About us


Contact info


Order books

Welcome to a chapter of the e-book Disasterinvestigation.


Summary of Part 3

· The description of the visor and ramp and their functions and damages by the Commission are wrong.

· There are no correct drawings in the Final Report.

· The German descriptions of the visor and ramp and their functions and damages are also wrong.

· The Germans have given another explanation of the accident, which is not mentioned in the Final Report. A complete investigation report shall examine all information.

· A ferry does not sink, if the visor falls off and pulls open the ramp protecting the superstructure. The Final Report (5) states the opposite without any evidence. This is one reason, why the Commission refuses to discuss its 'findings'.

· Luckily there is clear evidence that the ramp was never pulled open. The forepeak deck is undamaged, the ramp locks are undamaged, etc.

· Videofilms from October 1994 show a closed ramp, while videofilms from December 1994 show a partly open ramp, i.e. the divers tried to pull open the ramp. And then the videofilms show that the ramp locks are undamaged.

· The videofilms from October and December 1994 do not show the starboard front bulkhead of the superstructure, where there is a big unreported damage. The videofilms do not show the starboard side in way of the sauna/pool compartment, where another damage is supposed to be.

· The 'Estonia' probably sank due leakage below the waterline, which the crew did not control. The writer believes that the manipulated control- and indication-panel of the watertight doors on the bridge played a critical role in the accident. Inspector G. Zahlér has testified that you could remotely open the watertight doors from the bridge, which is not permitted. The indication was also confusing. The Final Report has censored all information about the watertight doors.

· The Germans think that the 'Estonia' was subject to sabotage.

· The Germans think that the 'Estonia' was not seaworthy, i.e. did not comply with requirements and rules for a safe voyage, which caused the accident. That leakage below waterline was another contributing cause should be clear.

· Ann-Louise Eksborg does not only refuse to answer questions about the accident. When she speaks to the media she presents clear disinformation about the Final Report and the findings of the investigation. The SHK is not interested in the Truth about the accident.

· A new investigation should simply review all facts to the effect that the 'Estonia' was leaking.

· Many international safety at sea rules were changed after the accident based on false information about the 'Estonia' accident and much money has been wasted to fulfil the new requirements. It costs much less to review the new facts about the 'Estonia' and then correct the latest rules.


To Part 4, 4.1 Back to index