Hermione kirjoitti: ↑La Loka 17, 2020 12:58 pm
Kiitos kysymykseeni vastaajille, teräshän ei rasituksen myötä "napsahda" poikki varoittamatta ensin. Pahoittelen amatoorimäistä termistöä, mutta materiaalitekniikasta, lujuusopista ja laivanrakennuksesta tietävät varmaan ymmärtävät mitä tarkoitan. Jos näin olisi käynyt Estonian kohdalla, että rakenteet olisivat esimerkiksi merenkäynnin rasituksesta jo väsyneet ja murtuneet lopulta, niin eikö hylyn pitäisi olla kahtena kappaleena.
Eikös laivojen runkoja tarkasteta säännöllisesti? Kyseinen laivahan oli asianmukaisesti huollettu ainakin siihen saakka, kun vaihtoi omistajaa eikä se ehtinyt olla Viron lipun alla kovinkaan pitkään.
Hurrien vika tämäkin.
The “European Harbour State Control” Prior to Disaster
According to Holm & Popova a Swedish developmental administrative body, BITs, financed a project where the Swedish Maritime Administration should train Estonian harbor state inspectors. The project was carried out during the week of disaster and at the day the last sea-voyage commenced, the course participants chose The White Ship (MS Estonia) as goal for a surprise exercise investigation.
ESTONICA (encyclopedia about Estonia) write about The White Ship: After the Soviet regime was restored in Estonia in 1944, the concept quickly acquired a specific meaning – the white ship stood for the end of Soviet power, either by means of the intervention by Western countries, or by diplomatic pressure. Waiting for the white ship was a popular concept especially in the post-war decade, and the ruling regime had to work strenuously against it.
In their Alternative Report §36.1 Holtappels and Hummel wrote:
On the day after the casualty, 29 September 1994, Chief Inspector Åke Sjöblom and Inspector Gunnar Zahlée returned from Tallinn to Sweden with their knowledge of the extremely bad condition of visor and bow ramp, the incompetence of the crew and finally the impossibility to stop the ferry from departing despite all their endeavours. See Chapter 15.
Already on the following day a confidential meeting behind closed doors took place which was chaired by the then head of Sjöfartsinspektionen, Bengt-Erik Stenmark, with the heads of the Stockholm and Gothenburg offices of Sjöfartsinspektionen and their assistants attending. Åke Sjöblom informed those assembled about his real findings and his desperate but futile attempts to stop the ferry from departing. The very far reaching consequences were discussed, but then it was decided to inform the public that only minor deficiencies had been found, moreover that the inspection had only been on-the-job training and not a real PSC. See Chapter 15. This official version is upheld by Sjöfartsverket up to day and Åke Sjöblom and Gunnar Zahlée have confirmed it when being questioned by police and the public prosecutor.
It is unknown whether the members of the Swedish part of the JAIC were informed during a meeting in the Sjöfartsverket head office in Norrköping on 13 October 1994. It has to be assumed that Olof Forssberg and Börje Stenström were informed, because otherwise it would not be understandable that Börje Stenström in his capacity as chief maritime technical investigator did not take part in the questioning of Åke Sjöblom and Gunnar Zahlée at the office of the Swedish JAIC in November 1994, which was, at least officially, the only time that these two – being really key witnesses as to the ferry’s condition before her last departure – have been interrogated by JAIC members.
Åke Sjöblom at the beginning wrote a draft version of his report concerning the «On-the-job training on the Estonia» – see Enclosure 15.198 – and did send this draft by letter of 24 October 1994 – see Enclosure 15.199 – to Willand Ringborg being in charge of the Sjöfartsverket project of the training of Estonian safety inspectors. Recently another copy of this letter with two hand-written notes to Börje Stenström on it was made available – see Enclosure 36.1.443.
The note at the top reads – office translated – as follows:
«Hi Börje, Attached is what I think should be roughly enough to have stopped her from sailing on 27.09.94. (Handwriting of Åke Sjöblom.)
The 2nd note at the bottom in another handwriting reads:
If she would have been stopped on the 27th to correct all the 17, they would probably quite quickly have found the rest of the damages (failures) and in that case the ship would have been detained for a few weeks in Estonia. Best regards, L.Å.»
Tämä pätkä jatkuu vielä, osa isoa viime vuonna julkaistua kirjoitusta aiheesta:
https://midtifleisen.wordpress.com/2019 ... -years-on/
Tämä Swedish Maritime Administration eli Sjöfartsverket oli muuten mukana siinä samassa oikeusjutussa, jonka omaiset ja selviytyjät nostivat saksalaista telakkaa Meyer Werftiä ja ranskalaista Bureau Veritasta vastaan. Eli myös Swedish Maritime Administration oli tässä syytettynä todennäköisesti siitä, että tiesivät ihan hyvin missä kondiksessa MS Estonia oli samana päivänä, kun lähti viimeiselle matkalleen. Ei ollu merikelpoinen, ei.
En ole vielä löytänyt, että missä vaiheessa Swedish Maritime Administration putosi tästä oikeusjutusta, koska eivät olleet mukana enää viime kesänä kun päätös tuli siitä, ettei Meyer Werft ja Bureau Veritas ole tässä syyllisiä. Liekö sopineet? Vai ovatko mahdollisesti jo oman oikeusjuttunsa kohteena? Tässä lyhyt juttu vuodelta 2005.
This week marks the 11th anniversary of the sinking of the ferry Estonia, and there’s concern the suit for damages brought by survivors and relatives of the victims may be about to be dismissed.
Around 1000 survivors and relatives of victims have sued several companies and institutions they say were responsible for the disaster, including the German Meyer shipyards, the ship certifiers Buearu Veritas in France, and the Swedish Maritime Administration.
But Swedish Radio News reports that because of a split among the relatives and survivors, the insurance companies who were paying for the entire legal process are now only covering the costs of their own clients. That has meant the lawyer has only been partially paid, and the judge is now threatening to throw out the case since the lawyer has not been in court and has not filed requested documents.
Some of the relatives are now trying to replace the lawyer in an effort to keep the suit in court.
Lähde:
https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/703637
Elikkäs. Jotenkin Swedish Maritime Administration on tästä kyseisestä oikeusjutusta luovinut itsensä irti, ainakin hetkeksi. Nyt näyttää nousseen nimittäin keskusteluun taas päivänpolitiikassa kun MS Estonia -tapaus on ihan oikeasti keskustelussa Ruotsissa. Toisin kuin Suomessa.
The Council on Ethics may have been misled by the Swedish Maritime Administration
Tue 13 Oct at 14.55
The Council on Ethics had a decisive influence on the decision not to rescue Estonia and those who died in 1994. Listen to a longer interview with Bishop Emeritus Caroline Krook who was part of the Accident Investigation Board's Ethics Council.
https://sverigesradio.se/avsnitt/1597888
Ja muuten, te ketkä jaksatte sanoa, että ei olisi pysynyt salassa tämmöinen juttu ei sitten niin millään, niin kasvakaa aikuisiksi. Miettikää ensin vaikka Manhattan -projektia, se on yleensä
baby's first redpill kuten englanniksi sanotaan. Osana kyseistä projektia työskenteli paljon ihmisiä ensimmäisen onnistuneen ydinaseen kehityksen parissa, jotka eivät tienneet, mihin työnsä lopulta käytettiin.
An example of compartmentalization was the Manhattan Project. Personnel at Oak Ridge constructed and operated centrifuges to isolate uranium-235 from naturally occurring uranium, but most did not know exactly what they were doing. Those that knew did not know why they were doing it. Parts of the weapon were separately designed by teams who did not know how the parts interacted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartme ... _security)
Tulee tästä mieleen, että kun eilen taas lueskelin huvikseni tuota JAIC:n rapsakkaa, niin siellä seisoo komeasti ja ylpeästi seuraavaa. Lukekaa tämä nyt tämän uuden ymmärryksenne kanssa tästä "kompartmentalizaatzionista".
Status
The Joint Commission was set up to find the cause of the accident, to examine the reasons why the loss of lives attained such magnitude and to present proposals for measures that would help to prevent the future occurrence of a similar accident.
At the first meeting of the Commission, on 29 September 1994, it was deemed essential that the Commission act as a single unit in drawing conclusions and issuing official reports,
but in carrying out the investigation the parties of the three countries were to have an independent status, without any duty to report back to, or to act on the instructions of, the states that proposed their appointment.
Work schedule
At the first meeting, the areas of the investigation were divided between the Estonian, Finnish and Swedish parties of the Commission.
The Commission has had 20 internal meetings, lasting a total of 51 days. In addition to the meetings of the entire Commission, meetings have been held by experts and other working groups.
Lähde:
https://onse.fi/estonia/joint.html#3
Seuraavaksi voitte ottaa ison haukun lahjonnan piiraasta, se kun on ai että kun se muuten on makiaa. Ilmaista rahaa käytännössä, monet ajattelee. Kunnes oikeus korjaa. Harvoin korjaa kyllä. Mutta joskus korjaa, kuten pari päivää sitten kun taas tuo ruotsalaisten merenkäyntibyroo otsikoissa. Makiaa.
Staff at the Swedish Maritime Administration are charged with bribery
Four people are charged at Norrköping District Court for bribery, which Norrköpings Tidningar was the first to report.
According to the indictment, the four have received gift cards from a company during their time as employees at the Swedish Maritime Administration.
The employees must then have received gift cards from the company LabCenter in connection with their participation in various trainings. In one of the cases, this is a total of SEK 11,000.
Are these people employed by the Swedish Maritime Administration today?
- We have not yet received any information in this case, so there is no information I have, says Elin Lindahl at the Swedish Maritime Administration's press service.
"We take what happened seriously"
The employees were prosecuted by the Swedish Maritime Administration's Personnel Liability Committee after an internal investigation during the years 2016-2017.
"We are serious about what happened. Being a public servant means that you must never abuse your position, among other things so that the authority's impartiality and objectivity can not be questioned, ”said Ove Eriksson, who was acting director general of the Swedish Maritime Administration when the report was made.
Hear Chief Prosecutor Alf Johansson at the National Unit against Corruption tell why prosecution was delayed in the clip above.
To SVT Nyheter Öst, he says that he has prosecuted one or more people in the same tangle who work at Sollefteå municipality, Blekinge County Council, Dalarna County Council, Örebro County Council, the Swedish Transport Agency, the National Land Survey, the National Aid Office, the Public Prosecutor's Office, the Swedish Social Insurance Agency and now the Swedish Maritime Administration.
Lähde:
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/ost/p ... r-mutbrott