Although various studies and data have been and continue to be analyzed in the new investigation, there is no indication of any significant new findings compared to the report published on December 3, 1997.
The interim report concluded that the wreck of the “Estonia” is in poor condition with structural damage, the deformation of the hull is consistent with the impression on the seabed, no evidence of a collision with another ship or floating object has been found so far, and no indications of an explosion in the bow of the ferry have been found so far.
Before that, in 2021, investigators reported that the visor showed signs of mechanical damage, which he said contradicted the findings of the commission of inquiry as to why the visor fell off the ship’s hull.
The damage to the metal shows that the visor was opened in a short period of time and under very strong thermal pressure. Ongström claims that such damage can only be caused by an explosion.
Was the ferry allowed to go to sea?
The German company “Meyer Werft”, the builder of the “Estonia”, has expressed confidence that its investigators and the court in Paris were not wrong, admitting that neither the ferry builder nor the company that issued the certificate is to blame for the ship’s disaster.
Meyer Werft declined to comment on the JAIC joint investigation, which concluded that the Estonia was not allowed to go to sea because it was not in a seaworthy condition.
The interim report of the investigators of Estonia, Finland and Sweden states that a long-sea vessel was ordered from “Meyer Werft”, however the built ferry did not meet the requirements of a vessel of that category. After the ship was completed, the classification society confirmed that it met the requirements of a deep-sea vessel, although in reality it did not.
2023-09-27 21:16:14
#years #passed #disaster #ferry #Estonia #closer #answers
