Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Index



JAIC states that the reason of the sinking was water on car deck. This as a result of water entering to the car deck after the ship lost the visor. The visor should have forced the inner ramp to open fully and the ship should have continued on its course with full speed (14 knots) until there was about 2.000 tons of water on the deck. Then the list suddenly appeared and with 30 - 40 degrees starboard list the aft windows on deck 4 and 5 broke. Through this windows the ship was flooded and thereafter sank.

However, it is clear from the commission that the ship could not sink only from water on car deck. It is also clear, from several witnesses, that it was large amounts of water under car deck, deck 0 and 1, before the list occurred. The commission has no answer where this water came from. It is also fully clear that water could not have flooded the deck 0 and 1 from entering the 4:th deck through windows. If water should find its way down in the ship through this deck with the ship listing 30 to 40 degrees to starboard, the water must have "climbed" 6 - 10 meters inside the ship on deck 4 to reach the stairs and elevators that are situated to the port side of the ships center line. The other possibility is that the all stern of the ship was under water, but we know that this was not the fact. In conclusion it is not possible that the explanation from the commission is possible.

The sudden list did occur because of the fact that there was a hole in the ships hull under the waterline. Through this hole to the open sea the deck 0 and 1 was flooded. The ship lost its stability and listed to starboard, and first thereafter the visor fell off hitting the ramp so that there was a slight opening around the ramp. Water entered through this opening and flooded the car deck while the ship already was sinking from leaking under the waterline.



From the videos filmed after the accident it is clear that the ramp was mainly closed during the sinking. The opening was not more than around 40 centimeters at the top of the ramp. There are at least four independent evidences of that.

1. There is a massive damage at the ramp bottom starboard corner that can only been done by the visor falling off when the ramp was closed. The visor fell forward and then twisting to starboard held by the partly broken bottom lock and the partly broken starboard side lock. If the visor should have opened the ramp when falling off, this damage would never have been there. Unless the damage was caused from an explosion, however this we do not know. This damage has been "hidden" or "forgotten" in the JAIC report, and even during the video filming of the ramp this damage was not commented.

2. The starboard upper locking lug on the ramp is damaged in a forward direction. This could only have been from the hydraulic actuators to the visor when they forced their way through the deck. The damage can only been done if the ramp was closed when it occurred. The actuators hit the ramp and broke some of the locking devices, bent the ramp to a partly open situation. Thereafter the visor fell off to the starboard.

3. If the visor should have opened the ramp to fully open position, braking the locks, actuators and preventer wires, the ramp should have hit the small fordeck in front and under the ramp. When hitting this deck the bottom lock (that now was broken and torn up around 50 cm) should have been hit and damaged. This was not the fact. The bottom lock was left in a high position and there is no damage from the ramp on the bottom lock.

Following the different videos taken after the accident it is clear that the ramp has been opened by the divers through the diving operations made by the commission. It is not possible to see if the ramp has been fully opened but it is absolutely clear that the ramp has been opened from less than 40 cm to about 1 meter.



Index