is leakage of the hull below the waterline and water spreading through open watertight doors. This cause of leakage has not been investigated. The leakage was probably caused in a collision.
· The visor fell off after the list occurred. The ramp protecting the superstructure was never open. A big damage in the starboard collision bulkhead is not reported or explained by the Commission.
· The crew simply lied about what happened aboard before and after the sudden list. The Final Report (5) does not consider if the crew lied.
· The description of the stability of the 'Estonia' with water on the car deck in the superstructure is wrong. No roro-passenger ship sinks slowly due to water in the superstructure. It always capsizes and floats upside down on the hull.
· The accident could have been prevented, if the watertight doors in the 'Estonia' hull were always closed at sea, if the bilgepumps were working and if bilge alarms had been fitted. Fewer persons had lost their lives, if the lifesaving equipment had been in order.
· Survivors and relatives have never been told the truth. The Swedish government carries a great responsibility for this.
· The sequence of events in figure 13.2 in (5) is impossible.
· Only a new accident investigation can establish the Truth.
· We cannot compromise about safety at sea, as all of us want the highest safety at sea.
· Means for improved safety at sea shall be realistic, safe and economical.
· Extreme interests of particular groups do not help anybody and do not contribute to the safety at sea.
· It is possible to establish an alternative course of events, where the list occurred before the visor was detached.