The ultimate manipulation
How SSPA Marine AB of Chalmers University, Gothenburg, Sweden, faked the M/S Estonia model tests 2008 as requested by the Swedish government

The Principle of Archimedes does not apply in Sweden


About us


Contact info


Order books


The ultimate manipulation - how SSPA Marine AB of Chalmers University, Gothenburg, Sweden faked the model tests (to hide the true cause of accident!) as requested by the Swedish government (Mona Sahlin)

© Anders Björkman


The Vinnova (a corrupt Swedish state research agency) M/S Estonia sinking research study ordered by the Swedish government 2005 was completed with a public workshop at Stockholm 23 May 2008. The whole purpose of the studies were to shed light on the sequence of the sinking of MV Estonia.

The two research consortia (SSPA, HSVA) had submitted their final reports and supporting documents including videos of model tests and computer animations (1.000's of pages and 100's of MBs of cyber space) only one week before, so there was little time for anybody to seriously review them. I was not even informed about it. I got the data much later.

SSPA says about its work:

This report is the final documentation from the SSPA Consortium on the "Research Study on the Sinking Sequence of MV Estonia", which was funded by VINNOVA (The Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems) between March 2006 and May 2008 with 8.88 million SEK about one million Euros). The VINNOVA Registration Number is 2005-02852 and the SSPA Project Number is 4006 4100.

The final and complete documentation consists of three DVDs with

  • All 18 Project Reports (pdf format).
  • Model test of the foundering of MV Estonia showing the most probable loss scenario, adjusted to full scale time (wmv-file).
  • Computer animation of the most probable foundering scenario (avi-file). All documentation is available for public downloading on the web site: (Public Downloads) or

2017 no reports are available from these links and no writers include the reports in their CVs on the Internet. Isn't it strange that the final and complete documentation is not available any longer?

In the Summary we learn:

It is concluded that the loss of 852 people on the night of 27/28th of September 1994 has resulted from a rapid loss of stability by MV Estonia. Therefore, all the circumstances and reasons for
  • breach of hull integrity allowing unobstructed ingress of sea water into the spaces of MV Estonia
  • inadequate stability to allow orderly ship evacuation and abandonment in case of such water ingress,

were considered as the causes of the disaster.

It is a very strange summary of the report.

In 1997 it was concluded by corrupt investigators that the cause af the disaster was the bow visor falling off due to bad design and bad weather, which noone noticed, a bowramp was pulled fully open and that the superstructure (car deck/garage) was loaded with water (the hull was intact!) ... and the ship heeled ... and sank. No talk about breach of hull integrity or inadequate intact stability.

SSPA says in the report that the main scenarios (causes?) considered were (combinations possible):

1. Bow visor falls off, car deck floods, heel angle increases, flooding below through central casing, sinking with bow up (the JAIC scenario [1]).

2. Bow visor falls off, car deck floods, heel angle increases, vents break under pressure, flooding below through the vents (suggested in [3]).

3. Stabilizing fins break off or hull damage occur through other means, lower decks flood, bow visor falls off, car deck floods, heel angle increases, flooding below, sinking with bow up.

4. Stabilizing fins break off or hull damage occur through other means, lower decks flood, water reaches car deck from below, heel angle increases, sinking with bow up.

5. 5a. Collision with other object, hull damage at deck 0/1 level, lower decks flood, bow visor falls off, car deck floods, heel angle increases, flooding below, sinking with bow up.

5b. Collision with other object, hull damage at deck 0/1 level, lower decks flood, water reaches car deck from below, heel angle increases, sinking with bow up.

6. 6a-6c. Car deck floods through opening in the ship's side or through pilot door or through stern ramp, heel angle increases, flooding below, sinking with bow up.

The purpose of the study was to explain the sinking of a ship with intact hull after the bow visor had fallen off and the bow ramp had been pulled open at 01.15 hrs and water was loaded on the car deck in the superstructure, so you wonder why SSPA considered 3, 4 and 5 a/b above about hull damage and 6 about superstructure side damage. Actually a one-compartment hull leakage due to collision or a stabilizer fin falling off would not sink the ship, as the ship could flood two hull compartments and survive. And leaking superstructure doors/ramps do not sink ships. The water just flows out through scuppers.

One result of the report was, however, interesting (if it is true or not nobody knows):

We were told that a model of the M/S Estonia, in conditions of the accident with open ramp, loaded 2 000 tons of water (full scale!) in the superstructure/garage in 150 seconds (full scale!) and heeled 37° during that time as shown below (note the Chalmers University logo to impress). Later 8 000 tons of water was in the superstructure - but the deck house above was full of air providing buoyancy and preventing capsize:

It means that nobody on the M/S Estonia would have had time to evacuate to open decks, because you can only evacuate, when the heel is <18°. And the heel was >18° after 100 seconds in the tests! But the ship didn't capsize! It was floating on the deck house!

In spite of this result the scientific conclusions of SSPA and HSVA are, of course, one and the same:

The M/S Estonia sinking took place more or less as explained by the JAIC 1994-1997 (!), i.e. first the visor was lost and water was loaded on deck 2 (the car deck) of the superstructure and the vessel heeled suddenly >45°. It takes less than three minutes. It occurred however 15 minutes earlier (!), at 01.00 hrs, than concluded by the official, Joint Accident Investigation Commission, JAIC 1994.

Then the ferry was floating on the deck house (!) for 22 minutes, when the heel angle slowly became 60, 70, 80 and 90° as per figure left (no. 37 of the SSPA Final report)! When the Mayday was sent at 01.22 hrs the heel was 80° (and not 20-30° reported by the officer sending the Mayday).

Then the vessel capsized, heel increased 90° - 150° in one minute and 150° - 180° in eight minutes, and after 01.30 hrs the vessel floated upside down for another 20 minutes according to the principle of Archimedes. No survivors have ever testified that the ship was floating upside down with them sitting on top.

But the up-side-down floating ship sank (!!!) during 18 minutes! Trapped compressed air providing buoyancy mysteriously disappeared from the hull.  

The accident took thus place as follows according Chalmers/SSPA:

At 01.30 hrs the ship was floating upside down! And then it just sank.

Nobody at the public workshop at Stockholm 23 May 2008 asked any real questions about all above.

Reason being that it was not a public workshop!

Only selected people were invited to applaud the show!

Because, how could a ferry like M/S Estonia float on the deck house? The M/S Herald of Free Enterprise that capsized outside Zeebrügge 6 March 1987 never floated on the deck house:

"When the ferry reached 18.9 knots (35.0 km/h; 21.7 mph) 90 seconds after leaving the harbour, water began to enter the car deck (superstructure) in large quantities. The resulting free surface effect destroyed her stability.

In a matter of seconds, the ship began to list 30 degrees to port. The ship briefly righted herself before listing to port once more, this time capsizing. The entire event took place within 90 seconds.[8] The water quickly reached the ship's electrical systems, destroying both main and emergency power and leaving the ship in darkness.

The ship ended on her side half-submerged in shallow water 1 kilometre (0.54 nmi; 0.62 mi) from the shore. Only a fortuitous turn to starboard in her last moments, and then capsizing onto a sandbar, prevented the ship from sinking entirely in much deeper water, which would have resulted in an even higher death toll."

But M/S Estonia behaved completely different, when capsizing 28 September 1994, it was announced at the public/secret workshop at Stockholm 23 May 2008:

Only six aft windows of total 250+ deck house windows (2.4% !) in the submerged starboard side were assumed to break, when impacted by waves and submerged 10 metres below water at heel >45°. The M/S Estonia therefore first floated 22 minutes on air trapped inside the deck house!!

Imagine that! The ferry M/S Estonia floating on air inside the deckhouse, when the garage was filled with 8 000 tons of water!

It is called the Principle of Johan Fransson of the Swedish Maritime Administration. Ships float on deck houses.

There is totally >110 m² of glass panes in the side windows and all should be broken and pushed in! But SSPA, scientifically, only allowed <1 m² of windows to break allowing a very small water inflow. JAIC on the other hand suggested 1997 that all windows on decks 4 and 5 were broken and that the deck house immediately filled with 14 000 tons of water! Capsize was however prevented according JAIC as the vessel floated on (undefined!) buoyancy in decks 6 and 7 (??) - deck house decks 6 and 7 were watertight according JAIC. SSPA changes the JAIC data but the result is the same. The vessel was thus floating (!) on the deck house and allowed to trim on the stern before heel exceeded 90° and capsize (sic) occurred … as shown in model tests and animations.

And then the model floated upside down with several meters (full scale) of hull above water as seen below ... and slowly sank!

Photo: Bertil Calamnius

The amazing result was all due to clever, intentional manipulations of the alleged scientific work of which all consortia participants and university boards were aware!

Industry (IMO/SOLAS) safety standard is evidently that a deck house with or without windows does not provide any buoyancy at all at any time! A deck house is not water tight ... or air tight. It leaks like a basket.

To demonstrate and suggest the opposite is intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind - to fool innocent survivors and relatives ... and everybody else!

The manipulations are however very easy to see in the SSPA model test video at the consortia web siteIf the link does not work try here! There is also a computer animation of the same event that differs completely from the model test. Some examples will be shown.

Fig. 1 At time 00:20 - a wave sloshes against closed bow ramp. Note that there are no windows/openings in the port, white deck house above the blue superstructure. Actually the model deck house is made air tight on the port, forward and aft sides, so that the model will not capsize, when the deck house comes below water!

The manipulated model tests by SSPA are good evidence that everything JAIC stated 1994-1997 is wrong! Evidently the Estonia did not sink due to a lost visor + water in the superstructure. If that were the case, there is no need to falsify model tests 14 years later! MV Estonia sank due to hull leakage below waterline as suggested by Heiwa Co since September 1994.

The model test video starts with a 48 seconds sequence (00:06-00:54) with ramp closed and 14 pitching bow movements up/down as expected. You can see that the ferry could have sailed without visor and closed ramp! The waves just push the ramp aft against the superstructure. In full scale it would take much longer!

Fig. 2 At time 01:04 the ramp opens. Note windows in starboard deck house side. Details of the windows are not clear - are they open or just painted ... or both? In the model test only two (!) starboard deck house windows on each deck 4-6 aft (there are 250+ windows in each side) are assumed to be broken allowing water to enter. This has nothing to do with reality! A ship does not float on thin window panes.

At video time 01:04 the ramp opens and water is loaded on the car deck during about 25 seconds (01:04-01:29 - model time) and 6-7 bow ramp opening pitching movements below water and the vessel quickly heels >20° to starboard as expected.

In full scale it would take about 3 times longer or 75 seconds.

Fig. 3 Ramp opens in computer animation. Note windows in deck house front. Computer animation does not show the initial heeling.

The ramp opening is also shown in the computer animation but no water inflow or heeling.

Fig. 4 At time 01:24 abt. 100-200 tons water (full-scale) is pushed into the superstructure, when deck 2 is below the waves. It happens every 6-8 seconds full-scale or 2-3 seconds model-scale and is a very noisy event (if it takes place?).

At every bow pitching below water - it takes a few seconds in model scale and 3 times longer full scale - 100-200 tons of water (full scale) is pushed into the superstructure like a tsunami causing an enormous noise! No survivors heard anything like that.

Evidently the water would push cars and lorries aft and destroy the lighting system. But the Estonian engine crew noticed nothing on their CCTV monitors. The ramp was closed!

Fig. 5 At time 01:50 vessel has just started the port turn and more water enters on deck 2.

At time 01:30 (80-90 seconds full-scale after ramp was opened) the alleged turn to port seems to be initiated and the vessel is slowing down; more water is loaded on the car deck through the open ramp when 16 more waves are scooped up (01:30-02.31).

Fig. 6 At time 02:18 the turn continues and vessel slows down ... and more water has entered into the superstructure and the deck house comes under water.

After 150 seconds model time the heel (roll) is >40°.

Fig. 7 Engine crew watches a closed ramp before the sudden heeling in a ridiculous computer animation picture. The actual event took place 2-3 minutes after the heeling started so all people in ECR should be at 40° or have fallen down to starboard! And the ECR does not look like above!

The M/S Estonia is then heeling >40°. Evacuation is then not possible. Nobody can walk on a deck that is sloping 40° (maximum is <18°).

All survivors have, however,testified that the angle of heel was much, much less (<15°) for at least 10 minutes allowing >300 persons to reach open decks!

The development of the heel goes much faster in the model test than reported by witnesses. See also fig. 9 below. It is now, 2-3 minutes full-scale, 50-80 seconds model-scale, after heeling started that the engine crew has gathered in the ECR and observes a closed ramp according to JAIC! The angle of heel is already >40°!!

Fig. 8 Water sprays in at forward ramp at 40° heel. And nobody cares!

The engine crew remains another 6-8 minutes in the ECR - starts pumps, talks to the bridge, etc. They do not panic in spite of the big heel! In the computer animation this event takes place much earlier - before any heeling has started (!) and the floor is horizontal. They only see a closed (!) ramp with some water spraying in.

Actually - there was no engine crew in the ECR before the heeling occurred! The closed ramp was observed 2-3 minutes after the heeling/big rollling started and when the engine crew had gathered in the ECR. According to the model tests the heel is then >45° and the ramp is fully open!

Fig. 9 Computer animated passenger evacuation at <10° heel. According model tests the ferry is never in this position very long!

It is now - heel is >40° - the passengers start to evacuate. In the Safety at Sea, Ltd, Glasgow, falsified computer animation evacuation takes place when the heel is <10°; a position that occurs during only 10 seconds in the model tests.

Fig. 10 At time 03:26 the vessel has stopped sideways in the waves. No more water is scooped up through the ramp opening

The computer animation is quite misleading.

The model test video is then interrupted (02:34-03:01) by a 'Model scale speed' (?) insert. It seems to be some pictures of water starting to flood the deck house through some pipes?

At 03:02 the video continues; the model is then sideways in the waves, the engines are stopped, the heel is >45° and the vessel 'floats on the deck house'. >110 m² of windows in the side are not broken!

Fig. 11 Computer animation of 35-40° heel. Center of gravity G is above center of buoyancy B. This is the critical angle when vessel would turn upside down. But it does not happen in the model tests!

This is not a stable condition - there is no equilibrium and you would expect the deck house* to fill up quickly with water, the model to capsize - heel 90° and float upside down with heel 180° within a few minutes full-scale (the hull is full of 18 000 m3 air), but it does not happen! It is now the manipulations start! 

*A superstructure is weather tight and no windows are allowed and any opening in it must be as strong as the steel enclosure preventing water inflow.

A deck house with thin window panes is as watertight as a straw basket!

Fig. 12 At time 04:13 the vessel drifts sideways in the waves. Starboard side is facing the incoming waves. You would expect the vessel to turn upside down = capsize.

The model deck house - all spaces above deck 4 - is arranged so that the water inflow is very small!

There are no window openings on the port (upper) side or in the front or aft bulkeads of the deck house (!). Water enters only through a few broken windows below water in the starboard side aft to allow the vessel to trim on the stern and later sink on the stern. This manipulation provides buoyancy in the deck house that does not exist in reality!

Fig. 13 At time 06:24 the vessel has reached this impossible position. It is not stable unless the white deck house is full of air below water line! This is the basic manipulation to prevent capsize.

Between say 06:00-11:00 the model is heeling >60° sideways in the waves and rolling totally >40° i.e. between 40° and 80° heel.

Any survivors should have experienced this as a roller coaster trip but it never happened in reality. Evidently all windows in the starboard side would be broken at this time, but SSPA does not allow it. One reason for the violent and unusual rolling is the behaviour of the buoyancy in the deck house that will reinforce the rolling! In reality there is no buoyancy in a deck house.

Fig. 14 At time 06:50 the vessel rolls severely.

Fig. 15 At time 06:54 the roll is maximum.

Fig. 16 At time 10.10 the vessel rolls severely.

Fig. 17 At time 10:14 the roll is maximum. Note the valve in the bottom!

Fig. 18 At time 11:18 the vessel rolls severely. But the >4000 tons of water (full-scale) inside the superstructure does not trim the vessel.

There is >4 000 tons of water (full-scale) in the superstructure and you would expect it to trim the model, i.e. flow aft (trim on stern) or flow forward (trim on bow) ... and flow out. You wonder where the 4 000 tons of water is? Water on the other hand flows into the deck house only through broken windows aft and trims the vessel on the stern.

Fig. 19 At time 11:53 the deckhouse side decks 4-5 are permanently under water. Two 'broken' windows aft are indicated in the red ring. No water can enter through the other 'windows'!

Fig. 20 Computer animation of the deckhouse side decks 4-5 permanently under water. In the animation the windows are assumed not to break and there is plenty of buoyancy in the deck house! In reality all the windows should be broken.

At time 11:53 the starboard side windows of decks 4 and 5 are permanently below water; windows of decks 6-8 are below water when the vessel rolls down … but the water cannot freely fill the inside spaces as inflow is restricted to a few windows at the aft end only.

Fig. 21 At time 11:56 the deckhouse side decks 6-8 are under water when vessel rolls.

Fig. 22 At time 12.46 the deckhouse side decks 4-5 are permanently under water.

All windows should be broken due to the severe rolling and waves hitting the thin window panes, but little water is seen flooding the deck house. In the model test only two starboard windows on each of decks 4, 5 and 6 aft are broken! This is completely unrealistic!

Fig. 23 Computer animation of the deckhouse side decks 4-5 permanently under water. Only a few windows aft are alleged to be broken. It is suggested that the engine room is flooded through narrow ventilation trunks and that the flooding of the engine room goes quicker than the flooding of the deck house. There is no evidence for that! The deck house should be flooded instantaneously and the vessel should capsize and float upside down!

Same observations can be done later at 12:30-14:00. At time 12:46 there are underwater pictures of the whole starboard side above deck 4 below water - and you would expect the deck house to fill up 100% with water!

Fig. 24 At time 13:23 the vessel has reached this impossible position. Capsize is prevented by air (buoyancy) in the deck house. Model floats on the deckhouse!

Fig. 25 Only reason why vessel floats at time 13:59 is that the model deck house acts as an air tight life west preventing capsize. It is a serious manipulation to fool the public.

The vessel is rolling 20-30° around a heel angle of 60° and you would expect all windows on starboard side to break, when impacted by the waves allowing a substantial inflow of water into the deck house. But it does not take place! Flooding into Deck No 4, 5 and 6 could only take place through two (!) open windows in the starboard aft part on each deck of the model according to SSPA. So the model floats on the air inside the deck house below waterline! No capsize can take place as you would expect. But the vessel trims on the stern due to the water in the deck house.

Fig. 26 The computer animation evidently shows the windows in the port side - but then the condition is permanently unstable and the vessel should turn turtle.

In the computer animation this position is shown in figure 26.

Fig. 27 For this animated condition with 40-50° heel to be stable the deck house must be assumed to be full of air below waterline. The designers of the animation thus know that the model tests were going to be manipulated and vice versa!

And it is backed up with the animation in figure 27.

Fig. 28 Only reason why vessel floats at time 16.06 is that the model deck house acts as a life west preventing capsize.

Fig. 29 Only reason why vessel floats at time 16.26 is that the model deck house acts as a life west preventing capsize.

Between 13:13-25:10 the vessel is floating with 80° heel angle sideways in the waves and it is only due to water not being able to flood the deck house!

Fig. 30 Impossible floating condition at time 16:27. It is now the engine crew crawls out of the funnel and ... climbs up the vertical deck 8 to the upper port side. The engine crew was very agile! Climbing 10 meters straight up!

It is now the ECR crew escapes and arrives at the funnel ... and climbs up to the port deck house side 10 metres above! All lies of course!

Fig. 31 Impossible floating condition of a ferry under any circumstances!! A vessel cannot float like this! 90° heel! Center of gravity G is outside center of buoyancy B and turns vessel uppside down. Only by adding buoyancy in the deck house you achive equilibrium. This is Hollywood (at Strathclyde!).

In the computer animation this unstable condition is shown stable as in figure 31 left.

It would be interesting to see the stability calculations behind the animation. You need plenty of air in the deck house below water for extra buoyancy there to achieve stability! But such buoyancy does not exist in reality. A deck house is not water tight. It is flooded momentarily.

Fig. 32 At time 22:16 the ramp opening is permanently under water and the complete superstructure is flooded. It is an impossible floating condition of a ferry under any circumstances!! A vessel cannot float like this! 90° heel! This is Hollywood (at Gothenburg!).

Fig. 33 At time 22:21 the model at 90° heel starts to sink lower in the water

The ramp opening is soon permanently below water.

Fig. 34 At time 23:30 the model is still at 90° heel. It takes time to flood the deck house as only two windows aft per deck are open.

Fig. 35 At time 23:34 the model is still at 90° heel. It takes time to release the air in the deck house.

Fig. 36 Computer animation of stable condition at 90° list. Note that the starboard side broken windows are 10 meters below water - but the model still floats on air/buoyancy in the deck house (indicated by a green frame) below waterline (red line). This manipulation shifts center of buoyancy B below centre of gravity G to obtain equilibrium. It is a criminal manipulation!

Fig. 37 Only two deck house windows aft per deck are assumed broken. The vessel floats on thin window panes!

The condition at say time 23:30-23:34 is simply impossible from stability point of view; 90° heel, bow ramp opening continuously below water and the superstructure full of water. Only air below waterline in the deck house providing buoyancy can achieve it!

The flat starboard deck house side is then 10 metres (!) below water full of openings (all windows should be broken but in the model test only two large windows in the aft part on each deck 4-6 are open (!)) and the deck house can then not provide any buoyancy for equilibrium! It is only by wilfully (intentionally!) preventing water to enter at the starboard bottom side and the air (at least >15 000 m3 full scale) inside the deck house to escape that the model floats stable at this time. If the deck house fills with water up to the waterline, the vessel turns upside down very quickly.

Fig. 38 Computer animation of stable condition at 90° list and with brave survivors checking the bow ramp. This is really Hollywood stuff!

Fig. 39 At time 25:19 the model is still at 90° heel but the ramp is completely below water indicating the car deck superstructure is completely full of water.

In the computer animation two brave survivors decide to have a look at the ramp when the list is >90° and ship is rolling severly!

Imagine climbing down a ramp at sea in the middle of the stormy night. Isn't it crazy!

Fig. 40 Schematic of cross section of Estonia at 90° heel and draught d. G is the centre of gravity/weight of the ship, B1 is the centre of buoyancy of the hull, B2 is the centre of buoyancy of the air below waterline in the deck house that exists according SSPA. If B2 does not exist the vessel heels to 180° (upside down) and floats on B1 (above G) at once. The violet area is the air column of height h in the deck house below waterline that achieves extra buoyancy and a stable condition at 90° heel. Normal air is shown as yellow! h is also the solid water pressure head on the windows at d below waterline. No window pane can resist that pressure. All windows panes will break immediately. A ship does not float on window panes!

MARIN has done model tests of the flooding of the deck house between decks 4-5 only - but only at small angles of heel and with two (!) windows open. And MARIN believes the deck house is a superstructure*(!). The MARIN study is part of the manipulations.

*A superstructure is weather tight and no windows are allowed and any opening in it must be as strong as the steel enclosure preventing water inflow. A deck house with thin window panes is as watertight as a cane basket!

No vessel floats on a deck house (except if it is full of air below the water line)!

It appears that the SSPA staff arranged the model deck house by only a few openings aft to prevent the deck house being flooded instantaneously as expected when submerged!

But it is very crude! The model floats much too high in the water at the beginning due to very large B2 (see fig. 40). The model deck house should be examined by independent controllers or auditors. To achieve a horizontal sinking before capsize or heel >90° also the hull was modified to control hull buoyancy B1. The latter was then used to actually sink the model after capsize. The manipulations were not done by amateurs.

It is very simple to demonstrate that immediate capsize takes place in any model tank at zero speed and no waves with the existing model ,when the deck house is submerged. Just provide some realistic openings in the model deck house starboard side and aft end, so that water can flood the deck house and some openings in the port side to allow air to escape! Initially the E-model floats upright but when 3 000 tons of water (full scale) is loaded on deck 2 to simulate flooding of it, the model heels >45° and the starboard side deck house decks 4 and 5 come below water and the deck house is flooded instantaneously and the model continues to heel to 180° upside down (like the MV Jan Heweliusz). This can also be shown by simple animations, e.g. static stability calculations. Both consortia assume and state the opposite - that the windows do not break and that it takes 22 minutes to fill the deck house through some small openings - to support a false sinking scenario and provide manipulated model tests and animations to this effect. It is not only unscientific; it is criminal!

Fig. 41 At time 25:31 the model is >90° heel and waves are sloshing over the port upper side.

When the model has abt. 90° heel at say time 23:30, i.e. the port upper side is horizontal and the ferry starts to capsize (!!) 90° to 150° heel without trimming. The amount of air remaining in the hull at this time decides whether the ship will float or sink after capsize.

Fig. 42 At time 26:49 big waves are sloshing over the port upper side.

Fig. 43 At time 27:13 is the last video picture of the model above water. It is floating almost upside down. Note the wide open ramp and compare with fig. 37.

Big waves are seen sweeping across the port upper side of the deck house until 27:13 when the model rolls upside down (the ramp is still open (!) - it does not close) and after that only underwater footage is shown; thus we cannot see the underwater hull now above water to establish the buoyancy available.

Fig. 44 Animation of vessel floating upside down. Evidently no air can escape from the watertight hull then and the ship should continue to float. But by releasing air through a hidden valve in the bottom the model sinks.

How the air - 16 822 m3 - trapped and compressed to <11 214 m3 inside the intact hull below the car deck at this time escapes is not known.

In the model test it is evacuated via two valves(!), one aft and one forward, so that the model actually sinks due to air/buoyancy losses.

The explanation (sic) is that this manipulation is required due to scale effects! So SSPA first opens the aft valve and the stern sinks. And then they open the forward vent and the bow sinks. There is also 3 906 m3 buoyant material in the superstructure and deck house to assist floating. The weight of the vessel is only 11 930 tons (or m3) so 3 191 m3 hull is above waterline after capsize!

Fig. 45 At time 28:47 the model is floating almost upside down.

Fig. 46 Photo of model floating upside down in model testing tank.

Fig. 47 Computer animation of floating upside down. This is a condition witnessed by survivors around 30 minutes after the heeling started. There is no reason for the ship to sink after reaching this position! Many capsized ships have floated upside down like this for weeks after capsize, e.g. Jan Heweliusz.

Fig. 48 At time 31:34 the model is still floating almost upside down. The black buoy floating beside the upside down hull was previously located on the model and is now floating freely. It supports the cable that is used to remote control the two valves in the bottom of the hull to produce the 'sinking'.

Fig. 49 At time 32:38 the model the stern starts to sink. SSPA is releasing air trapped in the aft hull to achieve sinking. Otherwise the model would never sink on the stern.

Fig. 50 At time 33:48 the model stern hits bottom. Later SSPA opens a valve forward and allows air trapped in the hull forward to escape so that the bow sinks. Quite stupid manipulations, actually. 

The video does not show the hull above water after 27:13. You can maybe see the air being released through the vent - like a whale blowing out air?

The model should evidently have continued to float after rolling upside down if the buoyancy of the hull (the compressed air), superstructure and deck house exceeded the weight. Or it would have sunk at once if the weight exceeded the available buoyancy.

SSPA has announced that they allowed the air in the model hull to escape through two valves (!). Otherwise the model would not sink - a ship that suddenly capsizes upside down generally floats ... upside down on the air trapped in the hull, when buoyancy exceeds weight!

If the weight exceeds the buoyancy, the ship sinks at once as per Arkimedes! However the model stern hits bottom at video time 33:48. The model thus lost buoyancy aft first! Very strange.

Fig. 51 At time 34:37 the model bow disappears below the surface.

The video includes a few seconds of the bulb at the bow still above water.

Actually the model should drift upside down for twenty minutes full-scale (8-9 minutes model-scale) at 2.2 knots speed to reach the wreck position. It is not possible.

The video and animation are nice pieces of pure propaganda and misinformation!

(It seems all Chalmers/SSPA reports/videos paid for by Swedish tax payers are no longer available on the internet.)

So why did the SSPA and HSVA consortia scientists and the SSPA Industrial Panel of Experts decide to manipulate the research with this stupid deck house trick to fool the public? Were they subject to pressure from forces of intolerance and insane self-assertion (read Ms. Mona Sahlin) to cover up the fact that the Estonia sank due to leakage below waterline? Anyway - their professional reputations and those of their institutions are definitely destroyed for ever. Vinnova has cooked a soup in a basket.


Heiwa Co start page

Heiwa Co English Estonia page

Heiwa Co Swedish Estoniasida