1.38 The Swedish Board of Accident Investigation - Participants of the Cover-up
The Group of Analysis never examined the Swedish Board of Accident Investigation, SHK. Law regulates its work SHK summarizes its work as follows:
· At in investigation the SHK team always consists of a chairman and a chief of investigation. Often external experts are employed, which with their expert knowledge assist the SHK with collecting facts, analysis and conclusions.· The SHK shall as far as possible clarify the course of events and the cause of the event as well as damages and influences. The SHK shall also judge the work of the rescue services of the society. In need the SHK shall with recommendations give the responsible authority material for decisions about suitable actions.
· The work of the SHK is only to improve safety. The SHK does not decide questions of responsibility or (economic/moral) demands for damages. Such matters must be done by others, e.g. the responsible authority, public prosecutor, insurance companies or lawyers.
· For the person appointed expert by the SHK the following applies. Regardless if the person is employed or has own job expertise, the role as expert is to present own personal views. If anybody is assisting the SHK through or on behalf of a responsible authority the same principles apply with addition that the authority shall be kept informed about the investigation by the expert.
· The expert knowledge of the SHK itself does not often suffice with due regard to the wide range of events that may be reviewed. For the most common investigations the SHK has lists of names of suitable experts. At unusual events the SHK must search, sometimes abroad, for experts.
· Any person of an interested party, i.e. looks after the interest of relatives, companies, insurance companies or authorities, may access the material and records of the investigation. The SHK is grateful to receive detail knowledge, information and views which interested parties wants to give.
· The SHK has as a rule that representatives of labour unions may follow the work (it is not decided by Swedish law). Personal representatives may often provide detail knowledge about questions of safety, instructions, organisation and technology.
The Group of Analysis should have investigated why the SHK refused to provide the public with information about its own 'Estonia' investigation/report and why interested parties had no access to the material and records of the 'Estonia' investigation. In addition as per international law any interested party shall review the preliminary report. The SHK did not follow its own rules at the 'Estonia' accident investigation.
The SHK has informed that the 'Estonia' investigation was an exception (sic) to normal work.
The SHK was only requested to assist the Estonian delegation of the investigation team, which is hardly the impression you get from the Final report (5). The members of the SHK headed and/or carried out parts of the whole investigation, e.g. the technical investigations (model tests, strength analysis, stability calculations). The SHK did not chair the investigation naturally should not have prevented the members of the SHK to follow its own rules during the work. It is a fact that the SHK should have reviewed the work done by the Swedish rescue services. The accident occurred in international waters but Swedish rescue services assisted. Now the SHK permitted the Finnish delegation to examine the work of the Swedish rescue services.
Personal Opinions - no scientific Evidence
It may be that the course of events 1.9 is only the personal opinions and views of Rosenberg and Huss what happened (as per SHK instructions). It is a fact that neither Rosengren nor Huss later can explain or prove their statements - that the ship continued to float and drift after it should have capsized. One reason is evidently that the Commission later modified the conclusions of Rosengren and Huss to suit another alleged course of events - that the ferry never capsized. That Rosengren and Huss then did not protest is remarkable. Schager protested by resigning 1.20 but it was very late, September 1997. Schager had early 1995 2.1 handed in two summaries of testimonies where it was clear that the accident - the listing - occurred at 01.02 hrs proceeded by two big bangs, which the Commission later changed in the Final report (5); The Commission said that the initial event lasted 20 minutes - one bang was at 00.55 hrs (one lock was broken?), the other at 01.05 hrs (the hinges?) and that then 'noise' was heard from the bow for minutes 3.7 and that the accident - the listing occurred at 01.15 hrs. It is quite obvious that the Commission just decided to add 10 minutes of 'noise' to suit its false course of events. How the SHK: members could accept that the Commission modified the Schager reports (and changed the Huss/Rosengren plots) is unclear. Also the work of Sten Anderson in the investigation is remarkable. Anderson was appointed by the Swedish NMA to 'observe' the investigation. As per the SHK instructions above
"the authority shall be kept informed about the investigation by the expert".
Anderson should therefore have informed the NMA that the Commission manipulated the investigation. But it was not possible as the boss of Anderson - Johan Franson - himself participated in the investigation by heading the dive examination 1.16, the result of which was also manipulated to suit the alleged course of events.
The Group of Analysis should have examined the actions of the SHK after the publication of the Final report. Why did not the SHK follow its own rules? And why did the SHK not follow the UN resolution IMO A.849 (20) about international marine accident investigations and cooperation at investigations. And why did the SHK participate in a secret investigation, where the results of its own members were manipulated by the whole Commission.
The Swedish Board of Accident Investigations, SHK, has 1994-2001 actively contributed to the cover-up of the 'Estonia' accident.
And the Group of Analysis avoided pointing out the matter.
---