ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the...

257
Research Study of Sinking Sequence of MV Estonia Mile Stone 1 (M1) “Accident Scenario” Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan Krüger Dipl.-Ing. Felix-Ingo Kehren

Transcript of ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the...

Page 1: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

Research Study of Sinking Sequence of MV Estonia

Mile Stone 1 (M1)

“Accident Scenario”

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Stefan Krüger

Dipl.-Ing. Felix-Ingo Kehren

Page 2: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such
Page 3: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

This report is written is in respect for the victims.

Page 4: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such
Page 5: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

Contents Page I

Contents

Contents ................................................................................................................................. I

1 Summary and Conclusion.................................................................................................1

2 General ...........................................................................................................................1

3 Testimonies .....................................................................................................................8

3.1 General....................................................................................................................8

3.2 Why a Synoptic Time Schedule .................................................................................9

3.3 Synoptic Time Schedule .........................................................................................10

3.4 Other significant Observations ...............................................................................53

3.4.1 Effect of Water on the forecastle.....................................................................53

3.4.2 Effect of Stern Ramp Operation .....................................................................53

3.5 Evaluation of the Testimonies ................................................................................54

4 Surrounding Conditions .................................................................................................56

4.1 Position of the Wreck.............................................................................................56

4.2 Density of Sea Water..............................................................................................56

4.3 Weather Conditions ...............................................................................................56

4.3.1 General..........................................................................................................56

4.3.2 Observations of Vessels around the MV Estonia .............................................56

4.3.3 Observations by Helicopters ...........................................................................57

4.3.4 Wind..............................................................................................................57

4.3.5 Significant Wave Height, Wave Length and Wave Period .................................57

4.3.6 Weather Conditions on the last Voyage of MV Estonia ....................................58

5 Stability Book and Validation of TUHH-CAD-Model .....................................................59

5.1 General..................................................................................................................59

Page 6: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

Contents Page II

5.2 Hydrostatic Particulars of MV Viking Sally ..............................................................60

5.3 Hydrostatic Particulars of TUHH-CAD-Model .......................................................62

5.4 Cross Curves of Stability of MV Viking Sally ...........................................................63

5.5 Cross Curves of Stability of TUHH-CAD-Model ....................................................65

5.6 Validation ..............................................................................................................66

6 Condition of MV Estonia on Sea Bottom .......................................................................70

6.1 General..................................................................................................................70

6.2 Position of Stabilizer Fins .......................................................................................70

6.3 Position of Rudder .................................................................................................71

6.4 Position of Propeller Pitch......................................................................................71

6.5 Situation on Main Car Deck....................................................................................71

7 Loadcase of the Final Voyage .........................................................................................72

7.1 General..................................................................................................................72

7.2 Light Ship Weight ..................................................................................................72

7.3 Ballast....................................................................................................................72

7.4 Bunker and Stores..................................................................................................73

7.5 Payload..................................................................................................................73

7.6 Summery – Load Case Compilation ........................................................................76

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios.....................................................................................................77

8.1 General..................................................................................................................77

8.2 Overview and Approach.........................................................................................77

8.3 Scenario 1..............................................................................................................79

8.4 Scenario 2............................................................................................................105

8.5 Scenario 3............................................................................................................112

8.6 Scenario 4............................................................................................................119

Page 7: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

Contents Page III

8.7 Scenario 5............................................................................................................126

8.8 Scenario 6............................................................................................................133

8.9 Scenario 7............................................................................................................137

8.10 Scenario 8............................................................................................................141

8.11 Scenario 9............................................................................................................145

8.12 Scenario 10 ..........................................................................................................151

8.13 Scenario 11 ..........................................................................................................157

8.14 Scenario 12 ..........................................................................................................163

8.15 Scenario 13 ..........................................................................................................169

8.16 Scenario 14 ..........................................................................................................173

8.17 Scenario 15 ..........................................................................................................178

8.18 Scenario 16 ..........................................................................................................182

8.19 Scenario 17 ..........................................................................................................191

8.20 Scenario 18 ..........................................................................................................200

8.21 Conclusion of the Hydrostatic Calculations ...........................................................209

9 Preliminary Motion Simulation .....................................................................................214

9.1 General Intention.................................................................................................214

9.2 Environmental Data for the Dynamic Investigations .............................................216

9.3 Simulation Model.................................................................................................217

9.4 Effect of the Ship’s own Wave System and of Sinkage and Trim ............................221

9.5 Preliminary Determination of Flow Rates into the Main Car Deck .........................224

10 Table of Figures.......................................................................................................229

11 List of Abbreviations................................................................................................233

12 Bibliographies ..........................................................................................................234

13 Supplementum.........................................................................................................235

Page 8: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

Contents Page IV

13.1 Detailed Cross Curves of Stability Including the Ducktail.......................................235

13.2 Detailed Hydrostatic Particulars Including the Ducktail .........................................242

13.3 Tank Filling .........................................................................................................249

Page 9: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

1 Summary and Conclusion Page 1

1 Summary and Conclusion

The first step of the analysis has been the compilation of a synoptic time schedule, where

the information of different sources, mainly the surviving witnesses, has been evaluated.

The time sequence of the reported events lead to a time dependent steady list. The result

of this task is compiled in diagram, ‘Table of time sequence of the capsizing of MV

Estonia’.

Time Sequence of the Capsizing of MV Estonia

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0:55 1:00 1:05 1:10 1:15 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:40 1:45

Time in Minutes

List

to S

tarb

oard

in D

egre

e

Figure 1.1:Table of Time Sequence of the Capsizing of MV Estonia

This synoptic time schedule then serves as a basis for the further selection of scenarios.

As one important finding, most of the assumptions of the JAIC have been confirmed, as

we come to more or less the same conclusions. The main difference in the JAIC

conclusions and TUHH conclusions from the interpretations of the information by the

witnesses is that we relate the loss of the bow visor – at least with respect to the loss of

watertight integrity of the Main Car Deck – to about 1.01h when metallic noise was noted

by several witnesses. We are convinced that when the visor has fallen off and collided

Page 10: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

1 Summary and Conclusion Page 2

with the bulbous bow, this should have resulted in loud noise and a remarkable impact.

But we could not find any witness who reported such noise after about 01.01 h. We are

convinced that the collision between the visor and the bulbous bow of the ship should

result in the largest impact to the vessel and consequently to the loudest noise or

structural impact. According to our interpretation, this time step at about 01.01h can

therefore be regarded as the begin of significant water ingress on the Main Car Deck due

to the loss of the visor.

According to our interpretation, the information given by the Chief Mate from the ferry

MV AMBER is of relevant importance for the determination of the sinking scenario:

Because it seems to be highly probable that there was already water on the Main Car Deck

when the watertight integrity was lost, because due to the high speed and the resulting

strong pitching motion the ship was observed to collect water on the forecastle, which

may have found its way trough the visor on the Main Car Deck before the visor fell off.

This strong pitching motion of the vessel could also be noted by our calculations of the

ship motions.

From the data available, a product model was generated that allowed for initial

hydrostatical calculations. During the model generation, some smaller discrepancies

between TUHH calculations and other sources were identified. One of these

discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on

even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such takes different values if cross curves

and righting levers on a free trimming basis were used. In this respect, it needs to be

mentioned that the ship was converted in 1990/91, and also after the conversion or

during the inclining experiment, new hydrostatic tables or cross curves were not

determined. With respect to other uncertainties, especially the weight assumptions of the

load case, the effect may be of a magnitude that plays a minor role at the present stage of

the investigations. Further, it should be mentioned that the JAIC hydrostatic calculations

were based on a specific water density of 1.010t/m³, where the correct value should be

about 1.004t/m³. Again, this is small with respect to the present stage of the

investigations.

Page 11: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

1 Summary and Conclusion Page 3

The load distribution was re-determined from the different sources available, and we

come to practically the same result as the JAIC. The amount of water to be accumulated

on the Main Car Deck that leads to a steady list of about 30 Degree was determined as

about 1500t , which must have entered the Main Car Deck. Several scenarios have been

assumed and the effect of filling of the compartments concerned has been studied. The

results of this step were compiled in a diagram which shows the total amount of water

that must have entered the vessel against the resulting steady list.

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

300 400 500 600 700 800

Total amount of Water in MV Estonia in t

List

of V

esse

l in

deg

Scenario 1Scenario 6Scenario 7Scenario 8Scenario 9Scenario 10Scenario 11Scenario 12Scenario 13Scenario 14Scenario 15

Figure 1.2: Overview of different amounts of Water in various Compartments leading to hydrostatic list

Page 12: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

1 Summary and Conclusion Page 4

The results do clearly show that for a given amount of water that has entered the vessel

trough the open bow, this water has most impact on the stability of the vessel if it stays

on the Main Car Deck (Scenario1). Every other scenario evaluated leads to a smaller

heeling angle for the same amount of water. This result was considered important for the

next steps, because the investigation now has to focus on different scenarios how the

water may have accumulated on the Main Car Deck. Because if it is assumed that the

loss of watertight integrity was due to the loss of the bow visor, the water must have

entered the vessel trough that opening, except for that water that may have been on the

Main Car Deck before the loss of the watertight integrity.

How the water may have been internally distributed is not of main interest at the present

stage of the investigation, this will be investigated later when the filling of the Main Car

Deck can be consistently explained. Therefore, the investigations concentrated on several

possibilities how the required amount of water of about 1500t may have entered the

Main Car Deck. A simplified simulation model for the simulation code ROLLS was

generated that allowed to determine flow rates into the Main Car Deck with respect to the

main parameters speed, course, sea state and floating condition. The effect of ship speed

when determining the inflow rates per time step was accounted for by mapping the speed

dependent term of the Bernoulli- equation in [SOEDING] to the pressure term. The

Toricelli-Number of the opening was assumed to be 1.0 for the simplified calculations.

It was assumed that at least during the initial phase when the speed of the vessel was

about 15-18 knots, the ships own wave system and the dynamic sinkage and trim of the

vessel, which is down by head, both reduce the theoretical freeboard of the Main Car

Deck for about minimum 1.25m to maximum 1.75m and should be accounted for when

determining the water ingress into the Main Car Deck.

It could be shown that the theoretical flow rates determined by the simple model during

the initial floating phase of the Main Car Deck do significantly depend on the

assumptions made with respect to the freeboard. Without any assumption concerning the

bow wave, we could not determine flow rates that allow to fill the Main Car Deck

Page 13: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

1 Summary and Conclusion Page 5

sufficiently fast with water. We could further demonstrate that if the average freeboard to

the Main Car Deck is reduced by taking into account the dynamic sinkage and the bow

wave, the theoretical flow rate of water into the Main Car Deck is increased drastically to

an amount that makes it possible to actually achieve the recorded heel of about 30 degree

in the given time interval. This results in the fact that the assumed scenarios seem

physically possible, which does even more hold if an initial filling of the Main Car Deck

is assumed. Further investigations will result in a larger matrix of inflow scenarios which

shall result in the most plausible time dependent filling of the Main Car Deck. Based on

this filling of the Main Car Deck, it will be investigated how the water may have actually

been distributed internally.

Overview of Flow Rates

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18Speed in kn

Flo

w R

ate

in m

³/m

in

150° Encounter / without Bow-Wave

135° Encounter/ without Bow-Wave

150° Encounter / with Bow-Wave

135° Encounter / with Bow-Wave

Figure 1.3: Flow Rates into the Main car Deck with and without Ship’s own Wave System

Page 14: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

2 General Page 6

2 General

This is the final report of “Mile Stone 1” of the “Research Study of Sinking Sequence of

MV Estonia”. Project Executing Organisation is the Swedish State authority VINNOVA.

The work on this investigation was started on April 1st, 2006.

The Mile Stone 1 (M1) “Accident Scenario” contains the work packages 1 consisting of

Task T1 to T3 and work package 2, consisting of Task T4 to T6. The following table,

Figure 2.1, gives an overview of all tasks the Mile Stone 1 Report consists of and is an

extract of the contract of the HSVA/ TUHH-Consortium and the VINNOVA, chapter

4.4, p. 19.

Task No Title

Task description

Performed by partner or subcontractor (Name)

T1 TUHH-WP1-T1 Survivors’ descriptions study TUHH T2 TUHH-WP1-T2 Related material study TUHH T3 TUHH-WP1-T3 Developing a synoptic time schedule TUHH T4 TUHH-WP2-T1 Creating a CAD-Model for

hydrostatic calculation TUHH

T5 TUHH-WP2-T2 Hydrostatic calculations TUHH T6 TUHH-WP2-T3 Evaluation of the hydrostatic

calculations and pre-selection of the scenarios

TUHH

Figure 2.1: Table of Tasks this Mile Stone 1-Report consists of

The investigations carried out by TUHH are based on the testimonies provided by the

Styrelsen för Psykologiskt Försvar, SPF, the Swedish National Board of Psychological

Defence, a central Swedish Authority. It has been commissioned by the Government to

provide information about the sinking of the MV Estonia. The SPF provided also the

official, total passenger list, including the number an type of vehicles on the Main Car

Deck.

Page 15: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

2 General Page 7

The second source of information, mainly drawings, is provided by Marine Claims

Partner (Germany) GmbH. All documents which are opened to the HSVA/ TUHH –

Consortium are as well opened to the second Consortium of SSPA SWEDEN AB.

This report includes a careful study of the testimonies given by the survivors of the

sinking of MV Estonia and other relevant witnesses. Following a synoptic time schedule it

is worked out to identify a the most probable sinking sequence of MV Estonia in terms of

the increasing list being subjected to the time. The result of this part is a diagram list over

time sequence.

Next step was a highly detailed CAD-Model, developed in the ship design system E4,

with inner subdivision and accurate hydrostatic performance. This CAD-Model is proved

and compared to originally stability book of the MV Estonia and the CAD-Model showed

its sufficiency.

A further issue of this Mile Stone 1 was modelling the loadcase of the final voyage of MV

Estonia. Masses of vehicles on the main car deck were determined by a list of SPF and a

list of the Estonian customs. Another decisive factor for the floating condition of a vessel

is the filling of the tank capacities. Unfortunately there is only an estimation of the

shipping company available.

Based on this setting, pure hydrostatic calculations were carried out, neglecting wind and

waves and other dynamic aspects. This is necessary to identify possible scenarios of water

inside the ship and to preclude scenarios which does not fit to the observations of the

survivors.

Page 16: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 8

3 Testimonies

3.1 General

The investigations carried out by TUHH are based on the testimonies provided by the

Styrelsen för Psykologiskt Försvar, SPF, the Swedish National Board of Psychological

Defence, a central Swedish Authority. It has been commissioned by the government to

provide information about the sinking of the MV Estonia. The SPF provided also the

official, total passenger list, including the number an type of vehicles on the Main Car

Deck.

The second source of information, drawings and other, is provided by Marine Claims

Partner (Germany) GmbH. All documents which are opened to the HSVA/ TUHH –

Consortium are as well opened to the second consortium working on this research project

of SSPA SWEDEN AB.

Page 17: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 9

3.2 Why a Synoptic Time Schedule

Why was a synoptic Time Schedule used to evaluate the testimonies?

For passengers and crew on the MV Estonia the heavy list of the ship came surprisingly,

all of a sudden – and in the middle of the night. Many people on board have had gone to

bed and awoke due to the list, to a heavy bang or a unusual movement of the vessel. Most

people realized very quickly, that the situation, they were in, is dangerous or even life-

threatening. Some have left relatives behind to save their own life. Under such

exceptionally circumstances, the sense of time for instance is reduced or completely

vanished. The people on board have been victims to this catastrophe.

For the reconstruction of the sinking sequence of the MV Estonia it is necessary to

extract the incidents to gain the most objective view on it. However, not every question

can be answered detailed sufficiently, but the synopsis opens a scientific possibility to

approach to a kind objectivity. The major idea of the synopsis is someone or a few can be

wrong in perceptions, but it becomes more and more improbable, that the larger the

number of witnesses is, that everyone gets the wrong perception. By the method of the

synopsis it is possible to add a web of evident facts and to feed back this information to a

comparison with the testimonies.

All testimonies were studied carefully and the imported parts concerning the list or other

relevant incidents extracted and listed over a timeline. This is given in Figure 2.2. After

listing all testimonies under consideration, an incident is looked at in all testimonies and

by the time line connected to a certain time. In the next step a careful selection is carried

out, which testimonies are considered to be most meaningful and which less. A range of

time is narrowed to a point in time. This is repeated in many cases and fact by fact one is

able to develop a framework of the time sequence of the sinking of MV Estonia, finally to

a diagram list of the ship over the timeline.

Unfortunately, there are gaps, as well in major questions. A complete reconstruction of all

details is impossible, so the target is to get the best possible approach to the sinking

sequence of MV Estonia. A fundamental aspect in this reconstruction is the fact, that

procedures have to be conform with laws of physics - by this some gaps can be closed.

Over all, it was possible to reconstruct a sustainable framework for the incidents of the

sinking of MV Estonia on September 28th, 1994.

Page 18: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 10

3.3 Synoptic Time Schedule

The cells in the synoptic time schedule are connected to a time line. One standard cell

represents just one minute. Is a range of time under consideration, some standard cells are

joined to larger cell. For Example: A witness testifies “It was about 11:45 pm.”. Then, a

few standard cells before and after the exact time were added to the standard cell to

comply with the statement “about”. Or a witness testifies: “I looked on my watch and it

was 01:31am.” In this case one standard cell represents this exact point in time.

To make the synoptic time schedule clearly laid out, colours are used to identify the

different incidents in this sinking sequence more easily.

The key of the used colours are shown in Figure 2.1.

Colour Key

Beginning of disaster, bangs

List of about 15°

List of about 20°...35°

List of about 40°...50°

List of about 60°...80°

List of about nearly 90°...90°

List >90° / information about final sinking

Figure 3.1: Table of Key: Colours in Synoptic Time Schedule

The colours are used in two different ways. Firstly the whole cell – standard or joined – is

filled with the relevant colour. This means, that the whole range of the cell is connected

to a certain time and therefore more meaningful. Secondly exclusively the letters are

coloured. This is the case when it is testified just a part of a action or a sequence

corresponds to a certain time. This is for the evaluation less meaningful.

The listed testimonies in the Figure 2.2 are the relevant extracts of the as relevant

regarded witnesses and not the complete testimonies. This is done for reasons of

clearness.

All statements in the testimonies are in Estonian time or converted to Estonian time.

Page 19: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 11

Witness recorded 1 2 3 3 4 Name P28 P20 P79 P79 P56 Source SPF SPF SPF GGE SPF

Date 13 Oct. 1994 17 Oct. 1994 03 Oct. 1994 14 Oct. 1994 04 Oct. 1994 PAX / Crew P P P P P

Cabin 7.3.3 1027 1026 deck 4 deck 4 deck 4

Time 19:00

to late departure

20:00

to 21:00

to

22:00 to

23:00

to

swung more than usual (4 or 5 times travelled

with Estonia)

23:30

to

00:00 went to bed 00:01

00:02 00:03 00:04

00:05 00:06 00:07 00:08

00:09 00:10 00:11

00:12 00:13 00:14

00:15 00:16 00:17 00:18

00:19 00:20 00:21

00:22 00:23 00:24 00:25

00:26 00:27 00:28

00:29 00:30 00:31

entered Karaoke bar

00:32

was in Karaoke-Bar on deck 4, while hearing

the bangs, although noise and music were

playing, sure that bangs not wave induced

bangs at 00:45am, half a

minute in between

Page 20: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 12

Witness recorded 1 2 3 3 4 Name P28 P20 P79 P79 P56 Source SPF SPF SPF GGE SPF Date 13 Oct. 1994 17 Oct. 1994 03 Oct. 1994 14 Oct. 1994 04 Oct. 1994

PAX / Crew P P P P P Cabin 7.3.3 1027 1026 deck 4 deck 4 deck 4 00:33 00:34

00:35 00:36 00:37

00:38 00:39 00:40

00:41 00:42 00:43 00:44

00:45 a dull bang 00:46 2nd dull bang 00:47

00:48 00:49 00:50 00:51

00:52 00:53 00:54

00:55

ship started pitching for

about 10 min, list to STB increased

00:56 list 10°...15° 00:57 00:58

00:59 01:00 01:01

list 30°

01:02

01:02 am: strong bang,

metallic noise, 20...30 sec later

same noise, started to swing longitudinal, not

only rolling anymore

start to howl, to crunch, to

scour, recognized a list

and less vibration

01:03 weird noise 01:04

was out side on deck 6 at stern -- watched two ships abeam and astern

01:05 look on watch 01:06

list 35°

list began, did not go back over 0°,loose things fell off

01:07

went stairs to deck 2, water

on floor and wall

01:08

01:09

no water between Deck 2

and 3 01:10 01:11 enormous list

01:12 01:13 01:14 reach deck7 01:15

45° list, stays about 5 minutes at this list, lights

jitter

became stabilized at

30°...35° oscillated 5° in each direction for maybe 7...8

min.

01:16 01:17 01:18

01:19

list increasing, lights blinked at

45° several times

01:20

01:21 1st Mayday 01:22

01:23 01:24 2nd Mayday

from Estonia /

suddenly, without warning

ship listed to STB -- Tables side away -- Ship were changing

course to PS -- for some time

list were constant -- heard two

Massages by loudspeaker:

one in Estonian and one "Mayday, Mayday"

got life vest 01:25 blackout

reported

list 60°, stays 3...5 min

01:26 blackout reported again

was at the shop on STB-side, Ship starts to list, all of the

sudden the ship starts to shake, list increased,

matters starts to slide, in this

order: Estonian message by loudspeaker,

then "Mayday, Mayday", Ships horn honking,

light of went out, while standing on ships hull --- Ship sank bow-

wards

list 70° lights went finally of,

when funnel hits the water a dull signal, a horn

was heard, after funnel hitting

the water, a list of 90° was very

Page 21: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 13

Witness recorded 1 2 3 3 4 Name P28 P20 P79 P79 P56 Source SPF SPF SPF GGE SPF Date 13 Oct. 1994 17 Oct. 1994 03 Oct. 1994 14 Oct. 1994 04 Oct. 1994

PAX / Crew P P P P P Cabin 7.3.3 1027 1026 deck 4 deck 4 deck 4 01:27 list about 80° 01:28 Estonia tells

her position

01:29 last radio contact with

01:30

stayed at about 90°...100°, bell

01:31

01:32

when funnel hits water the lights jitter, then went

out

01:33 01:34

list increased,

ship

01:35

quick increasing from 100° onwards

01:36 01:37 01:38

01:39 01:40

funnel disappeared at

105°...110° 01:41

01:42 01:43 01:44

Estonia upside down

01:45

01:46 01:47 01:48

01:49 01:50 01:51 01:52

01:53 01:54 01:55

01:56 01:57 01:58

01:59 02:00 02:01 02:02

02:03 02:04

Comments broker and consultant of

boats, Estonia sank stern first, estimated time from 1st list 90°

20min, Bow-Visor maybe missing, ferry looks strangely

drunk the whole evening one

Irish Coffee, 4 cl. alcohol, went

down by aft, visor missing

Page 22: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 14

Witness 5 5 5 6 7 8 Name P76 P76 P76 P49 C37 P15 Source SPF GGE GGE SPF SPF SPF

Date 04 Oct. 1994 ?? ?? 02 Oct. 1994 04 Oct. 1994 04. Oct 1994 PAX / Crew P P P P member of band P

Cabin 6217 ?? 6217 deck 6 -6223? 771 ? 5205

Time 19:00

to 20:00

to 21:00

to

22:00 to

23:00

to

23:30

20:45 h was in conference

room on deck 4, disturbing noise

so loud that conference was

closed down, noise like

hydraulic pump

to

00:00 00:01

20:45 h was in conference

room on deck 4, heard just

before closing the conference

an engine staring and running with constant high

rpm - remembered

this afterwards, no special

regards during the conference

00:02 00:03

went to bed in cabin on deck 6

00:04

00:05 00:06 00:07 00:08

00:09 00:10 00:11

conference on deck 4, had to give a speech,

showed overheads, while a high

whining noise started, had to speak up, end

of speech, break, hostess asked to if the noise could

turned off, could nothing do

about it, noise changed to turn

on/ off, even more disturbing,

conference closed

15...20min earlier than

planed, 20:40 or 20:45 Swedish

time!!

00:12 00:13 00:14

00:15 00:16 00:17 00:18

00:19 00:20 00:21

00:22 00:23 00:24 00:25

00:26 00:27 00:28

00:29 00:30 00:31 00:32

band stopped playing due to sea state, a

dancer tumbled due to sea state

Page 23: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 15

Witness 5 5 5 6 7 8

Name P76 P76 P76 P49 C37 P15 Source SPF GGE GGE SPF SPF SPF Date 04 Oct. 1994 ?? ?? 02 Oct. 1994 04 Oct. 1994 04. Oct 1994

PAX / Crew P P P P member of band P Cabin 6217 ?? 6217 deck 6 -6223? 771 ? 5205 00:33 00:34

00:35 00:36 00:37

00:38 00:39 00:40

00:41 00:42 00:43 00:44

00:45 00:46

felt change in ship motion

00:47

00:48 00:49 00:50 00:51

00:52

suddenly felt 2 or 3 shocks

00:53 00:54

00:55

went to bed

00:56 00:57 00:58

00:59 01:00 01:01

vessel heeled over slowly, came up,

heeled deeper, tables sliding,

no engine noises

01:02

was awoken at 1:00am by

Gutelind due to heavy list to PS

01:03 01:04

further list stepwise

01:05 list to PS first list 01:06 back to 0° list

increasing list, luggage slipping

and blocking cabin door

01:07 on corridor 01:08

01:09 01:10 01:11

list PS, more then before,

glasses fell of the bar

01:12 at staircase 01:13 01:14

on way out bar counter slipped

away 01:15

list increasing

01:16 01:17

outside deck 7, list 45°

heavy list, back to upright position

01:18

01:19

water flushing in door deck 7

01:20 01:21

woke up

01:22

01:23

lights were flickering, but

came back, list 70°.. .90°, two

persons coming out of a door near funnel, smaller one:

"water coming up from the car

deck

01:24

heard 3 times horn (sound like lorry) lights out

entered 7, light working

01:25

01:26

short horn, list 90°, steam

when funnel hit water - two

persons escaping

emergency exit near funnel, one yelling: "Water is coming up

form car deck"

heard met. noise connected

to 3-4 bangs, seemed to come from

below the ship list to 45°,

Page 24: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 16

Witness 5 5 5 6 7 8

Name P76 P76 P76 P49 C37 P15 Source SPF GGE GGE SPF SPF SPF Date 04 Oct. 1994 ?? ?? 02 Oct. 1994 04 Oct. 1994 04. Oct 1994

PAX / Crew P P P P member of band P Cabin 6217 ?? 6217 deck 6 -6223? 771 ? 5205 01:27 01:28

01:29 01:30 01:31

01:32

soon after the bangs ship

started to list, casino table

slipped

01:33 lights went out

walked on hull, broke through

window, injured, watch damaged

at 01:31 am

01:34

90°, fog horn blowing, lights

off

01:35 increasing list

01:36 01:37

distress rocket lighting the

scene 01:38

01:39

something by loudspeaker

01:40 01:41

Estonia upside down

01:42

ship sunk

01:43 01:44 01:45

01:46 01:47

bow under water stern out

of water

01:48

01:49 01:50 01:51 01:52

ship sunk

01:53 01:54 01:55

01:56 01:57 01:58

01:59 02:00 02:01 02:02

02:03 02:04

final sinking

Comments has seen keel of Estonia up side

down, stern under water, at front a "buckle"

saw "Mariella" on STB side

was on conference trip

onboard Estonia

his lifeboat was astern the Estonia

list to STB, time from 1st list to

sinking ca. 5min., stern

sank first

was on conference trip by his company

Statoil, Dept. Gas market

Page 25: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 17

Witness 9 9 10 11 12 13 Name P59 P59 P12 P16 P48 P83 Source GGE SPF SPF SPF SPF SPF

Date 03. Oct 1994 04. Oct 1994 05. Oct 1994 05. Oct 1994 PAX / Crew P P P P, but employed

by Estline AB P

Cabin ??? Deck 4 622 4131 4329 / 4331 /

Time 19:00

to 20:00

to 21:00

to went to bed

22:00 to

23:00

21:00h: visited bridge,

remembered exactly vessel was heading 262°, wind

speed about 20km/h

to

drove on Estonia at

18:40h to STB, few cars /

mostly trucks on board, after

leaving Tallinn, went on car

deck to fetch a pillow from his

car

23:30 went to bed

to

ship motion increasing

was in the fore part of the

vessel on deck 5

couldn’t sleep, because ship

was "bouncing"

00:00 went to bed 00:01

00:02 00:03 00:04

00:05 00:06 00:07 00:08

00:09 00:10

heard and felt a metallic bang

against the hull, never heard

such a bang on a ferry before,

shortly after first list, stayed at this list, could

see water nearby the STB

windows

00:11 list about 45°

00:12 00:13 00:14

00:15 list increased 00:16 00:17 00:18

00:19 00:20 00:21

announcement "Mayday

+something. about the list"

00:22 00:23 00:24 00:25

00:26 00:27 00:28

00:29 00:30 00:31 00:32

15 min before list heard one heavy metallic banging noises

and then another two

Page 26: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 18

Witness 9 9 10 11 12 13

Name P59 P59 P12 P16 P48 P83 Source GGE SPF SPF SPF SPF SPF Date 03. Oct 1994 04. Oct 1994 05. Oct 1994 05. Oct 1994

PAX / Crew P P P P, but employed by Estline AB

P Cabin ??? Deck 4 622 4131 4329 / 4331 /

4333 ?

00:33 00:34

00:35 00:36 00:37

00:38

00:39 00:40

00:41 00:42 00:43 00:44

00:45 00:46 00:47

00:48 00:49 00:50 00:51

00:52 00:53 00:54

00:55 00:56 00:57 00:58

00:59

was in cabin, tried to sleep

01:00 2heavybangs 01:01

01:02

hard bang, to hard to come

from the storm dull, from bow

dressed, left his cabin

01:03

01:00h: woke up due to a bang and seesaw

01:04

first heel, was in staircase

heard a noise, like pitching in a big wave, slight

list, but something was abnormal, left the pub, nearly upright walking, 1min later heavy

list

01:05 2nd met. bang 01:06

decrease of heel, but list

01:07 left cabin, list

25° 01:08

01:09 01:10 reach outside 01:11

01:12 01:13 01:14

list increasing stepwise

01:15

list 45°, life vest on

01:16 01:17 01:18

01:19 01:20

loosed a Ladder, lights

flickering

01:21

list increasing, 30°, ship stayed in this position for about 15

min., --- heeling a bit

more?? --- heard a

bell ringing, while

distributing the life vests

01:22

climbing ladder, light off

01:23 01:24 01:25

capsizing started

01:26

swimming

heard a loud signal, when list

at a list of 45° the light went

out for two times came back and

shortly after there was a

blackout

Page 27: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 19

Witness 9 9 10 11 12 13

Name P59 P59 P12 P16 P48 P83 Source GGE SPF SPF SPF SPF SPF Date 03. Oct 1994 04. Oct 1994 05. Oct 1994 05. Oct 1994

PAX / Crew P P P P, but employed by Estline AB

P Cabin ??? Deck 4 622 4131 4329 / 4331 /

4333 ?

01:27 01:28

01:29 01:30 01:31

01:32 01:33

sinking of vessel

01:34

01:35 01:36 01:37 01:38

01:39

01:40 01:41

01:42 01:43

90°: heard a signal,

interpreted this to leave the ship and jumped into

the water

01:44 01:45

01:46 01:47 01:48

01:49 01:50 01:51 01:52

01:53 01:54 01:55

01:56 01:57 01:58

01:59 02:00 02:01 02:02

02:03 02:04

Comments vessel turned upside down,

sank stern first, bow up in an angle of 15°

didn’t smell anything

unusual, didn’t recognize any water ingress, didn’t hear any

announcements, time estimated

from pub to jumping in the water 20...30

min.

left vessel (washed away) without wearing

a lifejacket

Page 28: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 20

Witness 14 16 18 19 20 22 Name P60 P18 P17 P71 P69 P93 Source SPF SPF SPF SPF SPF SPF

Date 05. Oct 1994 05. Oct 1994 06. Oct 1994 07. Oct 1994 05. Oct 1994 10.10.94 PAX / Crew P P P P P P

Cabin 4222/4223?? 1002 5229 1015 63?? 1049

Time 19:00

to 20:00

To

trucks weren’t lashed

21:00

To

22:00 To went to bed

23:00 went to bed

To

23:30

To

00:00 went to bed 00:01

00:02 00:03 00:04

00:05 00:06 00:07 00:08

00:09 00:10 00:11

00:12 00:13 00:14

00:15 00:16 00:17 00:18

00:19 00:20 00:21

00:22 00:23 00:24 00:25

00:26 00:27 00:28

00:29 00:30 00:31 00:32

Page 29: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 21

Witness 14 16 18 19 20 22

Name P60 P18 P17 P71 P69 P93 Source SPF SPF SPF SPF SPF SPF Date 05. Oct 1994 05. Oct 1994 06. Oct 1994 07. Oct 1994 05. Oct 1994 10.10.94

PAX / Crew P P P P P P Cabin 4222/4223?? 1002 5229 1015 63?? 1049 00:33 00:34

00:35 00:36 00:37

00:38 00:39 00:40

00:41 00:42 00:43 00:44

00:45 00:46 00:47

00:48 00:49 00:50 00:51

00:52 00:53 00:54

00:55 00:56 00:57 00:58

00:59 01:00 01:01

heard familiar noise, maybe

hydraulic, thought about visor

01:02 01:03

heard metallic bang

01:04

01:05 another met. bang

01:06 01:07 01:08

01:09 01:10 01:11

01:12 01:13 01:14 01:15

01:16 01:17

Ferry heeled all of a sudden ending with a list of 15°,

10 sec later another heel, and

just close to it another heel ending at 40°

01:18

01:19 01:20

left his cabin, ferry trimmed to the aft, and then heeled

to STB

01:21 01:22

01:23

on stairs to Car Deck saw water

downstairs

01:24 01:25

01:26

was in cabin, when ship starts

bucking unusually he left his cabin, went

3 decks upward, stepped outside,

went to a lifeboat, he

recognized that he was nor able

to lower the lifeboat without

tools, no information by loudspeaker were given, heeling was

quickly, he saw water on STB-corridors on his way up, lights went off just

before reaching 90°, the vessel

stayed at 90° for a shot time, at 90° he heard a

loud ship’s whistle, the ferry

was nearly upside down

when she sank, there was a loud noise when the tackled air was blown out of the

ferry

was thrown out of his bed,

needed plenty of time to reach outside, when

reaching outside the ferry laid on

her side

woke up by one metallic bang,

the bang sounds like steel-plates

crushing against each other, immediately

after the bang the first heel started, just after the first

heel she left her cabin, on the

way to the next higher deck the list increased,

she had to crawl, reaching the outside deck the ferry laid on

her side, list increased

further

woke up due to heavy list to STB, heard bang, heard

at 90° he heard a fog horn blasting,

the only alarm signal he heard

due to list it was difficult to reach

Page 30: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 22

Witness 14 16 18 19 20 22

Name P60 P18 P17 P71 P69 P93 Source SPF SPF SPF SPF SPF SPF Date 05. Oct 1994 05. Oct 1994 06. Oct 1994 07. Oct 1994 05. Oct 1994 10.10.94

PAX / Crew P P P P P P Cabin 4222/4223?? 1002 5229 1015 63?? 1049 01:27 01:28

01:29 01:30 01:31

01:32 01:33

01:34

01:35

01:36 01:37 01:38

01:39

01:40 01:41

01:42 01:43 01:44 01:45

01:46 01:47

01:48

01:49

01:50 01:51 01:52

01:53 01:54

ship upside down, bow ahead

sinking

01:55

01:56 01:57 01:58

01:59 02:00 02:01

Propeller disappeared

Comments truck driver, sailed at least 50 times with MV Estonia,

heard no explosion, the whole sinking

sequence lasted about an hour

she estimated the time need from

leaving the cabin to reaching the life

raft to a few minutes, saw no sings on the ferry what to do in case of an emergency,

saw during the whole sequence no crew member, first list was heavy

then the list increased by and by, smelt "Diesel" when ferry was

lying on her side, her cabin was very

in the front and she supposes that the metallic bang

came from the bow visor

Page 31: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 23

Witness 23 25 25 26 28 28 Name P35 P1 P1 P5 P9 P9 Source SPF SPF SPF SPF SPF SPF

Date 11. Oct. 1994 28.09.1994 03.10.1994 29.09.1994 01.10.1994 01.10.1994 PAX / Crew P P P P P P

Cabin 1007 4319 4319 6129 5128 5128

Time 19:00

to 20:00

to 21:00

to

22:00 to went to bed

23:00

to

23:30

to

00:00 00:01

00:02 00:03 00:04

00:05 00:06 00:07 00:08

00:09

went to outside decks far in he front, carpets

between deck 5 and 6 were wet,

there was a trickle of water, to deck 6

it became dryer

00:10 00:11

00:12 00:13 00:14

00:15 00:16 00:17 00:18

00:19 00:20 00:21

00:22 00:23 00:24 00:25

00:26 00:27 00:28

00:29 00:30 went to bed 00:31 00:32

did not really sleep due to ship

motions

Page 32: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 24

Witness 23 25 25 26 28 28

Name P35 P1 P1 P5 P9 P9 Source SPF SPF SPF SPF SPF SPF Date 11. Oct. 1994 28.09.1994 03.10.1994 29.09.1994 01.10.1994 01.10.1994

PAX / Crew P P P P P P Cabin 1007 4319 4319 6129 5128 5128 00:33 00:34

00:35 00:36 00:37

00:38 00:39 00:40

hard wave impacts, unusual sound, engines

stopped

00:41 00:42 00:43 00:44

00:45 00:46 00:47

00:48 00:49 00:50 00:51

00:52 00:53 00:54

00:55 00:56

00:57 00:58

00:59 01:00 01:01

01:02 01:03 01:04

01:05 01:06

was going to sleep, heard a

forcibly crack, the ferry started to

heel

01:07 01:08

01:09 01:10

knows the time of met. crack not

exactly, supposes 5 or 10 min past

one o'clock

01:11

01:12 01:13 01:14 01:15

01:16 01:17 01:18

01:19 01:20 01:21 01:22

01:23 01:24

he was in Karaoke-Bar,

storm was heavy, glasses fell, then a heavy heel to

Starboard came,

01:25

01:26

he went to the deck with the life

rafts, list was 90°, he jumped in a life boat an them in a life raft, short aft the list the lights

went out, emergency light

went out, he thought that it took

35 min form the crack to his jump

into the water

two heavy roll motions, then a

list to STB started, things fell off the table, chair, table, things slid in front of the cabin door

an blocked it internally, she

throw the thing in the toilet and

stepped out the cabin, on the way

to deck 7 she heard an

announcement by a woman "Mayday",

reached deck 7, got a life vest,

afoul in a rope of a life raft, climbed

in it

first sound was like a car, 30 to 60

sec later there was a small

metallic bang, 40 to 50 sec later a strong metallic

bang was heard, 1-2 min later the

engine stopped 1-2 later a list to STB started, about 20°, list

increased stepwise, outside deck 7 he tried to loosening a life raft, inflated it,

climbed in and slid on the ship's side

into the water, light were on to a list of about 90°,

flickered and went out

outside he heard "alarm you can’t

not hear"

Page 33: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 25

Witness 23 25 25 26 28 28

Name P35 P1 P1 P5 P9 P9 Source SPF SPF SPF SPF SPF SPF Date 11. Oct. 1994 28.09.1994 03.10.1994 29.09.1994 01.10.1994 01.10.1994

PAX / Crew P P P P P P Cabin 1007 4319 4319 6129 5128 5128 01:27 01:28

01:29 01:30

01:31

01:32 01:33 01:34

01:35 01:36 01:37 01:38

01:39 01:40 01:41

01:42 01:43 01:44 01:45

01:46 01:47 01:48

01:49 01:50 01:51 01:52

01:53 01:54 01:55

01:56 01:57 01:58

01:59 02:00 02:01 02:02

02:03 02:04

Comments did not hear any announcement

he heard one announcement of maybe a woman,

it was not possible to identify the

language, the list at the time of the announcement was about 45°,

ship sank in about 90° condition , he

didn't smell anything strange, his car is a Mazda

Page 34: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 26

Witness 28a 29 30 32 33 34 Name P10 P8 C3 P19 P24

Source SPF SPF SPF SPF SPF SPF Date 29.09.1994 typed 03.10.1994 01.10.1994 01.10.1994 02.10.1994 02.10.1994

PAX / Crew P P P Crew, Musician P P Cabin 4602 ??? 6119 770 on Deck 7 6107 Deck 5, 5503???

Time 19:00

to

20:00 to

Member of "Henrik Gojs

Orkester"

travelled together with a group of

Stockholm police

21:00

to

22:00 to

23:00

to

23:30

played in bar on Deck 7, should

play till 01:00h but due to ship’s

movement ended at 23:40h

to

00:00

00:01 00:02

went to cabin and stayed there

00:03 00:04

00:05 00:06 00:07

00:08 00:09 00:10 00:11

00:12 00:13 00:14

00:15 00:16 00:17 00:18

00:19 00:20 00:21

00:22 00:23 00:24

00:25 00:26 00:27 00:28

00:29 00:30 00:31

00:32 00:33

Page 35: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 27

Witness 28a 29 30 32 33 34

Name P10 P8 C3 P19 P24 Source SPF SPF SPF SPF SPF SPF Date 29.09.1994 typed 03.10.1994 01.10.1994 01.10.1994 02.10.1994 02.10.1994

PAX / Crew P P P Crew, Musician P P Cabin 4602 ??? 6119 770 on Deck 7 6107 Deck 5, 5503??? 00:34 00:35

00:36 00:37 00:38

00:39 00:40 00:41

00:42 00:43 00:44 00:45

00:46 00:47 00:48

00:49 00:50 00:51 00:52

00:53 00:54 00:55

00:56 00:57 00:58 00:59

01:00

was in pub on Deck 5

01:01 01:02

01:03 01:04 01:05

heavy hits, one bang heel to PS

increased

01:06 01:07 01:08 01:09

01:10 01:11 01:12

01:13 01:14 01:15 01:16

bang, coming from bow

01:17 vessel heeled 01:18 2nd bang 01:19

01:20 01:21 01:22 01:23

01:24 01:25 01:26

immediately after 2nd bang vessel

heeled to Portside, chairs and tables fell, injured at head

01:27

went to but couldn't fell asleep due to seastate,

suddenly the ferry heeled to Portside

about 45°, connected to the heeling he heard a tough noise a

strong slump like a truck tipping

over, he crawled out of his cabin, recognized panic on the floor, went back to his cabin, dressed, left cabin

crawling and climbing up to

Deck 7, while on the way to Deck 7

lights went to

one of crew ordered to build a

chain to help people out of the pub, he moved to Deck 6, heel was

now 45° and it went on quick to

90°, he climbed to Deck 7, some

people managed to loosen life rafts, at 90° lights went out, there was an announcement he

couldn't understand

because it was Estonian

he recognized a small list, but

short afterwards the list increased

still not very strong, a third

increase of list so strong, that things

fell, he thought this movement are

not due to seastate and left his cabin, 2 short bell signals were heard, to reach

the outer deck he has to climb,

outside was panic, list about 20°, 2

crew tried to lower a lifeboat, but

missed due to the list, life vests were distributed, crew: "we got to bring life raft into the

water", vessel at 90° he climbed over the reeling

and the side of the ship was now the bottom, he was washed into the sea, injured his

arm, managed to enter a life raft

was in Karaoke Bar, ship moving heavily, glasses

hanging above the bar fell, everything

in the bar suddenly

collapsed, a chain of human being were build and

she managed to reach the outside deck, life vests

were distributed, she put one on, lights flickered

and connected to this a long signal

were heard,

managed to get outside Deck 6

Page 36: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 28

Witness 28a 29 30 32 33 34

Name P10 P8 C3 P19 P24 Source SPF SPF SPF SPF SPF SPF Date 29.09.1994 typed 03.10.1994 01.10.1994 01.10.1994 02.10.1994 02.10.1994

PAX / Crew P P P Crew, Musician P P Cabin 4602 ??? 6119 770 on Deck 7 6107 Deck 5, 5503??? 01:28 01:29

01:30 01:31 01:32

01:33 01:34 01:35

01:36 01:37

01:38 01:39

01:40 01:41 01:42

01:43 01:44 01:45 01:46

01:47 01:48 01:49

01:50 01:51 01:52

heard a bang and lights went off, it came back and went finally out,

stand on the ship’s side, beside him a life raft and grabbed a rope and slid with the

raft into the water, two men heaved

him inside

01:53

01:54 01:55 01:56

01:57 01:58 01:59

02:00 02:01 02:02 02:03

02:04 Comments ferry sank bow

first, didn't hear any alarm, but

something like a doorbell

works on a shipyard and

owned a boat. He heard 3 bangs

within 2 min. He described the sound of the

bangs like strokes with a hammer, he

means to locate the noise from the bow on Portside, he said the ferry roll not much, but pitched in head

seas

he didn't see how the Estonia sank

2 short bell signals were

heard, announcement by loudspeaker were

heard but on Estonian, ship sank by aft, a officer named

Vasil acted in a very professional way brought may lift rafts into the

water

she is not able to give any

particulars about the time

sequence, was some time

unconscious, she woke up on a life raft, she did not see how the ship

sank, saw not lifeboats or life

rafts before

heard no announcements, smelled nothing unusual, saw no

water entering the ship, he didn’t see how the ship sank

Page 37: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 29

Witness 35 36 37 38 38 39 Name P20 P21 P27 P26 P26 P25

Source SPF SPF SPF SPF GGE SPF Date 29.09.1994 30.09.1994 02.10.1994 02.10.1994 ??? 01 Oct 1994

PAX / Crew P P P P P P Cabin Deck 6 6126 no cabin 1047

Time 19:00

to

interview by telephone

20:00 to

21:00

nonofficial translating

to

22:00 to

23:00

to

23:30

to

00:00

00:01 00:02 00:03 00:04

00:05 00:06 00:07

watch broken, woke up from 2 heavy bangs,

went upwards to aft, heard

Typhoon (whistle) twice, condition of ship changed very

fast, went downwards to aft now, smelled oil,

smelled a bit burnt, some

smoke in the air, saw no other

ferries, in Huddinge Hospital

P79 was not allowed to give a

full statement

00:08 00:09 00:10 00:11

00:12 00:13 00:14

00:15 00:16 00:17 00:18

00:19 00:20 00:21

00:22 00:23 00:24

00:25 00:26 00:27 00:28

00:29 00:30 00:31

00:32 00:33

Page 38: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 30

Witness 35 36 37 38 38 39

Name P20 P21 P27 P26 P26 P25 Source SPF SPF SPF SPF GGE SPF Date 29.09.1994 30.09.1994 02.10.1994 02.10.1994 ??? 01 Oct 1994

PAX / Crew P P P P P P Cabin Deck 6 6126 no cabin 1047 00:34 00:35

00:36 00:37 00:38

00:39 00:40 00:41

00:42 00:43 00:44 00:45

00:46 00:47 00:48

00:49 00:50 00:51 00:52

00:53 00:54

was in cafe on Deck 5 sleeping

on a sofa

00:55

00:56 00:57 00:58

was in Karaoke Bar

was in Karaoke Bar

00:59

01:00 finished dinner 01:01 01:02

recognized a heavy list, short

after list increased

01:03 01:04 01:05

01:06

took stairs to next higher Deck

01:07 01:08 01:09

01:10

reached outside Deck list about 30°, put life vest

on

01:11

was in Discothèque on

Deck 6 or 7, when the vessel started

to heel, the list increased and

things fell, when he recognized the Situation, he ran to the lifeboats

and managed to reach a life raft

01:12

01:13 01:14

list about. 80...85°

went to karaoke bar

01:15

bang came from Car deck, list

started, glasses and bottles fell,

after first heeling the ferry had a list

of about 20°,

01:16

01:17 01:18 01:19

01:20

slipped, fell into the water, saw a

life raft, swam to it and climbed in

01:21 01:22 01:23

01:24 01:25 01:26

lights went three times out and on, 20 min after first list completely dark, list 90°

01:27

woke up by falling china, heard a hard bang, fall

asleep again and woke up by falling

from the sofa, climbed to the exit

on fixed tables, saw a crew

member helping persons on the way up, climbed outside herself, got a life vest,

tried to loosening a life raft but didn’t manage it, vessel

started turning completely so she walked towards

the water, slipped and slid into it, just in front of her was a life raft, she was

pulled into it.

moderator: last song, bar closing at 01:30, list 45°

Page 39: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 31

Witness 35 36 37 38 38 39

Name P20 P21 P27 P26 P26 P25 Source SPF SPF SPF SPF GGE SPF Date 29.09.1994 30.09.1994 02.10.1994 02.10.1994 ??? 01 Oct 1994

PAX / Crew P P P P P P Cabin Deck 6 6126 no cabin 1047 01:28 01:29

bar falling, chaos

01:30 01:31 01:32

01:33

01:34 01:35

01:36 01:37 01:38 01:39

01:40 01:41 01:42

01:43 01:44 01:45 01:46

01:47 01:48 01:49

01:50 01:51 01:52 01:53

01:54 01:55 01:56

01:57 01:58 01:59

02:00 02:01 02:02 02:03

02:04

managed to reach Deck 7, "relatively

easy to walk upstairs", looking

down he could see the car deck and saw water

coming from car deck entering the inner part of the

ship, he saw nobody on the

corridor, he put a life vest on, ferry capsized, there was a short time between turning upside down and final sinking, keel

area was red painted and he saw a marine

propeller and a second smaller one in a hole

Comments saw nobody from

the crew heard no

announcements, saw no water

entering the ship, he did not see

how the ship sank

saw no water entering the ship,

he did not see how the ship

sank, was alone in life raft, travelled

without car

heard no announcement,

she had no watch

heard NO bang, heard no

announcements by loudspeaker,

saw nobody of the crew, about 5 minutes after

heeling lights off, ship laying on her

side two horn blasts were heard, after the sinking life rafts entered the surface, he

saw no damages at the ferry

Page 40: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 32

Witness 39 39 40 40 41 41 Name P25 P25 P31 P31 C6 C6

Source SPF GGE SPF SPF GGE GGE Date 07 Oct 1994 01 Oct 1994 01 Oct 1994 06 Oct 1994 09. Aug 96 09. Aug 96

PAX / Crew P P P P C (Croupier) C (Croupier) Cabin 1047 1047 Deck 6? Deck 6? 8843, aft, STB

Time 19:00

to

20:00 to

21:00 to

22:00 to

23:00

to

23:30

to

00:00

00:01 00:02 00:03 00:04

00:05 00:06 00:07

00:08 00:09 00:10 00:11

00:12 00:13 00:14

00:15 00:16 00:17 00:18

00:19 00:20 00:21

00:22 00:23 00:24

00:25 00:26 00:27 00:28

00:29

before 1st permanent list

heard by walkie-talkie that C16 told bridge of

water on car deck

00:30 00:31

00:32 00:33

went sleeping and fell asleep

Was at work in the casino on Deck 6 next to dancing

restaurant "Baltic Bar", chips (jetton)

were falling into the play card

table, seconds later the vessel was shaking, afterwards the ferry reduced velocity and

heeled a little but didn’t upright

again, the situation was

strange to him,

Page 41: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 33

Witness 39 39 40 40 41 41

Name P25 P25 P31 P31 C6 C6 Source SPF GGE SPF SPF GGE GGE Date 07 Oct 1994 01 Oct 1994 01 Oct 1994 06 Oct 1994 09. Aug 96 09. Aug 96

PAX / Crew P P P P C (Croupier) C (Croupier) Cabin 1047 1047 Deck 6? Deck 6? 8843, aft, STB 00:34 00:35

00:36 00:37 00:38

00:39 00:40 00:41

00:42 00:43 00:44 00:45

00:46 00:47 00:48

00:49 00:50 00:51 00:52

00:53 00:54

00:55

00:56 00:57 00:58 00:59

01:00 01:01 01:02

01:03 01:04 01:05

01:06 01:07 01:08 01:09

01:10 01:11 01:12

01:13 01:14 01:15 01:16

01:17 01:18 01:19

01:20 01:21 01:22 01:23

01:24

was in karaoke bar on deck 4

01:25 list 45° 01:26

01:27

bar desk fell on top of the personnel

woke up by an weird noise like the propellers

were coming out of the water with every rolling, he

got up, ferry heeled, things fell from the table, he left his cabin and saw people, some

hardly dressed, lights on, people

were helping each other to get

outside, list of the vessel increased at first jerkily and

quickly then it increased more

slowly, lights flickered and

lighted then with less intensity probable the

emergency lights, someone

distributed life vests he put one

on, he tried to enter a life raft,

but it was full he detained to a rope of the life raft and slid with it into the water, got tangled up with the rope, came free and

swam to another life raft and were

pulled in

was in casino when Estonia got

the first permanent list, engine sound

disappeared like the ship stopped, proper smell was heard first list and some glasses fell down 10...15sec. but max. 30sec.

The ship got a list of about 20°...30° , only one metallic sound was heard, first permanent list

at 01:10am ...01:15am.

seastate nothing special, but

special was spray on crew’s

dayroom, ship listed again 1min after the first big list, could not see Viking and Silja Line, before 45°

list announcement "Häire, Häire" by a

woman and something in

addition by a man shouted

somebody blows the foghorn at

nearly 90°

Page 42: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 34

Witness 39 39 40 40 41 41

Name P25 P25 P31 P31 C6 C6 Source SPF GGE SPF SPF GGE GGE Date 07 Oct 1994 01 Oct 1994 01 Oct 1994 06 Oct 1994 09. Aug 96 09. Aug 96

PAX / Crew P P P P C (Croupier) C (Croupier) Cabin 1047 1047 Deck 6? Deck 6? 8843, aft, STB 01:28 01:29

01:30 01:31 01:32

saw down to corridor deck 4

water coming from car deck

01:33 01:34

2 blasts by fog horn

01:35

01:36 01:37 01:38 01:39

01:40 01:41

01:42

01:43 01:44 01:45 01:46

01:47 01:48 01:49

01:50 01:51 01:52 01:53

01:54 01:55 01:56

01:57 01:58 01:59

02:00 02:01 02:02 02:03

02:04 Comments During the whole

evening he was on Deck 4, 5 and

6 in shops, restaurants and

other facilities. He saw no officers/ mates, but just

one engine crew member and female crew

members of the service, literally:

"nobody with ribbons on his

arms" - this was different to former

voyages.

did not hear any bangs, when ship

heeled, ship turned completely

upside down before sinking,

finial sinking very fast, light off 5 min

after keel developed talked to crew member, was told of 50cm water on car deck

Cabin: he entered ship, went two

stairs upwards and turned to the aft for about. 40...50m - his cabin had no window, heard no

explosions and smelled nothing

unusual, didn’t see how the ferry sank, fog horn blasting

for about a minute, travelled often with

ferries and was seaman in his youth, maybe

something was said by loudspeaker,

later Mayday came by loudspeaker

added something to his testimony: he thought that the crew of this

vessel were amateurs, he had slept when heard the weird noise,

he said, it was not possible to drive

such a large vessel with a high velocity in such kind of weather

heard no explosion, bangs

Page 43: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 35

Witness 42 43 43 44 46 51 Name P33 P44 P44 P7 C15 P66

Source SPF SPF GGE SPF GGE SPF Date 01. Oct 94 01. Oct 94 08. Aug 96 03. Oct 94 09. Aug 96 30. Sep 94

PAX / Crew P P, lorry driver C P Cabin 4405 4214 1094

Time 19:00

to

20:00 to

21:00 to

22:00 to

23:00

to

23:30

to

00:00

00:01 00:02 00:03 00:04

00:05 00:06 00:07

00:08 00:09 00:10 00:11

00:12 00:13 00:14

00:15 00:16 00:17 00:18

00:19 00:20 00:21

00:22 00:23 00:24

00:25 00:26 00:27 00:28

00:29 00:30

went to bed

00:31

00:32 00:33

was in cabin, was not able to eat

due of the wave induced motions

of the ship,

Page 44: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 36

Witness 42 43 43 44 46 51

Name P33 P44 P44 P7 C15 P66 Source SPF SPF GGE SPF GGE SPF Date 01. Oct 94 01. Oct 94 08. Aug 96 03. Oct 94 09. Aug 96 30. Sep 94

PAX / Crew P P, lorry driver C P Cabin 4405 4214 1094 00:34 00:35

00:36 00:37 00:38

00:39 00:40 00:41

00:42 00:43 00:44 00:45

00:46 went to casino 00:47 00:48

00:49 00:50 00:51 00:52

00:53 00:54 00:55

was in Karaoke bar

00:56 00:57 00:58

went back to her cabin

00:59

01:00

23:45pm he went to bed,

Immediately he heard a metallic knocking sound,

finally he powerful metallic blow, he left immediately

his cabin in underwear and

being on the corridor the list

began

01:01 01:02

list to STB

01:03 01:04 01:05

01:06 01:07 01:08 01:09

01:10 01:11 01:12

01:13 01:14 01:15 01:16

01:17 01:18 01:19

01:20 01:21 01:22 01:23

at the beginning of the sinking he was in his cabin, an inside cabin without window, he heard several bangs and one loud bang like

cutting in strong steel, he

recognized that something is

unusual and he wanted to leave the cabin on his

way from the bed to the cabin door the ferry heeled

when opening the cabin door nearly every door on the corridor opens, engine sound

were heard, lights on, he pulled himself at the

balustrade up to deck 7, he put a

life vest on

talked to Peter Järvinen about the

weather, chips were jumping out of their places,

she left the casino 5 min after the list

together with Peter Järvinen,

just after the first list the ship

became silent and stopped fully

01:24 01:25 01:26

all of a sudden heard two strong unusual sounds like scratching, coming from

below, he left his cabin and saw on

the corridor a "small

vattensträng" a small rill, ferry had

a small list, he was not sure

whether a list or motion due to seastate, went

upstairs told two crew members

about the rill went outside,

distributed life vests and tried later to loosen a

life boat but didn't manage, went to a

life raft but this was not inflated

and he saw other inflated rafts so he

jumped into the water

01:27

was in his cabin preparing for bed,

leaving the bathroom he

recognized an abnormal list, the

vessel didn’t upright again, he could see the sea out of his cabin

window, he left his cabin, the list was so heavy that one

has to lean against the wall for walking, saw persons sliding down the lobby, he followed the

green exit/ emergency exit signs, climbed stairs up, finally

he reached deck 7 outside, on his

way up he saw no water in the ship,

he was not in panic, but scared by the list of the vessel so heavy that the wall is

now the floor, put a life vest on,

there was a bang probable from a

wave, loosing his balance by the

bang and fell into the water

people had to try hard to come to the upper deck, she had to hold

herself tight to the balustrade, list increased again

and the increasing of the list

accelerated

Page 45: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 37

Witness 42 43 43 44 46 51

Name P33 P44 P44 P7 C15 P66 Source SPF SPF GGE SPF GGE SPF Date 01. Oct 94 01. Oct 94 08. Aug 96 03. Oct 94 09. Aug 96 30. Sep 94

PAX / Crew P P, lorry driver C P Cabin 4405 4214 1094 01:28 01:29

01:30 01:31 01:32

01:33 01:34 01:35

01:36 01:37 01:38 01:39

01:40 01:41 01:42

01:43 01:44 01:45 01:46

01:47 01:48 01:49

01:50 01:51 01:52 01:53

01:54 01:55 01:56

01:57 01:58 01:59

02:00 02:01 02:02 02:03

02:04 Comments on his way up he

saw no water in the ship, it was not possible to

bring the lifeboats down into the

water, only the life rafts, he heard an

short announcement in

Estonia by loudspeaker when he entered Deck

7, maybe he heard an alarm signal, vessel

sinking by stern, he was not on the

car deck

heard no alarm signal or bell, has travelled with the "Estonia" before

once a week since 1,5 years, has not

seen water entering the ferry, didn’t see how the

ship sank, his lorry wasn’t

lashed - it was never lashed on

trips on MV "Estonia" before

travels with Estonia every week, crew

often great problems to open the ramp,

the crew often used a heavy hammer and

a crowbar to open the locking. The

opening could take up to 20 min. he has never seen clothing in the sides of the ramp to seal it, he

heard from his friends in the crew that there were a

celebration for those crew members who will change to MV

Vironia

she did not see water in the ship

he heard an alarm when he told the crew-member about the rill,

lights went out, when he was

outside

Page 46: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 38

Witness 57 77 80 80 80 82 Name P85 C10 C11 C11 C11 C16

Source GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE Date 29. Sep 94 29. Sep 94 29. Sep 94 07. Oct 1994 07. Feb 95 29. Sep 94

PAX / Crew P C C (practising for second mate)

C (practising for second mate)

C (practising for second mate)

C (Mate) Cabin 1618 (4618?) deck 7 4103 4103 4103

Time 19:00

boarding at 16:20pm

boarding at 16:20pm

to

20:00

left car deck at 18:40h

to 21:00

20:30pm small list

to

22:00 started tour to

23:00

to

23:30

22:35 on car deck, water came in by ventilation duct happens more

than one

to

00:00

00:01 00:02 00:03 00:04

00:05 00:06 00:07

00:08 00:09 00:10 00:11

00:12 00:13 00:14

00:15 00:16 00:17 00:18

00:19 00:20 00:21

00:22 00:23 00:24

00:25 00:26 00:27 00:28

00:29 00:30 went to cabin

on bridge, wind 20...25m/sec from

port side, initial speed 15...16kn, Capt Anderson

was on bridge at 23:30 to 24:00h.

gave order to extend stabilizers,

2nd officer explained that

would drop speed, stabilizers were

deployed at waypoint an

changing course at 24:00h, all waves from

ahead, initially normal course near Estonian

coast were used, full load on car deck with cars and trucks, but upper car decks were not in use.

ship had list 2°...4° from jetty on which couldn’t

be corrected, because ballast

tanks are full

00:31

C16: everything OK

00:32 00:33

went to his cabin, left notes, went to

Admirals Pub on car deck storm

increased, ship motions so heavy

Page 47: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 39

Witness 57 77 80 80 80 82

Name P85 C10 C11 C11 C11 C16 Source GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE Date 29. Sep 94 29. Sep 94 29. Sep 94 07. Oct 1994 07. Feb 95 29. Sep 94

PAX / Crew P C C (practising for second mate)

C (practising for second mate)

C (practising for second mate)

C (Mate) Cabin 1618 (4618?) deck 7 4103 4103 4103 00:34 00:35 left bridge

00:36

00:37 00:38

00:39 00:40

saw C16 at Admirals Pub 00:30...00:40

00:41

00:42 00:43 00:44 00:45

went to his cabin, put the notebook

in, went to the "Admirals Pub", saw nobody he

knows an went to his cabin again

went to his cabin, washed, go to

bed, but didn’t fell asleep

00:46 00:47 00:48

00:49 00:50 00:51 00:52

00:53 00:54 00:55

tried to sleep, but never fell asleep,

heard strange noise, did not

know what it was

00:56 00:57 00:58 on bridge 00:59

01:00

order to check again

01:01

loud "crash", ship heeled to STB

01:02

01:03 situation calm one weird noise

at info, list things sliding,

01:04 back to deck7 01:05

01:06

list about 5°, quiet noise

01:07

told bridge by radio men in panic

01:08

01:05am was on outside deck at

bridge put life vest on

01:09

dressing and waiting for instruction

01:10 list about 30° 01:11 out of cabin 01:12 lights short off

01:13 01:14 01:15 01:16

01:17 01:18 01:19

suddenly list to 60°...70° lights off fore reaching 90°, emergency lights off short after 90°

01:20

lights flickering and went out,

heard a loud fog horn

list 90° 01:21 01:22 01:23

01:24 01:25 ship vertical 01:26 aft sunk first

01:27

heard a hard strange noise for him as seaman

unfamiliar, became curious about the noise and dressed,

before putting on shoes, ship

heeled and table slid towards the door, went up,

while between 6th and 7th floor

heard rather felt a vibration: believes

that cars slid against each

other, thereafter list increased remarkably,

reached deck 7 distributed life

jackets with Vello Ruben

heard strange noise, might have

a blow, not a sound you hear at sae, then the ship

heeled, he dressed, table slid against door, ran out of cabin, few people on deck 4, at info on deck 5 20...30 people,

got to deck 6 very difficult due to the heel heard bang

in staircase between deck 6 and 7 (thought

moving trucks and hitting each other) on deck 7 heel so

great only crawling was

possible, out on deck 7 started to

distribute life vests together with V.

Ruben, list 45°...50° rope ladders were

lowered, list 80°, stern already

sinks

Page 48: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 40

Witness 57 77 80 80 80 82

Name P85 C10 C11 C11 C11 C16 Source GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE Date 29. Sep 94 29. Sep 94 29. Sep 94 07. Oct 1994 07. Feb 95 29. Sep 94

PAX / Crew P C C (practising for second mate)

C (practising for second mate)

C (practising for second mate)

C (Mate) Cabin 1618 (4618?) deck 7 4103 4103 4103 01:28 01:29 90° list run to aft

01:30 look on watch look on watch 01:31 01:32

ran to stern slid into water

01:33 01:34 01:35

01:36 01:37

stern already under water up to stabilizer-fin-level, slid in water under

a raft

01:38 01:39

01:40 01:41 01:42

01:43 01:44 01:45 01:46

01:47 01:48 01:49

01:50 01:51 01:52 01:53

01:54 01:55 01:56

01:57 01:58 01:59

02:00 02:01 02:02 02:03

02:04 Comments heard no

announcements by loudspeaker,

no instructions by the crew

was in cabin before the

disaster started

some alarm message via radio, did not

understand, lights went out for a few seconds, engines

not running anymore

when the funnel was half under water last horn

sound

had been assigned on M/S

Vironia

missing bow visor, sinking by stern,

ship finally upside down, from first

list to final sinking 15...20min.

Page 49: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 41

Witness 82 82 82 94 94 94 Name C16 C16 C16 C36 C36 C36

Source GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE Date 03. Oct.1994 17. Oct.1994 Mar 1995 28. Sep 94 28. Sep 94 29. Sep 94

PAX / Crew C (Mate) C (Mate) C (Mate) C, 3rd engineer C, 3rd engineer C, 3rd engineer Cabin

Time 19:00

to

20:00 to

21:00 to

22:00 to

1°...2° list STB at departure

although he tried to compensate by

heeling tanks

23:00

to

1° list STB , heeling tanks full, heard by walkie-talkie the order to lash the cargo due

to the expected seastate

23:30

to

00:00 start working

00:01 on duty in ECR

00:02 speed 15kn 00:03 00:04

00:05 00:06 00:07

00:08 00:09 00:10 00:11

00:12 00:13 00:14

00:15 00:16 00:17 00:18

00:19 00:20 00:21

00:22 00:23 00:24

00:25 00:26 00:27 00:28

00:29 00:30 tour started round started 00:31 (on bridge)

00:32 00:33

Page 50: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 42

Witness 82 82 82 94 94 94

Name C16 C16 C16 C36 C36 C36 Source GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE Date 03. Oct.1994 17. Oct.1994 Mar 1995 28. Sep 94 28. Sep 94 29. Sep 94

PAX / Crew C (Mate) C (Mate) C (Mate) C, 3rd engineer C, 3rd engineer C, 3rd engineer Cabin 00:34 00:35 on car deck

00:36 (start at stern) 00:37 00:38

00:39 00:40 00:41

00:42

loud noises heard, doors locked,

waited for 5min order from bridge

00:43 00:44 on car deck

light green door closed

00:45 heard crash left car deck

00:46 (behind ramp) 00:47 00:48

00:49 00:50 bottom deck 00:51 00:52

00:53

15 min spent on car deck

00:54 00:55

00:56 00:57 00:58 00:59

01:00 on bridge on bridge 01:01 bow still there 01:02 list of 10°

2nd and 4th officer there

01:03 captain came

01:00h two double hard strokes against bow

01:04

list 30°

01:05

01:06 01:07

went down to deck 4 (want to car deck) turned around to deck 7

vessel was shaking

3...4 bangs, turned camera

towards the bow, saw very much water coming in

and immediately a list 10°...15°

01:08 01:09

01:10

water only on car deck not in engine

room 01:11

distributed life vests on deck 7

01:12

01:13 01:14 01:15 2 heavy waves 01:16

01:17

heeling at 01:01h can’t get down due to heeling,

from bridge visor, antenna and lamp

in place, left bridge, went

down, people: water on 1st deck

water ingress

01:18

01:15h saw on camera water

gushed in on car deck

01:19

01:20 01:21 01:22

quick increase to 10°...15°, 4 ME run, 2 aux run,

tried to trim, failed

01:23

01:24 ME 1, 2 stop 01:25 01:26 ME 4 stop

01:27

01:20h bridge: is possible to list to PS?, list 30...35°: PS engines stop, 5...6kn, 4th eng

stop, 3rd stop, aux run

first main engines on PS stopped, then the two of

STB, started aux eng, power was

there, started pumping water out

of ship ME 3 stop

Page 51: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 43

Witness 82 82 82 94 94 94

Name C16 C16 C16 C36 C36 C36 Source GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE Date 03. Oct.1994 17. Oct.1994 Mar 1995 28. Sep 94 28. Sep 94 29. Sep 94

PAX / Crew C (Mate) C (Mate) C (Mate) C, 3rd engineer C, 3rd engineer C, 3rd engineer Cabin 01:28 01:29

01:30 40°...45° list 01:31

list about 45° aux stop, emergency

Start

aux eng stop 01:32

01:33

bridge: fresh water STB out

01:34 no, no power 01:35

01:36 01:37

left ECR to deck, because nothing

to do

01:38 01:39

01:40

no water in ER doors closed

01:41 01:42

01:43 01:44

left ECR to control emergency diesel

when reached deck 8th nearly

90° list, emergency generator

functioned for a while, went out

ran to sternwards a life raft

01:45 01:46

01:47 01:48 01:49

01:50 01:51 01:52 01:53

01:54 01:55 01:56

01:57 01:58 01:59

02:00 Comments only control lamps

show, whether the visor is looked or not, car deck was fully loaded, after the crash he did not see any water penetrate, after the crash within 5min. no noise

was heard, after the list he heard "Mr. Skylight" the

code for a fire alarm, he heard

two spells

He thinks the waves came from the funnel side,

ship speed 15kn, 4 engines running, it was said alarm in Estonian and

English, then the fog horn was

sounded

left ballast tank full and right empty - creation of a PS list not possible, tried to fill the PS

tank at stern, failed only air sucked, list 30°...35° PS

engines automatically

disconnected start again in vain, before leaving ECR Captain

wants to know, if possible to pump fresh water over board - but not

enough electricity

two years employed on Estonia,

bunkered fuel on 26.09.1994 in

Stockholm, the two waves were quick after each other,

never experienced so heavy bangs on a ship ever before, the picture of the camera

was quite unclear, because the camera

was washed over, pump sucking air only, ME stop by automatic-shut-down, at list 90°

emergency diesel out, heard cargo shift

while climbing up, ship sinking by stern, bow short upright to

45°, bow visor missing

Page 52: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 44

Witness 94 94 94 94 94 94 Name C36 C36 C36 C36 C36 C36

Source GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE Date 03. Oct 1994 11. Oct 1994 16. Oct 1994 17. Oct 1994 Mar 1995 ???

PAX / Crew C, 3rd engineer C, 3rd engineer C, 3rd engineer C, 3rd engineer C, 3rd engineer C, 3rd engineer Cabin

Time 19:00

to

20:00 to

21:00 to

22:00 to

23:00

to

23:30

to

00:00 duty watch

00:01 00:02 00:03 00:04

00:05 00:06 00:07

00:08 00:09 00:10 00:11

00:12 00:13

speed 14.7...15kn, 560 rpm

00:14

00:15 00:16 00:17 00:18

00:19 00:20 00:21

00:22 00:23 00:24

00:25 00:26 00:27 00:28

00:29 00:30 arrived ECR 00:31

stabilizers deployed

stabilizers deployed

00:32 00:33

Page 53: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 45

Witness 94 94 94 94 94 94

Name C36 C36 C36 C36 C36 C36 Source GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE Date 03. Oct 1994 11. Oct 1994 16. Oct 1994 17. Oct 1994 Mar 1995 ???

PAX / Crew C, 3rd engineer C, 3rd engineer C, 3rd engineer C, 3rd engineer C, 3rd engineer C, 3rd engineer Cabin 00:34 00:35

00:36 00:37 00:38

00:39 00:40 00:41

00:42 00:43 00:44 00:45

00:46 00:47 00:48

00:49 00:50 00:51 00:52

00:53 00:54 00:55

00:56 00:57 00:58 00:59

about 14,5kn, C16 on car deck

14,7kn

01:00 C16 on cam C16 on cam 01:01

saw C16 on camera

01:02 speed 10... 11kn,

500rpm

01:03 01:04 01:05

01:06

2 bangs, not ordinary wave

impacts, lots of water pressing trough sides of

ramp

01:07 01:08

heard some strong bangs

2...3, looked on monitor of car

deck, saw water ingress

01:09

01:10 01:11 01:12

01:13

water coming in around the ramp

edges

01:14 01:15 01:16

C16 report to bridge

no speed reduction

01:17

water pressing in heard C16 by

walkie-talkie water on car deck

01:18 PS eng stop 01:19 list 25°...30°

01:20 STB eng stop 01:21

Mr. Skylight were sounded

Mr. Skylight

01:22 aux eng stop 01:23

all engines 500rpm

01:24 01:25

engines stop engines stop

Mr. Skylight re-pump fresh water possible?

01:26

01:27

order from bridge ballast water

pumping

Page 54: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 46

Witness 94 94 94 94 94 94

Name C36 C36 C36 C36 C36 C36 Source GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE Date 03. Oct 1994 11. Oct 1994 16. Oct 1994 17. Oct 1994 Mar 1995 ???

PAX / Crew C, 3rd engineer C, 3rd engineer C, 3rd engineer C, 3rd engineer C, 3rd engineer C, 3rd engineer Cabin 01:28 01:29

01:30 left ER left ER 70-80°

left ER at list 65°...70°

01:31 list about 90° 70°...75° list 01:32 left ECR

aux stop / lights out

01:33 01:34 01:35

01:36 01:37 01:38 01:39

01:40

left ECR by funnel, went to

emergency generator and

went out on deck

01:41 01:42

01:43 01:44 01:45 01:46

01:47 01:48 01:49

01:50 01:51 01:52 01:53

01:54 01:55 01:56

01:57 01:58 01:59

02:00

ship sank ship sank

02:01 02:02 02:03

02:04 Comments during the casualty

none of the engines were running full

power or full speed, pumps did not

manage to pump seawater due to list, heeling tank

STB 150t PS 180t capacity, left the

engine room by the funnel the engine

room was dry, watertight doors were closed, no

pumps to pump out water on car deck,

bulb was intact when vessel sank,

4 engines at about 70%...74% power,

speed almost 15kn, ship sank stern first, ship

sank 15min after water on car deck

seen, camera mounted in the roof of the car deck on the

central casing bulkhead

500rpm means at normal pitch

10...11kn (during casualty)

normal rpm 580...600, no

change in pitch observed, lube oil level higher than

normal in engines

water ingress water was

smashing against the camera,

recognized the voice in walkie-talkie as C16

telling bridge that water is on car

deck but could not see him on

monitors, 4th mate asked for Ballast water

pumping

Page 55: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 47

Witness 97 109 110 113 120 120 Name P90 C32 C28 C25 C19 C19

Source GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE Date 03.Oct 1994 08. Mar 1995 02. Sep 96 29. Sep 94 03. Oct 95 29. Sep 94

PAX / Crew P C (motorman) C (Clerk) C (kitchen) C C Cabin 6320 7013 7026

Time 19:00

to

20:00 to

21:00 to

22:00 to

23:00 went to bed

to

23:30

to

00:00

00:01 00:02 00:03 00:04

00:05 00:06 00:07

00:08 00:09 00:10 00:11

00:12 00:13 00:14

00:15 00:16 00:17 00:18

00:19 00:20 00:21

00:22 00:23 00:24

00:25 00:26 00:27 00:28

00:29 00:30 heavy bang went to bed 00:31 list to STB

00:32 00:33 in drive more list

Page 56: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 48

Witness 97 109 110 113 120 120

Name P90 C32 C28 C25 C19 C19 Source GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE Date 03.Oct 1994 08. Mar 1995 02. Sep 96 29. Sep 94 03. Oct 95 29. Sep 94

PAX / Crew P C (motorman) C (Clerk) C (kitchen) C C Cabin 6320 7013 7026 00:34 00:35 another bang

00:36 00:37

announcement in Estonian

00:38

00:39

3rd bang, his son broke arm

00:40 00:41

00:42 00:43 00:44 00:45

00:46 00:47 00:48

00:49 00:50 00:51 00:52

00:53 00:54 00:55

00:56 00:57 00:58 00:59

01:00 01:01 01:02

01:03 01:04 01:05

woke up from curtain sliding, and band, list

began

01:06 01:07 01:08 01:09

01:10 01:11 01:12

01:13 01:14 01:15 woke up, list 01:16

01:17 01:18 01:19

01:20 01:21 01:22 01:23

01:24 01:25 01:26

vibrations => main engine running, couldn’t dress

himself standing, due to heavy list, woman’s voice: "Alarm, alarm",

01:27

while waking due lurch up, the ship

was vibrating, sliding in bed due to list, switched on

walkie-talkie mo traffic, by

loudspeaker some announcements e.g. "Alarm", saw C16 on deck at a

list of 45° distributing life

vests, C28 made life rafts ready

woke up due to a mirror falling from wall, recognized

list, looked in corridor, heard "Skylight 1" and "Skylight 2", got

dressed, water to level of deck 7,

engines were not running anymore, before leaving the ship: long foghorn blast, when funnel

already under water

Page 57: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 49

Witness 97 109 110 113 120 120

Name P90 C32 C28 C25 C19 C19 Source GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE Date 03.Oct 1994 08. Mar 1995 02. Sep 96 29. Sep 94 03. Oct 95 29. Sep 94

PAX / Crew P C (motorman) C (Clerk) C (kitchen) C C Cabin 6320 7013 7026 01:28 01:29

01:30 01:31

sinking of ship

01:32

01:33 01:34 01:35

01:36 01:37 01:38 01:39

01:40 01:41 01:42

01:43 01:44 01:45 01:46

01:47 01:48 01:49

01:50 01:51 01:52 01:53

01:54

01:55 01:56

01:57 01:58 01:59

02:00 02:01 02:02 02:03

02:04 Comments 2...3 min horn

while going down left his cabin by

climbing out of the window, did not

hear "Mr Skylight 1", black out at a list of 60°...70° in connection when engines stopped, 3 times warnings in Estonian were given, warning shortly before sinking ship

practically on side

ship sank by stern everything OK during his watch,

last steering engine check at

beginning of week, ship left on

time at 19:00, watch 04:00-08:00 and 16:00-20:00

Page 58: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 50

Witness 124 124 124 124 126 127 Name C33 C33 C33 C33 P13 P42

Source GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE Date 28. Sep 94 28. Sep 94 29. Sep 94 10. Mar 1995 28. Sep 94 29. Sep 94

PAX / Crew C, engineer C, engineer C, engineer C, engineer P P Cabin deck 7 deck 7 deck 7 6304 (5304?) deck pass.

Time 19:00

to departure without

heel

20:00

TIMES CORRECT???

to 21:00

to

22:00 to

23:00

to

23:30 heavy rolling

to

00:00 searchlight on

00:01 00:02 00:03 00:04

00:05 00:06 00:07

00:08 00:09 00:10 00:11

00:12 00:13 00:14

waves became heavier and more water seemed to come in on the

foredeck

00:15 00:16 00:17 00:18

00:19 00:20 00:21

00:22 00:23 00:24

00:25 00:26 00:27 00:28

00:29 00:30 00:31

ordered to ECR, deck 0

00:32

woke up by crew to repair a toilet

00:33 walked due to the

repair on deck 0,

00:26am: considerable part

of the stem bouncing up, that part rose an sank.

There was a straight through opening in the

stem water sprouted in,

search lighter off, no engine sound

anymore, bow seemed to sink

under water

Page 59: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 51

Witness 124 124 124 124 126 127 Name C33 C33 C33 C33 P13 P42 Source GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE Date 28. Sep 94 28. Sep 94 29. Sep 94 10. Mar 1995 28. Sep 94 29. Sep 94

PAX / Crew C, engineer C, engineer C, engineer C, engineer P P Cabin deck 7 deck 7 deck 7 6304 (5304?) deck pass. 00:34 00:35

00:36 00:37

00:38

00:39 00:40 00:41

00:42 00:43 00:44 00:45

00:46 00:47 00:48

00:49 00:50 00:51 00:52

00:28am thought the ship would sink, began to

remove a tarpaulin from a

lifeboat for 10...20 min., six Estline-

men began to remove lifeboats (capsules'), light were flickering

00:53 00:54 00:55

00:56 00:57 00:58

on site

00:59

found problem

01:00 01:01 01:02

two impacts

01:03 01:04

two, three hard wave impacts, thereafter ship

heeled, he back to ECR

01:05

01:06

water entering car deck seen

01:07 01:08

watertight doors closed

01:09 list 30°...35°

01:10 01:11

trucks not moving

01:12

01:13 01:14 01:15 01:16

01:17

at list of 40° ME stopped, aux

running

01:18 01:19

01:20 01:21 01:22

bridge: possible to stabilize?, left

ECR

01:23

01:24 aux off

01:25 01:26

01:27

heavy list STB, walked to ECR,

saw on monitor of car deck water

ingress, maybe on more on STB,

visor not visible by camera, always water ingress although there was no wave impact, due to

lack of fuel because of list

firstly two then the 3rd and the 4th

main engine stopped, didn’t know if two or 4 aux eng running, at list of 40°...45°,

bridge asked if trim by heeling tanks possible,

everybody, except C36 left ECR, at that time electric

power was delivered, at being at deck 6 blackout

2...3 sec emergency eng

started, light came back until a list of minimum 90°, at

80°...85° fog horn

woke up by indefinable

shocking differing from normal

noises of the ferry, shocking repeated

regularly 4 to 5 times "tong

tong,..." noise break and

repeating, the noise coming from below and front,

the noise was not suddenly, no

explosion and not induced due

seastate, stood up dressed the ship heeled and the

furniture slid into the door, first list was 25°...30° this list stayed for a

quiet long time, no instruction by staff, being on

outside area there was a short

announcement in Estonian list

increased to 45°, ship stay about

half an hour (rough estimation) from 30° to 45°, but without trim, navigational light on till 50°...60° black, but came

again, at the horizon two ships

but didn’t approach, list over

90° lights completely off,

when the ship was nearly upside

down the stern started to sink, bulbous bow

upright, looking normal, bow flap looking normal, the final sinking was very quick,

stabilizer fin looking normal

Page 60: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 52

Witness 124 124 124 124 126 127 Name C33 C33 C33 C33 P13 P42 Source GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE GGE Date 28. Sep 94 28. Sep 94 29. Sep 94 10. Mar 1995 28. Sep 94 29. Sep 94

PAX / Crew C, engineer C, engineer C, engineer C, engineer P P Cabin deck 7 deck 7 deck 7 6304 (5304?) deck pass. 01:28 01:29

01:30 01:31 01:32

01:33 01:34 01:35

01:36 01:37

01:38 01:39

01:40 01:41 01:42

01:43 01:44

01:45 01:46

01:47 01:48 01:49

01:50 01:51 01:52 01:53

01:54 01:55 01:56

01:57 01:58 01:59

02:00 02:01

02:02 02:03

02:04 Comments ship turned on

side in 20min., sank bow first, was in ECR,

towards the end saw cars move,

got out at a list of 75°...80°

time on board was Estonian time, as well as his watch, ship sank by stern first, bow upright, visor missing, time from seeing water ingress on monitor

to final sinking 15...20min,

vessel sank stern first, visor was

gone

visor was gone, "Mr. Skylight"-

Signal were given when main

engines already shut off, had to do lifeboat no 9 but due to the list

didn’t get there

Travelled without car, sales

manager from "United Distillers" sold alcohol to the

ship, over all about 100 sea

days on this ship inclusive that time at former owners, knows some of the staff, some

are friends

car deck fully loaded with cars, heavy cars, trucks etc on both sides,

had no cabin

Figure 3.2: Synoptic Time Schedule

Page 61: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 53

3.4 Other significant Observations

3.4.1 Effect of Water on the forecastle

The Chief Mate on the RoRo-Ferry MV Amber recognized MV Estonia on the radar

screen little to 23.00h Estonian time on the ARPA. The CPA was calculated to 1.5nm, the

course of MV Estonia to about 260° to 265°. The ARPA calculated the speed of MV

Estonia to about 18 to 19kn. At the CPA, which was reached at about 23:15h or 23:20h

Estonian Time, the Chief Mate watched MV Estonia by binoculars. MV Estonia was

obviously sailing full speed, pitched heavily and took a significant amount of water on her

forecastle. The Chief Mate declared, he had never before seen a ferry in the Baltic

pitching that heavily.

The fore castle of MV Estonia was – according to the observations of the Chief Mate

continuously refilled with seawater by at least spray. The water may have poured into the

bow visor and filled it.

From the visor, the water may have entered the Main Car Deck through the gaps of the

non properly sealing bow ramp. A water ingress through gaps at both sides of the ramp

was stated by the crew member C33. He saw this on a Monitor in the ECR, the camera

was fixed under the ceiling and focussed the bow ramp.

See Figure 6.1, p. 66 in the Final Report of the JAIC [JAIC02].

It seems therefore to be a realistic assumption for a scenario, that some amount of water

has already been accumulated on the Main Car Deck before the visor was lost.

3.4.2 Effect of Stern Ramp Operation

As well possible is that the crew opened the stern ramp a little to run off the water out of

the vessel. To keep the stern ramp in its slightly opened position, a continuous operation

of the hydraulic pump was necessary. A high frequency noise, which was most likely

caused by a hydraulic pump, caused a conference to end in evening, on Deck 4 in the

stern area. It is stated in the testimonies, that a member of this conference asked a crew

member, whether it is possible to stop this disturbing noise, but it wasn’t. Consequently

the conference ended.

Page 62: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 54

3.5 Evaluation of the Testimonies

Result of this synoptic time schedule is that MV Estonia pitched and rolled during the

night from September 27th to September 28th, 1994, occasionally heavy or very heavy. At

about 00:30h Estonian time the two stabilizer fins were deployed, the rolling was damped,

but still distinct noticeable. Half an hour later, at about 01:00h, two or maybe three heavy

bangs, sounding like sort of metallic, were heard with less than one minute in between.

After these two or three bangs the ship heeled to starboard up to an angle of about 30°.

The vessel up righted to some 0°, but directly after that heeled again to approximately 30°

to 40°. The MV Estonia started to upright again, but did not reach the complete upright

position. In the following 6min to 8min the list to starboard increased stepwise or in

other words a decent increase of list within a component of rolling. At circa 01:08h or

01:09h an average heeling angle of circa 30° was reached and at this angle a temporary

quasi equilibrium in floating condition appeared. Some 01:17h at about 35° the healing

angle increased more rapidly, but decent with less rolling.

There are two witnesses, which date the 90° floating condition exactly to 01:31h or

01:32h. At this condition the ship’s typhoon was blown.

The vessel sank by stern first, grounded with the stern on the seabed and kept swimming

with the bow part. The list has increased further more to maybe 110° to 120°.

The bow part disappeared from the surface most probable very close after 01:50h, but

this is not connected to a testimony of any eye-witness. The time of the final sinking was

worked out by the last radar contacts of the MV Mariella.

The announcement “Häire, häire, leaval on häire” and the announcement “Mr. Skylight

no.1 and no.2” could not yet doubtlessly connected to an exact time. At an heeling angle

of circa 40° the main engines stopped and at an heeling angle of about 55° the auxiliary

engines stopped, which led to lapsing lights. As well, this incidents could not yet

connected to a testimony of any witness. Most likely the engines stopped automatically

due to lack of lubrication oil. The lubrication oil is sucked on of lubricating oil tank below

the engines. Due to the list the oil pumps were sucking air, this caused most probably the

automatic shout down of the four main and the four auxiliary engines.

Page 63: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

3 Testimonies Page 55

Time Sequence of the Capsizing of MV Estonia

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0:55 1:00 1:05 1:10 1:15 1:20 1:25 1:30 1:35 1:40 1:45

Time in Minutes

List

to S

tarb

oard

in D

egre

e

Figure 3.3:Table of Time Sequence of the Capsizing of MV Estonia

Note: The points, connecting a certain list to a time of the time line, are not chained. This

shell indicate, that is not possible to reconstructed every detail in this sinking sequence.

Page 64: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

4 Surrounding Conditions Page 56

4 Surrounding Conditions

4.1 Position of the Wreck

The Position of the wreck is at 59°22,9’ N 21°41,0’ E [BSH01]. This location is

international seaway, but “Exclusive Economic Zone” (EEZ) of Finland.

These information is given by „Bundesamt für Schifffahrt und Hydrogrhaphie“, The

German Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency, standing under the jurisdiction of

the Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development.

4.2 Density of Sea Water

All calculations of the stability book of MV Estonia carried out with the density of

seawater by 1.025t/m³. For reasons of comparability, the calculations carried out in order

to validate the TUHH CAD-Model are calculated as well with a sea water density of

1.025t/m³.

The JAIC, carried out their calculations with a sea water density of 1.010t/m³ [JAIC01].

TUHH follows in their hydrostatic calculations [KHBOCK]. The area under

consideration is indicated there with 1.004 t/m³.

4.3 Weather Conditions

4.3.1 General

The information about the weather were taken from [EMHI], [FMI], [SMHI], [FIMR].

These documents were also used in The Final Report of JAIC.

4.3.2 Observations of Vessels around the MV Estonia

All vessels in the seaway under consideration reported the mean wind in the beginning of

the evening of September 27th, 1994 to about south 10-15m/s. Later, further increasing to

south 15-20 m/s. Then 2-3 hours before midnight shifting to southwest 15-20m/s. From

the later part of the night, that is after the sinking, about west 20-25m/s with gusts up to

26-30m/s. The wave height has been estimated 4-5m, with occasional maximum waves 6-

Page 65: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

4 Surrounding Conditions Page 57

7m before the sinking of MV Estonia, after the sinking 5-6m with occasional waves up to

7-8m.

4.3.3 Observations by Helicopters

The Swedish helicopters from the Air Force and the Navy which arrived to the site of the

sinking between 02.50h and 5.00h L.T. have made the following estimates:

Wind about west 25m/s, gusts up to 30m/s. One helicopter reported gusts up to40 m/s.

Concerning the wave heights, the range varies more than for the wind. The majority

reports 5-6m or 6-8m.

4.3.4 Wind

Before the sinking, reports were available from ferries and merchant ships. There is close

arrangement here about the southwest wind 15-20m/s, also supported by meteorological

observations and computer models. After the sinking of MV Estonia, an increase of wind

speed is to notice.

4.3.5 Significant Wave Height, Wave Length and Wave Period

However, there is a close arrangement between observations and calculations on the wave

height of 3,5-4,5m before the sinking. During the time after the sinking, there is an

increase of the significant wave height to state. The maximum wave height, both observed

by vessels and theoretical, is also in close agreement here. Occasional maximum waves

occurring before the sinking is estimated to about 7m, but statistically, an 8m wave could

have occurred every second hour. It is to state, during the rescue operation later in the

night, that swell from southwest with longer period were superimposed by wind seas

from the west with shorter periods, forming a confused sea state. Note, that the

significant wave height is calculated while the maximum wave height is based on theory,

statistics and eyewitnesses. If we have a condition with winds of 17m/s and wave heights

of around 4.0m in the northern Baltic, measurements and theoretical calculations gives a

wave period of about 8s and a wave length of about 100m.

Page 66: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

4 Surrounding Conditions Page 58

4.3.6 Weather Conditions on the last Voyage of MV E stonia

The following figure gives an overview of the weather conditions under consideration of

weather station next to the probable positions to the corresponding time of MV Estonia.

Wind direction

wind strength

gusts up to

sign. wave height

max wave height

L.T. Position from >>> to

m/s m/s m m

18:00 - 19:00

Tallinn roadstead >>> point just west of Naissar

S -SW 8-10 13 1,0 - 1,5 2,0

19:00 - 20:00

Point just west of Naissar >>> line Pakri / Jussarö

S 10 -13 16 1,5 -2,0 3,0

20:00 - 21:00

line Pakri / Jussarö >>> abeam of Osmussar

S 11 - 15 18 2,0 - 3,0 4,0

21:00 - 22:00

abeam of Osmussar >>> line Tahkuna / Russarö

S -SW 13 - 17 24 2,5 - 3,5 5,0

22:00 - 23:00

line Tahkuna / Russarö >>> abeam of Bengtskär

SW 13 - 17 21 3,0 - 4,0 6,0

23:00 - 24:00

abeam of Bengtskär >>> abeam of Ristna

S -SW 14 - 18 21 3,5 - 4,5 7,0

00:00 - 00:30

abeam of Ristna >>> point just east of the sinking

SW 16 - 20 23 3,5 - 4,5 7,0

00:30 - 02:00

at the sight of the sinking

SW 16 - 20 24 4,0 - 5,0 7,5

Figure 4.1: Table of Weather Conditions on the last Voyage of MV Estonia

Page 67: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

5 Stability Book and Validation of TUHH-CAD-Model Page 59

5 Stability Book and Validation of TUHH-CAD-Model

5.1 General

One of the main parts of Hamburg University of Technologies in this research project is

to pre-select probable sinking scenarios by hydrostatic calculations. Before starting the

calculations a central question is, of what quality is the hydrostatic CAD-Model compared

to the original lines of the ship.

The lines of the building number S590 by Jos. L. Meyer GmbH, Germany, today’s

Meyerwerft GmbH, were digitalized to the ship design software system E4. Hydrostatic

particulars and cross curves of stability were calculated. These results were compared to

the stability book of MV Estonia. This is the base of a validation of the TUHH CAD-

Model.

To compare the results of the of the hydrostatic calculations with the original stability

book of MV Viking Sally, the former name of MV Estonia, the duck tail in the TUHH

CAD-Model was switched off. The specific gravity of seawater was adjusted to

1.025t/m³, the coefficient for displacement of the shell-plating was set to 1.007, the keel-

thickness was equal to zero. The stability book says, that the calculations were carried out

on even keel , with other words with a trim equal to zero.

Detailed calculations of the hydrostatics – the hydrostatic particulars and the cross curves

of stability – including the ducktail are enclosed in the Supplementum.

Page 68: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

5 Stability Book and Validation of TUHH-CAD-Model Page 60

5.2 Hydrostatic Particulars of MV Viking Sally

The hydrostatic particulars were calculated by the engineering company Maierform

GmbH, Bremen on June 26th, 1980. The software “KUBLENG” was used with a

numerical integration of 46 frames.

JOS. L. MEYER

PAPENBURG EMS HYDROSTATIC PARTICULARS

MAIERFORM GMBH, BREMEN

6891.06 – 171.120

PAGE

5 / 6 / 7

SPEC. GRAVITY OF SEA-W. = 1,025 T / CBM

COEFF. FOR DISPL. OF SHELL PL. = 1,007

TRIM = 0,000 m ON EVEN KEEL

KEEL - THICKNESS = 0.000 mm

DRAUGHTS INDICATED FOR Lpp / 2

DRAFT

BK

MOUL-

DED

VOLUME

DISPL.

FR–W.

DISPL.

SEA-W. LCB VCB KM (T) KM (L)

WL -

AREA LCF TMI LMI MCT BP

D /

MCT TPCI

ALPHA

(BP)

DELTA

(BP)

Metres m3 Metric-t. Metric-t. m m m m m2 m m4 m4 MT / M - T/C

M - -

4,30 8999,63 9062,63 9289,19 -3,19 2,30 12,10 298,81 2461,35 -4,73 88197,7 2668554, 19421,8 0,478 25,41 0,772 0,656

4,35 9122,99 9186,85 9416,52 -3,21 2,32 12,05 297,31 2470,60 -4,84 88730,2 2691188, 19586,5 0,481 25,50 0,774 0,657

4,40 9246,85 9311,58 9544,37 -3,23 2,35 12,01 295,90 2480,08 -4,96 89274,8 2714409, 19755,5 0,483 25,60 0,777 0,658

4,45 9371,16 9436,76 9672,68 -3,25 2,38 11,96 294,60 2489,81 -5,08 89832,4 2738436, 19930,4 0,485 25,70 0,779 0,659

4,50 9495,92 9562,39 9801,45 -3,28 2,41 11,93 293,41 2499,79 -5,20 90403,3 2763347, 20111,7 0,487 25,80 0,782 0,660

4,55 9621,15 9688,50 9930,71 -3,30 2,43 11,89 292,34 2510,06 -5,32 90988,6 2789265, 20300,3 0,489 25,91 0,785 0,661

4,60 9746,88 9815,11 10060,49 -3,33 2,46 11,86 291,41 2520,65 -5,45 91589,1 2816362, 20497,5 0,491 26,02 0,787 0,662

4,65 9873,12 9942,23 10190,79 -3,36 2,49 11,83 290,63 2531,58 -5,59 92205,9 2844811, 20704,6 0,492 26,13 0,790 0,663

4,70 9999,91 10069,91 10321,65 -3,39 2,52 11,80 290,00 2542,90 -5,72 92840,2 2874778, 20922,7 0,493 26,25 0,793 0,664

4,75 10127,27 10198,16 10453,11 -3,42 2,55 11,78 289,53 2554,62 -5,86 93493,3 2906415, 21152,9 0,494 26,37 0,796 0,665

4,80 10255,24 10327,02 10585,20 -3,45 2,57 11,76 289,24 2566,79 -6,00 94166,8 2939851, 21396,3 0,495 26,49 0,799 0,665

4,85 10383,85 10456,54 10717,95 -3,48 2,60 11,74 289,12 2579,41 -6,14 94862,4 2975179, 21653,4 0,495 26,62 0,803 0,666

4,90 10513,14 10586,73 10851,40 -3,52 2,63 11,72 289,18 2592,53 -6,29 95582,8 3012559, 21925,5 0,495 26,76 0,806 0,667

4,95 10643,15 10717,73 10985,59 -3,55 2,66 11,71 289,39 2606,09 -6,44 96327,0 3051757, 22210,7 0,495 26,90 0,810 0,668

5,00 10773,88 10849,29 11120,53 -3,59 2,69 11,70 289,71 2620,00 -6,58 97095,9 3092329, 22506,0 0,494 27,04 0,814 0,669

5,05 10905,32 10981,66 11256,20 -3,63 2,71 11,69 290,11 2634,29 -6,73 97896,8 3134192, 22810,7 0,493 27,19 0,818 0,670

5,10 11037,49 11114,75 11392,62 -3,66 2,74 11,69 290,64 2649,05 -6,89 98739,8 3177634, 23126,9 0,493 27,34 0,822 0,671

5,15 11170,43 11248,62 11529,83 -3,70 2,77 11,69 291,30 2664,35 -7,05 99629,3 3223043, 23457,4 0,492 27,50 0,826 0,672

5,20 11304,15 11383,28 11667,87 -3,75 2,80 11,69 292,10 2680,17 -7,22 100566,2 3270288, 23801,2 0,490 27,66 0,830 0,673

5,25 11438,69 11518,76 11806,73 -3,79 2,83 11,70 292,98 2696,38 -7,40 101548,4 3318932, 24155,3 0,489 27,83 0,835 0,674

Page 69: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

5 Stability Book and Validation of TUHH-CAD-Model Page 61

JOS. L. MEYER

PAPENBURG EMS HYDROSTATIC PARTICULARS

MAIERFORM GMBH, BREMEN

6891.06 – 171.120

PAGE

5 / 6 / 7

SPEC. GRAVITY OF SEA-W. = 1,025 T / CBM

COEFF. FOR DISPL. OF SHELL PL. = 1,007

TRIM = 0,000 m ON EVEN KEEL

KEEL - THICKNESS = 0.000 mm

DRAUGHTS INDICATED FOR Lpp / 2

DRAFT

BK

MOUL-

DED

VOLUME

DISPL.

FR–W.

DISPL.

SEA-W. LCB VCB KM (T) KM (L)

WL -

AREA LCF TMI LMI MCT BP

D /

MCT TPCI

ALPHA

(BP)

DELTA

(BP)

Metres m3 Metric-t. Metric-t. m m m m m2 m m4 m4 MT / M - T/C

M - -

5,30 11574,04 11655,06 11946,43 -3,83 2,86 11,72 293,91 2712,90 -7,57 102573,9 3368652, 24517,1 0,487 28,00 0,839 0,675

5,35 11710,21 11792,18 12086,99 -3,88 2,88 11,73 294,86 2729,63 -7,75 103639,6 3419080, 24884,1 0,486 28,17 0,844 0,677

5,40 11847,21 11930,14 12228,40 -3,92 2,91 11,75 295,79 2746,45 -7,92 104741,6 3469822, 25253,4 0,484 28,35 0,848 0,678

5,45 11985,04 12068,94 12370,66 -3,97 2,94 11,78 296,68 2763,24 -8,09 105874,7 3520473, 25622,1 0,48 28,52 0,853 0,679

5,50 12123,70 12208,56 12523,78 -4,02 2,97 11,80 297,49 2779,87 -8,25 107033,4 3570630, 25987,1 0,482 28,69 0,857 0,680

5,55 12263,17 12349,01 12657,73 -4,07 3,00 11,82 298,19 2796,24 -8,40 108211,6 3570630, 26345,8 0,480 28,86 0,862 0,681

5,60 12403,44 12490,27 12802,52 -4,12 3,03 11,85 298,77 2812,27 -8,53 109404,2 3619913, 26696,9 0,480 29,03 0,866 0,682

5,65 12544,52 12632,33 12948,14 -4,17 3,06 11,88 299,19 2827,82 -8,65 110604,3 3714850, 27036,8 0,479 29,19 0,870 0,683

5,70 12686,37 12775,17 13094,55 -4,22 3,09 11,90 299,42 2842,72 -8,75 111801,4 3759327, 27360,5 0,479 29,34 0,874 0,685

5,75 12828,95 12918,76 13241,73 -4,27 3,12 11,92 299,44 2856,98 -8,83 112986,1 3801461, 27667,1 0,479 29,49 0,878 0,686

5,80 12972,23 13063,04 13389,61 -4,32 3,15 11,95 299,29 2870,71 -8,90 114154,5 3841657, 27949,7 0,479 29,63 0,882 0,687

5,85 13116,18 13208,00 13538,20 -4,37 3,18 11,97 299,03 2884,05 -8,96 115308,3 3880521, 28242,5 0,479 29,77 0,885 0,688

5,90 13260,80 13353,62 13687,46 -4,42 3,21 11,99 298,69 2897,06 -9,00 116449,3 3918322, 28517,6 0,480 29,90 0,889 0,689

5,95 13406,06 13499,90 13837,40 -4,47 3,23 12,00 298,26 2909,74 -9,04 117576,7 3955110, 28785,4 0,481 30,03 0,892 0,691

6,00 13551,95 13646,81 13987,98 -4,52 3,26 12,02 297,76 2922,15 -9,06 118691,9 3991054, 29047,0 0,482 30,16 0,895 0,692

6,05 13698,46 13794,35 14139,21 -4,57 3,29 12,04 297,22 2934,34 -9,08 119796,9 4026322, 29303,7 0,483 30,29 0,898 0,693

6,10 13845,59 13942,51 14291,07 -4,62 3,32 12,05 296,64 2946,34 -9,09 120893,8 4061078, 29556,6 0,484 30,41 0,901 0,694

6,15 13993,31 14091,27 14443,55 -4,67 3,35 12,07 296,03 2958,19 -9,09 121985,5 4095480, 29807,0 0,485 30,53 0,904 0,696

6,20 14141,63 14240,63 14596,64 -4,72 3,38 12,09 295,40 2969,94 -9,09 123074,5 4129674, 30055,9 0,486 30,65 0,907 0,697

6,25 14290,55 14390,58 14750,34 -4,76 3,41 12,10 294,78 2981,62 -9,08 124163,4 4163798, 30304,2 0,487 30,78 0,910 0,698

6,30 14440,04 14541,12 14904,65 -4,81 3,44 12,12 294,15 2993,21 -9,07 125250,7 4197841, 30552,0 0,488 30,90 0,913 0,699

6,35 14590,12 14692,25 15059,56 -4,85 3,47 12,13 293,55 3004,85 -9,05 126348,4 4232255, 30802,4 0,489 31,02 0,916 0,700

6,40 14740,80 14843,98 15215,08 -4,89 3,50 12,15 293,00 3016,65 -9,03 127468,1 4267519, 31059,1 0,490 31,14 0,919 0,702

Figure 5.1: Table of Hydrostatic Particulars, Stability Book

Page 70: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

5 Stability Book and Validation of TUHH-CAD-Model Page 62

5.3 Hydrostatic Particulars of TUHH-CAD-Model

The following figure shows the results of the hydrostatic particulars calculated with the

TUHH-CAD-Model.

+---------------------------+---------------------- -----+-------+ |Yard number: |Ship name: |Date: | |590 |Estonia | | +---------------------------+---------------------- -----+-------+ +-------------------------------------------------- -------------+ | Trim : 0.000 m (positive forward) | | Heel : 0.000 Deg. (positive starboard) | | Density sea water : 1.025 t/m3 | | Density fresh water : 1.000 t/m3 | | Keel thickness : 0.000 m | | Shell plating factor : 1.007 m | | Light ship weight : 9733.000 t | +-------------------------------------------------- -------------+

+-------------------------------------------------- -------------+ | HYDROSTATIC TABLES | +-------------------------------------------------- -------------+ | | | | | | | | | |T AP | Dis.SW | Dis.FW | LCB | VCB | LCF | KM.T |T FP | |Metre | Ton | Ton |m.f.AP |m.a.BL |m.f.AP |m .a.BL |Metre | +------+--------+--------+-------+-------+-------+- ------+------+ | 4.300| 9293.9| 9067.2| 65.539| 2.302| 64.026| 12.128| 4.300| | 4.350| 9421.2| 9191.4| 65.518| 2.329| 63.937| 12.082| 4.350| | 4.400| 9549.0| 9316.1| 65.496| 2.357| 63.841| 12.040| 4.400| | 4.450| 9677.2| 9441.2| 65.474| 2.384| 63.743| 11.999| 4.450| | 4.500| 9805.9| 9566.7| 65.451| 2.412| 63.644| 11.960| 4.500| | 4.550| 9935.1| 9692.8| 65.426| 2.439| 63.542| 11.923| 4.550| | 4.600| 10064.8| 9819.3| 65.401| 2.467| 63.436| 11.888| 4.600| | 4.650| 10195.0| 9946.4| 65.376| 2.494| 63.326| 11.855| 4.650| | 4.700| 10325.8| 10074.0| 65.349| 2.522| 63.219| 11.823| 4.700| | 4.750| 10457.1| 10202.1| 65.322| 2.550| 63.098| 11.795| 4.750| | 4.800| 10589.1| 10330.8| 65.293| 2.577| 62.973| 11.769| 4.800| | 4.850| 10721.6| 10460.1| 65.264| 2.605| 62.847| 11.746| 4.850| | 4.900| 10854.8| 10590.0| 65.233| 2.633| 62.718| 11.726| 4.900| | 4.950| 10988.6| 10720.6| 65.202| 2.661| 62.585| 11.709| 4.950| | 5.000| 11123.1| 10851.8| 65.169| 2.689| 62.441| 11.695| 5.000| | 5.050| 11258.3| 10983.7| 65.136| 2.717| 62.291| 11.683| 5.050| | 5.100| 11394.2| 11116.3| 65.101| 2.745| 62.133| 11.675| 5.100| | 5.150| 11530.9| 11249.6| 65.065| 2.773| 61.970| 11.671| 5.150| | 5.200| 11668.3| 11383.7| 65.027| 2.801| 61.806| 11.669| 5.200| | 5.250| 11806.6| 11518.6| 64.989| 2.830| 61.636| 11.671| 5.250| | 5.300| 11945.6| 11654.3| 64.949| 2.858| 61.462| 11.678| 5.300| | 5.350| 12085.5| 11790.7| 64.907| 2.887| 61.285| 11.687| 5.350| | 5.400| 12226.3| 11928.1| 64.865| 2.915| 61.108| 11.701| 5.400| | 5.450| 12367.9| 12066.3| 64.821| 2.944| 60.939| 11.718| 5.450| | 5.500| 12510.5| 12205.3| 64.775| 2.973| 60.774| 11.739| 5.500| | 5.550| 12654.0| 12345.3| 64.729| 3.002| 60.610| 11.763| 5.550| | 5.600| 12798.4| 12486.2| 64.682| 3.031| 60.450| 11.789| 5.600| | 5.650| 12943.7| 12628.0| 64.633| 3.060| 60.295| 11.818| 5.650| | 5.700| 13089.9| 12770.6| 64.584| 3.089| 60.146| 11.848| 5.700| | 5.750| 13237.0| 12914.2| 64.534| 3.119| 60.004| 11.881| 5.750| | 5.800| 13385.1| 13058.6| 64.483| 3.148| 59.877| 11.913| 5.800| | 5.850| 13533.9| 13203.9| 64.432| 3.178| 59.767| 11.943| 5.850| | 5.900| 13683.6| 13349.9| 64.380| 3.207| 59.676| 11.971| 5.900| | 5.950| 13834.1| 13496.7| 64.329| 3.237| 59.605| 11.997| 5.950| | 6.000| 13985.3| 13644.2| 64.277| 3.266| 59.554| 12.020| 6.000| | 6.050| 14137.2| 13792.4| 64.226| 3.296| 59.524| 12.040| 6.050| | 6.100| 14289.8| 13941.3| 64.176| 3.326| 59.506| 12.059| 6.100| | 6.150| 14443.1| 14090.8| 64.127| 3.355| 59.496| 12.079| 6.150| | 6.200| 14596.9| 14240.9| 64.078| 3.385| 59.490| 12.098| 6.200| | 6.250| 14751.4| 14391.7| 64.030| 3.415| 59.485| 12.119| 6.250| | 6.300| 14906.6| 14543.0| 63.982| 3.444| 59.483| 12.141| 6.300| | 6.350| 15062.4| 14695.0| 63.936| 3.474| 59.484| 12.164| 6.350| | 6.400| 15218.9| 14847.7| 63.890| 3.504| 59.487| 12.187| 6.400| +------+--------+--------+-------+-------+-------+- ------+------+

Figure 5.2: Table of Hydrostatic Particulars, TUHH-CAD-Model

Page 71: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

5 Stability Book and Validation of TUHH-CAD-Model Page 63

5.4 Cross Curves of Stability of MV Viking Sally

The cross curves of stability were calculated by the engineering company Maierform

GmbH, Bremen on September 20th, 1979. The software “PANTOBO” was used with a

numerical integration of 49 frames.

JOS. L. Meyer

Papenburg EMS

Building No. 590

-CROSS CURVES OF STABILITY –

( KN – VALUES )

SMOOTH WATER

DRAFT BK

DISPL. SEA-W.

INCLINATION (DEGREES)

(M) (T) 10 20 30 45 60 75

3,50 7256 2,33 4,73 6,68 8,66 9,66 9,31 3,55 7377 2,31 4,71 6,67 8,66 9,66 9,30 3,60 7498 2,30 4,70 6,66 8,65 9,66 9,30 3,65 7619 2,29 4,68 6,65 8,65 9,65 9,29 3,70 7741 2,28 4,66 6,63 8,65 9,65 9,28

3,75 7863 2,26 4,65 6,62 8,65 9,64 9,27 3,80 7985 2,25 4,63 6,61 8,65 9,64 9,26 3,85 8108 2,24 4,62 6,60 8,65 9,63 9,25 3,90 8231 2,23 4,60 6,59 8,65 9,63 9,24 3,95 8355 2,22 4,59 6,58 8,65 9,62 9,23

4,00 8479 2,21 4,57 6,56 8,65 9,61 9,22 4,05 8604 2,20 4,56 6,55 8,65 9,61 9,21 4,10 8729 2,19 4,54 6,54 8,65 9,60 9,20 4,15 8854 2,18 4,53 6,53 8,65 9,59 9,19 4,20 8980 2,17 4,52 6,52 8,65 9,58 9,18

4,25 9106 2,16 4,50 6,51 8,65 9,54 9,18 4,30 9233 2,16 4,49 6,50 8,65 9,56 9,17 4,35 9360 2,15 4,48 6,49 8,65 9,55 9,16 4,40 9487 2,15 4,47 6,48 8,65 9,54 9,15 4,45 9615 2,14 4,45 6,47 8,64 9,53 9,13

4,50 9743 2,14 4,4 6,46 8,64 9,52 9,12 4,55 9872 2,13 4,4 6,45 8,64 9,51 9,1 4,60 10001 2,13 4,42 6,44 8,64 9,50 9,10 4,65 10131 2,13 4,41 6,43 8,63 9,49 9,09 4,70 10262 2,12 4,40 6,42 8,63 9,47 9,08

4,75 10394 2,12 4,39 6,41 8,62 9,46 9,07 4,80 10526 2,12 4,38 6,40 8,62 9,45 9,06 4,85 10659 2,12 4,37 6,39 8,61 9,44 9,05 4,90 10793 2,11 4,36 6,38 8,61 9,42 9,04 4,95 10927 2,11 4,35 6,37 8,60 9,41 9,03

Page 72: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

5 Stability Book and Validation of TUHH-CAD-Model Page 64

JOS. L. Meyer

Papenburg EMS

Building No. 590

-CROSS CURVES OF STABILITY –

( KN – VALUES )

SMOOTH WATER

DRAFT BK

DISPL. SEA-W.

INCLINATION (DEGREES)

(M) (T) 10 20 30 45 60 75

5,00 11063 2,11 4,34 6,36 8,59 9,40 9,02 5,05 11198 2,11 4,33 6,35 8,59 9,38 9,00 4,10 11335 2,11 4,32 6,34 8,58 9,37 8,99 5,15 11472 2,11 4,31 6,33 8,57 9,35 8,98 5,20 11610 2,11 4,30 6,32 8,56 9,34 8,97

5,25 11749 2,11 4,29 6,31 8,55 9,32 8,96 5,30 11888 2,11 4,28 6,30 8,54 9,31 8,95 5,35 12028 2,11 4,27 6,29 8,53 9,29 8,93 5,40 12169 2,11 4,27 6,28 8,52 9,27 8,92 5,45 12311 2,11 4,26 6,27 8,51 9,26 8,91

5,50 12455 2,11 4,25 6,26 8,50 9,24 8,90 5,55 12599 2,11 4,24 6,26 8,49 9,22 8,89 5,60 12744 2,11 4,23 6,25 8,48 9,21 8,87 5,65 12889 2,11 4,23 6,24 8,47 9,19 8,86 5,70 13035 2,11 4,22 6,23 8,46 9,17 8,85

5,75 13182 2,10 4,21 6,22 8,44 9,16 8,83 5,80 13330 2,10 4,20 6,21 8,43 9,14 8,82 5,85 13478 2,10 4,20 6,21 8,42 9,12 8,81 5,90 13627 2,10 4,19 6,20 8,40 9,10 8,80 5,95 13776 2,10 4,18 6,19 8,39 9,09 8,78

6,00 13926 2,10 4,17 6,18 8,38 9,07 8,77 6,05 14077 2,10 4,16 6,17 8,36 9,05 8,76 6,10 14229 2,10 4,16 6,16 8,35 9,03 8,74 6,15 14381 2,10 4,15 6,16 8,33 9,01 8,73 6,20 14534 2,10 4,14 6,15 8,32 9,00 8,72

6,25 14688 2,10 4,14 6,14 8,30 8,98 8,70 6,30 14842 2,10 4,13 6,13 8,29 8,96 8,69 6,35 14997 2,10 4,13 6,12 8,27 8,94 8,68 6,40 15153 2,10 4,12 6,11 8,26 8,92 8,66

Figure 5.3: Cross Curves of Stability, Stability Book

Page 73: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

5 Stability Book and Validation of TUHH-CAD-Model Page 65

5.5 Cross Curves of Stability of TUHH-CAD-Model

Following the results of the cross curves of stability calculated with the TUHH-CAD-Model.

+---------------------------+---------------------- -----+---------------+ |Yard number: |Ship name: |Date: | |590 |Estonia | | +---------------------------+---------------------- -----+---------------+ +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | Trim : 0.000 m (positive forward) | | Density Sea Water : 1.025 t/m3 | | Shell plating factor : 1.007 m | +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | STABILITY CROSS TABLES (FIXED TR IM) | +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ |T AP | Dis.SW |Kn 5 |Kn 10 |Kn 20 |Kn 30 |Kn 45 |Kn 60 |Kn 75 |T FP | |Metre | Ton |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre | +------+--------+------+------+------+------+------ +------+------+------+ | 3.500| 7252.8| 1.166| 2.338| 4.705| 6.669| 8.656 | 9.657| 9.306| 3.500| | 3.550| 7373.6| 1.157| 2.323| 4.688| 6.657| 8.655 | 9.654| 9.297| 3.550| | 3.600| 7494.8| 1.149| 2.307| 4.670| 6.644| 8.654 | 9.651| 9.288| 3.600| | 3.650| 7616.3| 1.141| 2.293| 4.654| 6.632| 8.653 | 9.647| 9.279| 3.650| | 3.700| 7738.1| 1.133| 2.279| 4.637| 6.620| 8.652 | 9.642| 9.270| 3.700| | 3.750| 7860.3| 1.126| 2.266| 4.622| 6.608| 8.652 | 9.637| 9.261| 3.750| | 3.800| 7982.9| 1.119| 2.253| 4.606| 6.596| 8.651 | 9.632| 9.252| 3.800| | 3.850| 8105.8| 1.112| 2.241| 4.591| 6.584| 8.650 | 9.626| 9.242| 3.850| | 3.900| 8229.2| 1.106| 2.229| 4.577| 6.572| 8.649 | 9.619| 9.233| 3.900| | 3.950| 8352.9| 1.100| 2.218| 4.563| 6.560| 8.648 | 9.612| 9.223| 3.950| | 4.000| 8477.1| 1.094| 2.208| 4.549| 6.549| 8.648 | 9.605| 9.213| 4.000| | 4.050| 8601.6| 1.088| 2.198| 4.536| 6.538| 8.647 | 9.597| 9.204| 4.050| | 4.100| 8726.5| 1.083| 2.189| 4.523| 6.526| 8.647 | 9.589| 9.194| 4.100| | 4.150| 8851.8| 1.078| 2.180| 4.510| 6.515| 8.646 | 9.580| 9.183| 4.150| | 4.200| 8977.6| 1.073| 2.172| 4.498| 6.504| 8.646 | 9.571| 9.173| 4.200| | 4.250| 9103.8| 1.068| 2.164| 4.486| 6.493| 8.645 | 9.562| 9.163| 4.250| | 4.300| 9230.4| 1.064| 2.157| 4.474| 6.482| 8.645 | 9.552| 9.153| 4.300| | 4.350| 9357.5| 1.060| 2.150| 4.462| 6.472| 8.643 | 9.542| 9.142| 4.350| | 4.400| 9485.0| 1.056| 2.144| 4.451| 6.461| 8.641 | 9.532| 9.132| 4.400| | 4.450| 9613.0| 1.052| 2.138| 4.440| 6.450| 8.639 | 9.521| 9.121| 4.450| | 4.500| 9741.5| 1.049| 2.133| 4.429| 6.440| 8.636 | 9.510| 9.110| 4.500| | 4.550| 9870.4| 1.046| 2.128| 4.419| 6.430| 8.632 | 9.499| 9.100| 4.550| | 4.600| 9999.9| 1.043| 2.124| 4.408| 6.419| 8.628 | 9.487| 9.089| 4.600| | 4.650| 10129.9| 1.040| 2.120| 4.398| 6.409| 8.624 | 9.475| 9.078| 4.650| | 4.700| 10260.4| 1.038| 2.117| 4.388| 6.399| 8.619 | 9.463| 9.067| 4.700| | 4.750| 10391.4| 1.036| 2.114| 4.378| 6.389| 8.613 | 9.451| 9.056| 4.750| | 4.800| 10523.0| 1.034| 2.112| 4.369| 6.379| 8.608 | 9.438| 9.044| 4.800| | 4.850| 10655.3| 1.032| 2.110| 4.359| 6.369| 8.601 | 9.425| 9.033| 4.850| | 4.900| 10788.1| 1.031| 2.108| 4.350| 6.360| 8.595 | 9.411| 9.022| 4.900| | 4.950| 10921.6| 1.030| 2.106| 4.340| 6.350| 8.588 | 9.397| 9.010| 4.950| | 5.000| 11055.7| 1.029| 2.105| 4.331| 6.340| 8.580 | 9.383| 8.999| 5.000| | 5.050| 11190.6| 1.029| 2.104| 4.322| 6.331| 8.572 | 9.369| 8.987| 5.050| | 5.100| 11326.1| 1.028| 2.103| 4.314| 6.321| 8.564 | 9.354| 8.975| 5.100| | 5.150| 11462.4| 1.028| 2.102| 4.305| 6.312| 8.555 | 9.339| 8.963| 5.150| | 5.200| 11599.5| 1.028| 2.101| 4.296| 6.302| 8.546 | 9.324| 8.951| 5.200| | 5.250| 11737.3| 1.029| 2.101| 4.288| 6.293| 8.537 | 9.308| 8.939| 5.250| | 5.300| 11876.0| 1.029| 2.100| 4.279| 6.284| 8.527 | 9.292| 8.927| 5.300| | 5.350| 12015.5| 1.030| 2.100| 4.271| 6.275| 8.517 | 9.276| 8.915| 5.350| | 5.400| 12155.8| 1.031| 2.100| 4.263| 6.266| 8.507 | 9.260| 8.903| 5.400| | 5.450| 12297.0| 1.032| 2.101| 4.255| 6.257| 8.496 | 9.243| 8.890| 5.450| | 5.500| 12439.1| 1.033| 2.101| 4.247| 6.248| 8.485 | 9.226| 8.878| 5.500| | 5.550| 12582.1| 1.035| 2.101| 4.239| 6.239| 8.474 | 9.209| 8.865| 5.550| | 5.600| 12726.0| 1.036| 2.101| 4.232| 6.230| 8.462 | 9.192| 8.852| 5.600| | 5.650| 12870.9| 1.038| 2.102| 4.224| 6.221| 8.450 | 9.174| 8.840| 5.650| | 5.700| 13016.7| 1.039| 2.102| 4.217| 6.212| 8.438 | 9.157| 8.827| 5.700| | 5.750| 13163.4| 1.041| 2.102| 4.210| 6.204| 8.425 | 9.139| 8.814| 5.750| | 5.800| 13311.0| 1.042| 2.102| 4.203| 6.195| 8.413 | 9.121| 8.801| 5.800| | 5.850| 13459.4| 1.044| 2.103| 4.197| 6.186| 8.399 | 9.103| 8.787| 5.850| | 5.900| 13608.7| 1.046| 2.103| 4.190| 6.178| 8.386 | 9.085| 8.774| 5.900| | 5.950| 13758.8| 1.047| 2.103| 4.184| 6.170| 8.372 | 9.067| 8.760| 5.950| | 6.000| 13909.6| 1.049| 2.104| 4.178| 6.162| 8.358 | 9.049| 8.747| 6.000| | 6.050| 14061.2| 1.050| 2.104| 4.172| 6.155| 8.344 | 9.030| 8.733| 6.050| | 6.100| 14213.5| 1.052| 2.104| 4.166| 6.147| 8.330 | 9.012| 8.719| 6.100| | 6.150| 14366.4| 1.054| 2.104| 4.160| 6.140| 8.315 | 8.993| 8.705| 6.150| | 6.200| 14519.9| 1.055| 2.104| 4.155| 6.133| 8.300 | 8.975| 8.691| 6.200| | 6.250| 14674.1| 1.057| 2.104| 4.149| 6.126| 8.285 | 8.956| 8.677| 6.250| | 6.300| 14828.9| 1.058| 2.104| 4.144| 6.120| 8.269 | 8.938| 8.663| 6.300| | 6.350| 14984.4| 1.060| 2.104| 4.139| 6.113| 8.254 | 8.919| 8.648| 6.350| | 6.400| 15140.6| 1.061| 2.104| 4.134| 6.107| 8.238 | 8.900| 8.634| 6.400| +------+--------+------+------+------+------+------ +------+------+------+

Figure 5.4: Cross Curves of Stability, TUHH-CAD-Model

Page 74: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

5 Stability Book and Validation of TUHH-CAD-Model Page 66

5.6 Validation

The difference between the hydrostatic calculations of the engineering company

Maierform GmbH and the hydrostatic TUHH-CAD-Model is negligible marginal. The

difference is mostly in the dimension of one-tenth of a percent, but never more than one

percent. This accuracy is absolutely sufficient and the TUHH-CAD-Model full usable.

Figure 5.5 shows a screenshot of MV Estonia in Light Ship Weight floating condition

calculated with the TUHH-CAD-Model.

Figure 5.5: Screen Shot of Light Ship Condition of MV Estonia, TUHH-CAD-Model

Note, that the superstructure of MV Estonia is assumed as watertight – in the beginning

of this investigation. This has the consequence, that the superstructure gives a supporting

buoyancy. All calculations carried out in the scenarios in Chapter 7 consequently express

the lowest possible heeling angle – in other words the scenarios are calculated in a

conservative way. The lever arm in Figure 5.7 shows this distinctively.

Page 75: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

5 Stability Book and Validation of TUHH-CAD-Model Page 67

Figure 5.6: Lever Arm of Light Ship Weight Condition of MV Estonia, to 60°

Figure 5.7: Lever Arm of Light Ship Weight Condition of MV Estonia, to 90°

Page 76: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

5 Stability Book and Validation of TUHH-CAD-Model Page 68

On January 11th, 1991 the MV Estonia - to that time ship’s name was MV Wasa King - an

inclining experiment was carried out by the engineering company ‘Ship Consulting Ltd.

OY’ Turku, Finland. They delivered on January 21st, 1991 the last official stability book,

which was still in force for the MV Estonia. To Light Ship Condition, in the stability

book call ‘Load Case 1’, the corresponding the values are given in Figure 5.8

Parameter Value Dimension

Displacement 9733 t

Mean draught 4.47 m

Trim 2.28 m

Draught aft 5.41 m

Draught forward 3.13 m

KM 12.00 m

KG 11.56 m

GM 0.44 m

MM’ 0.00 m

GM’ 0.44 m

Figure 5.8: Load Case 1 - Light Ship Condition of MV Estonia, Stability Book

TUHH recalculated ‘Load Case 1’ – Light Ship Condition with a displacement of 9733t.

The results are given in Figure 5.9.

Page 77: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

5 Stability Book and Validation of TUHH-CAD-Model Page 69

+---------------------------+---------------------- -----+---------------+

|Yard number: |Ship name: |Date: | |590 |Estonia | | +---------------------------+---------------------- -----+---------------+ +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | Trim : -2.280 m (positive forward) | | Heel : 0.000 Deg. (positive starboard) | | Density sea water : 1.025 t/m3 | | Keel thickness : 0.000 m | | Shell plating factor : 1.007 m | | Light ship weight : 9733.000 t | +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | HYDROSTATIC TABLES | +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | |T AP | Dis.SW | Dis.FW | LCB | TCB | VCB | LCF | KM.T |T FP | |Metre | Ton | Ton |m.f.AP |m.f.CL |m.a.BL |m .f.AP |m.a.BL |Metre | +------+--------+--------+-------+-------+-------+- ------+-------+------+ | 5.380| 9424.2| 9194.3| 60.262|-4.E-14| 2.375| 59.469| 12.593| 3.100| | 5.385| 9437.6| 9207.5| 60.261|-4.E-14| 2.378| 59.445| 12.591| 3.105| | 5.390| 9451.1| 9220.6| 60.260|-4.E-14| 2.381| 59.421| 12.590| 3.110| | 5.395| 9464.6| 9233.8| 60.259|-4.E-14| 2.384| 59.397| 12.588| 3.115| | 5.400| 9478.1| 9246.9| 60.258|-4.E-14| 2.386| 59.373| 12.586| 3.120| | 5.405| 9491.6| 9260.1| 60.257|-4.E-14| 2.389| 59.348| 12.585| 3.125| | 5.410| 9505.1| 9273.3| 60.256|-4.E-14| 2.392| 59.324| 12.583| 3.130| | 5.415| 9518.6| 9286.5| 60.254|-4.E-14| 2.395| 59.300| 12.582| 3.135| | 5.420| 9532.2| 9299.7| 60.253|-4.E-14| 2.398| 59.275| 12.581| 3.140| | 5.425| 9545.7| 9312.9| 60.252|-4.E-14| 2.401| 59.251| 12.579| 3.145| | 5.430| 9559.2| 9326.1| 60.251|-3.E-14| 2.404| 59.226| 12.578| 3.150| | 5.435| 9572.8| 9339.3| 60.249|-3.E-14| 2.407| 59.202| 12.577| 3.155| | 5.440| 9586.4| 9352.5| 60.248|-3.E-14| 2.410| 59.177| 12.576| 3.160| +------+--------+--------+-------+-------+-------+- ------+-------+------+

Figure 5.9: Load Case 1 - Light Ship Condition of MV Estonia, TUHH recalculation 1

Obviously the values do not fit: There is a difference of 200t displacement, the KM value

is too large by nearly 0.6m. But is this calculation carried out on even keel, like in Figure

5.10 presented, it becomes clear, that the calculations in the stability book were based on

values on even keel. The consequence is, that MV Estonia is stiffer in the water than the

stability book meant it to be. This matter is regarded in TUHH calculations.

+---------------------------+---------------------- -----+---------------+ |Yard number: |Ship name: |Date: | |590 |Estonia | | +---------------------------+---------------------- -----+---------------+ +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | Trim : 0.000 m (positive forward) | | Heel : 0.000 Deg. (positive starboard) | | Density sea water : 1.025 t/m3 | | Keel thickness : 0.000 m | | Shell plating factor : 1.007 m | | Light ship weight : 9733.000 t | +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | HYDROSTATIC TABLES | +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | |T AP | Dis.SW |Deadw.SW| LCB | TCB | VCB | LCF | KM.T |T FP | |Metre | Ton | Ton |m.f.AP |m.f.CL |m.a.BL |m .f.AP |m.a.BL |Metre | +------+--------+--------+-------+-------+-------+- ------+-------+------+ | 4.450| 9677.2| -55.8| 65.474|8.2E-13| 2.384| 63.743| 11.999| 4.450| | 4.460| 9702.9| -30.1| 65.469|8.9E-13| 2.390| 63.723| 11.992| 4.460| | 4.470| 9728.6| -4.4| 65.465|9.6E-13| 2.395| 63.703| 11.984| 4.470| | 4.480| 9754.3| 21.3| 65.460|9.7E-13| 2.401| 63.684| 11.976| 4.480| | 4.490| 9780.1| 47.1| 65.455|1.0E-12| 2.406| 63.664| 11.968| 4.490| | 4.500| 9805.9| 72.9| 65.451|1.1E-12| 2.412| 63.644| 11.960| 4.500| +------+--------+--------+-------+-------+-------+- ------+-------+------+

Figure 5.10: Load Case 1 - Light Ship Condition of MV Estonia, TUHH recalculation 2

Page 78: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

6 Condition of MV Estonia on Sea Bottom Page 70

6 Condition of MV Estonia on Sea Bottom

6.1 General

The request of pre-proposals for this research study says in chapter five:

“Diving on and ROV-surveying of the MV Estonia’s wreck is not permitted, due to

Swedish law and an agreement between Estonia, Finland and Sweden to consider the

location of the wreck as a final place of rest.”

So the HSVA/ TUHH consortium has no other opportunity, than falling back upon the

video-tapes, which were published by the authorities in connection to the investigation

carried out by JAIC to investigate the condition of MV Estonia on sea bottom.

According to the report of the Diving Company [ROCK] MV Estonia laid in 1994 on her

Starboard-Side in an angle of heel of about 120° on the seabed. The bow of the vessel is

heading to the East, exactly 95°/ 97° true. Due to the clay on the seabed and the position

of the vessel it is not possible to have a look on the Starboard-Side. So there is no

visibility to check by ocular inspection for instance of the condition of the windows and

the over all damage-situation.

6.2 Position of Stabilizer Fins

MV Estonia had two stabilizer fins installed, one on each side of the ship in the area of

frame e to r. According to the testimonies of crew members, the stabilizer fins were

deployed at about 00:30h Estonian time, half an hour before the first heavy heel occurred.

On the video-tape of ROV-inspection of October 3rd, 1994 at 02:03h of in screen clock

the Port-Side stabilizer fin can be seen. The stabilizer is proceeded back in its drawn-in

position in the ship’s hull. There are no obvious damages to be noticed. Unclear is,

whether the stabilizer fin was drawn-in by the crew or MV Estonia laying on the seabed

and loosing hydraulic system pressure. In this case the stabilizer fin would swing back in

its drawn-in position by following the gravity, because the bow of the vessel lays deeper

on the sea ground than the stern and the hinge is installed sternwards.

Page 79: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

6 Condition of MV Estonia on Sea Bottom Page 71

6.3 Position of Rudder

[ROCK] says “Both rudders are clear and do have an angle of 35 degrees to starboard”.

The rudder angle is kept identically to the same rudder angle by a connecting bar in the

steering gear room. The rudders have on the video-tape no obvious damages and the

angle of about 35° can be confirmed on video-tape of ROV-inspection of October 2nd,

1994 at 17:40h of the in screen clock. In this position the rudders follow the gravity in

case of a loosing system pressure and it can not definitely deduced that this position of

the rudder is the last position controlled by the bridge.

6.4 Position of Propeller Pitch

MV Estonia had two controllable pitch propellers. On video-tape of ROV-inspection on

October 2nd, 1994 at 17:37h to 17:47h and 18:27h of the in screen clock, a propeller can

be seen. It is not possible to identify the pitch angle. By this it is not possible to deduce

which propulsion was controlled by the bridge finally.

The propellers are self-evidently undamaged.

6.5 Situation on Main Car Deck

[ROCK] says “A ROV survey was conducted in the car deck covering until a distance of

20 meters inside the wreck. It was observed that cargo had fallen to the lower side and

although trucks have not been seen it can be assumed that they have also fallen to the

lower side of the car deck.”

Consequently a cargo shift has taken place.

Page 80: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

7 Loadcase of the Final Voyage Page 72

7 Loadcase of the Final Voyage

7.1 General

Today, it is very difficult to reconstruct the load case of the final voyage of MV Estonia.

Some components can be reconstructed very exactly, like the vehicles on the Main Car

Deck, but about the tank filling of fuel oil, lubricants, fresh or ballast water there are very

few information available.

The central document concerning tank filling is based on estimation of the shipping

company. It can be fond in the Supplementum, titled ‘Tank Filling’.

7.2 Light Ship Weight

The Light Ship Weight of MV Estonia was newly determined in an inclining experiment

on January 11th, 1991. According to this and the first inclining experiment at the ship’s

delivery to Viking Line AB, there is a difference in mass of 313t. This difference was

explained with the additional ducktail and conversion of cabins in the upper decks, by the

company “Ship Consulting Ltd. OY”, Finland, which carried out the inclining

experiment. The Light Ship Weight of MV Estonia was determined to 9733t.

7.3 Ballast

The Chief Engineer of MV Viking Sally, the former ship’s name of MV Estonia was

integrated in the building process in 1979/ 1980 of the ship and worked till 1991 on her.

He stated, that Tank 14, the Port-Side heeling ballast water tank, had to be filled with a

amount of about 50t of water to bring the vessel in completely upright position. The

hydrostatic calculations showed, that the vessel in for example the Light Ship Condition

trims to stern. Summarizing, one can say it seems to be very reasonable, that Tank 14,

heeling ballast water tank on the Port-Side, and Tank 1, the fore peak ballast water tank

were both completely filled. This goes in line with the above mentioned estimations of

the shipping company, and with the testimonies of several crew members. The above

mentioned ballast water tank filling is used in the calculations of TUHH.

Page 81: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

7 Loadcase of the Final Voyage Page 73

7.4 Bunker and Stores

Analogue to the ballast tank fillings, the bunker fillings were handled. A detailed list of the

bunker is given in Figure 7.2. Store components were estimated to 100t and called

‘Miscellaneous’ in Figure 7.2. Store components summarizes dishes, goods in shops, and

item necessary to run the hotel on board and so on.

7.5 Payload

Various payload components have been transported on MV Estonia in the night of her

sinking. First of all passengers and crew members – about 1000 people travelled with the

ship in the night on question. It is not possible to indicate the exact weight of these

persons, so an estimation is necessary. Including their luggage one person has an average

mass of about 0.1t. This results in about 100t mass of persons and luggage.

The largest group in payload components concerning mass were the vehicles transported

with the ship. The Main Car Deck, Deck 2, provides corresponding to the General

Arrangement Plan 850lanemeters designed in width for trucks and trailers. The Hoistable

Deck, Deck 3, was – according to the testimonies of the witnesses – not in use on the last

voyage. So all vehicles were placed on the Main Car Deck. The vehicles on Main Car

Deck were identified by license number.

The official, total passenger list provided by SPF, the “Cargo Manifest” and the “Freight

Manifest” together were listing 76 vehicles on the Main-Car-Deck. The masses and

required lanemeters of the trailer and trucks were exactly summed up. The masses and

required lanemeters of minibuses are estimated with 3t and 6lanemeters, of busses with

15t and 12lanemeters, and of cars with 1.5t and 6lanemeters.

In total 841lanemeters were occupied with a total mass of about 1113t. Used in the

calculation are 1100t, to indicate the estimation. The vehicle compilation is shown below.

Counted to payload components is as well the water of the swimming pool on Deck 0

with a mass of 25t.

All other payload components are summarized in the item “Miscellaneous”, to about

100t.

The total of payload components add 1325t.

Page 82: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

7 Loadcase of the Final Voyage Page 74

Ser. No. Type Maker Reg. No mass LM Type of Cargo

1 Car VOLVO 125 SAF 1,5 5 ~ 2 Minibus Mazda KSX 647 3 6 ~

3 Car Porsche OER 309 1,5 5 ~ 4 Truck + Trailer DAF BB-JJ-55 18 16 Blankets

5 Truck + Trailer VOLVO VH-43-FG 34 16 Peatm.+ Fish

6 Truck + Trailer VOLVO NXF 876 14 18 Empty

7 Car Subaru XT-60711 1,5 5 ~ 8 Car Opal CSF 709 1,5 5 ~

9 Car Saab NWD 465 1,5 5 ~ 10 Lorry Scania AG 565 25 18 ~

11 Car Ford Sierra LHY 240 1,5 5 ~ 12 Car Pontiac CKA 102 1,5 5 ~

13 Car VOLVO DZL 988 1,5 5 ~ 14 Truck + Trailer VOLVO HFT 939 23 19 Furniture

15 Car Mercedes Waf-BJ 748 1,5 5 ~

16 Car Mitsubishi 703 AFU 1,5 5 ~

17 Car Lada 493 AFU 1,5 5 ~ 18 Lorry Scania AL 65 27 20 Textiles

19 Minibus Mercedes PD 3499 3 6 ~

20 Bus VOLVO 912 ABO 15 12 ~

21 Truck + Trailer Scania DDG 182 16 16 Generals

22 Minibus Mercedes LDC 100 3 6 ~

23 Car Moskvitch 743 HEV 1,5 5 ~

24 Bus VOLVO XJB 943 15 12 ~

25 Lorry VOLVO GVD 695 25 18 ~

26 Minibus Ford MRP 794 3 6 ~

27 Car VOLVO NHC 180 1,5 5 ~

28 Truck + Trailer Scania EPG 355 50 24 Timber

29 Car VOLVO TPH 846 ? 1,5 5 ~

30 Truck + Trailer VOLVO OER 669 47 24 Flooring

31 Lorry VOLVO 250 AUN 7 9 Empty

32 Minibus VW ASR 263 3 6 ~

33 Truck + Trailer VOLVO MOV 996 55 24 Lumber

34 Truck + Trailer Scania 801 ABV 21 16 Generals

35 Lorry VOLVO 125 TAU 12 10 Generals

36 Truck + Trailer VOLVO GJO 121 32 18 Generals

37 Car VOLVO PUH 662 1,5 5 ~

38 Car VW PVY 215 ? 1,5 5 ~

39 Truck + Trailer VOLVO CSJ 052 28 21 Textiles

40 Car Dodge 289 AFR 1,5 5 ~

41 Truck + Trailer Scania NRY 806 22 18 ???

Page 83: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

7 Loadcase of the Final Voyage Page 75

Ser. No. Type Maker Reg. No mass LM Type of Cargo

42 Truck + Trailer Scania AKC 153 54 24 Boards

43 Car VOLVO CWD 853 1,5 5 ~

44 Car Ford Sierra ERS 519 1,5 5 ~

45 Car VOLVO EXE 276 1,5 5 ~

46 Car Mercedes SLS 151 1,5 5 ~

47 Minibus Iveco CVK 445 3 6 ~

48 Minibus VW 679 AAG 3 6 ~

49 Lorry VOLVO 020 GAD 9 9 Loaded

50 Truck + Trailer DAF 688 GAD 36 18 Timber

51 Truck + Trailer VOLVO 533 EEV 28 15 Generals

52 Lorry Scania 183 RAJ 10 10 Textiles

53 Lorry VOLVO 417 EEE 11 10 Generals

54 Minibus Toyota ODT 471 3 6 ~

55 Truck + Trailer VOLVO NLT 251 29 15 Fish Frozen

56 Truck + Trailer Scania AA 65 27 20 Textiles

57 Car VOLVO 110 AET 1,5 5 ~

58 Car Saab FAU 388 1,5 5 ~

59 Minibus VW 979 AFN 3 6 ~

60 Car Mercedes NTX 278 1,5 5 ~

61 Trailer ~ CXW 384 29 14 Polyethylene

62 Trailer ~ GXW 803 16 13 Generals

63 Trailer ~ GCU 777 30 14 Furniture

64 Trailer ~ PUE 652 19 14 Wooden Mat.

65 Truck + Trailer ~ GWD 695 50 24 Wood

66 Trailer ~ PGU 212 35 13 Chipboards

67 Trailer ~ 398 BB 10 13 Generals

68 Trailer ~ PZS 089 31 13 Wood

69 Trailer ~ PMG 172 28 13 Furniture

70 Lorry ~ 015 SAA 9 8 Textiles

71 Trailer ~ LFB 202 34 13 Star Redboard

72 Trailer ~ EOB 968 17 13 Generals

73 Truck + Trailer ~ AS 7312 18 16 Generals

74 Lorry ~ AEC 769 6 10 Empty

75 Lorry ~ 890 SAC 9 10 Textiles

76 Truck + Trailer ~ 116 AFT 19 16 Generals

Figure 7.1: Vehicles on Main Car Deck

Page 84: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

7 Loadcase of the Final Voyage Page 76

7.6 Summery – Load Case Compilation

The following table gives an overview of the load case compilation used for the TUHH

calculations of the last voyage of MV Estonia, right column, and compares this to the

compilation of the JAIC Final Report, middle column.

Type JAIC TUHH

Tank 10 – HFO (IFO 180) 105t

Tank 11 – HFO (IFO 180) 105t

Daytank 36 – HFO (IFO 180) 25t

Settling Tank 38 – HFO (IFO 180)

250t

20t

Tank 18 - MDO 26t

Tank 41 - MDO 35t

8t

Tank 20 - Gas oil 10t 10t

Tank 1 – Ballast Water 173t

Tank 14 – Ballast Water 360t

186t

Fresh Water 300t ***

Tank 4A – Fresh Water 55t

Tank 4B – Fresh Water 74t

Tank 5 – Fresh Water 144t

Tank 56 – Fresh Water ***

Tank 29 – Fresh Cool Water ***

Tank 17 – Fresh Water Circulation

***

***

Mass of Vehicle on Car Deck 1100t 1100t

Crew and Passenger, incl. Luggage 100t 100t

Miscellaneous liquids 50t 50t (TK19)

Pool *** 25t

Miscellaneous 95t 100t

Sum Deadweight 2300t 2306t

Light Ship Weight 9750t 9733t

Total Sum 12050t 12039t

Figure 7.2: Load Case Compilation and Comparison to JAIC

Page 85: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 77

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios

8.1 General

The hydrostatic calculations, carried out in this report, shell give an overview of the

influence the water has got in different compartments due to the list. But this chapter

does not answer the question what caused the water ingress and what circumstance the

water entered MV Estonia.

8.2 Overview and Approach

The point of view to approach the hydrostatic calculations aiming to pre-select to a

probable sinking scenario or probable sinking scenarios of MV Estonia is to have close

look at the testimonies. Several witnesses stated that they saw water on the Main Car

Deck after the vessel had heeled heavily to the Starboard side. So the first step is to take

the Main Car Deck under consideration in scenario No.1. For the hydrostatic calculation

the Main Car Deck is assumed to be watertight to all inner doors. This means water is not

able to flow in lower decks. The Main Car Deck is flooded in the calculation in steps

firstly in small amounts of water and further on the steps became wider and the amount

becomes more largely. The calculations concerning the floating condition carried out

include the Geometry of the Main Car Deck, the developing free surfaces and all fluid

shifting moments and coupling terms.

The scenarios No. 2 to No. 5 are combining several selected amounts of water on the

Main Car Deck including the above mentioned parameters with a cargo-shift of the

vehicles of the Main Car Deck. For the hydrostatic calculations the movement of the

vehicles is carried out in 0.2 metre steps with a whole movement range of 4 metres to the

Starboard side. The range of cargo shift of 4m was selected, knowing that this range is

most likely to large. But in this scenarios the influence of a cargo shift shall be

investigated and the consequences due to list. There are own tasks, investigating cargo

shift matters in detail.

Page 86: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 78

The scenarios No. 6 to No. 15 are as well combinations. In these cases of water on the

Main Car Deck and water lower compartments. The steps of the amount of water filled in

the compartments under consideration are comparably small, beginning with 5t. Further

on the steps are widened. Depending on the size of the compartments, the calculated

range of the mass of water in this compartments is larger chosen. Example for this are the

Main Engine Room and the Auxiliary Engine Room: they are calculated up to 250t water

in it for various amounts of water on the Main Car Deck.

Scenario 16 is a combination of water on Main Car Deck and water in six lower

compartments. Each compartment was investigated separately in former scenarios in

combination with water on the Main Car Deck. and water in this compartment.

This scenario was arranged to show basically the coaction of water on the Main Car Deck

on the one hand and on the other hand water several other compartments. By this, the

total area of free surfaces is comparably large and the influence of the free surfaces

decreases the stability of the vessel. Main intention is to show the range of steady list,

which is possible to achieve.

Scenario 17 follows consequently scenario 16. The whole setting of scenario 16 is

repeated, but added by cargo shift of the vehicles on the Main Car Deck. And again the

range is extended to 4m shift of TCG of the vehicles. This is carried out show the

influence of the coaction of large free surfaces on several decks and a cargo shift of the

vehicles on Main Car Deck. This TCG shift is carried out in the same way, like it is done

in scenarios No. 2 to scenario No. 5.

To mention it again: the TCG shift of the vehicles on the Main Car Deck of 4m is most

likely to large and it was placed here to show a wide range. Much more exact calculations

due to cargo shift in general will be carried out in later tasks.

Finally scenario 18 represents – from the hydrostatic point of view – a likely scenario: a

certain amount of water on the Main Car Deck , various amounts of water on Deck 0 and

Deck 1, both generating large free surfaces. Additionally this is by sliding vehicles on the

Main Car Deck.

Page 87: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 79

8.3 Scenario 1

In scenario No.1 the investigation is focused on the heeling behaviour with water on

Main Car Deck, Deck 4.

A pre-heel of MV Estonia assumed to 1.22° to Starboard-Side – a heel of 1° to 3° is

mentioned in several testimonies. The calculation carried out containing water on Main

Car Deck in 50t steps up to 2000t, in 100t steps to 3000t, 250t steps to 10000t and up to

16000t in 1000t steps.

A separate calculation were carried out for 16105t, a 100% filled Main Car Deck.

In this calculations the doors of Main Car Deck are assumed to be closed and watertight.

Figure 8.1: Scenario 1 – Compartment under Consideration

Water on Main Car Deck and Heeling-Angle

-15,00-10,00-5,000,005,00

10,0015,0020,0025,0030,0035,0040,0045,0050,0055,0060,00

0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000 10500 12000 13500 15000 16500

Mass of Water in t

List

of V

esse

l in

Deg

Figure 8.2: Water on Main Car Deck, full Range, Mass over List

Page 88: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 80

Water on Main Car Deck and Heeling-Angle

0,00

5,00

10,00

15,00

20,00

25,00

30,00

35,00

40,00

45,00

50,00

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000

Mass of Water in t

List

of V

esse

l in

Deg

Figure 8.3: Water on Main Car Deck, Range till 3000t, Mass over List

The following two figures show the behaviour of water on Main Car Deck over

dh/dPhiequi. dh/dPhiequi is the derivative of the lever arm at the heeling angle phi in an

equilibrium floating condition. The larger the distance of the centre of gravity to the meta

centre, the more energy is necessary to heel the vessel out of is equilibrium floating

condition. With other words the vessel is stiffer in its equilibrium floating condition the

larger the distance of these two points.

Figure 8.3 shows the whole range of the investigated task , and Figure 8.4 shows the

range to 3000t water on the Main Car Deck more detailed.

Page 89: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 81

Water on Main Car Deck dh/dPhi in Equilibrium

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00

4,50

5,00

5,50

6,00

0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000 10500 12000 13500 15000 16500

Mass of Water on Car Deck in t

dh/d

Phi

equi

in m

Figure 8.4: Water on Main Car Deck, full Range, Mass over dh/dPhiequi

Water on Main Car Deck, dh/dPhi in Equilibrium

0,00

0,25

0,50

0,75

1,00

1,25

1,50

1,75

2,00

2,25

2,50

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000

Mass of Water on Car Deck in t

dh/d

Phi

equi

in m

Figure 8.5: Water on Main Car Deck, Range till 3000t, Mass over dh/dphiequi

Page 90: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 82

The calculations in detail:

0t water on Main Car Deck

+---------------------------+---------------------- -----+------------+ |Yard number: |Ship name: |Date: | |590 |Estonia | | +---------------------------+---------------------- -----+------------+ +-------------------------------------------------- ------------------+ | | |Equilibrium Floating Condition of Case: | |FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | |Shell Plating Factor: 1.007 |Density of Sea Wa ter: 1.004 t/m3 | | | |-------------------------------------------------- ------------------| | | |For the determination of the floating condition, t he VCG is | |corrected for all partly filled tanks according to the initial | |free surface moment as stated in the loadcase item tables below. | | | |-------------------------------------------------- ------------------| | | |Equilibrium Floating Condition : | | | |Ships Weight : 12038.97 4 t | |Longit. Centre of Gravity : 63.55 1 m.b.AP | |Transv. Centre of Gravity : -0.02 6 m.f.CL | |Vertic. Centre of Gravity (Solid) : 10.58 4 m.a.BL | |Free Surface Correction of V.C.G. : 0.09 8 m | |Vertic. Centre of Gravity (Corrected) : 10.68 3 m.a.BL | |Draft at A.P (moulded) : 5.66 2 m | |Draft at LBP/2 (moulded) : 5.33 9 m | |Draft at F.P (moulded) : 5.01 6 m | |Trim (pos. fwd) : -0.64 7 m | |Heel (pos. stbd) : 1.21 8 Deg. | |Volume (incl. Shell Plating) : 11955.28 6 m3 | |Longit. Centre of Buoyancy : 63.51 5 m.b.AP | |Transv. Centre of Buoyancy : -0.19 2 m.f.CL | |Vertic. Centre of Buoyancy : 2.89 7 m.a.BL | |Area of Waterline : 2812.72 3 m2 | |Longit. Centre of Waterline : 58.97 7 m.b.AP | |Transv. Centre of Waterline : -0.30 4 m.f.CL | |Metacentric Height : 1.22 9 m | | | |-------------------------------------------------- ------------------| | | |Righting Arm Calculation : | | | |Trim chosen from Equilibrium condition. | | Draft | Trim | Heel | Lever | | | m.a.BL | m | Degree | m | | | | |-------------------------------------------------- ------------------| | 5.342| -0.654| 0.001| -0.026| | | 5.296| -0.549| 5.000| 0.086| | | 5.167| -0.335| 10.000| 0.226| | | 5.093| -0.256| 12.000| 0.291| | | 4.963| -0.148| 15.000| 0.392| | | 4.693| 0.021| 20.000| 0.569| | | 4.354| 0.179| 25.000| 0.745| | | 3.931| 0.322| 30.000| 0.890| | | 3.406| 0.447| 35.000| 0.974| | | 2.782| 0.551| 40.000| 1.021| | | 2.070| 0.649| 45.000| 1.047| | | 1.278| 0.749| 50.000| 1.074| | | 0.405| 0.855| 55.000| 1.134| | | -0.557| 0.962| 60.000| 1.261| | | -2.772| 1.232| 70.000| 1.838| | | -5.094| 1.398| 80.000| 2.335| | | -7.383| 1.534| 89.500| 3.008| | | | |-------------------------------------------------- ------------------| +-------------------------------------------------- ------------------+

Page 91: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 83

50t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12088.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.53 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.57 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.68 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.34 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.99 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.69 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 2.95 | |GM....................: | 1.18 | |Max. KG...............: | 10.97 | +------------------------------+----------+

100t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.51 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.56 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.67 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.33 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.99 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.68 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 4.57 | |GM....................: | 1.27 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.01 | +------------------------------+----------+

150t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12188.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.49 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.55 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.63 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.32 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.01 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.63 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 6.07 | |GM....................: | 1.35 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.06 | +------------------------------+----------+

200t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12238.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.47 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.54 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.59 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.30 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.02 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.57 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 7.49 | |GM....................: | 1.45 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.10 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 92: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 84

250t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12288.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.46 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.53 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.54 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.28 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.03 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.51 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 8.79 | |GM....................: | 1.58 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.15 | +------------------------------+----------+

300t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.03 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.46 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 9.99 | |GM....................: | 1.67 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

350t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12388.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.42 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.45 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.24 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.03 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.42 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.11 | |GM....................: | 1.74 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.24 | +------------------------------+----------+

400t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12438.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.40 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.49 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.40 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.22 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.03 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.37 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 12.19 | |GM....................: | 1.77 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.28 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 93: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 85

450t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12488.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.38 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.48 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.36 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.19 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.02 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.34 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 13.24 | |GM....................: | 1.81 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.33 | +------------------------------+----------+

500t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12538.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.36 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.47 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.31 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.16 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.01 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.30 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 14.26 | |GM....................: | 1.85 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.37 | +------------------------------+----------+

550t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.27 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.13 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.00 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.27 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.25 | |GM....................: | 1.87 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

600t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12638.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.33 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.45 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.22 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.10 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.98 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.23 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 16.21 | |GM....................: | 1.91 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.46 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 94: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 86

650t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12688.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.31 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.44 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.17 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.07 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.97 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.20 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.15 | |GM....................: | 1.93 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.51 | +------------------------------+----------+

700t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12738.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.29 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.43 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.12 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.04 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.95 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.17 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 18.06 | |GM....................: | 1.97 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

750t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12788.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.28 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.42 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.08 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.00 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.93 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.14 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 18.95 | |GM....................: | 1.99 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

800t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.03 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.97 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.91 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.12 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 19.81 | |GM....................: | 2.03 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 95: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 87

850t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12888.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.24 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.40 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.98 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.93 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.89 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.09 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 20.66 | |GM....................: | 2.05 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

900t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12938.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.23 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.39 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.93 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.90 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.87 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.07 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 21.49 | |GM....................: | 2.06 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

950t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12988.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.21 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.00 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.38 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.88 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.86 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.84 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.04 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 22.30 | |GM....................: | 2.09 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

1000t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13038.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.19 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.00 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.37 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.83 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.82 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.81 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.02 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 23.10 | |GM....................: | 2.08 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 96: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 88

1050t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13088.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.18 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.00 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.78 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.78 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.79 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.01 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 23.89 | |GM....................: | 2.12 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

1100t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.00 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.73 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.74 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.76 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.03 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 24.66 | |GM....................: | 2.13 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

1150t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13188.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.15 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.00 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.35 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.68 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.70 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.73 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.05 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 25.41 | |GM....................: | 2.11 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

1200t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13238.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.13 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.00 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.34 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.63 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.66 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.70 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.07 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 26.16 | |GM....................: | 2.12 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 97: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 89

1250t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13288.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.11 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.00 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.33 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.57 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.62 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.66 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.09 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 26.90 | |GM....................: | 2.13 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

1300t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.10 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.00 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.32 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.52 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.57 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.63 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.11 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 27.63 | |GM....................: | 2.14 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

1350t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13388.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.08 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.00 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.31 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.47 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.53 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.59 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.12 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 28.35 | |GM....................: | 2.10 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

1400t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13438.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.07 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.00 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.31 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.41 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.48 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.55 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.14 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 29.07 | |GM....................: | 2.06 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 98: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 90

1450t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13488.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.05 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.30 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.35 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.43 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.51 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.16 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 29.79 | |GM....................: | 2.04 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

1500t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13538.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.04 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.29 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.30 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.38 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.47 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.17 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 30.51 | |GM....................: | 2.03 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

1550t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.02 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.28 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.24 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.33 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.42 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.18 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 31.22 | |GM....................: | 1.97 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

1600t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13638.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.01 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.28 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.17 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.37 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.20 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 31.95 | |GM....................: | 1.93 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 99: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 91

1650t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13688.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.99 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.27 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.11 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.21 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.32 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.21 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 32.67 | |GM....................: | 1.88 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

1700t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13738.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.98 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.26 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.04 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.15 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.26 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.22 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 33.40 | |GM....................: | 1.84 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

1750t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13788.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.97 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.25 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 3.97 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.09 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.20 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.23 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 34.13 | |GM....................: | 1.82 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

1800t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.95 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.25 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 3.90 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.02 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.14 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.24 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 34.85 | |GM....................: | 1.79 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 100: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 92

1850t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13888.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.94 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.24 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 3.83 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 3.96 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.08 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.25 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 35.57 | |GM....................: | 1.76 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

1900t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13938.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.92 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.23 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 3.76 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 3.89 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.01 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.26 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 36.30 | |GM....................: | 1.70 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

1950t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13988.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.91 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.23 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 3.68 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 3.81 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 3.95 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.27 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 37.03 | |GM....................: | 1.66 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

2000t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |14038.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.90 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.22 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 3.60 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 3.74 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 3.87 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.27 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 37.78 | |GM....................: | 1.61 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 101: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 93

2100t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |14138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.87 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.21 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 3.43 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 3.57 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 3.72 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.29 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 39.30 | |GM....................: | 1.52 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

2200t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |14238.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.84 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.19 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 3.25 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 3.40 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 3.55 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.30 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 40.82 | |GM....................: | 1.50 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

2300t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |14338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.82 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.18 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 3.08 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 3.23 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 3.38 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.31 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 42.28 | |GM....................: | 1.52 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

2400t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |14438.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.79 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.17 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.92 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 3.07 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 3.23 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.31 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 43.60 | |GM....................: | 1.63 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 102: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 94

2500t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |14538.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.77 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.16 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.78 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.93 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 3.09 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.31 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 44.76 | |GM....................: | 1.75 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

2600t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |14638.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.74 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.03 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.15 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.66 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.81 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.97 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.31 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 45.76 | |GM....................: | 1.86 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

2700t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |14738.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.72 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.03 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.14 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.55 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.71 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.86 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.31 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 46.64 | |GM....................: | 2.00 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

2800t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |14838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.69 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.03 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.13 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.46 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.62 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.77 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.31 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 47.41 | |GM....................: | 2.12 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 103: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 95

2900t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |14938.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.67 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.03 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.12 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.39 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.54 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.69 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.30 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 48.09 | |GM....................: | 2.26 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

3000t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |15038.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.65 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.03 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.11 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.32 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.47 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.62 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.29 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 48.69 | |GM....................: | 2.38 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

3250t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |15288.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.59 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.04 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.09 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.21 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.34 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.48 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.27 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 49.93 | |GM....................: | 2.67 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

3500t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |15538.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.54 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.04 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.07 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.14 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.38 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.25 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 50.87 | |GM....................: | 2.95 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 104: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 96

3750t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |15788.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.49 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.04 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.05 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.10 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.21 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.32 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.21 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 51.60 | |GM....................: | 3.20 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

4000t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |16038.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.05 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.04 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.09 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.18 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.27 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.18 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 52.16 | |GM....................: | 3.43 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

4250t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |16288.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.39 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.05 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.03 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.11 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.18 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.25 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.14 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 52.61 | |GM....................: | 3.64 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

4500t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |16538.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.34 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.05 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.02 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.14 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.19 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.24 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.10 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 52.95 | |GM....................: | 3.82 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 105: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 97

4750t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |16788.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.30 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.06 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.01 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.18 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.22 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.25 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.06 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 53.21 | |GM....................: | 3.99 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

5000t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |17038.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.06 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.00 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.24 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.25 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.27 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.03 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 53.41 | |GM....................: | 4.15 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

5250t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |17288.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.22 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.06 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 9.99 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.31 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.30 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.30 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.01 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 53.54 | |GM....................: | 4.31 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

5500t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |17538.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.18 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.07 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 9.99 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.38 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.35 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.33 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.05 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 53.66 | |GM....................: | 4.55 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 106: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 98

5750t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |17788.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.14 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.07 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 9.98 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.45 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.40 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.35 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.09 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 53.79 | |GM....................: | 4.77 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

6000t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |18038.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.11 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.07 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 9.98 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.52 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.44 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.36 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.15 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 53.95 | |GM....................: | 5.01 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

6250t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |18288.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.07 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.07 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 9.98 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.59 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.47 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.35 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.24 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 54.16 | |GM....................: | 5.30 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

6500t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |18538.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.04 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.08 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 9.98 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.69 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.47 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.25 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.44 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 54.50 | |GM....................: | 5.44 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 107: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 99

6750t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |18788.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.01 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.08 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 9.99 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 2.86 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.57 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.29 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.57 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 54.31 | |GM....................: | 5.35 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

7000t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |19038.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 61.98 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.08 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 9.99 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 3.03 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.73 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.43 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.60 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 53.86 | |GM....................: | 5.29 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

7250t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |19288.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 61.95 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.08 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 9.99 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 3.20 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 2.89 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.59 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.61 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 53.38 | |GM....................: | 5.18 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

7500t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |19538.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 61.92 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.09 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.00 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 3.36 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 3.06 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.75 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.61 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 52.89 | |GM....................: | 5.07 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 108: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 100

7750t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |19788.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 61.90 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.09 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.00 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 3.52 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 3.22 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 2.92 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.60 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 52.40 | |GM....................: | 4.92 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

8000t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |20038.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 61.87 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.09 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.01 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 3.69 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 3.39 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 3.09 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.60 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 51.88 | |GM....................: | 4.80 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

8250t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |20288.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 61.84 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.09 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.02 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 3.86 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 3.56 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 3.25 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.61 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 51.36 | |GM....................: | 4.67 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

8500t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |20538.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 61.84 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.09 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.03 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.03 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 3.72 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 3.42 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.61 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 50.82 | |GM....................: | 4.54 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 109: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 101

8750t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |20788.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 61.84 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.09 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.04 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.21 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 3.89 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 3.58 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.63 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 50.28 | |GM....................: | 4.43 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

9000t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |21038.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 61.84 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.09 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.05 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.38 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.07 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 3.75 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.64 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 49.71 | |GM....................: | 4.31 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

9250t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |21288.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 61.83 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.09 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.06 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.57 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.24 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 3.91 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.65 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 49.11 | |GM....................: | 4.21 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

9500t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |21538.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 61.83 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.09 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.07 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.75 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.42 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.08 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.67 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 48.49 | |GM....................: | 4.11 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 110: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 102

9750t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |21788.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 61.83 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.09 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.09 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.95 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.60 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.25 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.69 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 47.83 | |GM....................: | 4.04 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

10000t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |22038.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 61.83 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.09 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.10 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.14 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.79 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.43 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.72 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 47.15 | |GM....................: | 3.96 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

11000t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |23038.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 61.83 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.10 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.16 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.98 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.55 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.12 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.86 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 44.09 | |GM....................: | 3.70 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

12000t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |24038.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 61.82 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.10 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.23 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 6.87 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 6.36 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.85 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -1.02 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 40.42 | |GM....................: | 3.31 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 111: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 103

13000t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |23038.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 61.83 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.10 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.16 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.98 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.55 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.12 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.86 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 44.09 | |GM....................: | 3.70 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

14000t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |26038.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 61.82 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.10 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.40 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 9.00 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 8.41 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 7.83 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -1.17 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 27.43 | |GM....................: | 1.55 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

15000t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |27038.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 61.81 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.10 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.49 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 10.02 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 9.62 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 9.22 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.80 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 14.83 | |GM....................: | 1.12 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

16000t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |28038.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 61.81 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.10 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.58 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 10.45 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 10.12 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 9.80 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.64 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | -9.59 | |GM....................: | 1.01 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 112: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 104

16105t water on Main Car Deck

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN1 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |28144.0 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 61.81 | |TCG f. C.L............: | 0.10 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.60 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 10.51 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 10.22 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 9.94 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.57 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | -7.24 | |GM....................: | 0.89 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 113: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 105

8.4 Scenario 2

In scenario No.2 the amount of 300t water on Main Car Deck is kept constant during the

whole calculation. The amount of 300t is chosen, because 300t corresponds to a list of

about 10°. At a list of 10° a layman might feel uncomfortable or even frightened and first

things, with low friction coefficient, like glasses on an smooth surface, start to slide.

The Transversal Centre of Gravity of the vehicles on Main Car Deck, is moved stepwise -

in 0.2m steps - from -2.1m out of Centre Line to Starboard-Side to finally -6.1m

Starboard-Side.

Figure 8.6: Scenario 2 – Compartment under Consideration

Shift of TCG of Vehicles at 300t Water on Main Car Deck

8,00

10,00

12,00

14,00

16,00

18,00

20,00

-6,50 -6,00 -5,50 -5,00 -4,50 -4,00 -3,50 -3,00 -2,50 -2,00

Shift of TCG of Vehicles on Main Car Deck in m

List

of V

esse

l in

Deg

Figure 8.7: Shift of TCG of Vehicles, 300t Water on Main Car Deck, Shift over List

Page 114: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 106

TCG on –2.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN2 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.03 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.46 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 9.99 | |GM....................: | 1.67 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –2.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN2 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.04 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.46 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.24 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.03 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.43 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.58 | |GM....................: | 1.72 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –2.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN2 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.05 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.42 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.22 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.02 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.40 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.15 | |GM....................: | 1.77 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –2.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN2 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.07 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.39 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.20 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.01 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.37 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.71 | |GM....................: | 1.81 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 115: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 107

TCG on –2.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN2 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.09 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.35 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.18 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.01 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.35 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 12.25 | |GM....................: | 1.84 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –3.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN2 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.11 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.32 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.16 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.00 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.32 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 12.79 | |GM....................: | 1.87 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –3.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN2 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.13 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.29 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.14 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.99 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.30 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 13.31 | |GM....................: | 1.91 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –3.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN2 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.14 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.25 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.11 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.97 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.28 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 13.83 | |GM....................: | 1.95 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 116: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 108

TCG on –3.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN2 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.16 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.22 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.09 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.96 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.26 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 14.33 | |GM....................: | 1.98 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –3.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN2 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.18 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.19 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.07 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.95 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.24 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 14.83 | |GM....................: | 2.01 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –4.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN2 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.20 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.15 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.05 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.94 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.22 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.32 | |GM....................: | 2.03 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –4.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN2 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.22 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.12 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.02 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.92 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.20 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.81 | |GM....................: | 2.03 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 117: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 109

TCG on –4.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN2 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.23 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.09 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.00 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.91 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.18 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 16.28 | |GM....................: | 2.08 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –4.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN2 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.25 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.06 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.97 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.89 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.16 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 16.75 | |GM....................: | 2.09 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –4.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN2 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.27 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.02 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.95 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.88 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.14 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.21 | |GM....................: | 2.13 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –5.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN2 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.29 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.99 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.93 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.86 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.13 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.67 | |GM....................: | 2.14 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 118: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 110

TCG on –5.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN2 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.30 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.96 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.90 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.85 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.11 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 18.12 | |GM....................: | 2.19 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –5.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN2 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.32 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.92 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.88 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.83 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.09 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 18.56 | |GM....................: | 2.20 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –5.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN2 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.34 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.89 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.85 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.81 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.08 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 19.00 | |GM....................: | 2.23 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –5.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN2 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.36 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.86 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.83 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.80 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.06 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 19.43 | |GM....................: | 2.23 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 119: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 111

TCG on –6.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN2 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.38 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.82 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.80 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.78 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.04 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 19.86 | |GM....................: | 2.26 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 120: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 112

8.5 Scenario 3

Very similar to scenario No.2 in scenario No.3 the amount of 550t water on Main Car

Deck is kept constant during the whole calculation. The amount of 550t on the Main Car

Deck corresponds to a list of about 15°. And again the Transversal Centre of Gravity of

the vehicles on Main Car Deck, is moved stepwise - in 0.2m steps - from -2.1m out of

Centre Line to Starboard-Side to finally -6.1m Starboard-Side.

Figure 8.8: Scenario 3 – Compartment under Consideration

Shift of TCG of Vehicles at 550t Water on Main Car Deck

14,00

16,00

18,00

20,00

22,00

24,00

26,00

-6,50 -6,00 -5,50 -5,00 -4,50 -4,00 -3,50 -3,00 -2,50 -2,00

Shift of TCG of Vehicles on Main Car Deck in m

List

of V

esse

l in

Deg

Figure 8.9: Shift of TCG of Vehicles, 550t Water on Main Car Deck, Shift over List

Page 121: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 113

TCG on –2.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN3 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.27 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.13 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.00 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.27 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.25 | |GM....................: | 1.87 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –2.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN3 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.03 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.23 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.11 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.98 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.24 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.76 | |GM....................: | 1.92 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –2.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN3 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.05 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.19 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.08 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.97 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.22 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 16.26 | |GM....................: | 1.94 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –2.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN3 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.07 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.16 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.06 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.96 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.20 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 16.75 | |GM....................: | 1.98 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 122: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 114

TCG on –2.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN3 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.08 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.12 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.03 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.94 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.18 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.23 | |GM....................: | 2.00 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –3.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN3 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.10 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.09 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.01 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.92 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.16 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.71 | |GM....................: | 2.03 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –3.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN3 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.12 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.05 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.98 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.91 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.15 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 18.17 | |GM....................: | 2.05 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –3.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN3 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.14 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.02 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.96 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.89 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.13 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 18.63 | |GM....................: | 2.08 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 123: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 115

TCG on –3.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN3 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.15 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.98 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.93 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.88 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.11 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 19.08 | |GM....................: | 2.10 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –3.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN3 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.17 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.95 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.90 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.86 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.09 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 19.53 | |GM....................: | 2.13 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –4.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN3 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.19 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.82 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.43 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.04 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.78 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | -6.70 | |GM....................: | 0.77 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –4.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN3 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.21 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.88 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.85 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.82 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.06 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 20.40 | |GM....................: | 2.19 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 124: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 116

TCG on –4.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN3 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.22 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.85 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.82 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.80 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.04 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 20.83 | |GM....................: | 2.19 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –4.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN3 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.24 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.81 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.80 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.78 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.03 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 21.26 | |GM....................: | 2.23 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –4.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN3 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.26 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.78 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.77 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.76 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.01 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 21.68 | |GM....................: | 2.24 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –5.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN3 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.28 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.74 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.74 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.74 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.00 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 22.10 | |GM....................: | 2.23 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 125: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 117

TCG on –5.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN3 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.29 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.71 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.71 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.72 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.02 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 22.51 | |GM....................: | 2.25 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –5.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN3 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.31 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.67 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.69 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.70 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.03 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 22.93 | |GM....................: | 2.25 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –5.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN3 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.33 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.64 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.66 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.68 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.05 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 23.33 | |GM....................: | 2.27 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –5.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN3 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.35 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.60 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.63 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.66 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.06 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 23.74 | |GM....................: | 2.27 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 126: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 118

TCG on –6.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN3 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.36 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.56 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.60 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.64 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.07 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 24.14 | |GM....................: | 2.28 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 127: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 119

8.6 Scenario 4

Very similar to scenario No.2 in scenario No.4 the amount of 800t water on Main Car

Deck is kept constant during the whole calculation. The amount of 800t water on the

Main Car Deck corresponds to a list of about 20°. And again the Transversal Centre of

Gravity of the vehicles on Main Car Deck, is moved stepwise - in 0.2m steps - from -2.1m

out of Centre Line to Starboard-Side to finally -6.1m Starboard-Side.

Figure 8.10: Scenario 4 – Compartment under Consideration

Shift of TCG of Vehicles at 800t Water on Main Car Deck

19,00

20,00

21,00

22,00

23,00

24,00

25,00

26,00

27,00

28,00

29,00

-6,50 -6,00 -5,50 -5,00 -4,50 -4,00 -3,50 -3,00 -2,50 -2,00

Shift of TCG of Vehicles on Main Car Deck in m

List

of V

esse

l in

Deg

Figure 8.11: Shift of TCG of Vehicles, 800t Water on Main Car Deck, Shift over List

Page 128: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 120

TCG on –2.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN4 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.04 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.98 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.92 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.11 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 19.86 | |GM....................: | 2.04 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –2.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN4 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.00 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.95 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.91 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.09 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 20.32 | |GM....................: | 2.05 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –2.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN4 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.04 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.96 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.92 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.89 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.08 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 20.76 | |GM....................: | 2.08 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –2.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN4 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.06 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.93 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.90 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.87 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.06 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 21.20 | |GM....................: | 2.12 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 129: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 121

TCG on –2.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN4 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.08 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.89 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.87 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.85 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.04 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 21.64 | |GM....................: | 2.12 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –3.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN4 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.09 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.85 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.84 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.83 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.03 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 22.07 | |GM....................: | 2.13 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –3.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN4 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.11 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.82 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.81 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.81 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.01 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 22.50 | |GM....................: | 2.14 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –3.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN4 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.13 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.78 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.78 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.78 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.00 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 22.92 | |GM....................: | 2.17 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 130: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 122

TCG on –3.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN4 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.14 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.74 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.75 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.76 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.02 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 23.34 | |GM....................: | 2.15 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –3.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN4 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.16 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.71 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.72 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.74 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.03 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 23.75 | |GM....................: | 2.20 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –4.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN4 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.18 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.67 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.70 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.72 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.05 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 24.16 | |GM....................: | 2.20 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –4.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN4 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.20 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.63 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.67 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.70 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.06 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 24.56 | |GM....................: | 2.22 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 131: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 123

TCG on –4.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN4 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.21 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.60 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.64 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.67 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.08 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 24.97 | |GM....................: | 2.21 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –4.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN4 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.23 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.56 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.60 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.65 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.09 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 25.37 | |GM....................: | 2.21 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –4.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN4 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.25 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.52 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.57 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.63 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.10 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 25.77 | |GM....................: | 2.21 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –5.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN4 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.26 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.48 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.54 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.60 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.12 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 26.17 | |GM....................: | 2.22 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 132: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 124

TCG on –5.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN4 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.28 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.45 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.51 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.58 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.13 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 26.56 | |GM....................: | 2.20 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –5.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN4 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.30 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.41 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.48 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.55 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.14 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 26.96 | |GM....................: | 2.23 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –5.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN4 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.32 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.37 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.45 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.52 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.15 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 27.35 | |GM....................: | 2.23 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –5.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN4 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.33 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.33 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.41 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.50 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.17 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 27.74 | |GM....................: | 2.22 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 133: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 125

TCG on –6.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN4 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.35 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.29 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.38 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.47 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.18 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 28.14 | |GM....................: | 2.20 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 134: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 126

8.7 Scenario 5

Very similar to scenario No.2 in scenario No.5 the amount of 1100t water on Main Car

Deck is kept constant during the whole calculation. The amount of 1100t water on the

Main Car Deck corresponds to a list of about 25°. And again the Transversal Centre of

Gravity of the vehicles on Main Car Deck, is moved stepwise - in 0.2m steps - from -2.1m

out of Centre Line to Starboard-Side to finally -6.1m Starboard-Side.

Figure 8.12: Scenario 5 – Compartment under Consideration

Shift of TCG of Vehicles at 1100t Water on Main Car Deck

24,00

25,00

26,00

27,00

28,00

29,00

30,00

31,00

32,00

33,00

34,00

-6,50 -6,00 -5,50 -5,00 -4,50 -4,00 -3,50 -3,00 -2,50 -2,00

Shift of TCG of Vehicles on Main Car Deck in m

List

of V

esse

l in

Deg

Figure 8.13: Shift of CG of Vehicles, 1100t Water on Main Car Deck, Shift over List

Page 135: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 127

TCG on –2.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN5 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.00 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.73 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.74 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.76 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.03 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 24.66 | |GM....................: | 2.13 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –2.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN5 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.69 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.71 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.73 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.04 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 25.07 | |GM....................: | 2.13 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –2.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN5 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.04 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.65 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.68 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.71 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.06 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 25.47 | |GM....................: | 2.15 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –2.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN5 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.05 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.62 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.65 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.69 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.07 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 25.88 | |GM....................: | 2.12 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 136: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 128

TCG on –2.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN5 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.07 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.58 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.62 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.66 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.08 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 26.28 | |GM....................: | 2.13 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –3.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN5 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.09 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.54 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.59 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.64 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.10 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 26.68 | |GM....................: | 2.16 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –3.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN5 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.10 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.55 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.61 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.11 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 27.08 | |GM....................: | 2.17 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –3.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN5 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.12 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.46 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.52 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.58 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.12 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 27.47 | |GM....................: | 2.17 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 137: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 129

TCG on –3.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN5 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.14 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.42 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.49 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.56 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.14 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 27.86 | |GM....................: | 2.16 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –3.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN5 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.15 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.38 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.45 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.53 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.15 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 28.26 | |GM....................: | 2.16 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –4.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN5 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.17 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.34 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.42 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.50 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.16 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 28.65 | |GM....................: | 2.13 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –4.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN5 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.19 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.30 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.38 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.47 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.17 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 29.05 | |GM....................: | 2.13 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 138: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 130

TCG on –4.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN5 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.20 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.26 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.35 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.44 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.18 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 29.45 | |GM....................: | 2.11 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –4.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN5 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.22 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.21 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.31 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.41 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.20 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 29.85 | |GM....................: | 2.10 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –4.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN5 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.24 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.17 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.38 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.21 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 30.25 | |GM....................: | 2.05 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –5.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN5 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.25 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.13 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.24 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.35 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.22 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 30.65 | |GM....................: | 2.01 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 139: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 131

TCG on –5.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN5 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.27 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.08 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.20 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.31 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.23 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 31.07 | |GM....................: | 1.97 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –5.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN5 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.29 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.03 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.15 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.27 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.24 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 31.49 | |GM....................: | 1.94 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –5.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN5 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.30 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 3.98 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.11 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.24 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.25 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 31.91 | |GM....................: | 1.91 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

TCG on –5.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN5 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.32 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 3.94 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.07 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.20 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.26 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 32.34 | |GM....................: | 1.87 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 140: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 132

TCG on –6.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN5 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13138.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.34 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 3.88 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.02 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.16 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.27 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 32.77 | |GM....................: | 1.84 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 141: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 133

8.8 Scenario 6

In Scenario 6 the mass 300t water on Main Car Deck is assumed and this mass is kept

constant during the whole calculations. But in addition to the water on Main Car Deck,

the list of the vessel is calculated with water in a lower compartment, the Steering Gear

Room, beginning at frame –3, and the store of Tween Deck, beginning at frame 5. The

calculation is carried out stepwise in 5t steps up to 25t and then in 25t steps to 125t of

water.

In this scenario the water may enter the compartment by the cargo lift beginning at frame

23. The E4 Compartment ID is 89.

The TCG of vehicles on Main Car Deck is kept fixed at –2.1m.

Figure 8.14: Scenario 6 – Compartments under Consideration

Page 142: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 134

300t Water on Main Car Deck and Water in Steeringge ar Room and Store Deck 1, Frame -3/ Frame 5, E4 ID 89

9,50

9,75

10,00

10,25

10,50

10,75

11,00

11,25

11,50

11,75

12,00

0,00 12,50 25,00 37,50 50,00 62,50 75,00 87,50 100,00 112,50 125,00

Water in Compartment in t

List

of V

esse

l in

Deg

Figure 8.15: Water in Compartment 89 and 300t Water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List

0t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN6 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.28 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.00 | |GM....................: | 1.66 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

5t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN6 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12343.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.41 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.04 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.46 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.08 | |GM....................: | 1.67 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.20 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 143: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 135

10t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN6 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12348.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.39 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.51 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.04 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.47 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.15 | |GM....................: | 1.67 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.20 | +------------------------------+----------+

15t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN6 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12353.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.37 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.51 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.03 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.48 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.23 | |GM....................: | 1.67 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.21 | +------------------------------+----------+

20t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN6 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12358.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.51 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.03 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.48 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.30 | |GM....................: | 1.66 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.22 | +------------------------------+----------+

25t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN6 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12363.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.32 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.51 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.02 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.49 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.38 | |GM....................: | 1.66 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.22 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 144: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 136

50t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN6 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12388.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.21 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.49 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.53 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.99 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.54 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.72 | |GM....................: | 1.65 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.24 | +------------------------------+----------+

75t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN6 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12413.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.10 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.48 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.54 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.25 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.96 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.58 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.05 | |GM....................: | 1.66 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.26 | +------------------------------+----------+

100t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN6 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12438.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.98 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.47 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.56 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.25 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.93 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.62 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.37 | |GM....................: | 1.65 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.28 | +------------------------------+----------+

125t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN6 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12463.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.87 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.58 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.24 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.91 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.67 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.67 | |GM....................: | 1.64 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.31 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 145: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 137

8.9 Scenario 7

Scenario 7 is quite the same to scenario 6. The compartment under consideration is the

store, beginning in frame 33, ending at frame 43. The mass of 300t of water on Main Car

Deck is assumed and this mass is kept constant during the whole calculations. The

calculation is carried out stepwise in 5t steps up to 25t and then in 25t steps to 125t of

water, like in scenario 6.

In this scenario the water may enter the compartment by the lift beginning at frame 39.5.

The E4 Compartment ID is 105.

The TCG of vehicles on Main Car Deck is kept fixed at –2.1m.

Figure 8.16: Scenario 7 – Compartments under Consideration

Page 146: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 138

300t Water on Main Car Deck and Water in Store Deck 1, Frame 33...43, E4 ID 105

9,50

9,75

10,00

10,25

10,50

10,75

11,00

11,25

11,50

11,75

12,00

0,00 12,50 25,00 37,50 50,00 62,50 75,00 87,50 100,00 112,50 125,00

Water in Compartment in t

List

of V

esse

l in

Deg

Figure 8.17: Water in Compartment 105 and 300t Water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List

0t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN6 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.28 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.00 | |GM....................: | 1.66 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

5t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN7 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12343.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.42 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.46 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.11 | |GM....................: | 1.68 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.20 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 147: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 139

10t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN7 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12348.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.41 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.04 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.46 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.21 | |GM....................: | 1.68 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.20 | +------------------------------+----------+

15t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN7 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12353.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.39 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.04 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.46 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.31 | |GM....................: | 1.69 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.21 | +------------------------------+----------+

20t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN7 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12358.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.38 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.04 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.46 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.40 | |GM....................: | 1.70 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.21 | +------------------------------+----------+

25t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN7 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12363.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.36 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.03 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.47 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.49 | |GM....................: | 1.71 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.22 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 148: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 140

50t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN7 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12388.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.28 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.49 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.01 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.49 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.89 | |GM....................: | 1.70 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.24 | +------------------------------+----------+

75t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN7 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12413.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.21 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.48 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.25 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.00 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.51 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.25 | |GM....................: | 1.72 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.26 | +------------------------------+----------+

100t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN7 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12438.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.13 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.47 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.51 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.24 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.98 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.53 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.58 | |GM....................: | 1.71 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.28 | +------------------------------+----------+

125t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN7 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12463.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.06 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.52 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.24 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.96 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.55 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.87 | |GM....................: | 1.71 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.31 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 149: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 141

8.10 Scenario 8

Scenario 8 is quite the same to scenario 6. The compartment under consideration is the

store, beginning in frame 43, ending at frame 53. The mass of 300t of water on Main Car

Deck is assumed and this mass is constant during the whole calculations. The calculation

is carried out stepwise in 5t steps up to 25t and then in 25t steps to 125t of water, like in

scenario 6.

In this scenario the water may enter the compartment by the lift beginning at frame 50.

The E4 Compartment ID is 106.

The TCG of vehicles on Main Car Deck is kept fixed at –2.1m.

Figure 8.18: Scenario 8 – Compartments under Consideration

Page 150: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 142

300t Water on Main Car Deck and Water in Store Deck 1, Frame 43...53, E4 ID 106

9,50

9,75

10,00

10,25

10,50

10,75

11,00

11,25

11,50

11,75

12,00

12,25

12,50

0,00 12,50 25,00 37,50 50,00 62,50 75,00 87,50 100,00 112,50 125,00

Water in Compartment in t

List

of V

esse

l in

Deg

Figure 8.19: Water in Compartment 106 and 300t water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List

0t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN8 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.28 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.00 | |GM....................: | 1.66 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

5t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN8 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12343.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.42 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.12 | |GM....................: | 1.68 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.20 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 151: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 143

10t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN8 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12348.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.41 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.04 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.23 | |GM....................: | 1.68 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.20 | +------------------------------+----------+

15t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN8 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12353.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.40 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.04 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.33 | |GM....................: | 1.70 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.21 | +------------------------------+----------+

20t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN8 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12358.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.39 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.04 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.43 | |GM....................: | 1.70 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.21 | +------------------------------+----------+

25t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN8 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12363.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.38 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.04 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.46 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.53 | |GM....................: | 1.70 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.22 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 152: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 144

50t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN8 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12388.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.32 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.49 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.02 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.46 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.96 | |GM....................: | 1.72 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.24 | +------------------------------+----------+

75t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN8 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12413.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.48 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.25 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.01 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.47 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.34 | |GM....................: | 1.73 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.26 | +------------------------------+----------+

100t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN8 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12438.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.20 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.47 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.24 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.00 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.49 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.68 | |GM....................: | 1.73 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.28 | +------------------------------+----------+

125t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN8 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12463.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.14 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.24 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.99 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.50 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.99 | |GM....................: | 1.73 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.31 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 153: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 145

8.11 Scenario 9

In Scenario 9 the mass 300t water on Main Car Deck is assumed and this mass is kept

constant during the whole calculations. In addition to the water on Main Car Deck, the

Main Engine Room is under consideration. The calculation is carried out stepwise in 5t

steps up to 25t and then in 25t steps to 250t of water.

In this scenario the water entered the Main Engine Room through the air ducts. E4

Compartment ID is 82.

The TCG of vehicles on Main Car Deck is kept fixed at –2.1m.

Figure 8.20: Scenario 9 – Compartments under Consideration

Page 154: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 146

300t Water on Main Car Deck and Water in Main Engin e Room

9,7510,0010,2510,5010,7511,0011,2511,5011,7512,0012,2512,5012,7513,0013,25

0,00 25,00 50,00 75,00 100,00 125,00 150,00 175,00 200,00 225,00 250,00

Water in Compartment in t

List

of V

esse

l in

Deg

Figure 8.21: Water in Main Engine Room, 300t Water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List

0t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN8 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.28 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.00 | |GM....................: | 1.66 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

5t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN9 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12343.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.43 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.10 | |GM....................: | 1.68 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.20 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 155: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 147

10t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN9 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12348.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.42 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.20 | |GM....................: | 1.68 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.20 | +------------------------------+----------+

15t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN9 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12353.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.41 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.29 | |GM....................: | 1.70 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.21 | +------------------------------+----------+

20t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN9 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12358.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.41 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.38 | |GM....................: | 1.71 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.21 | +------------------------------+----------+

25t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN9 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12363.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.40 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.04 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.47 | |GM....................: | 1.72 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.22 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 156: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 148

50t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN9 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12388.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.36 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.48 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.48 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.04 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.44 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.86 | |GM....................: | 1.74 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.24 | +------------------------------+----------+

75t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN9 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12413.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.33 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.48 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.03 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.44 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.21 | |GM....................: | 1.76 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.26 | +------------------------------+----------+

100t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN9 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12438.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.29 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.44 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.47 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.25 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.03 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.44 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.52 | |GM....................: | 1.77 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.28 | +------------------------------+----------+

125t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN9 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12438.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.29 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.44 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.47 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.25 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.03 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.44 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.52 | |GM....................: | 1.77 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.28 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 157: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 149

150t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN9 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12488.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.22 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.47 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.25 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.02 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 12.07 | |GM....................: | 1.77 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.33 | +------------------------------+----------+

175t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN9 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12513.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.18 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.39 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.47 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.24 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.01 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.46 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 12.31 | |GM....................: | 1.77 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.35 | +------------------------------+----------+

200t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN9 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12538.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.14 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.37 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.48 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.24 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.01 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.47 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 12.53 | |GM....................: | 1.76 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.37 | +------------------------------+----------+

225t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN9 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12563.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.11 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.35 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.48 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.24 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.00 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.47 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 12.74 | |GM....................: | 1.75 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.40 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 158: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 150

250t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN9 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.07 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.34 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.48 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.24 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.00 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.48 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 12.92 | |GM....................: | 1.76 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 159: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 151

8.12 Scenario 10

Scenario 10 is completely identical to scenario 9, excepting the amount of water on the

Main Car Deck: the mass 550t water on Main Car Deck is assumed and this mass is kept

constant during the whole calculations. In addition to the water on Main Car Deck, the

Main Engine Room is under consideration. The calculation is carried out stepwise in 5t

steps up to 25t and then in 25t steps to 250t of water.

In this scenario the water entered the Main Engine Room through the air ducts. E4

Compartment ID is 82.

The TCG of vehicles on Main Car Deck is kept fixed at –2.1m.

Figure 8.22: Scenario 10 – Compartments under Consideration

Page 160: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 152

550t Water on Main Car Deck and Water in Main Engin e Room

15,00

15,25

15,50

15,7516,00

16,25

16,50

16,75

17,00

17,25

17,50

17,75

18,00

18,25

0,00 25,00 50,00 75,00 100,00 125,00 150,00 175,00 200,00 225,00 250,00

Water in Compartment in t

List

of V

esse

l in

Deg

Figure 8.23: Water in Main Engine Room, 550t Water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List

0t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN10 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.27 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.14 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.01 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.26 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.28 | |GM....................: | 1.87 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

5t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN10 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12593.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.34 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.27 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.14 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.01 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.26 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.37 | |GM....................: | 1.87 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 161: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 153

10t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN10 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12598.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.33 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.45 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.27 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.14 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.01 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.26 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.45 | |GM....................: | 1.88 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.43 | +------------------------------+----------+

15t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN10 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12603.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.32 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.45 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.27 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.14 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.01 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.26 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.52 | |GM....................: | 1.87 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.43 | +------------------------------+----------+

20t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN10 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12608.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.32 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.45 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.27 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.13 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.00 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.26 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.60 | |GM....................: | 1.88 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.44 | +------------------------------+----------+

25t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN10 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12613.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.31 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.44 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.26 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.13 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.00 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.26 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.67 | |GM....................: | 1.90 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.44 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 162: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 154

50t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN10 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12638.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.27 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.42 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.26 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.12 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.99 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.27 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 16.01 | |GM....................: | 1.91 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.46 | +------------------------------+----------+

75t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN10 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12663.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.24 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.25 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.11 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.98 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.27 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 16.32 | |GM....................: | 1.93 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.49 | +------------------------------+----------+

100t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN10 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12688.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.20 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.39 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.25 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.11 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.97 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.28 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 16.61 | |GM....................: | 1.95 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.51 | +------------------------------+----------+

125t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN10 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12713.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.16 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.37 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.24 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.11 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.96 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.29 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 16.87 | |GM....................: | 1.96 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 163: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 155

150t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN10 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12738.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.13 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.35 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.24 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.10 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.95 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.30 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.12 | |GM....................: | 1.97 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

175t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN10 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12763.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.10 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.34 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.24 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.09 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.94 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.31 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.34 | |GM....................: | 1.97 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

200t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN10 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12788.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.06 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.32 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.25 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.09 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.93 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.32 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.56 | |GM....................: | 1.99 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

225t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN10 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12813.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.03 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.30 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.25 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.08 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.92 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.33 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.76 | |GM....................: | 2.00 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 164: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 156

250t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN10 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.99 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.29 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.25 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.08 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.91 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.34 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.95 | |GM....................: | 1.98 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 165: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 157

8.13 Scenario 11

In scenario 11 the mass 300t water on Main Car Deck is assumed and this mass is kept

constant during the whole calculations. In addition to the water on Main Car Deck, the

Auxiliary Engine Room is under consideration. The calculation is carried out stepwise in

5t steps up to 25t and then in 25t steps to 250t of water.

In this scenario the water entered the Auxiliary Engine Room through the air ducts. E4

Compartment ID is 83.

The TCG of vehicles on Main Car Deck is kept fixed at –2.1m.

Figure 8.24: Scenario 11 – Compartments under Consideration

Page 166: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 158

300t Water on Main Car Deck and Water in Auxiliary Engine Room

9,50

10,00

10,50

11,00

11,50

12,00

12,50

13,00

0,00 25,00 50,00 75,00 100,00 125,00 150,00 175,00 200,00 225,00 250,00

Water in Compartment in t

List

of V

esse

l in

Deg

Figure 8.25: Water in Auxiliary Engine Room, 300t Water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List

0t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN11 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.28 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 9.99 | |GM....................: | 1.66 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

5t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN11 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12343.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.11 | |GM....................: | 1.68 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.20 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 167: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 159

10t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN11 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12348.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.43 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.44 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.21 | |GM....................: | 1.69 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.20 | +------------------------------+----------+

15t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN11 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12353.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.43 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.44 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.31 | |GM....................: | 1.69 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.21 | +------------------------------+----------+

20t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN11 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12358.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.43 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.43 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.40 | |GM....................: | 1.71 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.21 | +------------------------------+----------+

25t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN11 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12363.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.43 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.48 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.43 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.49 | |GM....................: | 1.72 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.22 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 168: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 160

50t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN11 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12388.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.42 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.48 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.47 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.06 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.41 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.90 | |GM....................: | 1.74 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.24 | +------------------------------+----------+

75t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN11 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12413.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.41 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.46 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.06 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.40 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.25 | |GM....................: | 1.76 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.26 | +------------------------------+----------+

100t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN11 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12438.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.40 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.44 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.45 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.25 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.06 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.38 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.55 | |GM....................: | 1.78 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.28 | +------------------------------+----------+

125t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN11 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12463.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.39 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.42 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.44 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.25 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.07 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.37 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.83 | |GM....................: | 1.77 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.31 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 169: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 161

150t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN11 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12488.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.38 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.43 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.25 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.07 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.37 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 12.08 | |GM....................: | 1.78 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.33 | +------------------------------+----------+

175t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN11 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12513.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.37 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.39 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.43 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.25 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.07 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.36 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 12.30 | |GM....................: | 1.78 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.35 | +------------------------------+----------+

200t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN11 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12538.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.36 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.37 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.43 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.25 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.08 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.35 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 12.50 | |GM....................: | 1.77 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.37 | +------------------------------+----------+

225t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN11 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12563.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.35 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.42 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.25 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.08 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.35 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 12.69 | |GM....................: | 1.75 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.40 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 170: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 162

250t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN11 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.34 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.34 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.42 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.25 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.08 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.34 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 12.85 | |GM....................: | 1.74 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 171: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 163

8.14 Scenario 12

Scenario 12 is exactly the same scenario than scenario 11, except the mass of water on the

Main Car Deck: 550t water on Main Car Deck is assumed and this mass is kept constant

during the whole calculations. In addition to the water on Main Car Deck, the Auxiliary

Engine Room is under consideration. The calculation is carried out stepwise in 5t steps up

to 25t and then in 25t steps to 250t of water.

In this scenario the water entered the Auxiliary Engine Room through the air ducts. E4

Compartment ID is 83.

The TCG of vehicles on Main Car Deck is kept fixed at –2.1m.

Figure 8.26: Scenario 12 – Compartments under Consideration

Page 172: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 164

550t Water on Main Car Deck and Water in Auxiliary Engine Room

15,00

15,25

15,50

15,75

16,00

16,2516,50

16,75

17,00

17,25

17,50

17,75

18,00

0,00 25,00 50,00 75,00 100,00 125,00 150,00 175,00 200,00 225,00 250,00

Water in Compartment in t

List

of V

esse

l in

Deg

Figure 8.27: Water in Auxiliary Engine Room, 550t Water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List

0t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN12 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.27 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.14 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.01 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.26 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.28 | |GM....................: | 1.88 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

5t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN12 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12593.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.34 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.27 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.14 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.01 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.26 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.37 | |GM....................: | 1.87 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 173: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 165

10t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN12 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12598.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.34 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.45 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.27 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.14 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.01 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.26 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.46 | |GM....................: | 1.88 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.43 | +------------------------------+----------+

15t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN12 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12603.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.34 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.45 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.26 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.14 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.01 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.25 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.54 | |GM....................: | 1.88 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.43 | +------------------------------+----------+

20t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN12 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12608.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.34 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.45 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.26 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.13 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.01 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.25 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.62 | |GM....................: | 1.89 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.44 | +------------------------------+----------+

25t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN12 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12613.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.34 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.44 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.26 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.13 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.01 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.25 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.70 | |GM....................: | 1.89 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.44 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 174: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 166

50t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN12 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12638.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.33 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.42 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.24 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.12 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.00 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.24 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 16.05 | |GM....................: | 1.91 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.46 | +------------------------------+----------+

75t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN12 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12663.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.32 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.23 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.12 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.00 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.23 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 16.36 | |GM....................: | 1.94 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.49 | +------------------------------+----------+

100t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN12 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12688.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.31 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.39 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.22 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.11 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.00 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.22 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 16.64 | |GM....................: | 1.95 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.51 | +------------------------------+----------+

125t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN12 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12713.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.30 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.37 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.21 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.10 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.00 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.21 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 16.89 | |GM....................: | 1.97 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.53 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 175: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 167

150t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN12 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12738.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.29 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.35 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.20 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.10 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.00 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.21 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.13 | |GM....................: | 1.97 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

175t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN12 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12763.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.28 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.34 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.20 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.10 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.00 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.20 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.34 | |GM....................: | 1.99 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

200t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN12 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12788.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.27 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.32 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.19 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.10 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.00 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.20 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.54 | |GM....................: | 1.99 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

225t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN12 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12813.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.31 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.19 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.09 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.00 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.19 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.73 | |GM....................: | 1.98 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 176: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 168

250t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN12 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12838.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.25 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.29 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.19 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.09 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.00 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.19 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.90 | |GM....................: | 1.96 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 177: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 169

8.15 Scenario 13

In Scenario 13 a mass on Main Car Deck of 300t of water is assumed and this mass is

kept constant during the whole calculations. In addition to the water on Main Car Deck,

the Pool Room is under consideration. The calculation is carried out stepwise in 5t steps

up to 25t and then in 25t steps to 125t of water. Note that the water in the Pool Room is

additionally to the water in the pool, having a mass of 25t.

E4 Compartment ID is 149.

The TCG of vehicles on Main Car Deck is kept fixed at –2.1m.

Figure 8.28: Scenario 13 – Compartments under Consideration

Page 178: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 170

300t Water on Main Car Deck and Water in Pool Room on Deck 0

9,75

10,00

10,25

10,50

10,75

11,00

11,25

11,50

0,00 12,50 25,00 37,50 50,00 62,50 75,00 87,50 100,00 112,50 125,00

Water in Compartment in t

List

of V

esse

l in

Deg

Figure 8.29: Water in Pool Room, 300t Water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List

0t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN13 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.28 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 9.99 | |GM....................: | 1.66 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

5t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN13 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12343.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.45 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.44 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.09 | |GM....................: | 1.67 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.20 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 179: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 171

10t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN13 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12348.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.46 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.06 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.43 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.18 | |GM....................: | 1.69 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.20 | +------------------------------+----------+

15t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN13 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12353.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.48 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.48 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.07 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.41 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.27 | |GM....................: | 1.70 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.21 | +------------------------------+----------+

20t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN13 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12358.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.49 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.47 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.07 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.40 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.35 | |GM....................: | 1.70 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.21 | +------------------------------+----------+

25t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN13 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12363.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.50 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.47 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.08 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.39 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.42 | |GM....................: | 1.70 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.22 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 180: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 172

50t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN13 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12388.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.57 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.48 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.44 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.11 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.33 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.74 | |GM....................: | 1.75 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.24 | +------------------------------+----------+

75t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN13 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12413.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.64 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.41 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.14 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.28 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.00 | |GM....................: | 1.75 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.26 | +------------------------------+----------+

100t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN13 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12438.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.71 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.44 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.39 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.28 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.16 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.23 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.21 | |GM....................: | 1.75 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.28 | +------------------------------+----------+

125t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN13 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12463.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.77 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.42 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.37 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.28 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.19 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.18 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.38 | |GM....................: | 1.77 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.31 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 181: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 173

8.16 Scenario 14

In Scenario 14 a mass on Main Car Deck of 300t of water is assumed and this mass is

kept constant during the whole calculations. In addition to the water on Main Car Deck,

the Pool Room is under consideration and the compartment from frame 85 to 98. The

calculation is carried out stepwise in 5t steps up to 25t and then in 25t steps to 250t of

water. The calculation of 10t is missing, because the amount of water is too few for this

area. Note that the water in the Pool Room is additionally to the water in the pool, having

a mass of 25t.

Water may have come in this area by the door at frame 105 on Main Car Deck; the first

door of the Centre Casing on the Port Side. From there it may have entered the stairs at

frame 90, 95 and 105, as well as the lift at frame 100 and flew in the compartments under

consideration.

E4 Compartment ID is 108.

The TCG of vehicles on Main Car Deck is kept fixed at –2.1m.

Figure 8.30: Scenario 14 Compartments under Consideration

Page 182: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 174

300t Water on Main Car Deck and Water in Compartmen ts form Frame 85 to 110 on Deck 0

9,7510,0010,2510,5010,7511,0011,2511,5011,7512,0012,2512,5012,7513,0013,2513,50

0,00 25,00 50,00 75,00 100,00 125,00 150,00 175,00 200,00 225,00 250,00

Water in Compartment in t

List

of V

esse

l in

Deg

Figure 8.31: Water in Comp. Fr. 85 to110, 300t Water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List

0t water in Compartments

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN14 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.28 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 9.99 | |GM....................: | 1.66 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

10t water in Compartments

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN14 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12348.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.46 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.06 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.43 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.24 | |GM....................: | 1.71 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.20 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 183: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 175

15t water in Compartments

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN14 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12353.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.47 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.48 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.06 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.42 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.34 | |GM....................: | 1.72 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.21 | +------------------------------+----------+

20t water in Compartments

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN14 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12358.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.48 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.47 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.07 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.40 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.44 | |GM....................: | 1.74 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.21 | +------------------------------+----------+

25t water in Compartments

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN14 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12363.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.49 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.46 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.07 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.39 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.54 | |GM....................: | 1.74 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.22 | +------------------------------+----------+

50t water in Compartments

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN14 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12388.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.55 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.48 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.43 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.10 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.34 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.97 | |GM....................: | 1.77 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.24 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 184: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 176

75t water in Compartments

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN14 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12413.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.60 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.40 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.12 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.28 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.35 | |GM....................: | 1.79 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.26 | +------------------------------+----------+

100t water in Compartments

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN14 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12438.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.66 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.44 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.37 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.14 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.23 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.69 | |GM....................: | 1.81 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.28 | +------------------------------+----------+

125t water in Compartments

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN14 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12463.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.72 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.42 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.35 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.16 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.19 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 12.00 | |GM....................: | 1.83 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.31 | +------------------------------+----------+

150t water in Compartments

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN14 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12488.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.77 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.33 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.19 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.14 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 12.29 | |GM....................: | 1.84 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.33 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 185: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 177

175t water in Compartments

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN14 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12513.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.83 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.39 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.30 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.21 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.09 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 12.55 | |GM....................: | 1.84 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.35 | +------------------------------+----------+

200t water in Compartments

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN14 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12538.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.88 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.37 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.28 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.23 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.05 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 12.79 | |GM....................: | 1.84 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.37 | +------------------------------+----------+

225t water in Compartments

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN14 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12563.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.94 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.35 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.26 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.25 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.01 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 13.02 | |GM....................: | 1.82 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.40 | +------------------------------+----------+

250t water in Compartments

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN14 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12588.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.99 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.34 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.24 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.27 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | 0.03 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 13.23 | |GM....................: | 1.83 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.42 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 186: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 178

8.17 Scenario 15

In Scenario 15 a mass on Main Car Deck of 300t of water is assumed and this mass is

constant during the whole calculations. In addition to the water on Main Car Deck, the

Sauna Room, at Centre Line from frame 110 to 120, is filled with water in this simulation.

The calculation is carried out stepwise in 5t steps up to 25t and then in 25t steps to 125t

of water.

E4 Compartment ID is 87.

The TCG of vehicles on Main Car Deck is kept fixed at –2.1m.

Figure 8.32: Scenario 15 Compartments under Consideration

Page 187: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 179

300t Water on Main Car Deck and Water in Sauna Room on Centre Line on Deck 0

9,75

9,80

9,85

9,90

9,95

10,00

10,05

10,10

10,15

10,20

10,25

0,00 12,50 25,00 37,50 50,00 62,50 75,00 87,50 100,00 112,50 125,00

Water in Compartment in t

List

of V

esse

l in

Deg

Figure 8.33: Water in Sauna Room an 300t Water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List

0t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN15 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.28 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 9.99 | |GM....................: | 1.66 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

5t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN15 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12343.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.45 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.28 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.06 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.44 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.02 | |GM....................: | 1.67 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.20 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 188: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 180

10t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN15 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12348.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.47 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.28 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.06 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.43 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.04 | |GM....................: | 1.68 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.20 | +------------------------------+----------+

15t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN15 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12353.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.49 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.28 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.07 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.42 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.06 | |GM....................: | 1.67 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.21 | +------------------------------+----------+

20t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN15 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12358.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.51 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.28 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.08 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.41 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.06 | |GM....................: | 1.68 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.21 | +------------------------------+----------+

25t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN15 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12363.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.52 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.48 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.29 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.09 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.40 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.07 | |GM....................: | 1.70 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.22 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 189: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 181

50t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN15 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12388.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.61 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.48 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.47 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.30 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.13 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.35 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.03 | |GM....................: | 1.69 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.24 | +------------------------------+----------+

75t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN15 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12413.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.69 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.46 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.31 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.16 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.30 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 9.98 | |GM....................: | 1.72 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.26 | +------------------------------+----------+

100t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN15 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12438.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.78 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.45 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.45 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.33 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.20 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.25 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 9.93 | |GM....................: | 1.73 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.28 | +------------------------------+----------+

125t water in Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN15 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12463.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.86 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.43 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.44 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.34 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.24 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.19 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 9.89 | |GM....................: | 1.72 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.31 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 190: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 182

8.18 Scenario 16

In Scenario 16 a mass on Main Car Deck of 300t of water is assumed and this mass is

kept constant during the whole calculations. In addition to the water on Main Car Deck,

selected compartments, which were under consideration in scenarios before, were equally

loaded in steps of 3t, 5t, 7t, 10t. The range of 10t to 100t is calculated in 5t steps and the

range from 100t to 150t is calculated in steps of 10t.

The Compartments equally filled are:

• Steering Gear Room and Store, frame –3 to 23, E4 ID 91

• Store, frame 33 to 43, E4 ID 51

• Store, frame 43 to 53, E4 ID 52

• Main Engine Room, E4 ID 88

• Auxiliary Engine Room, E4 ID 89

• Sewage Treatment/ Conference on Deck 0 and Pool Room, frame 85 to 110, E4

ID 133. This compartments are calculated starting with 7t.

The water is assumed to enter the compartments via the Main Car Deck and pouring by

unclosed doors of the Centre Casing in the compartments below the Main Car Deck.

The two cabin compartments on Deck 1, from frame 110 to 120 and 120 to 132 are

connected by the central stair case and to the compartment with E4 ID 133.

The TCG of vehicles on Main Car Deck is kept fixed at –2.1m.

Page 191: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 183

Figure 8.34: Scenario 16 – Compartments under Consideration

300t Water on Main Car Deck and Water in selected Compartments

9,0010,0011,0012,0013,0014,0015,0016,0017,0018,0019,0020,0021,0022,00

0,00 15,00 30,00 45,00 60,00 75,00 90,00 105,00 120,00 135,00 150,00

Water in Compartment in t

List

of V

esse

l in

Deg

Figure 8.35: Water in Sauna Room an 300t Water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List

Page 192: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 184

0t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.28 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 9.99 | |GM....................: | 1.66 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

3t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12353.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.40 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.27 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.04 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.32 | |GM....................: | 1.69 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.21 | +------------------------------+----------+

5t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12363.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.38 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.04 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.52 | |GM....................: | 1.72 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.22 | +------------------------------+----------+

7t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12380.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.37 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.49 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.48 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.04 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.44 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.87 | |GM....................: | 1.75 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.23 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 193: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 185

10t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12398.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.34 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.48 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.47 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.25 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.03 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.44 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.22 | |GM....................: | 1.78 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.25 | +------------------------------+----------+

15t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12428.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.29 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.46 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.24 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.02 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.43 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.76 | |GM....................: | 1.81 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.27 | +------------------------------+----------+

20t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12458.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.24 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.44 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.44 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.23 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.01 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.43 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 12.28 | |GM....................: | 1.83 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.30 | +------------------------------+----------+

25t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12488.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.20 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.43 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.43 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.22 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.00 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.43 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 12.77 | |GM....................: | 1.86 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.33 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 194: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 186

30t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12518.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.15 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.42 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.21 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.99 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.44 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 13.25 | |GM....................: | 1.86 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.36 | +------------------------------+----------+

35t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12548.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.10 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.39 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.41 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.20 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.98 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.44 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 13.71 | |GM....................: | 1.88 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.38 | +------------------------------+----------+

40t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12578.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.06 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.37 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.41 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.18 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.96 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.44 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 14.15 | |GM....................: | 1.93 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.41 | +------------------------------+----------+

45t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12608.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.01 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.40 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.17 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.95 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 14.59 | |GM....................: | 1.92 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.44 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 195: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 187

50t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12638.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.96 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.34 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.39 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.16 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.94 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.01 | |GM....................: | 1.94 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.46 | +------------------------------+----------+

55t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12668.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.92 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.32 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.38 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.15 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.92 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.46 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.42 | |GM....................: | 1.93 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.49 | +------------------------------+----------+

60t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12698.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.87 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.31 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.38 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.14 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.91 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.47 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.81 | |GM....................: | 1.98 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.52 | +------------------------------+----------+

65t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12728.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.83 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.29 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.37 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.13 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.90 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.47 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 16.20 | |GM....................: | 1.99 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.55 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 196: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 188

70t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12758.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.78 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.28 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.36 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.12 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.88 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.48 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 16.58 | |GM....................: | 1.99 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

75t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12788.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.74 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.26 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.36 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.11 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.87 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.49 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 16.95 | |GM....................: | 2.02 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

80t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12818.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.69 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.24 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.35 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.10 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.85 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.50 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.31 | |GM....................: | 2.05 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

85t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12848.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.65 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.23 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.35 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.09 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.84 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.51 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.66 | |GM....................: | 2.07 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 197: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 189

90t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12878.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.60 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.21 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.34 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.08 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.82 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.52 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.99 | |GM....................: | 2.09 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

95t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12908.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.56 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.20 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.34 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.07 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.81 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.53 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 18.31 | |GM....................: | 2.09 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

100t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12938.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.51 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.18 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.34 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.07 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.80 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.54 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 18.62 | |GM....................: | 2.13 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

110t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12998.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.43 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.15 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.33 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.05 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.77 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.56 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 19.19 | |GM....................: | 2.21 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 198: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 190

120t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13058.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.34 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.12 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.33 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.04 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.74 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.59 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 19.73 | |GM....................: | 2.23 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

130t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13118.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.25 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.09 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.33 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.03 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.72 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.61 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 20.21 | |GM....................: | 2.24 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

140t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13178.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.17 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.06 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.34 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.02 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.70 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.64 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 20.66 | |GM....................: | 2.29 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

150t water in each Compartment

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN16 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13238.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.08 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.01 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.03 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.34 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.01 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.67 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.67 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 21.08 | |GM....................: | 2.29 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 199: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 191

8.19 Scenario 17

Scenario 17 is very similar to Scenario 16. But in Scenario 17, the water ingress is

combined to a cargo shift. A mass on Main Car Deck of 300t of water is assumed and this

mass is constant during the whole calculations. In addition to the water on Main Car

Deck, selected compartments, which were under consideration in scenarios before, were

equally loaded in steps of 3t, 5t, 7t, 10t. The range of 10t to 100t is calculated in 5t steps.

The Compartments equally filled are:

• Steering Gear Room and Store, frame –3 to 23, E4 ID 91

• Store, frame 33 to 43, E4 ID 51

• Store, frame 43 to 53, E4 ID 52

• Main Engine Room, E4 ID 88

• Auxiliary Engine Room, E4 ID 89

• Sewage Treatment/ Conference on Deck 0 and Pool Room, frame 85 to 110, E4

ID 133. This compartments are calculated starting with 7t.

The water is assumed to enter the compartments via the Main Car Deck and pouring y

unclosed doors of the Centre Casing in the compartments below the Main Car Deck.

The two cabin compartments on Deck 1, from frame 110 to 120 and 120 to 132 are

connected by the central stair case and to the compartment with E4 ID 133.

The cargo shift of the vehicles on the Main Car Deck are allocated in this scenario to an

amount of water in the above mentioned compartments. An increase in water in the

compartments, leads to an increase in list and this contributes a cargo shift and this

increases again the list. The allocation of the cargo shift to an heeling angle is arbitrary

selected, but shall mirror an approach to the sinking sequence.

The following figure shows the allocation of the water in the compartments and the cargo

shift.

Page 200: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 192

Water on Main Car Deck

Cargo Shift of TCG of vehicles

Water in Compartment

t m off Centre Line t 300 -2,30 0,00 300 -2,30 3,00 300 -2,30 5,00 300 -2,30 7,00 300 -2,50 10,00 300 -2,70 15,00 300 -2,90 20,00 300 -3,10 25,00 300 -3,30 30,00 300 -3,50 35,00 300 -3,70 40,00 300 -3,90 45,00 300 -4,10 50,00 300 -4,30 55,00 300 -4,50 60,00 300 -4,70 65,00 300 -4,90 70,00 300 -5,10 75,00 300 -5,30 80,00 300 -5,50 85,00 300 -5,70 90,00 300 -5,90 95,00 300 -6,10 100,00

Figure 8.36: Allocation of Water on the Main Car Deck, Water in the Compartments and Cargo Shift of the Vehicles on the Main Car Deck.

Page 201: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 193

Figure 8.37: Scenario 17 – Compartments under Consideration

300t Water on Main Car Deck and Water in selected Compartments and Cargo Shift of Vehicles on Main Ca r Deck

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Water in Compartment in t and Cargo Shift of Vehicl es in m

List

of V

esse

l in

Deg

-2.3 -2.5 -2.9 -3.3 -3.7 -4.1 -4.5 -4.9 -5.3 -5.7 -6.1

Figure 8.38: 300t Water on Main Car Deck and in selected Compartments, Cargo Shift of Vehicles of Main Car Deck, Mass and Cargo Shift over List

Page 202: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 194

0t water in each Compartment and TCG –2.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.04 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.47 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.04 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.42 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.59 | |GM....................: | 1.72 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

3t water in each Compartment and TCG –2.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12353.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.40 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.04 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.46 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.25 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.04 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.42 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.90 | |GM....................: | 1.74 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.21 | +------------------------------+----------+

5t water in each Compartment and TCG –2.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12363.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.38 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.04 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.46 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.24 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.03 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.43 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.10 | |GM....................: | 1.76 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.22 | +------------------------------+----------+

7t water in each Compartment and TCG –2.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12380.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.37 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.04 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.49 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.44 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.24 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.03 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.41 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.44 | |GM....................: | 1.80 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.23 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 203: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 195

10t water in each Compartment and TCG –2.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12398.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.34 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.05 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.48 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.40 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.21 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.02 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.39 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 12.31 | |GM....................: | 1.84 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.25 | +------------------------------+----------+

15t water in each Compartment and TCG –2.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12428.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.29 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.07 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.46 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.36 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.17 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.99 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.36 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 13.36 | |GM....................: | 1.89 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.27 | +------------------------------+----------+

20t water in each Compartment and TCG –2.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12458.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.24 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.09 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.44 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.31 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.14 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.97 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.34 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 14.36 | |GM....................: | 1.95 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.30 | +------------------------------+----------+

25t water in each Compartment and TCG –3.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12488.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.20 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.10 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.43 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.27 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.10 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.94 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.33 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.31 | |GM....................: | 1.99 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.33 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 204: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 196

30t water in each Compartment and TCG –3.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12518.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.15 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.12 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.23 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.07 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.91 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.31 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 16.23 | |GM....................: | 2.06 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.36 | +------------------------------+----------+

35t water in each Compartment and TCG –3.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12548.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.10 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.14 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.39 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.18 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.03 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.88 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.30 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.11 | |GM....................: | 2.10 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.38 | +------------------------------+----------+

40t water in each Compartment and TCG –3.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12578.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.06 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.16 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.37 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.14 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.00 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.85 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.29 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.96 | |GM....................: | 2.16 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.41 | +------------------------------+----------+

45t water in each Compartment and TCG –3.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12608.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.01 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.17 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.36 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.10 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.96 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.82 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.29 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 18.78 | |GM....................: | 2.19 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.44 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 205: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 197

50t water in each Compartment and TCG –4.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12638.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.96 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.19 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.34 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.06 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.92 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.78 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.28 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 19.57 | |GM....................: | 2.22 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.46 | +------------------------------+----------+

55t water in each Compartment and TCG –4.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12668.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.92 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.21 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.32 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.02 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.88 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.75 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.27 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 20.35 | |GM....................: | 2.26 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.49 | +------------------------------+----------+

60t water in each Compartment and TCG –4.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12698.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.87 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.22 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.31 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.98 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.85 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.71 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.27 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 21.09 | |GM....................: | 2.26 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.52 | +------------------------------+----------+

65t water in each Compartment and TCG –4.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12728.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.83 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.24 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.29 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.94 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.81 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.67 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.27 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 21.82 | |GM....................: | 2.29 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.55 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 206: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 198

70t water in each Compartments and TCG –4.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12758.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.78 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.26 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.28 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.90 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.77 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.64 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.27 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 22.53 | |GM....................: | 2.32 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

75t water in each Compartment and TCG –5.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12788.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.74 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.27 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.26 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.86 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.73 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.60 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.26 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 23.21 | |GM....................: | 2.38 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

80t water in each Compartment and TCG –5.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12818.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.69 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.29 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.24 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.83 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.70 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.56 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.26 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 23.86 | |GM....................: | 2.41 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

85t water in each Compartment and TCG –5.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12848.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.65 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.31 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.23 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.79 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.66 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.53 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.27 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 24.50 | |GM....................: | 2.41 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 207: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 199

90t water in each Compartment and TCG –5.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12878.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.60 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.32 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.21 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.76 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.62 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.49 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.27 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 25.11 | |GM....................: | 2.43 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

95t water in each Compartment and TCG –5.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12908.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.56 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.34 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.20 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.72 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.58 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.45 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.27 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 25.71 | |GM....................: | 2.43 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

100t water in each Compartment and TCG –6.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN17 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12938.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.51 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.35 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.18 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 4.68 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.55 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.41 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.27 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 26.29 | |GM....................: | 2.48 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 208: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 200

8.20 Scenario 18

Scenario 18 is very similar to Scenario 17. But in Scenario 18, the water ingress is

combined to a cargo shift in smaller steps and with a smaller range than in scenario 17. A

mass on Main Car Deck of 300t of water is assumed and this mass is constant during the

whole calculations. In addition to the water on Main Car Deck, selected compartments,

which were under consideration in scenarios before, were equally loaded in steps of 3t, 5t,

7t, 10t. The range of 10t to 100t is calculated in 5t steps. There is one compartment more

under consideration than in scenario17, the Separator Room.

The Compartments equally filled are:

• Steering Gear Room and Store, frame –3 to 23, E4 ID 91

• Store, frame 33 to 43, E4 ID 51

• Store, frame 43 to 53, E4 ID 52

• Separator Room, E4 ID 81

• Main Engine Room, E4 ID 88

• Auxiliary Engine Room, E4 ID 89

• Sewage Treatment/ Conference on Deck 0 and Pool Room, frame 85 to 110, E4

ID 133. This compartments are calculated starting with 7t.

The water is assumed to enter the compartments via the Main Car Deck and pouring by

unclosed doors of the Centre Casing in the compartments below the Main Car Deck.

The two cabin compartments on Deck 1, from frame 110 to 120 and 120 to 132 are

connected by the central stair case and to the compartment with E4 ID 133.

The cargo shift of the vehicles on the Main Car Deck are allocated in this scenario to an

amount of water in the above mentioned compartments. An increase in water in the

compartments, leads to an increase in list and this contributes a cargo shift and this

increases again the list. The allocation of the cargo shift to an heeling angle is arbitrarily

selected, but shall mirror a more closely approach to the sinking sequence.

The following Figure shows the allocation of the water in the compartments and the

cargo shift.

Page 209: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 201

Water on Main Car Deck

Cargo Shift of TCG of Vehicles

Water in Compartment

t m off Centre Line t 300 -2,10 0,00 300 -2,15 3,00 300 -2,20 5,00 300 -2,25 7,00 300 -2,30 10,00 300 -2,40 15,00 300 -2,50 20,00 300 -2,60 25,00 300 -2,70 30,00 300 -2,80 35,00 300 -2,90 40,00 300 -3,00 45,00 300 -3,10 50,00 300 -3,20 55,00 300 -3,30 60,00 300 -3,40 65,00 300 -3,50 70,00 300 -3,60 75,00 300 -3,70 80,00 300 -3,80 85,00 300 -3,90 90,00 300 -4,00 95,00 300 -4,10 100,00

Figure 8.39: Allocation of Water on the Main Car Deck, Water in the Compartments and Cargo Shift of the Vehicles on the Main Car Deck.

Page 210: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 202

Figure 8.40: Scenario 18 – Compartments under Consideration

300t Water on Main Car Deck and Water in 7 selected Compartments and Cargo Shift of Vehicles on Main Ca r Deck

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Water in Compartment in t and Cargo Shift in m

List

of V

esse

l in

Deg

-2,1 -2,3 -2,5 -2,7 -2,9 -3,1 -3,3 -3,5 -3,7 -3,9 -4,1

Figure 8.41: 300t Water on Main Car Deck and in selected Compartments, Cargo Shift of Vehicles of Main Car Deck, Mass and Cargo Shift over List

Page 211: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 203

0t water in each Compartment and TCG –2.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12338.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.44 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.51 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.50 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.28 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.05 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 9.99 | |GM....................: | 1.67 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.19 | +------------------------------+----------+

3t water in each Compartment and TCG –2.15m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12356.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.39 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.02 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.49 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.26 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.04 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.50 | |GM....................: | 1.72 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.21 | +------------------------------+----------+

5t water in each Compartment and TCG –2.2m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12368.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.37 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.03 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.50 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.48 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.25 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.03 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.44 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 10.87 | |GM....................: | 1.74 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.22 | +------------------------------+----------+

7t water in each Compartment and TCG –2.25m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12387.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.03 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.48 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.45 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.24 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.03 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.42 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.37 | |GM....................: | 1.79 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.24 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 212: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 204

10t water in each Compartment and TCG –2.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12408.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.32 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.04 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.47 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.44 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.23 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.02 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.42 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 11.87 | |GM....................: | 1.81 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.26 | +------------------------------+----------+

15t water in each Compartment and TCG –2.4m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12443.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.26 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.04 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.45 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.41 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.21 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 5.00 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.41 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 12.70 | |GM....................: | 1.86 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.29 | +------------------------------+----------+

20t water in each Compartment and TCG –2.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12478.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.20 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.05 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.43 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.38 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.18 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.98 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.40 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 13.50 | |GM....................: | 1.89 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.32 | +------------------------------+----------+

25t water in each Compartment and TCG –2.6m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12513.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.14 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.06 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.41 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.36 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.16 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.96 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.40 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 14.26 | |GM....................: | 1.93 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.35 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 213: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 205

30t water in each Compartment and TCG –2.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12548.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.08 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.07 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.39 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.34 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.14 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.94 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.40 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 14.98 | |GM....................: | 1.98 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.38 | +------------------------------+----------+

35t water in each Compartment and TCG –2.8m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12583.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 63.02 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.08 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.37 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.31 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.11 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.91 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.40 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 15.68 | |GM....................: | 2.03 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.41 | +------------------------------+----------+

40t water in each Compartment and TCG –2.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12618.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.96 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.09 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.35 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.29 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.09 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.89 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.40 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 16.35 | |GM....................: | 2.06 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.45 | +------------------------------+----------+

45t water in each Compartment and TCG –3.0m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12653.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.91 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.09 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.33 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.27 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.07 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.87 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.40 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.00 | |GM....................: | 2.07 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.48 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 214: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 206

50t water in each Compartment and TCG –3.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12688.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.85 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.10 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.31 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.25 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.04 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.84 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.41 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 17.63 | |GM....................: | 2.13 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.51 | +------------------------------+----------+

55t water in each Compartment and TCG –3.2m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12723.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.79 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.11 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.29 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.23 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.02 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.81 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.41 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 18.24 | |GM....................: | 2.17 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.54 | +------------------------------+----------+

60t water in each Compartment and TCG –3.3m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12758.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.74 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.12 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.27 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.21 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 5.00 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.79 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.42 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 18.83 | |GM....................: | 2.16 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

65t water in each Compartment and TCG –3.4m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12793.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.68 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.13 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.25 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.19 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.98 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.76 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.43 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 19.41 | |GM....................: | 2.21 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 215: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 207

70t water in each Compartments and TCG –3.5m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12828.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.62 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.13 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.23 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.17 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.95 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.74 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.44 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 19.96 | |GM....................: | 2.24 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

75t water in each Compartment and TCG –3.6m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12863.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.57 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.14 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.21 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.15 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.93 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.71 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.44 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 20.50 | |GM....................: | 2.27 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

80t water in each Compartment and TCG –3.7m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12898.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.51 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.15 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.19 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.14 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.91 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.68 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.45 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 21.01 | |GM....................: | 2.30 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

85t water in each Compartment and TCG –3.8m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12933.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.46 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.16 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.17 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.12 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.89 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.66 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.46 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 21.50 | |GM....................: | 2.32 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 216: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 208

90t water in each Compartment and TCG –3.9m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |12968.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.40 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.17 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.15 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.11 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.87 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.63 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.47 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 21.98 | |GM....................: | 2.35 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

95t water in each Compartment and TCG –4.0m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13003.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.35 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.17 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.13 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.09 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.85 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.60 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.49 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 22.44 | |GM....................: | 2.35 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

100t water in each Compartment and TCG –4.1m

+-----------------------------------------+ | Load Case: FIN_VOY_TUHH_SCEN18 | +------------------------------+----------+ |Total mass............: |13038.9 | |LCG f. A.P............: | 62.30 | |TCG f. C.L............: | -0.18 | |VCG a. B.L (incl. FS).: | 10.12 | |Draft at A.P ........: | 5.08 | |Draft at LbP/2........: | 4.83 | |Draft at F.P..........: | 4.58 | |Trim (F.P. - A.P.)....: | -0.50 | |Heel (pos. stbd)......: | 22.88 | |GM....................: | 2.38 | |Max. KG...............: | 11.56 | +------------------------------+----------+

Page 217: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 209

8.21 Conclusion of the Hydrostatic Calculations

Filling the Main Car Deck with water in scenario 1, the list of MV Estonia increases to

about 55°, and beginning at an amount of 7000t the list starts to decreases again. This is

under the premise, that the Centre Casing and all other openings are assumed to be

watertight. Also under this premise, up to about 3000t the increase in list is monotonically

and reaches values of nearly 50°.

The scenarios 2 to 5 are approaching a cargo shift on the Main Car Deck.. There are

different statements in the testimonies whether vehicles were lashed or not or whether

only trucks were lashed or not. This is investigated in later tasks, but these scenarios shall

show the influence of sliding vehicles on the Main Car Deck. Therefore the range,

calculations were carried out for, is more wide than it has most likely taken place. The

increase in list caused by the shift of the centre of gravity in transversal direction (TCG)

of the vehicles is very decent. The amount of water on the Main Car Deck is varied, but

the value of the gradient is nearly constant.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

-6,5 -6,0 -5,5 -5,0 -4,5 -4,0 -3,5 -3,0 -2,5 -2,0

Shift of TCG of Vehicles on Main Car Deck in m

List

of V

esse

l in

deg

Scenario 2Scenario 3Scenario 4Scenario 5

Figure 8.42: Comparison of Scenarios 2 to 5 concerning List

Page 218: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 210

By this, approximations in cargo shift can estimated comparable precisely, which eases the

selection of dynamic scenarios concerning this parameter.

The comparison of the scenarios 6 to 15 show as well a decent and harmonic behaviour.

9,0

9,5

10,0

10,5

11,0

11,5

12,0

12,5

13,0

13,5

14,0

14,5

15,0

15,5

16,0

16,5

17,0

17,5

18,0

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250

Water in selected Compartment in t

List

of V

esse

l in

deg

Scenario 6

Scenario 7

Scenario 8

Scenario 9

Scenario 10

Scenario 11

Scenario 12

Scenario 13

Scenario 14

Scenario 15

Figure 8.43: Comparison of Scenarios 6 to 15 concerning List

Page 219: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 211

The gradient at small heeling angles is as expected in excess of the list at large angles. The

only exception to this behaviour is the Sauna Room on the Tank Deck., Frame 110 to

120. This room is less than 4m wide to Starboard- and Port-Side out of Centre Line and

by this the lever arm of the fluid shifting moments is short. As well there are only small

free surface influencing the ship’s stability in a minor way. The influence due to stability

of MV Estonia is dominated by the water on the Main Car Deck, see Figure 8.44:

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

300 400 500 600 700 800

Total amount of water in MV Estonia in t

List

of v

esse

l in

deg

Scenario 1Scenario 6Scenario 7Scenario 8Scenario 9Scenario 10Scenario 11Scenario 12Scenario 13Scenario 14Scenario 15

Figure 8.44: Overview of different amounts of Water in various Compartments leading to hydrostatic list

Page 220: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 212

Some compartments below the Main Car Deck are not under consideration. Two

examples shall be given, why they are not under consideration: The Stern Tube / Store

Room on the Tank Deck at the stern of the ship. This room only the crew got access and

very few works have to be carried out in that part of the ship. The largest opening to that

room is one watertight door leading to the KaMeWa-Room in front of it and this

watertight door was likely to be closed. So it is very unlikely, that a noteworthy amount of

water ingresses this compartment.

A very similar situation is found on the Tank Deck at the Heeling Tanks, Frame r to 85.

Access of this compartment is by crew only and not necessary for frequent using.

Today, only the Main Car Deck, it can be said definitely, that there was water in ingress in

first half of the sinking sequence. On the other side there is only the Engine Control

Room, which definitely has no water ingress to the first half of the sinking sequence.

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Water on Main Car Deck and in selected Compartments in t

List

of V

esse

l in

deg

Scenario 16

Scenario 17

Scenario 18

Figure 8.45: Comparison of Scenarios 16 to 18 concerning List

Page 221: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

8 Hydrostatic Scenarios Page 213

Figure 8.46 shows the trim of the vessel connected to the amount of water given in the

scenarios 16, 17 and 18. By this graph it can be shown, that MV Estonia sank by stern.

This is stated by most witnesses.

-0,70

-0,60

-0,50

-0,40

-0,30

-0,20

-0,10

0,00

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Water on Main Car Deck and in selected Compartments in t

Trim

of V

esse

l in

m Scenario 16

Scenario 17

Scenario 18

Figure 8.46: Comparison of Scenarios 16 to 18 concerning Trim

Page 222: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

9 Preliminary Motion Simulation Page 214

9 Preliminary Motion Simulation

9.1 General Intention

The results of the different hydrostatic evaluations have shown that for any scenario

assumed, a significant amount of water is required to generate a steady list of about 30

degree.

This list requires amounts of water more than 1500t, which must have entered the Main

Car Deck in a time interval in the order of magnitude of about 10min - 15min.

During the generation of the scenarios, it was always assumed that the water has entered

the vessel trough the open bow - and only through the open bow - on the Main Car

Deck, and may then have internally been distributed by openings which may not have

been watertight.

To further decide which scenario may be the most probable one, it is required to

determine how quickly the water can actually enter the Main Car Deck or the other

compartments. Because the synoptic time schedule has resulted in a time interval the

vessel required to achieve a steady list of about 30 degree.

This requires to determine theoretical flow rates into the Main Car Deck, and from the

Main Car Deck into other compartments. As the basic assumption of the scenario is that

the water ingress has taken place only through the open bow, all water that may have

been distributed internally must have beforehand entered the vessel trough the open bow.

Consequently, it is most important to determine possible flow rates trough the open bow

under various conditions, because if it is not possible to accumulate the amount of water

on the Main Car Deck in the given time slot, then the whole underlying assumption can

not be hold.

The preliminary hydrostatic investigations have clearly shown that the largest impact on

the stability of the vessel takes place when all water which has entered the vessel

accumulates on the Main Car Deck. Based on a given amount of water that is assumed

to have entered the Main Car Deck, the worst case - from hydrostatical point of view -

was figured out for this amount of water if it floats on the Main Car Deck.

Therefore, our studies now aim to determine a large matrix of possible inflow rates on the

Main Car Deck, which can the be used to further judge upon whether a scenario is

Page 223: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

9 Preliminary Motion Simulation Page 215

plausible or not. In a later stage, it will be determined which flow rates between Main Car

Deck and adjacent compartments are possible. And as indicated above, even if a cargo

shift and other (external) moments are included, a substantial amount of water must have

entered the vessel. And as it does not make sense to combine all effects in one simulation,

we have considered flow rates as reasonable tool to further evaluate scenarios.

The flow rates into the Main Car Deck are related to the dynamics of the problem and

they do depend on

- encounter speed between ship and waves

- submerging of the opening and wave height at that moment.

The momentary submergence of the open bow depends on

- the relative motion between ship and waves

- the mean value of trim, heel and sinkage

- the wave height at the position of the opening

- the height of the ship’s own bow wave, dynamic sinkage and trim

- spray

The mean values of trim, heel and sinkage do depend on the amount of water that has

already entered the car deck, where two possibilities have to be taken into account: There

may have been some initial water on the car deck before the visor has fallen off, and of

course the water has entered the Main Car Deck after the visor has fallen off.

Therefore, the next step was to generate a very simple dynamic model of the ship and the

vehicle compartment that allows to calculate for a number of cases the possible inflow

rates into the Main Car Deck. This model was kept as simple as possible to allow for

quick computational time. Therefore, the Main Car Deck consists only of one cuboid

with the dimensions of the Main Car Deck, and the leak was assumed in full size of the

open visor and bow ramp. The Toricelli-Number of the leak was assumed to be 1.0.

These flow rates are only intended to further distinguish between different scenarios and

should cover a sufficient range of input parameters. The more the final scenario has

converged, the more will of course the calculation model be refined, which then take

mores computational time.

Page 224: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

9 Preliminary Motion Simulation Page 216

9.2 Environmental Data for the Dynamic Investigatio ns

MV Estonia departed the harbour in Tallinn between 19:00h and 19:30h on the

September 27th, 1994. The witness Einar C11, practising for second mate on MV Estonia,

stated this at around 20:00h: “When we reached the open sea, a strong wind started blew

from the left side”. This indicates a westerly course, the wind direction to that time was

about south and pointed to the route south of the island Naissaar. But it is not definitely

excluded, that MV Estonia took the route north around this island.

At about 21:00h the witness Anders Erikkson, a passenger who visited the bridge, stated,

that the heading was exactly 262° and the wind speed was about 20m/s.

The Chief Mate on the RoRo-Ferry MV Amber recognized MV Estonia on the radar

screen on the ARPA. The ARPA plotted a course of MV Estonia of about 260° to 265°

in the time from about 23:00h to about 23:20h Estonian Time corresponding to the

position of 59° 20’ N to 59° 26’ N and around 22° 30’ E.

This indicates the course of about 262° after passing the Island Naissaar southerly for the

whole time until the change of heading at about 00:00h. That there was a change of

heading is stated by Einar C11 and there was the order to deploy the stabilizer fins.

Most probably MV Estonia was heading to Söderarm after changing the course at

midnight, the direction of course would be then about 290°.

The wave direction was west to southwest, around 250°. So the encounter angle of waves

and MV Estonia increased, which would explain the deployment of the stabilizer fins in

connection of the change in heading, because the larger encounter angle may have lead to

an increase in roll amplitude. All these findings result in encounter angle between ship

and waves of about 130 to 140 Degree: if 0 degree denotes following seas and 180 Degree

denotes head seas.

During the time of the accident, the wind was strong about 17m/s, which resulted in a

significant wave height of about 3.5 - 4.5m with significant wave periods of about 8s. The

speed of the vessel can be taken as about 15-18 knots.

Page 225: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

9 Preliminary Motion Simulation Page 217

9.3 Simulation Model

For the investigations, a simple model for the seakeeping code ROLLS was generated.

Four degrees of freedom, namely pitch, heave, sway and yaw, ROLLS uses linear

Response Amplitude Operators (RAO) which have been computed beforehand by the

linear strip theory code STRIP.

The mass moments of inertia are automatically generated from the detailed input data of

the masses and their centroids for each individual situation. The roll radius of gyration

was determined as 0.44B including the section added mass part, the “dry” roll radius of

gyration amounts to 0.41B. The resulting natural roll period was then 18.59s, which is

relevant for small roll angles only.

The following graphs show all the linear RAOs for a speed of 15 knots and zero speed,

RAOS have been calculated for 0 – 18 knots in intervals of 2 knots.

Linear Response Amplitude Operators for zero speed, dead ship condition, which may be

close to the final sinking of MV Estonia, Figure 9.1 - 9.4:

Figure 9.1: Heave Motion, zero Speed

Page 226: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

9 Preliminary Motion Simulation Page 218

Figure 9.2: Pitch Motion, zero Speed

Figure 9.3: Sway Motion, zero Speed

Page 227: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

9 Preliminary Motion Simulation Page 219

Figure 9.4: Yaw Motion, zero Speed

Linear Response Amplitude Operators for 15 knots speed, which may roughly

correspond to the speed MV Estonia travelled, Figure 9.5 - 9.8:

Figure 9.5: Heave Motion, 15 knots Speed

Page 228: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

9 Preliminary Motion Simulation Page 220

Figure 9.6: Pitch Motion, 15 knots Speed

Figure 9.7: Sway Motion, 15 knots Speed

Page 229: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

9 Preliminary Motion Simulation Page 221

Figure 9.8: Yaw Motion, 15 knots Speed

For the non- linear roll damping, the results of the model tests at HSVA were used. The

tests were conducted with and without stabilizer fins. The roll damping as such seems to

quite on the high side for such kind of ship, even without stabilizer fins, which may be a

result of the large bilge keels.

9.4 Effect of the Ship’s own Wave System and of Sin kage and Trim

During the initial phase of the flooding of the Main Car Deck, which is assumed

immediately after the bow visor had fallen off, the speed of the vessel was substantially,

about 15 - 18 knots. In this first phase, the vessel must have collected a significant

amount of water on the deck. Especially the first phase of flooding the Main Car Deck is

important, as it may take long time for the water to enter the Main Car Deck if it is hardly

submerged only. In a later stage, when there is already a substantial amount of water in

the Main Car Deck, the flow rates into the Main Car Deck are substantially larger. From

the previous investigations it could be demonstrated that the amount of water required

for the assumed scenarios is in the order of about 1500t, which must have entered the

Main Car Deck in about 10min And the theoretical still water freeboard of the open bow

Page 230: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

9 Preliminary Motion Simulation Page 222

in the loading condition amounts to 7.95m-5.03m = 2.92m, which is still large with

respect to the significant wave height of about 3.5m to 4.5m.

From the Herald of Free Enterprise accident it is known that even without any seastate

simply by the interaction of the ship’s own wave system and the open bow.

Therefore, it was decided to determine the ship’s own wave system and to calculate large

amounts of water on the Main Car Deck.

Figure 9.9: Own Wave System of MV Estonia at a 18kn Ship speed. Complete Wave-Pattern

Page 231: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

9 Preliminary Motion Simulation Page 223

Figure 9.10: Own Wave System of MV Estonia at a 18kn Ship speed. Detailed Bow-View

Figure 9.11: Own Wave System of MV Estonia at a 18 knots Ship speed. Side-View of Bow

The determination of the ships own wave system for a ship speed of 18 knots resulted in

a bow wave of more than 1m in height, the largest elevation close to the hull was

Page 232: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

9 Preliminary Motion Simulation Page 224

determined by 1.50m. Further, the vessel shows a clear tendency to dynamically trim

down by bow, the sinkage at the F.P. was determined as 0.24m, where the sinkage at the

A.P. was determined as –0.036m. Therefore, it can clearly be concluded that both effects

should not be disregarded when determining flow rates. Immediately after the flooding of

the Main Car Deck started, the

theoretical freeboard of the Main Car Deck must be reduced for minimum 1.25m (1m

bow wave plus sinkage) to maximum 1.75m (1.50m bow wave height plus sinkage).

These values will be taken into account when determining flow rates into the Main Car

Deck.

9.5 Preliminary Determination of Flow Rates into th e Main Car Deck

The basic simulation model used for the intact condition was now used to determine

water ingress into the car deck for the initial condition, when the vessel lost its watertight

integrity. The car deck was modelled as a simple cuboid in the dimensions of the Main

Car Deck. The size of the opening was assumed of the opening sealed by the bow ramp.

This simplifies the geometry significantly, but during the present stage of the

investigations we do concentrate on the filling of the Main Car Deck as such, mainly

during the first few minutes. As we are still in the phase of deciding whether scenarios are

plausible or not, this simplification is justified, because it reduces the computational effort

significantly and thus allows to compute more situations. And the results of this phase are

scenarios that shall further be investigated. To model the effect of nonzero forward

speed, the 1/2 mv² term has been added in the Bernoulli- Equation of the simulation

code [SOEDING]. To account for the reduced (dynamic) freeboard of the Main Car

Deck due to the own wave system and sinkage, the position of the leak was modified

accordingly. With respect to the general trend, this simplification is acceptable. The

computations were carried out for several speeds and for the encounter angles 150 degree

and 135 degree, which correspond to the situation when the loss of watertight integrity

occurred. Each simulation was carried out for a time interval of 10,000s in 0.5s time steps.

In case the vessel took large rolling angles due to the water accumulated on deck, she was

uprighted again and the simulation continued. The simulations were carried out for a

Page 233: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

9 Preliminary Motion Simulation Page 225

condition without considering a bow wave system and with 1.50m reduced freeboard to

investigate the effect of the bow wave system. Figures 9.12 and 9.13 show the time plots

of the roll angle and the volume accumulated on the Main Car Deck for one

representative simulation without considering the bow wave:

Figure 9.12: Roll-Angle over Time at 12 knots Speed, at 4.5 m significant Wave Height, significant Wave Period of 8s and an Encounter-Angle at 150° - without Considering Bow Wave

Page 234: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

9 Preliminary Motion Simulation Page 226

Figure 9.13: Accumulated Volume over Time at 12 knots Speed, at 4.5 m significant Wave Height, significant Wave Period of 8s and an Encounter-Angle at 150° - without Considering Bow

Wave

Figure 9.14: Roll-Angle over Time at 14 knots Speed, at 4.5 m significant Wave Height, significant Wave Period of 8s and an Encounter-Angle at 150°- Considering Bow Wave

Page 235: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

9 Preliminary Motion Simulation Page 227

Figure 9.15: Accumulated Volume over Time at 14 knots Speed, at 4.5 m significant Wave Height, significant Wave Period of 8s and an Encounter-Angle at 150° - Considering Bow Wave

Figures 9.14 and 9.15t of the roll angle and the volume of water accumulated on the Main

Car Deck. Speed 14kn, encounter angle 150 Degree. Significant wave height 4.5m,

significant period 8s. Freeboard is 1.50m reduced for bow wave and sinkage at F.P. From

the results, an average flow rate of 472m³/min into the Main Car Deck can be

determined.

The results show the general trend that the flow rate determined from the simulations

increases significantly with speed, and less significantly with the encounter angle. Most

important is the fact that the flow rate for the static freeboard is very low. Although the

vessel took sufficient water on the main car deck to finally reach significant heeling

angles, the flow rates determined by our procedure are by far too low to accumulate about

1500t in a time span of about 10min. On the other hand, the results for the simplified

bow wave influence show that the flow rate increases drastically to values that do clearly

lead to amounts of accumulated water on deck of the required order of magnitude. And

this was the intention what was to be demonstrated with the simplified simulations: That

Page 236: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

9 Preliminary Motion Simulation Page 228

it is generally possible to collect the required amount of water on the Main Car Deck in

the time interval of interest, which makes the proposed scenarios generally plausible. The

simplified calculations do also show that the flow rates into the Main Car Deck do – as

supposed – strongly depend on the assumptions with respect to the inflow and freeboard.

Overview of Flow Rates

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18Speed in kn

Flo

w R

ate

in m

³/m

in

150° Encounter / without Bow-Wave

135° Encounter/ without Bow-Wave

150° Encounter / with Bow-Wave

135° Encounter / with Bow-Wave

Figure 9.16: Flow Rates with and without Ship’s own Wave System

As a next step it is planned to determine comparable flow rates for more boundary

conditions and to use these to actually determine the most plausible time function of

water ingress into the Main Car Deck, which can then be done by manual time integration

of the determined flow rates. These will further be made dependent of the averaged static

list of each time interval which allows to combine the time dependent inflow with other

external heeling moments, for example from rudder action, manoeuvring or cargo shift.

In parallel, it will be investigated how the water may have distributed internally.

Page 237: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

10 Table of Figures Page 229

10 Table of Figures

Figure 1.1:Table of Time Sequence of the Capsizing of MV Estonia.................................... 1

Figure 1.2: Overview of different amounts of Water in various Compartments leading to hydrostatic list ........................................................................................................................ 3

Figure 1.3: Flow Rates into the Main car Deck with and without Ship’s own Wave System.................................................................................................................................................. 5

Figure 2.1: Table of Tasks this Mile Stone 1-Report consists of ............................................ 6

Figure 3.1: Table of Key: Colours in Synoptic Time Schedule.............................................. 10

Figure 3.2: Synoptic Time Schedule .......................................................................................... 52

Figure 3.3:Table of Time Sequence of the Capsizing of MV Estonia.................................. 55

Figure 4.1: Table of Weather Conditions on the last Voyage of MV Estonia .................... 58

Figure 5.1: Table of Hydrostatic Particulars, Stability Book.................................................. 61

Figure 5.2: Table of Hydrostatic Particulars, TUHH-CAD-Model ...................................... 62

Figure 5.3: Cross Curves of Stability, Stability Book .............................................................. 64

Figure 5.4: Cross Curves of Stability, TUHH-CAD-Model................................................... 65

Figure 5.5: Screen Shot of Light Ship Condition of MV Estonia, TUHH-CAD-Model... 66

Figure 5.6: Lever Arm of Light Ship Weight Condition of MV Estonia, to 60° ................ 67

Figure 5.7: Lever Arm of Light Ship Weight Condition of MV Estonia, to 90° ................ 67

Figure 5.8: Load Case 1 - Light Ship Condition of MV Estonia, Stability Book................ 68

Figure 5.9: Load Case 1 - Light Ship Condition of MV Estonia, TUHH recalculation 1 . 69

Figure 5.10: Load Case 1 - Light Ship Condition of MV Estonia, TUHH recalculation 269

Figure 7.1: Vehicles on Main Car Deck.................................................................................... 75

Figure 7.2: Load Case Compilation and Comparison to JAIC.............................................. 76

Figure 8.1: Scenario 1 – Compartment under Consideration................................................ 79

Figure 8.2: Water on Main Car Deck, full Range, Mass over List......................................... 79

Figure 8.3: Water on Main Car Deck, Range till 3000t, Mass over List ............................... 80

Figure 8.4: Water on Main Car Deck, full Range, Mass over dh/dPhiequi ........................... 81

Figure 8.5: Water on Main Car Deck, Range till 3000t, Mass over dh/dphiequi .................. 81

Figure 8.6: Scenario 2 – Compartment under Consideration.............................................. 105

Figure 8.7: Shift of TCG of Vehicles, 300t Water on Main Car Deck, Shift over List .... 105

Figure 8.8: Scenario 3 – Compartment under Consideration.............................................. 112

Figure 8.9: Shift of TCG of Vehicles, 550t Water on Main Car Deck, Shift over List .... 112

Page 238: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

10 Table of Figures Page 230

Figure 8.10: Scenario 4 – Compartment under Consideration............................................ 119

Figure 8.11: Shift of TCG of Vehicles, 800t Water on Main Car Deck, Shift over List .. 119

Figure 8.12: Scenario 5 – Compartment under Consideration............................................ 126

Figure 8.13: Shift of CG of Vehicles, 1100t Water on Main Car Deck, Shift over List... 126

Figure 8.14: Scenario 6 – Compartments under Consideration .......................................... 133

Figure 8.15: Water in Compartment 89 and 300t Water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List.............................................................................................................................................. 134

Figure 8.16: Scenario 7 – Compartments under Consideration .......................................... 137

Figure 8.17: Water in Compartment 105 and 300t Water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List ....................................................................................................................................... 138

Figure 8.18: Scenario 8 – Compartments under Consideration .......................................... 141

Figure 8.19: Water in Compartment 106 and 300t water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List ....................................................................................................................................... 142

Figure 8.20: Scenario 9 – Compartments under Consideration .......................................... 145

Figure 8.21: Water in Main Engine Room, 300t Water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List.............................................................................................................................................. 146

Figure 8.22: Scenario 10 – Compartments under Consideration ........................................ 151

Figure 8.23: Water in Main Engine Room, 550t Water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List.............................................................................................................................................. 152

Figure 8.24: Scenario 11 – Compartments under Consideration ........................................ 157

Figure 8.25: Water in Auxiliary Engine Room, 300t Water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List ....................................................................................................................................... 158

Figure 8.26: Scenario 12 – Compartments under Consideration ........................................ 163

Figure 8.27: Water in Auxiliary Engine Room, 550t Water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List ....................................................................................................................................... 164

Figure 8.28: Scenario 13 – Compartments under Consideration ........................................ 169

Figure 8.29: Water in Pool Room, 300t Water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List ......... 170

Figure 8.30: Scenario 14 Compartments under Consideration ........................................... 173

Figure 8.31: Water in Comp. Fr. 85 to110, 300t Water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List.............................................................................................................................................. 174

Figure 8.32: Scenario 15 Compartments under Consideration ........................................... 178

Figure 8.33: Water in Sauna Room an 300t Water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List... 179

Figure 8.34: Scenario 16 – Compartments under Consideration ........................................ 183

Figure 8.35: Water in Sauna Room an 300t Water on Main Car Deck, Mass over List... 183

Figure 8.36: Allocation of Water on the Main Car Deck, Water in the Compartments and Cargo Shift of the Vehicles on the Main Car Deck. ..................................................... 192

Page 239: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

10 Table of Figures Page 231

Figure 8.37: Scenario 17 – Compartments under Consideration ........................................ 193

Figure 8.38: 300t Water on Main Car Deck and in selected Compartments, Cargo Shift of Vehicles of Main Car Deck, Mass and Cargo Shift over List...................................... 193

Figure 8.39: Allocation of Water on the Main Car Deck, Water in the Compartments and Cargo Shift of the Vehicles on the Main Car Deck. ..................................................... 201

Figure 8.40: Scenario 18 – Compartments under Consideration ........................................ 202

Figure 8.41: 300t Water on Main Car Deck and in selected Compartments, Cargo Shift of Vehicles of Main Car Deck, Mass and Cargo Shift over List...................................... 202

Figure 8.42: Comparison of Scenarios 2 to 5 concerning List ............................................ 209

Figure 8.43: Comparison of Scenarios 6 to 15 concerning List .......................................... 210

Figure 8.44: Overview of different amounts of Water in various Compartments leading to hydrostatic list .................................................................................................................... 211

Figure 8.45: Comparison of Scenarios 16 to 18 concerning List ........................................ 212

Figure 8.46: Comparison of Scenarios 16 to 18 concerning Trim ...................................... 213

Figure 9.1: Heave Motion, zero Speed.................................................................................... 217

Figure 9.2: Pitch Motion, zero Speed...................................................................................... 218

Figure 9.3: Sway Motion, zero Speed...................................................................................... 218

Figure 9.4: Yaw Motion, zero Speed....................................................................................... 219

Figure 9.5: Heave Motion, 15 knots Speed ............................................................................ 219

Figure 9.6: Pitch Motion, 15 knots Speed .............................................................................. 220

Figure 9.7: Sway Motion, 15 knots Speed .............................................................................. 220

Figure 9.8: Yaw Motion, 15 knots Speed................................................................................ 221

Figure 9.9: Own Wave System of MV Estonia at a 18kn Ship speed. Complete Wave-Pattern................................................................................................................................. 222

Figure 9.10: Own Wave System of MV Estonia at a 18kn Ship speed. Detailed Bow-View.............................................................................................................................................. 223

Figure 9.11: Own Wave System of MV Estonia at a 18 knots Ship speed. Side-View of Bow ..................................................................................................................................... 223

Figure 9.12: Roll-Angle over Time at 12 knots Speed, at 4.5 m significant Wave Height, significant Wave Period of 8s and an Encounter-Angle at 150° - without Considering Bow Wave........................................................................................................................... 225

Figure 9.13: Accumulated Volume over Time at 12 knots Speed, at 4.5 m significant Wave Height, significant Wave Period of 8s and an Encounter-Angle at 150° - without Considering Bow Wave .................................................................................................... 226

Figure 9.14: Roll-Angle over Time at 14 knots Speed, at 4.5 m significant Wave Height, significant Wave Period of 8s and an Encounter-Angle at 150°- Considering Bow Wave.................................................................................................................................... 226

Page 240: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

10 Table of Figures Page 232

Figure 9.15: Accumulated Volume over Time at 14 knots Speed, at 4.5 m significant Wave Height, significant Wave Period of 8s and an Encounter-Angle at 150° - Considering Bow Wave........................................................................................................................... 227

Figure 9.16: Flow Rates with and without Ship’s own Wave System................................. 228

Page 241: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

11 List of Abbreviations Page 233

11 List of Abbreviations

JAIC The Joint Accident Investigation Commission of Estonia, Finland and

Sweden

SPF Styrelsen för Psykologiskt Försvar, The Swedish National Board of

Psychological Defence

ch. Chapter

p. Page

Vol. Volume

N.f.S. “Nachrichten für Seefahrer”, professional journal

L.T. Local Time

Comp. Compartment

Aux. Auxiliary

ARPA Automatic Radar Plotting Aid

CPA Closest Point of Approach

ECR Engine Control Room

STB Starboard-Side

PS Port-Side

rpm rotations per minute

Page 242: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

12 Bibliographies Page 234

12 Bibliographies

In order of first appearance in the report.

[SOEDING] H. Söding, Water Ingress, Down- and Cross-Flooding, Lyngby 2002

[BSH01] Sea Chart of BSH, No. 240, corrected following N.f.S. up to Vol. 42-05

[JAIC01] JAIC, Final Report, ch. 5.3, p. 56, Edita Ltd., Helsinki, 1997

[KHBOCK] K.-H. Bock, Monatskarten der Dichte der Ostsee, Ergänzungsheft zur

Deutschen Hydrographischen Zeitschrift, Reihe B, Nr.13, 1971

[EMH] Weather Conditions on the Northern Baltic at September 28th, 1994,

Estonian Metrological and Hydrological Institute, Tallinn 1995

[FMI] Finnish Meteorological Institute, Komulainen Marja-Leena, The Baltic

Storm on 28.09.1994, Helsinki 1994

[SMHI] Swedish Metrological and Hydrological Institute, The m/s Estonia

accident. Weather conditions on September 27th and 28th, 1994,

Norrköping 1995.

[FIMR] Kahma, Kimmo; Pettersson, Heidi ; Myrberg, Kai; Jokinen, Hannu;

Estimated Wave Conditions and Currents during the last Voyage of M/S

Estonia, Finnish Institute of Marine Research, Helsinki 1996

[ROCK] Surveyreport m.v. “Estonia”. Our project nr. 94/7.060., Rockwater,

Rotterdam December 8th, 1994

[JAIC02] JAIC, Final Report, ch. 6.2.4, p. 66, Edita Ltd., Helsinki, 1997

Page 243: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

13 Supplementum Page 235

13 Supplementum

13.1 Detailed Cross Curves of Stability Including the Ducktail

+---------------------------+---------------------- -----+---------------+ |Yard number: |Ship name: |Date: | |590 |Estonia | | +---------------------------+---------------------- -----+---------------+ +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | Trim : 0.000 m (positive forward) | | Density Sea Water : 1.025 t/m3 | | Keel Thickness : 0.025 m | | Shell plating factor : 1.007 m | +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | STABILITY CROSS TABLES (FIXED TR IM) | +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | |T AP | Dis.SW |Kn 5 |Kn 10 |Kn 20 |Kn 30 |Kn 45 |Kn 60 |Kn 75 |T FP | |Metre | Ton |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre | +------+--------+------+------+------+------+------ +------+------+------+ | 2.000| 3787.9| 1.665| 3.214| 5.570| 7.118| 8.597 | 9.300| 9.437| 2.000| | 2.010| 3809.9| 1.659| 3.204| 5.561| 7.115| 8.599 | 9.306| 9.438| 2.010| | 2.020| 3831.8| 1.653| 3.195| 5.552| 7.111| 8.600 | 9.311| 9.438| 2.020| | 2.030| 3853.8| 1.647| 3.185| 5.544| 7.108| 8.601 | 9.317| 9.439| 2.030| | 2.040| 3875.8| 1.642| 3.175| 5.535| 7.104| 8.602 | 9.323| 9.439| 2.040| | 2.050| 3897.8| 1.636| 3.166| 5.527| 7.101| 8.603 | 9.328| 9.440| 2.050| | 2.060| 3919.9| 1.631| 3.157| 5.518| 7.097| 8.605 | 9.334| 9.440| 2.060| | 2.070| 3941.9| 1.625| 3.147| 5.510| 7.094| 8.606 | 9.339| 9.440| 2.070| | 2.080| 3964.0| 1.620| 3.138| 5.501| 7.090| 8.607 | 9.345| 9.441| 2.080| | 2.090| 3986.1| 1.614| 3.129| 5.493| 7.087| 8.608 | 9.350| 9.441| 2.090| | 2.100| 4008.2| 1.609| 3.120| 5.484| 7.084| 8.609 | 9.356| 9.442| 2.100| | 2.110| 4030.3| 1.603| 3.111| 5.476| 7.080| 8.610 | 9.361| 9.442| 2.110| | 2.120| 4052.4| 1.598| 3.102| 5.468| 7.077| 8.611 | 9.366| 9.442| 2.120| | 2.130| 4074.6| 1.593| 3.093| 5.460| 7.073| 8.612 | 9.372| 9.442| 2.130| | 2.140| 4096.8| 1.588| 3.085| 5.452| 7.070| 8.613 | 9.377| 9.442| 2.140| | 2.150| 4119.0| 1.583| 3.076| 5.444| 7.066| 8.614 | 9.383| 9.443| 2.150| | 2.160| 4141.2| 1.577| 3.067| 5.436| 7.063| 8.615 | 9.388| 9.443| 2.160| | 2.170| 4163.4| 1.572| 3.059| 5.428| 7.060| 8.616 | 9.393| 9.443| 2.170| | 2.180| 4185.6| 1.567| 3.051| 5.420| 7.056| 8.617 | 9.399| 9.443| 2.180| | 2.190| 4207.9| 1.562| 3.042| 5.412| 7.053| 8.618 | 9.404| 9.443| 2.190| | 2.200| 4230.2| 1.558| 3.034| 5.404| 7.050| 8.619 | 9.410| 9.443| 2.200| | 2.210| 4252.5| 1.553| 3.026| 5.396| 7.046| 8.620 | 9.415| 9.443| 2.210| | 2.220| 4274.8| 1.548| 3.017| 5.388| 7.043| 8.621 | 9.420| 9.443| 2.220| | 2.230| 4297.1| 1.543| 3.009| 5.380| 7.040| 8.622 | 9.426| 9.443| 2.230| | 2.240| 4319.5| 1.538| 3.001| 5.373| 7.036| 8.623 | 9.431| 9.443| 2.240| | 2.250| 4341.8| 1.534| 2.993| 5.365| 7.033| 8.624 | 9.436| 9.443| 2.250| | 2.260| 4364.2| 1.529| 2.986| 5.357| 7.030| 8.625 | 9.441| 9.443| 2.260| | 2.270| 4386.6| 1.524| 2.978| 5.350| 7.027| 8.626 | 9.447| 9.442| 2.270| | 2.280| 4409.1| 1.520| 2.970| 5.342| 7.023| 8.627 | 9.452| 9.442| 2.280| | 2.290| 4431.5| 1.515| 2.962| 5.335| 7.020| 8.628 | 9.457| 9.442| 2.290| | 2.300| 4453.9| 1.511| 2.955| 5.327| 7.017| 8.629 | 9.462| 9.442| 2.300| | 2.310| 4476.4| 1.506| 2.947| 5.320| 7.014| 8.629 | 9.467| 9.441| 2.310| | 2.320| 4498.9| 1.502| 2.939| 5.313| 7.010| 8.630 | 9.472| 9.441| 2.320| | 2.330| 4521.4| 1.497| 2.932| 5.305| 7.007| 8.631 | 9.476| 9.441| 2.330| | 2.340| 4543.9| 1.493| 2.925| 5.298| 7.004| 8.632 | 9.481| 9.441| 2.340| | 2.350| 4566.5| 1.489| 2.917| 5.291| 7.001| 8.633 | 9.485| 9.440| 2.350| | 2.360| 4589.0| 1.484| 2.910| 5.284| 6.997| 8.634 | 9.490| 9.440| 2.360| | 2.370| 4611.6| 1.480| 2.903| 5.277| 6.994| 8.634 | 9.494| 9.439| 2.370| | 2.380| 4634.2| 1.476| 2.895| 5.269| 6.991| 8.635 | 9.499| 9.439| 2.380| | 2.390| 4656.8| 1.472| 2.888| 5.262| 6.988| 8.636 | 9.503| 9.439| 2.390| | 2.400| 4679.4| 1.468| 2.881| 5.255| 6.985| 8.637 | 9.507| 9.438| 2.400| | 2.410| 4702.1| 1.464| 2.874| 5.248| 6.982| 8.637 | 9.511| 9.438| 2.410| | 2.420| 4724.7| 1.460| 2.867| 5.241| 6.978| 8.638 | 9.515| 9.437| 2.420| | 2.430| 4747.4| 1.456| 2.860| 5.235| 6.975| 8.639 | 9.519| 9.437| 2.430| | 2.440| 4770.1| 1.452| 2.853| 5.228| 6.972| 8.640 | 9.523| 9.436| 2.440| | 2.450| 4792.8| 1.448| 2.847| 5.221| 6.969| 8.640 | 9.527| 9.436| 2.450| | 2.460| 4815.5| 1.444| 2.840| 5.214| 6.966| 8.641 | 9.531| 9.435| 2.460| | 2.470| 4838.3| 1.440| 2.833| 5.207| 6.963| 8.642 | 9.534| 9.434| 2.470| | 2.480| 4861.0| 1.436| 2.826| 5.201| 6.960| 8.642 | 9.538| 9.434| 2.480| | 2.490| 4883.8| 1.432| 2.820| 5.194| 6.957| 8.643 | 9.542| 9.433| 2.490| | 2.500| 4906.6| 1.428| 2.813| 5.187| 6.954| 8.643 | 9.545| 9.433| 2.500| | 2.510| 4929.4| 1.425| 2.807| 5.181| 6.950| 8.644 | 9.549| 9.432| 2.510| | 2.520| 4952.2| 1.421| 2.800| 5.174| 6.947| 8.645 | 9.552| 9.431| 2.520| | 2.530| 4975.0| 1.417| 2.794| 5.168| 6.944| 8.645 | 9.555| 9.431| 2.530| | 2.540| 4997.9| 1.413| 2.787| 5.161| 6.941| 8.646 | 9.558| 9.430| 2.540| | 2.550| 5020.7| 1.410| 2.781| 5.155| 6.938| 8.646 | 9.562| 9.429| 2.550| | 2.560| 5043.6| 1.406| 2.775| 5.148| 6.935| 8.647 | 9.565| 9.428| 2.560| +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+

Page 244: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

13 Supplementum Page 236

+-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | STABILITY CROSS TABLES (FIXED TR IM) | +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | |T AP | Dis.SW |Kn 5 |Kn 10 |Kn 20 |Kn 30 |Kn 45 |Kn 60 |Kn 75 |T FP | |Metre | Ton |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre | +------+--------+------+------+------+------+------ +------+------+------+ | 2.570| 5066.5| 1.403| 2.769| 5.142| 6.932| 8.647 | 9.568| 9.428| 2.570| | 2.580| 5089.4| 1.399| 2.762| 5.136| 6.929| 8.648 | 9.571| 9.427| 2.580| | 2.590| 5112.3| 1.395| 2.756| 5.129| 6.926| 8.648 | 9.574| 9.426| 2.590| | 2.600| 5135.2| 1.392| 2.750| 5.123| 6.923| 8.648 | 9.577| 9.425| 2.600| | 2.610| 5158.2| 1.388| 2.744| 5.117| 6.920| 8.649 | 9.579| 9.424| 2.610| | 2.620| 5181.1| 1.385| 2.738| 5.111| 6.917| 8.649 | 9.582| 9.424| 2.620| | 2.630| 5204.1| 1.382| 2.732| 5.105| 6.914| 8.650 | 9.585| 9.423| 2.630| | 2.640| 5227.1| 1.378| 2.726| 5.099| 6.911| 8.650 | 9.587| 9.422| 2.640| | 2.650| 5250.1| 1.375| 2.720| 5.093| 6.908| 8.650 | 9.590| 9.421| 2.650| | 2.660| 5273.1| 1.372| 2.714| 5.087| 6.905| 8.651 | 9.593| 9.420| 2.660| | 2.670| 5296.1| 1.368| 2.708| 5.081| 6.902| 8.651 | 9.595| 9.419| 2.670| | 2.680| 5319.2| 1.365| 2.703| 5.075| 6.899| 8.652 | 9.597| 9.418| 2.680| | 2.690| 5342.2| 1.362| 2.697| 5.069| 6.896| 8.652 | 9.600| 9.417| 2.690| | 2.700| 5365.3| 1.358| 2.691| 5.063| 6.893| 8.652 | 9.602| 9.416| 2.700| | 2.710| 5388.4| 1.355| 2.685| 5.058| 6.890| 8.653 | 9.604| 9.415| 2.710| | 2.720| 5411.5| 1.352| 2.680| 5.052| 6.887| 8.653 | 9.607| 9.414| 2.720| | 2.730| 5434.6| 1.349| 2.674| 5.046| 6.884| 8.653 | 9.609| 9.413| 2.730| | 2.740| 5457.7| 1.346| 2.669| 5.041| 6.881| 8.654 | 9.611| 9.412| 2.740| | 2.750| 5480.8| 1.343| 2.663| 5.035| 6.878| 8.654 | 9.613| 9.411| 2.750| | 2.760| 5504.0| 1.340| 2.658| 5.029| 6.875| 8.654 | 9.615| 9.410| 2.760| | 2.770| 5527.1| 1.337| 2.652| 5.024| 6.872| 8.655 | 9.617| 9.409| 2.770| | 2.780| 5550.3| 1.334| 2.647| 5.018| 6.869| 8.655 | 9.619| 9.408| 2.780| | 2.790| 5573.5| 1.331| 2.641| 5.013| 6.867| 8.655 | 9.621| 9.407| 2.790| | 2.800| 5596.7| 1.328| 2.636| 5.007| 6.864| 8.656 | 9.623| 9.406| 2.800| | 2.810| 5619.9| 1.325| 2.631| 5.002| 6.861| 8.656 | 9.624| 9.405| 2.810| | 2.820| 5643.1| 1.322| 2.625| 4.997| 6.858| 8.656 | 9.626| 9.404| 2.820| | 2.830| 5666.3| 1.319| 2.620| 4.991| 6.855| 8.657 | 9.628| 9.403| 2.830| | 2.840| 5689.6| 1.316| 2.615| 4.986| 6.852| 8.657 | 9.629| 9.401| 2.840| | 2.850| 5712.8| 1.313| 2.610| 4.981| 6.849| 8.657 | 9.631| 9.400| 2.850| | 2.860| 5736.1| 1.310| 2.605| 4.976| 6.846| 8.657 | 9.633| 9.399| 2.860| | 2.870| 5759.4| 1.307| 2.599| 4.971| 6.843| 8.658 | 9.634| 9.398| 2.870| | 2.880| 5782.7| 1.304| 2.594| 4.965| 6.841| 8.658 | 9.635| 9.397| 2.880| | 2.890| 5806.0| 1.302| 2.589| 4.960| 6.838| 8.658 | 9.637| 9.396| 2.890| | 2.900| 5829.4| 1.299| 2.584| 4.955| 6.835| 8.658 | 9.638| 9.394| 2.900| | 2.910| 5852.7| 1.296| 2.579| 4.950| 6.832| 8.659 | 9.640| 9.393| 2.910| | 2.920| 5876.0| 1.293| 2.574| 4.945| 6.829| 8.659 | 9.641| 9.392| 2.920| | 2.930| 5899.4| 1.291| 2.569| 4.940| 6.826| 8.659 | 9.642| 9.391| 2.930| | 2.940| 5922.8| 1.288| 2.565| 4.936| 6.824| 8.659 | 9.643| 9.389| 2.940| | 2.950| 5946.2| 1.285| 2.560| 4.931| 6.821| 8.660 | 9.645| 9.388| 2.950| | 2.960| 5969.6| 1.283| 2.555| 4.926| 6.818| 8.660 | 9.646| 9.387| 2.960| | 2.970| 5993.0| 1.280| 2.550| 4.921| 6.815| 8.660 | 9.647| 9.386| 2.970| | 2.980| 6016.4| 1.278| 2.545| 4.916| 6.812| 8.660 | 9.648| 9.384| 2.980| | 2.990| 6039.9| 1.275| 2.540| 4.912| 6.809| 8.660 | 9.649| 9.383| 2.990| | 3.000| 6063.3| 1.272| 2.536| 4.907| 6.807| 8.661 | 9.650| 9.382| 3.000| | 3.010| 6086.8| 1.270| 2.531| 4.902| 6.804| 8.661 | 9.651| 9.380| 3.010| | 3.020| 6110.3| 1.267| 2.526| 4.898| 6.801| 8.661 | 9.652| 9.379| 3.020| | 3.030| 6133.8| 1.265| 2.522| 4.893| 6.798| 8.661 | 9.653| 9.378| 3.030| | 3.040| 6157.3| 1.262| 2.517| 4.889| 6.796| 8.661 | 9.653| 9.376| 3.040| | 3.050| 6180.8| 1.260| 2.513| 4.884| 6.793| 8.661 | 9.654| 9.375| 3.050| | 3.060| 6204.3| 1.258| 2.508| 4.880| 6.790| 8.661 | 9.655| 9.374| 3.060| | 3.070| 6227.9| 1.255| 2.503| 4.875| 6.787| 8.661 | 9.656| 9.372| 3.070| | 3.080| 6251.4| 1.253| 2.499| 4.871| 6.785| 8.662 | 9.656| 9.371| 3.080| | 3.090| 6275.0| 1.250| 2.495| 4.867| 6.782| 8.662 | 9.657| 9.370| 3.090| | 3.100| 6298.6| 1.248| 2.490| 4.862| 6.779| 8.662 | 9.658| 9.368| 3.100| | 3.110| 6322.2| 1.246| 2.486| 4.858| 6.776| 8.662 | 9.658| 9.367| 3.110| | 3.120| 6345.8| 1.243| 2.481| 4.854| 6.774| 8.662 | 9.659| 9.365| 3.120| | 3.130| 6369.4| 1.241| 2.477| 4.849| 6.771| 8.662 | 9.659| 9.364| 3.130| | 3.140| 6393.1| 1.239| 2.473| 4.845| 6.768| 8.662 | 9.660| 9.362| 3.140| | 3.150| 6416.7| 1.236| 2.469| 4.841| 6.766| 8.662 | 9.660| 9.361| 3.150| | 3.160| 6440.4| 1.234| 2.464| 4.837| 6.763| 8.662 | 9.661| 9.360| 3.160| | 3.170| 6464.1| 1.232| 2.460| 4.833| 6.760| 8.662 | 9.661| 9.358| 3.170| | 3.180| 6487.8| 1.230| 2.456| 4.829| 6.758| 8.662 | 9.661| 9.357| 3.180| | 3.190| 6511.5| 1.227| 2.452| 4.825| 6.755| 8.662 | 9.662| 9.355| 3.190| | 3.200| 6535.2| 1.225| 2.448| 4.821| 6.752| 8.662 | 9.662| 9.354| 3.200| | 3.210| 6558.9| 1.223| 2.444| 4.816| 6.750| 8.662 | 9.662| 9.352| 3.210| | 3.220| 6582.6| 1.221| 2.440| 4.812| 6.747| 8.662 | 9.663| 9.351| 3.220| | 3.230| 6606.4| 1.219| 2.436| 4.808| 6.744| 8.662 | 9.663| 9.349| 3.230| | 3.240| 6630.2| 1.216| 2.432| 4.805| 6.742| 8.662 | 9.663| 9.348| 3.240| | 3.250| 6653.9| 1.214| 2.428| 4.801| 6.739| 8.662 | 9.663| 9.346| 3.250| | 3.260| 6677.7| 1.212| 2.424| 4.797| 6.736| 8.662 | 9.663| 9.345| 3.260| | 3.270| 6701.6| 1.210| 2.420| 4.793| 6.734| 8.662 | 9.663| 9.343| 3.270| | 3.280| 6725.4| 1.208| 2.416| 4.789| 6.731| 8.662 | 9.663| 9.341| 3.280| | 3.290| 6749.2| 1.206| 2.412| 4.785| 6.728| 8.662 | 9.663| 9.340| 3.290| | 3.300| 6773.1| 1.204| 2.408| 4.781| 6.726| 8.661 | 9.663| 9.338| 3.300| | 3.310| 6796.9| 1.202| 2.405| 4.777| 6.723| 8.661 | 9.663| 9.337| 3.310| | 3.320| 6820.8| 1.200| 2.401| 4.774| 6.721| 8.661 | 9.663| 9.335| 3.320| | 3.330| 6844.7| 1.198| 2.397| 4.770| 6.718| 8.661 | 9.663| 9.334| 3.330| | 3.340| 6868.6| 1.196| 2.393| 4.766| 6.715| 8.661 | 9.663| 9.332| 3.340| +------+--------+------+------+------+------+------ +------+------+------+

Page 245: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

13 Supplementum Page 237

+-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | STABILITY CROSS TABLES (FIXED TR IM) | +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | |T AP | Dis.SW |Kn 5 |Kn 10 |Kn 20 |Kn 30 |Kn 45 |Kn 60 |Kn 75 |T FP | |Metre | Ton |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre | +------+--------+------+------+------+------+------ +------+------+------+ | 3.350| 6892.5| 1.194| 2.390| 4.762| 6.713| 8.661 | 9.663| 9.330| 3.350| | 3.360| 6916.4| 1.192| 2.386| 4.759| 6.710| 8.661 | 9.663| 9.329| 3.360| | 3.370| 6940.4| 1.190| 2.383| 4.755| 6.708| 8.661 | 9.663| 9.327| 3.370| | 3.380| 6964.3| 1.188| 2.379| 4.751| 6.705| 8.660 | 9.662| 9.325| 3.380| | 3.390| 6988.3| 1.186| 2.376| 4.748| 6.702| 8.660 | 9.662| 9.324| 3.390| | 3.400| 7012.3| 1.184| 2.372| 4.744| 6.700| 8.660 | 9.662| 9.322| 3.400| | 3.410| 7036.3| 1.182| 2.369| 4.740| 6.697| 8.660 | 9.662| 9.321| 3.410| | 3.420| 7060.3| 1.180| 2.365| 4.737| 6.695| 8.660 | 9.661| 9.319| 3.420| | 3.430| 7084.3| 1.179| 2.362| 4.733| 6.692| 8.660 | 9.661| 9.317| 3.430| | 3.440| 7108.3| 1.177| 2.358| 4.730| 6.690| 8.659 | 9.661| 9.316| 3.440| | 3.450| 7132.4| 1.175| 2.355| 4.726| 6.687| 8.659 | 9.660| 9.314| 3.450| | 3.460| 7156.4| 1.173| 2.352| 4.722| 6.685| 8.659 | 9.660| 9.312| 3.460| | 3.470| 7180.5| 1.171| 2.348| 4.719| 6.682| 8.659 | 9.659| 9.311| 3.470| | 3.480| 7204.6| 1.169| 2.345| 4.715| 6.680| 8.659 | 9.659| 9.309| 3.480| | 3.490| 7228.7| 1.168| 2.342| 4.712| 6.677| 8.659 | 9.658| 9.307| 3.490| | 3.500| 7252.8| 1.166| 2.338| 4.708| 6.674| 8.658 | 9.658| 9.305| 3.500| | 3.510| 7277.0| 1.164| 2.335| 4.705| 6.672| 8.658 | 9.657| 9.304| 3.510| | 3.520| 7301.1| 1.162| 2.332| 4.701| 6.669| 8.658 | 9.657| 9.302| 3.520| | 3.530| 7325.3| 1.161| 2.329| 4.698| 6.667| 8.658 | 9.656| 9.300| 3.530| | 3.540| 7349.4| 1.159| 2.326| 4.694| 6.664| 8.658 | 9.656| 9.299| 3.540| | 3.550| 7373.6| 1.157| 2.323| 4.691| 6.662| 8.658 | 9.655| 9.297| 3.550| | 3.560| 7397.8| 1.156| 2.320| 4.687| 6.659| 8.657 | 9.654| 9.295| 3.560| | 3.570| 7422.0| 1.154| 2.316| 4.684| 6.657| 8.657 | 9.654| 9.293| 3.570| | 3.580| 7446.3| 1.152| 2.313| 4.681| 6.654| 8.657 | 9.653| 9.292| 3.580| | 3.590| 7470.5| 1.151| 2.310| 4.677| 6.652| 8.657 | 9.652| 9.290| 3.590| | 3.600| 7494.8| 1.149| 2.307| 4.674| 6.650| 8.657 | 9.651| 9.288| 3.600| | 3.610| 7519.0| 1.147| 2.304| 4.670| 6.647| 8.656 | 9.651| 9.286| 3.610| | 3.620| 7543.3| 1.146| 2.302| 4.667| 6.645| 8.656 | 9.650| 9.284| 3.620| | 3.630| 7567.6| 1.144| 2.299| 4.664| 6.642| 8.656 | 9.649| 9.283| 3.630| | 3.640| 7591.9| 1.143| 2.296| 4.660| 6.640| 8.656 | 9.648| 9.281| 3.640| | 3.650| 7616.2| 1.141| 2.293| 4.657| 6.637| 8.656 | 9.647| 9.279| 3.650| | 3.660| 7640.6| 1.139| 2.290| 4.654| 6.635| 8.656 | 9.647| 9.277| 3.660| | 3.670| 7664.9| 1.138| 2.287| 4.651| 6.632| 8.655 | 9.646| 9.276| 3.670| | 3.680| 7689.3| 1.136| 2.285| 4.648| 6.630| 8.655 | 9.645| 9.274| 3.680| | 3.690| 7713.7| 1.135| 2.282| 4.644| 6.627| 8.655 | 9.644| 9.272| 3.690| | 3.700| 7738.1| 1.133| 2.279| 4.641| 6.625| 8.655 | 9.643| 9.270| 3.700| | 3.710| 7762.5| 1.132| 2.276| 4.638| 6.623| 8.655 | 9.642| 9.268| 3.710| | 3.720| 7786.9| 1.130| 2.274| 4.635| 6.620| 8.655 | 9.641| 9.266| 3.720| | 3.730| 7811.4| 1.129| 2.271| 4.632| 6.618| 8.654 | 9.640| 9.265| 3.730| | 3.740| 7835.8| 1.127| 2.268| 4.629| 6.615| 8.654 | 9.639| 9.263| 3.740| | 3.750| 7860.3| 1.126| 2.266| 4.626| 6.613| 8.654 | 9.638| 9.261| 3.750| | 3.760| 7884.8| 1.125| 2.263| 4.623| 6.611| 8.654 | 9.637| 9.259| 3.760| | 3.770| 7909.3| 1.123| 2.261| 4.620| 6.608| 8.654 | 9.636| 9.257| 3.770| | 3.780| 7933.8| 1.122| 2.258| 4.616| 6.606| 8.653 | 9.635| 9.255| 3.780| | 3.790| 7958.3| 1.120| 2.255| 4.613| 6.603| 8.653 | 9.633| 9.253| 3.790| | 3.800| 7982.9| 1.119| 2.253| 4.611| 6.601| 8.653 | 9.632| 9.252| 3.800| | 3.810| 8007.4| 1.118| 2.251| 4.608| 6.599| 8.653 | 9.631| 9.250| 3.810| | 3.820| 8032.0| 1.116| 2.248| 4.605| 6.596| 8.653 | 9.630| 9.248| 3.820| | 3.830| 8056.6| 1.115| 2.246| 4.602| 6.594| 8.653 | 9.629| 9.246| 3.830| | 3.840| 8081.2| 1.114| 2.243| 4.599| 6.592| 8.652 | 9.628| 9.244| 3.840| | 3.850| 8105.8| 1.112| 2.241| 4.596| 6.589| 8.652 | 9.626| 9.242| 3.850| | 3.860| 8130.5| 1.111| 2.238| 4.593| 6.587| 8.652 | 9.625| 9.240| 3.860| | 3.870| 8155.1| 1.110| 2.236| 4.590| 6.585| 8.652 | 9.624| 9.238| 3.870| | 3.880| 8179.8| 1.108| 2.234| 4.587| 6.582| 8.652 | 9.622| 9.237| 3.880| | 3.890| 8204.5| 1.107| 2.232| 4.584| 6.580| 8.652 | 9.621| 9.235| 3.890| | 3.900| 8229.2| 1.106| 2.229| 4.582| 6.578| 8.651 | 9.620| 9.233| 3.900| | 3.910| 8253.9| 1.105| 2.227| 4.579| 6.575| 8.651 | 9.618| 9.231| 3.910| | 3.920| 8278.6| 1.103| 2.225| 4.576| 6.573| 8.651 | 9.617| 9.229| 3.920| | 3.930| 8303.4| 1.102| 2.223| 4.573| 6.571| 8.651 | 9.616| 9.227| 3.930| | 3.940| 8328.1| 1.101| 2.220| 4.570| 6.568| 8.651 | 9.614| 9.225| 3.940| | 3.950| 8352.9| 1.100| 2.218| 4.568| 6.566| 8.651 | 9.613| 9.223| 3.950| | 3.960| 8377.7| 1.098| 2.216| 4.565| 6.564| 8.650 | 9.611| 9.221| 3.960| | 3.970| 8402.5| 1.097| 2.214| 4.562| 6.561| 8.650 | 9.610| 9.219| 3.970| | 3.980| 8427.3| 1.096| 2.212| 4.559| 6.559| 8.650 | 9.608| 9.217| 3.980| | 3.990| 8452.2| 1.095| 2.210| 4.557| 6.557| 8.650 | 9.607| 9.215| 3.990| | 4.000| 8477.0| 1.094| 2.208| 4.554| 6.555| 8.650 | 9.605| 9.213| 4.000| | 4.010| 8501.9| 1.093| 2.206| 4.551| 6.552| 8.650 | 9.604| 9.211| 4.010| | 4.020| 8526.8| 1.091| 2.204| 4.549| 6.550| 8.650 | 9.602| 9.209| 4.020| | 4.030| 8551.7| 1.090| 2.202| 4.546| 6.548| 8.649 | 9.601| 9.207| 4.030| | 4.040| 8576.6| 1.089| 2.200| 4.544| 6.545| 8.649 | 9.599| 9.205| 4.040| | 4.050| 8601.6| 1.088| 2.198| 4.541| 6.543| 8.649 | 9.598| 9.203| 4.050| | 4.060| 8626.5| 1.087| 2.196| 4.538| 6.541| 8.649 | 9.596| 9.201| 4.060| | 4.070| 8651.5| 1.086| 2.194| 4.536| 6.539| 8.649 | 9.594| 9.199| 4.070| | 4.080| 8676.5| 1.085| 2.192| 4.533| 6.536| 8.649 | 9.593| 9.197| 4.080| | 4.090| 8701.5| 1.084| 2.190| 4.531| 6.534| 8.649 | 9.591| 9.195| 4.090| | 4.100| 8726.5| 1.083| 2.189| 4.528| 6.532| 8.649 | 9.589| 9.193| 4.100| | 4.110| 8751.5| 1.082| 2.187| 4.526| 6.530| 8.649 | 9.588| 9.191| 4.110| | 4.120| 8776.6| 1.081| 2.185| 4.523| 6.527| 8.648 | 9.586| 9.189| 4.120| +------+--------+------+------+------+------+------ +------+------+------+

Page 246: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

13 Supplementum Page 238

+-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | STABILITY CROSS TABLES (FIXED TR IM) | +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | |T AP | Dis.SW |Kn 5 |Kn 10 |Kn 20 |Kn 30 |Kn 45 |Kn 60 |Kn 75 |T FP | |Metre | Ton |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre | +------+--------+------+------+------+------+------ +------+------+------+´ | 4.130| 8801.7| 1.080| 2.183| 4.521| 6.525| 8.648 | 9.584| 9.187| 4.130| | 4.140| 8826.7| 1.079| 2.182| 4.518| 6.523| 8.648 | 9.583| 9.185| 4.140| | 4.150| 8851.8| 1.078| 2.180| 4.516| 6.521| 8.648 | 9.581| 9.183| 4.150| | 4.160| 8877.0| 1.077| 2.178| 4.513| 6.519| 8.648 | 9.579| 9.181| 4.160| | 4.170| 8902.1| 1.076| 2.176| 4.511| 6.516| 8.648 | 9.577| 9.179| 4.170| | 4.180| 8927.2| 1.075| 2.175| 4.508| 6.514| 8.648 | 9.576| 9.177| 4.180| | 4.190| 8952.4| 1.074| 2.173| 4.506| 6.512| 8.648 | 9.574| 9.175| 4.190| | 4.200| 8977.6| 1.073| 2.172| 4.503| 6.510| 8.648 | 9.572| 9.173| 4.200| | 4.210| 9002.8| 1.072| 2.170| 4.501| 6.508| 8.648 | 9.570| 9.171| 4.210| | 4.220| 9028.0| 1.071| 2.168| 4.499| 6.505| 8.648 | 9.568| 9.169| 4.220| | 4.230| 9053.3| 1.070| 2.167| 4.496| 6.503| 8.647 | 9.566| 9.167| 4.230| | 4.240| 9078.5| 1.069| 2.165| 4.494| 6.501| 8.647 | 9.565| 9.165| 4.240| | 4.250| 9103.8| 1.068| 2.164| 4.491| 6.499| 8.647 | 9.563| 9.163| 4.250| | 4.260| 9129.1| 1.067| 2.162| 4.489| 6.497| 8.647 | 9.561| 9.161| 4.260| | 4.270| 9154.4| 1.066| 2.161| 4.487| 6.495| 8.647 | 9.559| 9.159| 4.270| | 4.280| 9179.7| 1.066| 2.160| 4.484| 6.492| 8.647 | 9.557| 9.157| 4.280| | 4.290| 9205.1| 1.065| 2.158| 4.482| 6.490| 8.647 | 9.555| 9.155| 4.290| | 4.300| 9230.4| 1.064| 2.157| 4.480| 6.488| 8.647 | 9.553| 9.153| 4.300| | 4.310| 9255.8| 1.063| 2.155| 4.477| 6.486| 8.646 | 9.551| 9.151| 4.310| | 4.320| 9281.2| 1.062| 2.154| 4.475| 6.484| 8.646 | 9.549| 9.148| 4.320| | 4.330| 9306.6| 1.061| 2.153| 4.473| 6.482| 8.646 | 9.547| 9.146| 4.330| | 4.340| 9332.1| 1.061| 2.151| 4.471| 6.479| 8.646 | 9.545| 9.144| 4.340| | 4.350| 9357.5| 1.060| 2.150| 4.468| 6.477| 8.645 | 9.543| 9.142| 4.350| | 4.360| 9383.0| 1.059| 2.149| 4.466| 6.475| 8.645 | 9.541| 9.140| 4.360| | 4.370| 9408.5| 1.058| 2.148| 4.464| 6.473| 8.644 | 9.539| 9.138| 4.370| | 4.380| 9434.0| 1.057| 2.146| 4.462| 6.471| 8.644 | 9.537| 9.136| 4.380| | 4.390| 9459.5| 1.057| 2.145| 4.459| 6.469| 8.644 | 9.535| 9.134| 4.390| | 4.400| 9485.0| 1.056| 2.144| 4.457| 6.467| 8.643 | 9.533| 9.132| 4.400| | 4.410| 9510.6| 1.055| 2.143| 4.455| 6.465| 8.643 | 9.531| 9.130| 4.410| | 4.420| 9536.2| 1.054| 2.142| 4.453| 6.462| 8.642 | 9.529| 9.127| 4.420| | 4.430| 9561.8| 1.054| 2.140| 4.451| 6.460| 8.642 | 9.526| 9.125| 4.430| | 4.440| 9587.4| 1.053| 2.139| 4.448| 6.458| 8.641 | 9.524| 9.123| 4.440| | 4.450| 9613.0| 1.052| 2.138| 4.446| 6.456| 8.641 | 9.522| 9.121| 4.450| | 4.460| 9638.7| 1.052| 2.137| 4.444| 6.454| 8.640 | 9.520| 9.119| 4.460| | 4.470| 9664.4| 1.051| 2.136| 4.442| 6.452| 8.640 | 9.518| 9.117| 4.470| | 4.480| 9690.1| 1.050| 2.135| 4.440| 6.450| 8.639 | 9.516| 9.115| 4.480| | 4.490| 9715.8| 1.050| 2.134| 4.438| 6.448| 8.638 | 9.513| 9.112| 4.490| | 4.500| 9741.5| 1.049| 2.133| 4.435| 6.446| 8.638 | 9.511| 9.110| 4.500| | 4.510| 9767.2| 1.048| 2.132| 4.433| 6.444| 8.637 | 9.509| 9.108| 4.510| | 4.520| 9793.0| 1.048| 2.131| 4.431| 6.442| 8.636 | 9.507| 9.106| 4.520| | 4.530| 9818.8| 1.047| 2.130| 4.429| 6.439| 8.636 | 9.504| 9.104| 4.530| | 4.540| 9844.6| 1.046| 2.129| 4.427| 6.437| 8.635 | 9.502| 9.102| 4.540| | 4.550| 9870.5| 1.046| 2.128| 4.425| 6.435| 8.634 | 9.500| 9.100| 4.550| | 4.560| 9896.3| 1.045| 2.128| 4.423| 6.433| 8.634 | 9.498| 9.097| 4.560| | 4.570| 9922.2| 1.045| 2.127| 4.421| 6.431| 8.633 | 9.495| 9.095| 4.570| | 4.580| 9948.1| 1.044| 2.126| 4.419| 6.429| 8.632 | 9.493| 9.093| 4.580| | 4.590| 9974.0| 1.043| 2.125| 4.417| 6.427| 8.631 | 9.491| 9.091| 4.590| | 4.600| 9999.9| 1.043| 2.124| 4.415| 6.425| 8.630 | 9.488| 9.089| 4.600| | 4.610| 10025.9| 1.042| 2.124| 4.413| 6.423| 8.629 | 9.486| 9.087| 4.610| | 4.620| 10051.8| 1.042| 2.123| 4.411| 6.421| 8.629 | 9.484| 9.084| 4.620| | 4.630| 10077.8| 1.041| 2.122| 4.409| 6.419| 8.628 | 9.481| 9.082| 4.630| | 4.640| 10103.8| 1.041| 2.121| 4.407| 6.417| 8.627 | 9.479| 9.080| 4.640| | 4.650| 10129.9| 1.040| 2.121| 4.405| 6.415| 8.626 | 9.477| 9.078| 4.650| | 4.660| 10155.9| 1.040| 2.120| 4.403| 6.413| 8.625 | 9.474| 9.076| 4.660| | 4.670| 10182.0| 1.039| 2.119| 4.401| 6.411| 8.624 | 9.472| 9.073| 4.670| | 4.680| 10208.1| 1.039| 2.119| 4.399| 6.409| 8.623 | 9.469| 9.071| 4.680| | 4.690| 10234.2| 1.038| 2.118| 4.397| 6.407| 8.622 | 9.467| 9.069| 4.690| | 4.700| 10260.4| 1.038| 2.118| 4.395| 6.405| 8.621 | 9.464| 9.067| 4.700| | 4.710| 10286.6| 1.038| 2.117| 4.393| 6.403| 8.620 | 9.462| 9.064| 4.710| | 4.720| 10312.7| 1.037| 2.116| 4.391| 6.401| 8.619 | 9.459| 9.062| 4.720| | 4.730| 10339.0| 1.037| 2.116| 4.389| 6.399| 8.618 | 9.457| 9.060| 4.730| | 4.740| 10365.2| 1.036| 2.115| 4.387| 6.397| 8.617 | 9.454| 9.058| 4.740| | 4.750| 10391.4| 1.036| 2.115| 4.385| 6.395| 8.616 | 9.452| 9.056| 4.750| | 4.760| 10417.7| 1.035| 2.114| 4.383| 6.393| 8.614 | 9.449| 9.053| 4.760| | 4.770| 10444.0| 1.035| 2.114| 4.381| 6.391| 8.613 | 9.447| 9.051| 4.770| | 4.780| 10470.3| 1.035| 2.114| 4.379| 6.389| 8.612 | 9.444| 9.049| 4.780| | 4.790| 10496.7| 1.034| 2.113| 4.377| 6.387| 8.611 | 9.442| 9.047| 4.790| | 4.800| 10523.1| 1.034| 2.113| 4.375| 6.385| 8.610 | 9.439| 9.044| 4.800| | 4.810| 10549.5| 1.034| 2.112| 4.373| 6.383| 8.609 | 9.436| 9.042| 4.810| | 4.820| 10575.9| 1.033| 2.112| 4.371| 6.381| 8.607 | 9.434| 9.040| 4.820| | 4.830| 10602.3| 1.033| 2.112| 4.369| 6.379| 8.606 | 9.431| 9.038| 4.830| | 4.840| 10628.8| 1.033| 2.111| 4.368| 6.377| 8.605 | 9.428| 9.035| 4.840| | 4.850| 10655.3| 1.032| 2.111| 4.366| 6.375| 8.604 | 9.426| 9.033| 4.850| | 4.860| 10681.8| 1.032| 2.111| 4.364| 6.373| 8.602 | 9.423| 9.031| 4.860| | 4.870| 10708.4| 1.032| 2.110| 4.362| 6.371| 8.601 | 9.420| 9.029| 4.870| | 4.880| 10734.9| 1.032| 2.110| 4.360| 6.369| 8.600 | 9.418| 9.026| 4.880| | 4.890| 10761.5| 1.031| 2.110| 4.358| 6.367| 8.598 | 9.415| 9.024| 4.890| | 4.900| 10788.2| 1.031| 2.109| 4.356| 6.365| 8.597 | 9.412| 9.022| 4.900| +------+--------+------+------+------+------+------ +------+------+------+

Page 247: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

13 Supplementum Page 239

+-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | STABILITY CROSS TABLES (FIXED TR IM) | +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | |T AP | Dis.SW |Kn 5 |Kn 10 |Kn 20 |Kn 30 |Kn 45 |Kn 60 |Kn 75 |T FP | |Metre | Ton |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre | +------+--------+------+------+------+------+------ +------+------+------+ | 4.910| 10814.8| 1.031| 2.109| 4.355| 6.363| 8.596 | 9.410| 9.019| 4.910| | 4.920| 10841.5| 1.031| 2.109| 4.353| 6.361| 8.594 | 9.407| 9.017| 4.920| | 4.930| 10868.2| 1.030| 2.109| 4.351| 6.359| 8.593 | 9.404| 9.015| 4.930| | 4.940| 10894.9| 1.030| 2.108| 4.349| 6.357| 8.591 | 9.401| 9.013| 4.940| | 4.950| 10921.6| 1.030| 2.108| 4.347| 6.355| 8.590 | 9.399| 9.010| 4.950| | 4.960| 10948.4| 1.030| 2.108| 4.345| 6.353| 8.588 | 9.396| 9.008| 4.960| | 4.970| 10975.2| 1.030| 2.108| 4.344| 6.352| 8.587 | 9.393| 9.006| 4.970| | 4.980| 11002.0| 1.029| 2.108| 4.342| 6.350| 8.585 | 9.390| 9.003| 4.980| | 4.990| 11028.9| 1.029| 2.107| 4.340| 6.348| 8.584 | 9.387| 9.001| 4.990| | 5.000| 11055.8| 1.029| 2.107| 4.338| 6.346| 8.582 | 9.385| 8.999| 5.000| | 5.010| 11082.7| 1.029| 2.107| 4.336| 6.344| 8.581 | 9.382| 8.996| 5.010| | 5.020| 11109.6| 1.029| 2.107| 4.335| 6.342| 8.579 | 9.379| 8.994| 5.020| | 5.030| 11136.6| 1.029| 2.107| 4.333| 6.340| 8.578 | 9.376| 8.992| 5.030| | 5.040| 11163.6| 1.029| 2.107| 4.331| 6.338| 8.576 | 9.373| 8.989| 5.040| | 5.050| 11190.6| 1.029| 2.106| 4.329| 6.336| 8.575 | 9.370| 8.987| 5.050| | 5.060| 11217.7| 1.028| 2.106| 4.328| 6.334| 8.573 | 9.367| 8.985| 5.060| | 5.070| 11244.8| 1.028| 2.106| 4.326| 6.332| 8.571 | 9.364| 8.982| 5.070| | 5.080| 11271.9| 1.028| 2.106| 4.324| 6.330| 8.570 | 9.361| 8.980| 5.080| | 5.090| 11299.0| 1.028| 2.106| 4.322| 6.329| 8.568 | 9.358| 8.978| 5.090| | 5.100| 11326.2| 1.028| 2.106| 4.321| 6.327| 8.566 | 9.356| 8.975| 5.100| | 5.110| 11353.4| 1.028| 2.106| 4.319| 6.325| 8.565 | 9.353| 8.973| 5.110| | 5.120| 11380.6| 1.028| 2.106| 4.317| 6.323| 8.563 | 9.350| 8.971| 5.120| | 5.130| 11407.9| 1.028| 2.105| 4.315| 6.321| 8.561 | 9.347| 8.968| 5.130| | 5.140| 11435.2| 1.028| 2.105| 4.314| 6.319| 8.559 | 9.344| 8.966| 5.140| | 5.150| 11462.5| 1.028| 2.105| 4.312| 6.317| 8.558 | 9.341| 8.964| 5.150| | 5.160| 11489.9| 1.028| 2.105| 4.310| 6.315| 8.556 | 9.338| 8.961| 5.160| | 5.170| 11517.3| 1.028| 2.105| 4.308| 6.313| 8.554 | 9.334| 8.959| 5.170| | 5.180| 11544.7| 1.028| 2.105| 4.307| 6.312| 8.552 | 9.331| 8.956| 5.180| | 5.190| 11572.2| 1.028| 2.105| 4.305| 6.310| 8.551 | 9.328| 8.954| 5.190| | 5.200| 11599.7| 1.028| 2.105| 4.303| 6.308| 8.549 | 9.325| 8.952| 5.200| | 5.210| 11627.2| 1.028| 2.105| 4.302| 6.306| 8.547 | 9.322| 8.949| 5.210| | 5.220| 11654.8| 1.028| 2.105| 4.300| 6.304| 8.545 | 9.319| 8.947| 5.220| | 5.230| 11682.4| 1.029| 2.105| 4.298| 6.302| 8.543 | 9.316| 8.944| 5.230| | 5.240| 11710.0| 1.029| 2.105| 4.296| 6.300| 8.541 | 9.313| 8.942| 5.240| | 5.250| 11737.7| 1.029| 2.105| 4.295| 6.298| 8.539 | 9.310| 8.940| 5.250| | 5.260| 11765.4| 1.029| 2.105| 4.293| 6.297| 8.538 | 9.306| 8.937| 5.260| | 5.270| 11793.1| 1.029| 2.105| 4.291| 6.295| 8.536 | 9.303| 8.935| 5.270| | 5.280| 11820.9| 1.029| 2.105| 4.290| 6.293| 8.534 | 9.300| 8.932| 5.280| | 5.290| 11848.6| 1.029| 2.105| 4.288| 6.291| 8.532 | 9.297| 8.930| 5.290| | 5.300| 11876.5| 1.029| 2.105| 4.286| 6.289| 8.530 | 9.294| 8.928| 5.300| | 5.310| 11904.3| 1.030| 2.105| 4.285| 6.287| 8.528 | 9.290| 8.925| 5.310| | 5.320| 11932.2| 1.030| 2.105| 4.283| 6.285| 8.526 | 9.287| 8.923| 5.320| | 5.330| 11960.2| 1.030| 2.105| 4.281| 6.284| 8.524 | 9.284| 8.920| 5.330| | 5.340| 11988.2| 1.030| 2.105| 4.280| 6.282| 8.522 | 9.281| 8.918| 5.340| | 5.350| 12016.2| 1.030| 2.105| 4.278| 6.280| 8.520 | 9.277| 8.915| 5.350| | 5.360| 12044.2| 1.030| 2.105| 4.276| 6.278| 8.518 | 9.274| 8.913| 5.360| | 5.370| 12072.3| 1.031| 2.105| 4.275| 6.276| 8.516 | 9.271| 8.910| 5.370| | 5.380| 12100.4| 1.031| 2.105| 4.273| 6.274| 8.514 | 9.268| 8.908| 5.380| | 5.390| 12128.5| 1.031| 2.105| 4.272| 6.273| 8.511 | 9.264| 8.905| 5.390| | 5.400| 12156.7| 1.031| 2.106| 4.270| 6.271| 8.509 | 9.261| 8.903| 5.400| | 5.410| 12185.0| 1.032| 2.106| 4.268| 6.269| 8.507 | 9.258| 8.901| 5.410| | 5.420| 12213.2| 1.032| 2.106| 4.267| 6.267| 8.505 | 9.254| 8.898| 5.420| | 5.430| 12241.5| 1.032| 2.106| 4.265| 6.265| 8.503 | 9.251| 8.896| 5.430| | 5.440| 12269.8| 1.032| 2.106| 4.263| 6.263| 8.501 | 9.248| 8.893| 5.440| | 5.450| 12298.2| 1.033| 2.106| 4.262| 6.262| 8.499 | 9.244| 8.891| 5.450| | 5.460| 12326.6| 1.033| 2.106| 4.260| 6.260| 8.497 | 9.241| 8.888| 5.460| | 5.470| 12355.1| 1.033| 2.106| 4.259| 6.258| 8.494 | 9.238| 8.886| 5.470| | 5.480| 12383.6| 1.033| 2.106| 4.257| 6.256| 8.492 | 9.234| 8.883| 5.480| | 5.490| 12412.1| 1.034| 2.106| 4.256| 6.254| 8.490 | 9.231| 8.881| 5.490| | 5.500| 12440.6| 1.034| 2.106| 4.254| 6.253| 8.488 | 9.228| 8.878| 5.500| | 5.510| 12469.2| 1.034| 2.107| 4.252| 6.251| 8.485 | 9.224| 8.876| 5.510| | 5.520| 12497.9| 1.035| 2.107| 4.251| 6.249| 8.483 | 9.221| 8.873| 5.520| | 5.530| 12526.6| 1.035| 2.107| 4.249| 6.247| 8.481 | 9.217| 8.870| 5.530| | 5.540| 12555.3| 1.035| 2.107| 4.248| 6.245| 8.479 | 9.214| 8.868| 5.540| | 5.550| 12584.0| 1.036| 2.107| 4.246| 6.244| 8.476 | 9.211| 8.865| 5.550| | 5.560| 12612.8| 1.036| 2.107| 4.245| 6.242| 8.474 | 9.207| 8.863| 5.560| | 5.570| 12641.7| 1.036| 2.107| 4.243| 6.240| 8.472 | 9.204| 8.860| 5.570| | 5.580| 12670.5| 1.036| 2.107| 4.242| 6.238| 8.469 | 9.200| 8.858| 5.580| | 5.590| 12699.4| 1.037| 2.107| 4.240| 6.236| 8.467 | 9.197| 8.855| 5.590| | 5.600| 12728.4| 1.037| 2.107| 4.239| 6.235| 8.465 | 9.193| 8.853| 5.600| | 5.610| 12757.4| 1.038| 2.108| 4.237| 6.233| 8.462 | 9.190| 8.850| 5.610| | 5.620| 12786.4| 1.038| 2.108| 4.236| 6.231| 8.460 | 9.186| 8.848| 5.620| | 5.630| 12815.5| 1.038| 2.108| 4.234| 6.229| 8.457 | 9.183| 8.845| 5.630| | 5.640| 12844.6| 1.039| 2.108| 4.233| 6.227| 8.455 | 9.179| 8.842| 5.640| | 5.650| 12873.7| 1.039| 2.108| 4.231| 6.226| 8.453 | 9.176| 8.840| 5.650| | 5.660| 12902.9| 1.039| 2.108| 4.230| 6.224| 8.450 | 9.172| 8.837| 5.660| | 5.670| 12932.1| 1.040| 2.108| 4.228| 6.222| 8.448 | 9.169| 8.835| 5.670| | 5.680| 12961.3| 1.040| 2.108| 4.227| 6.220| 8.445 | 9.165| 8.832| 5.680| +------+--------+------+------+------+------+------ +------+------+------+

Page 248: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

13 Supplementum Page 240

+-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | STABILITY CROSS TABLES (FIXED TR IM) | +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | |T AP | Dis.SW |Kn 5 |Kn 10 |Kn 20 |Kn 30 |Kn 45 |Kn 60 |Kn 75 |T FP | |Metre | Ton |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre | +------+--------+------+------+------+------+------ +------+------+------+ | 5.690| 12990.6| 1.041| 2.108| 4.225| 6.219| 8.443 | 9.162| 8.829| 5.690| | 5.700| 13020.0| 1.041| 2.108| 4.224| 6.217| 8.440 | 9.158| 8.827| 5.700| | 5.710| 13049.3| 1.041| 2.108| 4.223| 6.215| 8.438 | 9.155| 8.824| 5.710| | 5.720| 13078.7| 1.042| 2.109| 4.221| 6.213| 8.435 | 9.151| 8.822| 5.720| | 5.730| 13108.2| 1.042| 2.109| 4.220| 6.212| 8.433 | 9.148| 8.819| 5.730| | 5.740| 13137.7| 1.043| 2.109| 4.218| 6.210| 8.430 | 9.144| 8.816| 5.740| | 5.750| 13167.2| 1.043| 2.109| 4.217| 6.208| 8.428 | 9.140| 8.814| 5.750| | 5.760| 13196.8| 1.044| 2.109| 4.215| 6.206| 8.425 | 9.137| 8.811| 5.760| | 5.770| 13226.3| 1.044| 2.109| 4.214| 6.205| 8.423 | 9.133| 8.808| 5.770| | 5.780| 13256.0| 1.044| 2.109| 4.213| 6.203| 8.420 | 9.130| 8.806| 5.780| | 5.790| 13285.7| 1.045| 2.109| 4.211| 6.201| 8.417 | 9.126| 8.803| 5.790| | 5.800| 13315.4| 1.045| 2.109| 4.210| 6.199| 8.415 | 9.123| 8.801| 5.800| | 5.810| 13345.1| 1.046| 2.109| 4.209| 6.198| 8.412 | 9.119| 8.798| 5.810| | 5.820| 13374.9| 1.046| 2.109| 4.207| 6.196| 8.410 | 9.115| 8.795| 5.820| | 5.830| 13404.7| 1.047| 2.109| 4.206| 6.194| 8.407 | 9.112| 8.793| 5.830| | 5.840| 13434.6| 1.047| 2.110| 4.205| 6.193| 8.404 | 9.108| 8.790| 5.840| | 5.850| 13464.5| 1.048| 2.110| 4.203| 6.191| 8.402 | 9.105| 8.787| 5.850| | 5.860| 13494.5| 1.048| 2.110| 4.202| 6.189| 8.399 | 9.101| 8.785| 5.860| | 5.870| 13524.5| 1.049| 2.110| 4.201| 6.188| 8.396 | 9.097| 8.782| 5.870| | 5.880| 13554.5| 1.049| 2.110| 4.199| 6.186| 8.394 | 9.094| 8.779| 5.880| | 5.890| 13584.6| 1.049| 2.110| 4.198| 6.184| 8.391 | 9.090| 8.777| 5.890| | 5.900| 13614.7| 1.050| 2.110| 4.197| 6.183| 8.388 | 9.086| 8.774| 5.900| | 5.910| 13644.9| 1.050| 2.110| 4.195| 6.181| 8.385 | 9.083| 8.771| 5.910| | 5.920| 13675.1| 1.051| 2.110| 4.194| 6.179| 8.383 | 9.079| 8.768| 5.920| | 5.930| 13705.3| 1.051| 2.110| 4.193| 6.178| 8.380 | 9.075| 8.766| 5.930| | 5.940| 13735.6| 1.052| 2.110| 4.191| 6.176| 8.377 | 9.072| 8.763| 5.940| | 5.950| 13765.9| 1.052| 2.110| 4.190| 6.174| 8.374 | 9.068| 8.760| 5.950| | 5.960| 13796.2| 1.052| 2.110| 4.189| 6.173| 8.371 | 9.064| 8.758| 5.960| | 5.970| 13826.6| 1.053| 2.110| 4.188| 6.171| 8.369 | 9.061| 8.755| 5.970| | 5.980| 13857.0| 1.053| 2.110| 4.186| 6.170| 8.366 | 9.057| 8.752| 5.980| | 5.990| 13887.5| 1.054| 2.111| 4.185| 6.168| 8.363 | 9.053| 8.749| 5.990| | 6.000| 13918.0| 1.054| 2.111| 4.184| 6.166| 8.360 | 9.050| 8.747| 6.000| | 6.010| 13948.5| 1.055| 2.111| 4.183| 6.165| 8.357 | 9.046| 8.744| 6.010| | 6.020| 13979.1| 1.055| 2.111| 4.181| 6.163| 8.354 | 9.042| 8.741| 6.020| | 6.030| 14009.7| 1.055| 2.111| 4.180| 6.162| 8.352 | 9.038| 8.738| 6.030| | 6.040| 14040.4| 1.056| 2.111| 4.179| 6.160| 8.349 | 9.035| 8.736| 6.040| | 6.050| 14071.0| 1.056| 2.111| 4.178| 6.159| 8.346 | 9.031| 8.733| 6.050| | 6.060| 14101.7| 1.057| 2.111| 4.177| 6.157| 8.343 | 9.027| 8.730| 6.060| | 6.070| 14132.5| 1.057| 2.111| 4.175| 6.156| 8.340 | 9.024| 8.727| 6.070| | 6.080| 14163.3| 1.057| 2.111| 4.174| 6.154| 8.337 | 9.020| 8.724| 6.080| | 6.090| 14194.1| 1.058| 2.111| 4.173| 6.153| 8.334 | 9.016| 8.722| 6.090| | 6.100| 14224.9| 1.058| 2.111| 4.172| 6.151| 8.331 | 9.012| 8.719| 6.100| | 6.110| 14255.8| 1.059| 2.111| 4.171| 6.150| 8.328 | 9.009| 8.716| 6.110| | 6.120| 14286.8| 1.059| 2.111| 4.169| 6.148| 8.325 | 9.005| 8.713| 6.120| | 6.130| 14317.7| 1.059| 2.111| 4.168| 6.147| 8.322 | 9.001| 8.710| 6.130| | 6.140| 14348.7| 1.060| 2.111| 4.167| 6.145| 8.319 | 8.997| 8.708| 6.140| | 6.150| 14379.7| 1.060| 2.111| 4.166| 6.144| 8.316 | 8.994| 8.705| 6.150| | 6.160| 14410.8| 1.060| 2.111| 4.165| 6.142| 8.313 | 8.990| 8.702| 6.160| | 6.170| 14441.9| 1.061| 2.111| 4.164| 6.141| 8.310 | 8.986| 8.699| 6.170| | 6.180| 14473.0| 1.061| 2.111| 4.163| 6.139| 8.307 | 8.982| 8.696| 6.180| | 6.190| 14504.2| 1.061| 2.111| 4.161| 6.138| 8.304 | 8.979| 8.693| 6.190| | 6.200| 14535.3| 1.062| 2.111| 4.160| 6.136| 8.301 | 8.975| 8.691| 6.200| | 6.210| 14566.6| 1.062| 2.111| 4.159| 6.135| 8.298 | 8.971| 8.688| 6.210| | 6.220| 14597.8| 1.063| 2.111| 4.158| 6.134| 8.295 | 8.967| 8.685| 6.220| | 6.230| 14629.1| 1.063| 2.111| 4.157| 6.132| 8.292 | 8.964| 8.682| 6.230| | 6.240| 14660.5| 1.063| 2.111| 4.156| 6.131| 8.289 | 8.960| 8.679| 6.240| | 6.250| 14691.8| 1.064| 2.111| 4.155| 6.130| 8.286 | 8.956| 8.676| 6.250| | 6.260| 14723.2| 1.064| 2.111| 4.154| 6.128| 8.283 | 8.952| 8.673| 6.260| | 6.270| 14754.6| 1.064| 2.111| 4.153| 6.127| 8.280 | 8.949| 8.670| 6.270| | 6.280| 14786.1| 1.065| 2.111| 4.152| 6.125| 8.277 | 8.945| 8.668| 6.280| | 6.290| 14817.6| 1.065| 2.111| 4.150| 6.124| 8.273 | 8.941| 8.665| 6.290| | 6.300| 14849.1| 1.065| 2.111| 4.149| 6.123| 8.270 | 8.937| 8.662| 6.300| | 6.310| 14880.7| 1.065| 2.111| 4.148| 6.121| 8.267 | 8.933| 8.659| 6.310| | 6.320| 14912.3| 1.066| 2.111| 4.147| 6.120| 8.264 | 8.930| 8.656| 6.320| | 6.330| 14944.0| 1.066| 2.111| 4.146| 6.119| 8.261 | 8.926| 8.653| 6.330| | 6.340| 14975.6| 1.066| 2.111| 4.145| 6.117| 8.258 | 8.922| 8.650| 6.340| | 6.350| 15007.3| 1.067| 2.111| 4.144| 6.116| 8.254 | 8.918| 8.647| 6.350| | 6.360| 15039.1| 1.067| 2.111| 4.143| 6.115| 8.251 | 8.914| 8.644| 6.360| | 6.370| 15070.8| 1.067| 2.111| 4.142| 6.114| 8.248 | 8.911| 8.641| 6.370| | 6.380| 15102.7| 1.068| 2.111| 4.141| 6.112| 8.245 | 8.907| 8.638| 6.380| | 6.390| 15134.5| 1.068| 2.111| 4.140| 6.111| 8.242 | 8.903| 8.635| 6.390| | 6.400| 15166.4| 1.068| 2.111| 4.139| 6.110| 8.238 | 8.899| 8.632| 6.400| | 6.410| 15198.3| 1.069| 2.111| 4.138| 6.108| 8.235 | 8.895| 8.629| 6.410| | 6.420| 15230.2| 1.069| 2.111| 4.137| 6.107| 8.232 | 8.891| 8.626| 6.420| | 6.430| 15262.2| 1.069| 2.111| 4.136| 6.106| 8.229 | 8.888| 8.623| 6.430| | 6.440| 15294.2| 1.069| 2.111| 4.135| 6.105| 8.225 | 8.884| 8.620| 6.440| | 6.450| 15326.3| 1.070| 2.110| 4.134| 6.103| 8.222 | 8.880| 8.617| 6.450| | 6.460| 15358.4| 1.070| 2.110| 4.133| 6.102| 8.219 | 8.876| 8.614| 6.460| +------+--------+------+------+------+------+------ +------+------+------+

Page 249: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

13 Supplementum Page 241

+-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | STABILITY CROSS TABLES (FIXED TR IM) | +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | |T AP | Dis.SW |Kn 5 |Kn 10 |Kn 20 |Kn 30 |Kn 45 |Kn 60 |Kn 75 |T FP | |Metre | Ton |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre |Metre | +------+--------+------+------+------+------+------ +------+------+------+ | 6.470| 15390.5| 1.070| 2.110| 4.132| 6.101| 8.215 | 8.872| 8.611| 6.470| | 6.480| 15422.7| 1.070| 2.110| 4.131| 6.100| 8.212 | 8.868| 8.608| 6.480| | 6.490| 15454.8| 1.071| 2.110| 4.130| 6.099| 8.209 | 8.865| 8.605| 6.490| | 6.500| 15487.1| 1.071| 2.110| 4.129| 6.097| 8.205 | 8.861| 8.602| 6.500| | 6.510| 15519.3| 1.071| 2.110| 4.128| 6.096| 8.202 | 8.857| 8.599| 6.510| | 6.520| 15551.6| 1.071| 2.110| 4.127| 6.095| 8.199 | 8.853| 8.596| 6.520| | 6.530| 15584.0| 1.071| 2.110| 4.126| 6.094| 8.195 | 8.849| 8.593| 6.530| | 6.540| 15616.6| 1.072| 2.110| 4.126| 6.093| 8.192 | 8.845| 8.590| 6.540| | 6.550| 15649.2| 1.072| 2.110| 4.125| 6.091| 8.188 | 8.842| 8.587| 6.550| | 6.560| 15681.8| 1.072| 2.110| 4.124| 6.090| 8.185 | 8.838| 8.584| 6.560| | 6.570| 15714.4| 1.072| 2.110| 4.123| 6.089| 8.182 | 8.834| 8.581| 6.570| | 6.580| 15747.0| 1.072| 2.109| 4.122| 6.088| 8.178 | 8.830| 8.578| 6.580| | 6.590| 15779.7| 1.073| 2.109| 4.121| 6.087| 8.175 | 8.826| 8.575| 6.590| | 6.600| 15812.4| 1.073| 2.109| 4.120| 6.086| 8.171 | 8.822| 8.572| 6.600| | 6.610| 15845.2| 1.073| 2.109| 4.119| 6.085| 8.168 | 8.818| 8.569| 6.610| | 6.620| 15877.9| 1.073| 2.109| 4.118| 6.083| 8.164 | 8.814| 8.566| 6.620| | 6.630| 15910.7| 1.073| 2.109| 4.117| 6.082| 8.161 | 8.811| 8.563| 6.630| | 6.640| 15943.5| 1.073| 2.109| 4.116| 6.081| 8.157 | 8.807| 8.560| 6.640| | 6.650| 15976.3| 1.073| 2.109| 4.115| 6.080| 8.154 | 8.803| 8.557| 6.650| | 6.660| 16009.1| 1.074| 2.109| 4.115| 6.079| 8.150 | 8.799| 8.554| 6.660| | 6.670| 16042.0| 1.074| 2.109| 4.114| 6.078| 8.147 | 8.795| 8.551| 6.670| | 6.680| 16074.9| 1.074| 2.108| 4.113| 6.077| 8.143 | 8.791| 8.548| 6.680| | 6.690| 16107.8| 1.074| 2.108| 4.112| 6.076| 8.140 | 8.787| 8.545| 6.690| | 6.700| 16140.8| 1.074| 2.108| 4.111| 6.075| 8.136 | 8.783| 8.542| 6.700| | 6.710| 16173.7| 1.074| 2.108| 4.110| 6.074| 8.133 | 8.779| 8.539| 6.710| | 6.720| 16206.7| 1.074| 2.108| 4.109| 6.073| 8.129 | 8.776| 8.536| 6.720| | 6.730| 16239.7| 1.074| 2.108| 4.109| 6.072| 8.126 | 8.772| 8.533| 6.730| | 6.740| 16272.7| 1.074| 2.108| 4.108| 6.071| 8.122 | 8.768| 8.529| 6.740| | 6.750| 16305.8| 1.074| 2.108| 4.107| 6.070| 8.119 | 8.764| 8.526| 6.750| | 6.760| 16338.9| 1.074| 2.107| 4.106| 6.069| 8.115 | 8.760| 8.523| 6.760| | 6.770| 16372.0| 1.074| 2.107| 4.105| 6.067| 8.112 | 8.756| 8.520| 6.770| | 6.780| 16405.1| 1.074| 2.107| 4.104| 6.066| 8.108 | 8.752| 8.517| 6.780| | 6.790| 16438.2| 1.074| 2.107| 4.104| 6.065| 8.104 | 8.748| 8.514| 6.790| | 6.800| 16471.4| 1.074| 2.107| 4.103| 6.064| 8.101 | 8.745| 8.511| 6.800| | 6.810| 16504.6| 1.074| 2.107| 4.102| 6.063| 8.097 | 8.741| 8.508| 6.810| | 6.820| 16537.8| 1.074| 2.107| 4.101| 6.062| 8.094 | 8.737| 8.505| 6.820| | 6.830| 16570.5| 1.074| 2.106| 4.100| 6.062| 8.090 | 8.733| 8.502| 6.830| | 6.840| 16602.9| 1.074| 2.106| 4.100| 6.061| 8.087 | 8.729| 8.499| 6.840| | 6.850| 16635.2| 1.074| 2.106| 4.099| 6.060| 8.083 | 8.725| 8.496| 6.850| | 6.860| 16667.6| 1.074| 2.106| 4.098| 6.059| 8.079 | 8.722| 8.493| 6.860| | 6.870| 16700.0| 1.074| 2.106| 4.097| 6.058| 8.076 | 8.718| 8.490| 6.870| | 6.880| 16732.4| 1.074| 2.106| 4.096| 6.057| 8.072 | 8.714| 8.487| 6.880| | 6.890| 16764.9| 1.074| 2.105| 4.096| 6.056| 8.069 | 8.710| 8.484| 6.890| | 6.900| 16797.3| 1.074| 2.105| 4.095| 6.055| 8.065 | 8.707| 8.481| 6.900| | 6.910| 16829.8| 1.074| 2.105| 4.094| 6.054| 8.062 | 8.703| 8.478| 6.910| | 6.920| 16862.3| 1.074| 2.105| 4.093| 6.053| 8.058 | 8.699| 8.475| 6.920| | 6.930| 16894.9| 1.074| 2.105| 4.093| 6.052| 8.054 | 8.695| 8.472| 6.930| | 6.940| 16927.4| 1.074| 2.105| 4.092| 6.051| 8.051 | 8.692| 8.470| 6.940| | 6.950| 16960.0| 1.074| 2.104| 4.091| 6.051| 8.047 | 8.688| 8.467| 6.950| | 6.960| 16992.6| 1.074| 2.104| 4.091| 6.050| 8.044 | 8.684| 8.464| 6.960| | 6.970| 17025.2| 1.074| 2.104| 4.090| 6.049| 8.040 | 8.680| 8.461| 6.970| | 6.980| 17057.9| 1.074| 2.104| 4.089| 6.048| 8.036 | 8.676| 8.458| 6.980| | 6.990| 17090.5| 1.074| 2.104| 4.088| 6.047| 8.033 | 8.673| 8.455| 6.990| | 7.000| 17123.2| 1.074| 2.103| 4.088| 6.046| 8.029 | 8.669| 8.452| 7.000| +------+--------+------+------+------+------+------ +------+------+------+

Page 250: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

13 Supplementum Page 242

13.2 Detailed Hydrostatic Particulars Including th e Ducktail

+---------------------------+---------------------- -----+---------------+ |Yard number: |Ship name: |Date: | |590 |Estonia | | +---------------------------+---------------------- -----+---------------+ +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | HYDROSTATIC TABLES | +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | |T AP | Dis.SW | Dis.FW | LCB | TCB | VCB | LCF | KM.T |T FP | |Metre | Ton | Ton |m.f.AP |m.f.CL |m.a.BL |m .f.AP |m.a.BL |Metre | +------+--------+--------+-------+-------+-------+- ------+-------+------+ | 2.000| 3842.8| 3749.1| 65.993|-6.E-10| 1.062| 65.935| 18.982| 2.000| | 2.010| 3864.8| 3770.5| 65.993|-6.E-10| 1.067| 65.933| 18.916| 2.010| | 2.020| 3886.8| 3792.0| 65.993|-6.E-10| 1.073| 65.930| 18.852| 2.020| | 2.030| 3908.8| 3813.5| 65.992|-6.E-10| 1.078| 65.928| 18.788| 2.030| | 2.040| 3930.9| 3835.0| 65.992|-6.E-10| 1.083| 65.925| 18.724| 2.040| | 2.050| 3952.9| 3856.5| 65.991|-6.E-10| 1.089| 65.923| 18.662| 2.050| | 2.060| 3975.0| 3878.1| 65.991|-6.E-10| 1.094| 65.921| 18.600| 2.060| | 2.070| 3997.1| 3899.6| 65.991|-7.E-10| 1.099| 65.919| 18.539| 2.070| | 2.080| 4019.2| 3921.2| 65.990|-6.E-10| 1.105| 65.916| 18.478| 2.080| | 2.090| 4041.4| 3942.8| 65.990|-4.E-10| 1.110| 65.913| 18.418| 2.090| | 2.100| 4063.5| 3964.4| 65.989|-4.E-10| 1.116| 65.911| 18.359| 2.100| | 2.110| 4085.7| 3986.0| 65.989|-6.E-10| 1.121| 65.908| 18.300| 2.110| | 2.120| 4107.9| 4007.7| 65.989|-6.E-10| 1.126| 65.905| 18.242| 2.120| | 2.130| 4130.1| 4029.3| 65.988|-6.E-10| 1.132| 65.902| 18.184| 2.130| | 2.140| 4152.3| 4051.0| 65.988|-6.E-10| 1.137| 65.899| 18.127| 2.140| | 2.150| 4174.5| 4072.7| 65.987|-5.E-10| 1.142| 65.896| 18.071| 2.150| | 2.160| 4196.8| 4094.4| 65.987|-4.E-10| 1.148| 65.893| 18.015| 2.160| | 2.170| 4219.0| 4116.1| 65.986|-4.E-10| 1.153| 65.890| 17.960| 2.170| | 2.180| 4241.3| 4137.9| 65.986|-3.E-10| 1.159| 65.887| 17.906| 2.180| | 2.190| 4263.6| 4159.6| 65.985|-2.E-10| 1.164| 65.884| 17.852| 2.190| | 2.200| 4286.0| 4181.4| 65.985|-2.E-10| 1.169| 65.881| 17.798| 2.200| | 2.210| 4308.3| 4203.2| 65.984|-1.E-10| 1.175| 65.877| 17.745| 2.210| | 2.220| 4330.7| 4225.0| 65.983|9.5E-12| 1.180| 65.874| 17.693| 2.220| | 2.230| 4353.0| 4246.9| 65.983|9.5E-12| 1.185| 65.871| 17.641| 2.230| | 2.240| 4375.4| 4268.7| 65.982|9.5E-12| 1.191| 65.868| 17.590| 2.240| | 2.250| 4397.8| 4290.6| 65.982|8.4E-11| 1.196| 65.865| 17.539| 2.250| | 2.260| 4420.3| 4312.5| 65.981|-1.E-11| 1.201| 65.861| 17.489| 2.260| | 2.270| 4442.7| 4334.4| 65.981|-1.E-11| 1.207| 65.858| 17.439| 2.270| | 2.280| 4465.2| 4356.3| 65.980|2.5E-11| 1.212| 65.855| 17.390| 2.280| | 2.290| 4487.7| 4378.2| 65.979|2.5E-11| 1.218| 65.852| 17.341| 2.290| | 2.300| 4510.2| 4400.1| 65.979|2.5E-11| 1.223| 65.848| 17.293| 2.300| | 2.310| 4532.7| 4422.1| 65.978|2.5E-11| 1.228| 65.845| 17.245| 2.310| | 2.320| 4555.2| 4444.1| 65.977|2.5E-11| 1.234| 65.842| 17.198| 2.320| | 2.330| 4577.7| 4466.1| 65.977|2.5E-11| 1.239| 65.838| 17.151| 2.330| | 2.340| 4600.3| 4488.1| 65.976|2.4E-11| 1.244| 65.834| 17.104| 2.340| | 2.350| 4622.9| 4510.1| 65.975|2.4E-11| 1.250| 65.831| 17.059| 2.350| | 2.360| 4645.5| 4532.2| 65.975|2.4E-11| 1.255| 65.827| 17.013| 2.360| | 2.370| 4668.1| 4554.3| 65.974|2.4E-11| 1.261| 65.823| 16.968| 2.370| | 2.380| 4690.7| 4576.3| 65.973|3.2E-11| 1.266| 65.819| 16.924| 2.380| | 2.390| 4713.4| 4598.4| 65.972|3.2E-11| 1.271| 65.816| 16.879| 2.390| | 2.400| 4736.1| 4620.5| 65.972|3.2E-11| 1.277| 65.812| 16.836| 2.400| | 2.410| 4758.7| 4642.7| 65.971|3.1E-11| 1.282| 65.808| 16.792| 2.410| | 2.420| 4781.4| 4664.8| 65.970|3.1E-11| 1.288| 65.803| 16.750| 2.420| | 2.430| 4804.2| 4687.0| 65.969|3.8E-11| 1.293| 65.799| 16.707| 2.430| | 2.440| 4826.9| 4709.2| 65.968|3.8E-11| 1.298| 65.795| 16.663| 2.440| | 2.450| 4849.6| 4731.4| 65.968|3.8E-11| 1.304| 65.790| 16.617| 2.450| | 2.460| 4872.4| 4753.6| 65.967|3.8E-11| 1.309| 65.785| 16.571| 2.460| | 2.470| 4895.2| 4775.8| 65.966|3.8E-11| 1.314| 65.781| 16.525| 2.470| | 2.480| 4918.0| 4798.0| 65.965|3.7E-11| 1.320| 65.776| 16.480| 2.480| | 2.490| 4940.8| 4820.3| 65.964|3.7E-11| 1.325| 65.771| 16.435| 2.490| | 2.500| 4963.6| 4842.6| 65.963|3.7E-11| 1.331| 65.766| 16.390| 2.500| | 2.510| 4986.5| 4864.8| 65.962|3.7E-11| 1.336| 65.761| 16.346| 2.510| | 2.520| 5009.3| 4887.1| 65.961|3.7E-11| 1.341| 65.756| 16.301| 2.520| | 2.530| 5032.2| 4909.4| 65.960|3.7E-11| 1.347| 65.751| 16.257| 2.530| | 2.540| 5055.1| 4931.8| 65.959|3.7E-11| 1.352| 65.746| 16.213| 2.540| | 2.550| 5077.9| 4954.1| 65.958|3.6E-11| 1.357| 65.741| 16.170| 2.550| | 2.560| 5100.9| 4976.4| 65.958|3.6E-11| 1.363| 65.736| 16.126| 2.560| | 2.570| 5123.8| 4998.8| 65.957|3.6E-11| 1.368| 65.731| 16.084| 2.570| | 2.580| 5146.7| 5021.2| 65.955|3.6E-11| 1.374| 65.726| 16.041| 2.580| | 2.590| 5169.7| 5043.6| 65.954|3.6E-11| 1.379| 65.721| 15.998| 2.590| | 2.600| 5192.6| 5066.0| 65.953|3.6E-11| 1.384| 65.716| 15.956| 2.600| | 2.610| 5215.6| 5088.4| 65.952|3.6E-11| 1.390| 65.711| 15.915| 2.610| | 2.620| 5238.6| 5110.8| 65.951|3.5E-11| 1.395| 65.705| 15.873| 2.620| | 2.630| 5261.6| 5133.3| 65.950|3.5E-11| 1.400| 65.700| 15.832| 2.630| | 2.640| 5284.6| 5155.7| 65.949|-9.E-14| 1.406| 65.695| 15.791| 2.640| | 2.650| 5307.7| 5178.2| 65.948|-9.E-14| 1.411| 65.690| 15.751| 2.650| | 2.660| 5330.7| 5200.7| 65.947|-9.E-14| 1.417| 65.684| 15.711| 2.660| | 2.670| 5353.8| 5223.2| 65.946|-9.E-14| 1.422| 65.679| 15.671| 2.670| +------+--------+--------+-------+-------+-------+- ------+-------+------+

Page 251: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

13 Supplementum Page 243

+-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | HYDROSTATIC TABLES | +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | |T AP | Dis.SW | Dis.FW | LCB | TCB | VCB | LCF | KM.T |T FP | |Metre | Ton | Ton |m.f.AP |m.f.CL |m.a.BL |m .f.AP |m.a.BL |Metre | +------+--------+--------+-------+-------+-------+- ------+-------+------+ | 2.680| 5376.8| 5245.7| 65.945|-9.E-14| 1.427| 65.674| 15.631| 2.680| | 2.690| 5399.9| 5268.2| 65.943|-9.E-14| 1.433| 65.668| 15.592| 2.690| | 2.700| 5423.0| 5290.7| 65.942|-9.E-14| 1.438| 65.663| 15.553| 2.700| | 2.710| 5446.1| 5313.3| 65.941|-9.E-14| 1.443| 65.658| 15.514| 2.710| | 2.720| 5469.2| 5335.8| 65.940|-9.E-14| 1.449| 65.652| 15.476| 2.720| | 2.730| 5492.4| 5358.4| 65.939|-9.E-14| 1.454| 65.647| 15.438| 2.730| | 2.740| 5515.5| 5381.0| 65.937|-9.E-14| 1.460| 65.641| 15.400| 2.740| | 2.750| 5538.7| 5403.6| 65.936|-9.E-14| 1.465| 65.635| 15.363| 2.750| | 2.760| 5561.9| 5426.2| 65.935|-9.E-14| 1.470| 65.629| 15.326| 2.760| | 2.770| 5585.1| 5448.8| 65.934|-9.E-14| 1.476| 65.623| 15.289| 2.770| | 2.780| 5608.3| 5471.5| 65.932|-8.E-14| 1.481| 65.617| 15.253| 2.780| | 2.790| 5631.5| 5494.1| 65.931|-8.E-14| 1.486| 65.611| 15.216| 2.790| | 2.800| 5654.7| 5516.8| 65.930|-8.E-14| 1.492| 65.605| 15.181| 2.800| | 2.810| 5678.0| 5539.5| 65.928|-8.E-14| 1.497| 65.598| 15.145| 2.810| | 2.820| 5701.2| 5562.2| 65.927|-8.E-14| 1.503| 65.592| 15.110| 2.820| | 2.830| 5724.5| 5584.9| 65.926|-8.E-14| 1.508| 65.586| 15.075| 2.830| | 2.840| 5747.8| 5607.6| 65.924|-8.E-14| 1.513| 65.580| 15.040| 2.840| | 2.850| 5771.1| 5630.3| 65.923|-8.E-14| 1.519| 65.573| 15.006| 2.850| | 2.860| 5794.4| 5653.0| 65.921|-8.E-14| 1.524| 65.567| 14.971| 2.860| | 2.870| 5817.7| 5675.8| 65.920|-8.E-14| 1.529| 65.560| 14.937| 2.870| | 2.880| 5841.0| 5698.6| 65.918|-8.E-14| 1.535| 65.554| 14.904| 2.880| | 2.890| 5864.4| 5721.3| 65.917|-8.E-14| 1.540| 65.547| 14.870| 2.890| | 2.900| 5887.7| 5744.1| 65.916|-8.E-14| 1.546| 65.541| 14.837| 2.900| | 2.910| 5911.1| 5766.9| 65.914|-8.E-14| 1.551| 65.534| 14.805| 2.910| | 2.920| 5934.5| 5789.7| 65.913|-8.E-14| 1.556| 65.528| 14.772| 2.920| | 2.930| 5957.9| 5812.6| 65.911|-8.E-14| 1.562| 65.521| 14.740| 2.930| | 2.940| 5981.3| 5835.4| 65.909|-8.E-14| 1.567| 65.515| 14.708| 2.940| | 2.950| 6004.7| 5858.3| 65.908|-8.E-14| 1.572| 65.508| 14.676| 2.950| | 2.960| 6028.2| 5881.1| 65.906|-8.E-14| 1.578| 65.501| 14.644| 2.960| | 2.970| 6051.6| 5904.0| 65.905|-8.E-14| 1.583| 65.495| 14.613| 2.970| | 2.980| 6075.1| 5926.9| 65.903|-8.E-14| 1.589| 65.488| 14.582| 2.980| | 2.990| 6098.5| 5949.8| 65.902|-8.E-14| 1.594| 65.482| 14.551| 2.990| | 3.000| 6122.0| 5972.7| 65.900|-8.E-14| 1.599| 65.474| 14.521| 3.000| | 3.010| 6145.5| 5995.6| 65.898|-8.E-14| 1.605| 65.467| 14.490| 3.010| | 3.020| 6169.0| 6018.6| 65.897|-8.E-14| 1.610| 65.459| 14.460| 3.020| | 3.030| 6192.6| 6041.5| 65.895|-8.E-14| 1.615| 65.452| 14.431| 3.030| | 3.040| 6216.1| 6064.5| 65.893|-8.E-14| 1.621| 65.444| 14.401| 3.040| | 3.050| 6239.7| 6087.5| 65.892|-8.E-14| 1.626| 65.436| 14.372| 3.050| | 3.060| 6263.2| 6110.5| 65.890|-8.E-14| 1.632| 65.429| 14.343| 3.060| | 3.070| 6286.8| 6133.5| 65.888|-8.E-14| 1.637| 65.421| 14.314| 3.070| | 3.080| 6310.4| 6156.5| 65.886|-7.E-14| 1.642| 65.414| 14.285| 3.080| | 3.090| 6334.0| 6179.5| 65.885|-7.E-14| 1.648| 65.406| 14.257| 3.090| | 3.100| 6357.6| 6202.6| 65.883|-7.E-14| 1.653| 65.399| 14.229| 3.100| | 3.110| 6381.3| 6225.6| 65.881|-7.E-14| 1.658| 65.391| 14.201| 3.110| | 3.120| 6404.9| 6248.7| 65.879|-7.E-14| 1.664| 65.384| 14.173| 3.120| | 3.130| 6428.6| 6271.8| 65.877|-7.E-14| 1.669| 65.376| 14.146| 3.130| | 3.140| 6452.2| 6294.9| 65.875|-7.E-14| 1.675| 65.369| 14.118| 3.140| | 3.150| 6475.9| 6318.0| 65.874|-7.E-14| 1.680| 65.361| 14.091| 3.150| | 3.160| 6499.6| 6341.1| 65.872|-7.E-14| 1.685| 65.354| 14.064| 3.160| | 3.170| 6523.3| 6364.2| 65.870|-7.E-14| 1.691| 65.346| 14.038| 3.170| | 3.180| 6547.0| 6387.4| 65.868|-7.E-14| 1.696| 65.339| 14.011| 3.180| | 3.190| 6570.8| 6410.5| 65.866|-7.E-14| 1.702| 65.331| 13.985| 3.190| | 3.200| 6594.5| 6433.7| 65.864|-7.E-14| 1.707| 65.323| 13.959| 3.200| | 3.210| 6618.3| 6456.9| 65.862|-7.E-14| 1.712| 65.314| 13.934| 3.210| | 3.220| 6642.1| 6480.1| 65.860|-7.E-14| 1.718| 65.306| 13.908| 3.220| | 3.230| 6665.8| 6503.3| 65.858|-7.E-14| 1.723| 65.298| 13.883| 3.230| | 3.240| 6689.6| 6526.5| 65.856|-7.E-14| 1.728| 65.289| 13.858| 3.240| | 3.250| 6713.5| 6549.7| 65.854|-7.E-14| 1.734| 65.281| 13.833| 3.250| | 3.260| 6737.3| 6573.0| 65.852|-7.E-14| 1.739| 65.273| 13.808| 3.260| | 3.270| 6761.1| 6596.2| 65.850|-7.E-14| 1.745| 65.264| 13.784| 3.270| | 3.280| 6785.0| 6619.5| 65.848|-7.E-14| 1.750| 65.256| 13.759| 3.280| | 3.290| 6808.8| 6642.8| 65.846|-7.E-14| 1.755| 65.248| 13.735| 3.290| | 3.300| 6832.7| 6666.1| 65.844|-7.E-14| 1.761| 65.239| 13.711| 3.300| | 3.310| 6856.6| 6689.4| 65.842|-7.E-14| 1.766| 65.231| 13.688| 3.310| | 3.320| 6880.5| 6712.7| 65.839|-7.E-14| 1.771| 65.222| 13.664| 3.320| | 3.330| 6904.4| 6736.0| 65.837|-7.E-14| 1.777| 65.214| 13.641| 3.330| | 3.340| 6928.4| 6759.4| 65.835|-7.E-14| 1.782| 65.205| 13.618| 3.340| | 3.350| 6952.3| 6782.8| 65.833|-7.E-14| 1.788| 65.195| 13.595| 3.350| | 3.360| 6976.3| 6806.1| 65.831|-7.E-14| 1.793| 65.186| 13.572| 3.360| | 3.370| 7000.3| 6829.5| 65.829|-7.E-14| 1.798| 65.177| 13.550| 3.370| | 3.380| 7024.3| 6852.9| 65.826|-7.E-14| 1.804| 65.168| 13.527| 3.380| | 3.390| 7048.3| 6876.3| 65.824|-7.E-14| 1.809| 65.159| 13.505| 3.390| | 3.400| 7072.3| 6899.8| 65.822|-7.E-14| 1.815| 65.149| 13.483| 3.400| | 3.410| 7096.3| 6923.2| 65.819|-7.E-14| 1.820| 65.140| 13.461| 3.410| | 3.420| 7120.3| 6946.7| 65.817|-7.E-14| 1.825| 65.131| 13.440| 3.420| | 3.430| 7144.4| 6970.1| 65.815|-7.E-14| 1.831| 65.122| 13.418| 3.430| | 3.440| 7168.5| 6993.6| 65.813|-7.E-14| 1.836| 65.113| 13.397| 3.440| | 3.450| 7192.5| 7017.1| 65.810|-7.E-14| 1.841| 65.103| 13.376| 3.450| +------+--------+--------+-------+-------+-------+- ------+-------+------+

Page 252: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

13 Supplementum Page 244

+-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | HYDROSTATIC TABLES | +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | |T AP | Dis.SW | Dis.FW | LCB | TCB | VCB | LCF | KM.T |T FP | |Metre | Ton | Ton |m.f.AP |m.f.CL |m.a.BL |m .f.AP |m.a.BL |Metre | +------+--------+--------+-------+-------+-------+- ------+-------+------+ | 3.460| 7216.6| 7040.6| 65.808|-7.E-14| 1.847| 65.093| 13.355| 3.460| | 3.470| 7240.8| 7064.2| 65.805|-6.E-14| 1.852| 65.083| 13.334| 3.470| | 3.480| 7264.9| 7087.7| 65.803|-6.E-14| 1.858| 65.073| 13.314| 3.480| | 3.490| 7289.0| 7111.2| 65.801|-6.E-14| 1.863| 65.062| 13.293| 3.490| | 3.500| 7313.2| 7134.8| 65.798|-6.E-14| 1.868| 65.052| 13.273| 3.500| | 3.510| 7337.3| 7158.4| 65.796|-6.E-14| 1.874| 65.042| 13.253| 3.510| | 3.520| 7361.5| 7182.0| 65.793|-6.E-14| 1.879| 65.032| 13.233| 3.520| | 3.530| 7385.7| 7205.6| 65.791|-6.E-14| 1.885| 65.021| 13.213| 3.530| | 3.540| 7409.9| 7229.2| 65.788|-6.E-14| 1.890| 65.011| 13.194| 3.540| | 3.550| 7434.1| 7252.8| 65.786|-6.E-14| 1.895| 65.000| 13.175| 3.550| | 3.560| 7458.4| 7276.5| 65.783|-6.E-14| 1.901| 64.990| 13.155| 3.560| | 3.570| 7482.6| 7300.1| 65.780|-6.E-14| 1.906| 64.979| 13.136| 3.570| | 3.580| 7506.9| 7323.8| 65.778|-6.E-14| 1.912| 64.969| 13.118| 3.580| | 3.590| 7531.2| 7347.5| 65.775|-6.E-14| 1.917| 64.959| 13.099| 3.590| | 3.600| 7555.5| 7371.2| 65.773|-6.E-14| 1.922| 64.948| 13.080| 3.600| | 3.610| 7579.8| 7394.9| 65.770|-6.E-14| 1.928| 64.938| 13.062| 3.610| | 3.620| 7604.1| 7418.6| 65.767|-6.E-14| 1.933| 64.927| 13.044| 3.620| | 3.630| 7628.4| 7442.4| 65.764|-6.E-14| 1.939| 64.916| 13.026| 3.630| | 3.640| 7652.8| 7466.1| 65.762|-6.E-14| 1.944| 64.906| 13.008| 3.640| | 3.650| 7677.1| 7489.9| 65.759|-6.E-14| 1.949| 64.896| 12.990| 3.650| | 3.660| 7701.5| 7513.7| 65.756|-6.E-14| 1.955| 64.885| 12.972| 3.660| | 3.670| 7725.9| 7537.5| 65.754|-6.E-14| 1.960| 64.875| 12.955| 3.670| | 3.680| 7750.3| 7561.3| 65.751|-6.E-14| 1.966| 64.864| 12.937| 3.680| | 3.690| 7774.7| 7585.1| 65.748|-6.E-14| 1.971| 64.854| 12.920| 3.690| | 3.700| 7799.2| 7608.9| 65.745|-6.E-14| 1.976| 64.843| 12.903| 3.700| | 3.710| 7823.6| 7632.8| 65.742|-6.E-14| 1.982| 64.832| 12.886| 3.710| | 3.720| 7848.1| 7656.7| 65.739|-6.E-14| 1.987| 64.821| 12.870| 3.720| | 3.730| 7872.5| 7680.5| 65.737|-6.E-14| 1.993| 64.810| 12.853| 3.730| | 3.740| 7897.0| 7704.4| 65.734|-6.E-14| 1.998| 64.800| 12.837| 3.740| | 3.750| 7921.5| 7728.3| 65.731|-6.E-14| 2.003| 64.788| 12.820| 3.750| | 3.760| 7946.1| 7752.3| 65.728|-6.E-14| 2.009| 64.777| 12.804| 3.760| | 3.770| 7970.6| 7776.2| 65.725|-6.E-14| 2.014| 64.766| 12.788| 3.770| | 3.780| 7995.2| 7800.2| 65.722|-6.E-14| 2.020| 64.755| 12.772| 3.780| | 3.790| 8019.7| 7824.1| 65.719|-6.E-14| 2.025| 64.744| 12.757| 3.790| | 3.800| 8044.3| 7848.1| 65.716|-6.E-14| 2.030| 64.733| 12.741| 3.800| | 3.810| 8068.9| 7872.1| 65.713|-6.E-14| 2.036| 64.721| 12.726| 3.810| | 3.820| 8093.5| 7896.1| 65.710|-6.E-14| 2.041| 64.709| 12.711| 3.820| | 3.830| 8118.2| 7920.2| 65.707|-6.E-14| 2.047| 64.697| 12.696| 3.830| | 3.840| 8142.8| 7944.2| 65.704|-6.E-14| 2.052| 64.685| 12.681| 3.840| | 3.850| 8167.5| 7968.3| 65.701|-6.E-14| 2.057| 64.673| 12.666| 3.850| | 3.860| 8192.1| 7992.3| 65.698|-6.E-14| 2.063| 64.660| 12.651| 3.860| | 3.870| 8216.8| 8016.4| 65.694|-6.E-14| 2.068| 64.648| 12.637| 3.870| | 3.880| 8241.5| 8040.5| 65.691|-6.E-14| 2.074| 64.635| 12.622| 3.880| | 3.890| 8266.3| 8064.6| 65.688|-6.E-14| 2.079| 64.623| 12.608| 3.890| | 3.900| 8291.0| 8088.8| 65.685|-6.E-14| 2.085| 64.610| 12.594| 3.900| | 3.910| 8315.8| 8112.9| 65.682|-4.E-11| 2.090| 64.598| 12.580| 3.910| | 3.920| 8340.5| 8137.1| 65.679|-4.E-11| 2.095| 64.586| 12.566| 3.920| | 3.930| 8365.3| 8161.3| 65.675|1.0E-16| 2.101| 64.573| 12.552| 3.930| | 3.940| 8390.1| 8185.5| 65.672|-7.E-17| 2.106| 64.561| 12.539| 3.940| | 3.950| 8414.9| 8209.7| 65.669|-5.E-17| 2.112| 64.549| 12.525| 3.950| | 3.960| 8439.8| 8233.9| 65.665|-1.E-15| 2.117| 64.536| 12.512| 3.960| | 3.970| 8464.6| 8258.2| 65.662|-5.E-15| 2.122| 64.522| 12.499| 3.970| | 3.980| 8489.5| 8282.4| 65.659|-8.E-15| 2.128| 64.509| 12.485| 3.980| | 3.990| 8514.4| 8306.7| 65.655|-1.E-14| 2.133| 64.495| 12.472| 3.990| | 4.000| 8539.3| 8331.0| 65.652|-1.E-14| 2.139| 64.482| 12.459| 4.000| | 4.010| 8564.2| 8355.3| 65.648|-1.E-14| 2.144| 64.468| 12.447| 4.010| | 4.020| 8589.1| 8379.6| 65.645|-1.E-14| 2.150| 64.455| 12.434| 4.020| | 4.030| 8614.1| 8404.0| 65.642|-2.E-14| 2.155| 64.441| 12.421| 4.030| | 4.040| 8639.0| 8428.3| 65.638|-2.E-14| 2.160| 64.428| 12.409| 4.040| | 4.050| 8664.0| 8452.7| 65.635|-2.E-14| 2.166| 64.415| 12.397| 4.050| | 4.060| 8689.0| 8477.1| 65.631|-2.E-14| 2.171| 64.402| 12.384| 4.060| | 4.070| 8714.0| 8501.5| 65.628|-2.E-14| 2.177| 64.389| 12.372| 4.070| | 4.080| 8739.0| 8525.9| 65.624|-3.E-14| 2.182| 64.376| 12.360| 4.080| | 4.090| 8764.1| 8550.3| 65.620|-3.E-14| 2.188| 64.363| 12.348| 4.090| | 4.100| 8789.1| 8574.8| 65.617|-3.E-14| 2.193| 64.349| 12.337| 4.100| | 4.110| 8814.2| 8599.2| 65.613|-3.E-14| 2.199| 64.333| 12.325| 4.110| | 4.120| 8839.3| 8623.7| 65.609|-3.E-14| 2.204| 64.318| 12.314| 4.120| | 4.130| 8864.4| 8648.2| 65.606|-3.E-14| 2.209| 64.303| 12.303| 4.130| | 4.140| 8889.5| 8672.7| 65.602|-3.E-14| 2.215| 64.287| 12.291| 4.140| | 4.150| 8914.7| 8697.2| 65.598|-2.E-14| 2.220| 64.271| 12.280| 4.150| | 4.160| 8939.8| 8721.8| 65.595|-1.E-14| 2.226| 64.254| 12.270| 4.160| | 4.170| 8965.0| 8746.3| 65.591|-8.E-15| 2.231| 64.238| 12.259| 4.170| | 4.180| 8990.2| 8770.9| 65.587|-1.E-15| 2.237| 64.222| 12.248| 4.180| | 4.190| 9015.4| 8795.5| 65.583|6.1E-15| 2.242| 64.205| 12.238| 4.190| | 4.200| 9040.6| 8820.1| 65.579|4.2E-14| 2.248| 64.189| 12.227| 4.200| | 4.210| 9065.9| 8844.8| 65.575|5.3E-14| 2.253| 64.173| 12.217| 4.210| | 4.220| 9091.2| 8869.4| 65.572|6.3E-14| 2.258| 64.157| 12.206| 4.220| | 4.230| 9116.4| 8894.1| 65.568|7.2E-14| 2.264| 64.141| 12.196| 4.230| +------+--------+--------+-------+-------+-------+- ------+-------+------+

Page 253: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

13 Supplementum Page 245

+-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | HYDROSTATIC TABLES | +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | |T AP | Dis.SW | Dis.FW | LCB | TCB | VCB | LCF | KM.T |T FP | |Metre | Ton | Ton |m.f.AP |m.f.CL |m.a.BL |m .f.AP |m.a.BL |Metre | +------+--------+--------+-------+-------+-------+- ------+-------+------+ | 4.240| 9141.7| 8918.8| 65.564|8.1E-14| 2.269| 64.125| 12.186| 4.240| | 4.250| 9167.1| 8943.5| 65.560|8.1E-14| 2.275| 64.109| 12.176| 4.250| | 4.260| 9192.4| 8968.2| 65.556|8.0E-14| 2.280| 64.092| 12.166| 4.260| | 4.270| 9217.8| 8992.9| 65.552|7.9E-14| 2.286| 64.075| 12.157| 4.270| | 4.280| 9243.1| 9017.7| 65.547|7.8E-14| 2.291| 64.059| 12.147| 4.280| | 4.290| 9268.5| 9042.5| 65.543|7.7E-14| 2.297| 64.043| 12.138| 4.290| | 4.300| 9293.9| 9067.2| 65.539|7.5E-14| 2.302| 64.026| 12.128| 4.300| | 4.310| 9319.3| 9092.0| 65.535|7.4E-14| 2.308| 64.009| 12.119| 4.310| | 4.320| 9344.8| 9116.9| 65.531|7.2E-14| 2.313| 63.991| 12.110| 4.320| | 4.330| 9370.2| 9141.7| 65.527|7.0E-14| 2.318| 63.973| 12.100| 4.330| | 4.340| 9395.7| 9166.6| 65.522|1.2E-13| 2.324| 63.955| 12.091| 4.340| | 4.350| 9421.2| 9191.4| 65.518|1.8E-13| 2.329| 63.937| 12.082| 4.350| | 4.360| 9446.7| 9216.3| 65.514|2.4E-13| 2.335| 63.919| 12.074| 4.360| | 4.370| 9472.3| 9241.2| 65.510|3.0E-13| 2.340| 63.900| 12.065| 4.370| | 4.380| 9497.8| 9266.2| 65.505|3.6E-13| 2.346| 63.881| 12.056| 4.380| | 4.390| 9523.4| 9291.1| 65.501|4.2E-13| 2.351| 63.861| 12.048| 4.390| | 4.400| 9549.0| 9316.1| 65.496|4.9E-13| 2.357| 63.841| 12.040| 4.400| | 4.410| 9574.6| 9341.1| 65.492|5.5E-13| 2.362| 63.822| 12.031| 4.410| | 4.420| 9600.2| 9366.1| 65.488|6.2E-13| 2.368| 63.802| 12.023| 4.420| | 4.430| 9625.9| 9391.1| 65.483|6.9E-13| 2.373| 63.782| 12.015| 4.430| | 4.440| 9651.5| 9416.1| 65.478|7.5E-13| 2.379| 63.763| 12.007| 4.440| | 4.450| 9677.2| 9441.2| 65.474|8.2E-13| 2.384| 63.743| 11.999| 4.450| | 4.460| 9702.9| 9466.2| 65.469|8.9E-13| 2.390| 63.723| 11.992| 4.460| | 4.470| 9728.6| 9491.3| 65.465|9.6E-13| 2.395| 63.703| 11.984| 4.470| | 4.480| 9754.4| 9516.5| 65.460|9.7E-13| 2.401| 63.684| 11.976| 4.480| | 4.490| 9780.1| 9541.6| 65.455|1.0E-12| 2.406| 63.664| 11.968| 4.490| | 4.500| 9805.9| 9566.7| 65.451|1.1E-12| 2.412| 63.644| 11.960| 4.500| | 4.510| 9831.7| 9591.9| 65.446|1.2E-12| 2.417| 63.624| 11.953| 4.510| | 4.520| 9857.5| 9617.1| 65.441|1.2E-12| 2.423| 63.604| 11.945| 4.520| | 4.530| 9883.4| 9642.3| 65.436|1.3E-12| 2.428| 63.584| 11.938| 4.530| | 4.540| 9909.2| 9667.5| 65.431|1.4E-12| 2.434| 63.563| 11.930| 4.540| | 4.550| 9935.1| 9692.8| 65.426|1.5E-12| 2.439| 63.542| 11.923| 4.550| | 4.560| 9961.0| 9718.1| 65.421|1.6E-12| 2.445| 63.521| 11.916| 4.560| | 4.570| 9986.9| 9743.4| 65.417|1.7E-12| 2.450| 63.499| 11.909| 4.570| | 4.580| 10012.9| 9768.7| 65.412|1.9E-12| 2.456| 63.478| 11.902| 4.580| | 4.590| 10038.8| 9794.0| 65.406|2.0E-12| 2.461| 63.457| 11.895| 4.590| | 4.600| 10064.8| 9819.3| 65.401|2.2E-12| 2.467| 63.436| 11.888| 4.600| | 4.610| 10090.8| 9844.7| 65.396|2.3E-12| 2.472| 63.413| 11.881| 4.610| | 4.620| 10116.9| 9870.1| 65.391|2.5E-12| 2.478| 63.392| 11.874| 4.620| | 4.630| 10142.9| 9895.5| 65.386|2.7E-12| 2.483| 63.370| 11.868| 4.630| | 4.640| 10169.0| 9921.0| 65.381|2.8E-12| 2.489| 63.348| 11.861| 4.640| | 4.650| 10195.1| 9946.4| 65.376|3.0E-12| 2.494| 63.326| 11.855| 4.650| | 4.660| 10221.2| 9971.9| 65.370|3.1E-12| 2.500| 63.305| 11.848| 4.660| | 4.670| 10247.3| 9997.4| 65.365|3.3E-12| 2.505| 63.284| 11.842| 4.670| | 4.680| 10273.5| 10022.9| 65.360|3.5E-12| 2.511| 63.263| 11.836| 4.680| | 4.690| 10299.6| 10048.4| 65.354|3.7E-12| 2.516| 63.241| 11.829| 4.690| | 4.700| 10325.8| 10074.0| 65.349|3.9E-12| 2.522| 63.219| 11.823| 4.700| | 4.710| 10352.1| 10099.6| 65.344|4.1E-12| 2.527| 63.196| 11.817| 4.710| | 4.720| 10378.3| 10125.2| 65.338|4.3E-12| 2.533| 63.173| 11.812| 4.720| | 4.730| 10404.6| 10150.8| 65.333|4.5E-12| 2.538| 63.149| 11.806| 4.730| | 4.740| 10430.9| 10176.5| 65.327|4.7E-12| 2.544| 63.123| 11.800| 4.740| | 4.750| 10457.2| 10202.1| 65.322|4.9E-12| 2.550| 63.098| 11.795| 4.750| | 4.760| 10483.5| 10227.8| 65.316|5.1E-12| 2.555| 63.073| 11.790| 4.760| | 4.770| 10509.9| 10253.5| 65.310|5.4E-12| 2.561| 63.048| 11.784| 4.770| | 4.780| 10536.3| 10279.3| 65.305|5.6E-12| 2.566| 63.022| 11.779| 4.780| | 4.790| 10562.7| 10305.0| 65.299|5.9E-12| 2.572| 62.998| 11.774| 4.790| | 4.800| 10589.1| 10330.8| 65.293|6.2E-12| 2.577| 62.973| 11.769| 4.800| | 4.810| 10615.6| 10356.6| 65.287|6.5E-12| 2.583| 62.949| 11.764| 4.810| | 4.820| 10642.1| 10382.5| 65.281|6.8E-12| 2.588| 62.924| 11.759| 4.820| | 4.830| 10668.6| 10408.3| 65.276|7.0E-12| 2.594| 62.899| 11.755| 4.830| | 4.840| 10695.1| 10434.2| 65.270|7.3E-12| 2.599| 62.873| 11.750| 4.840| | 4.850| 10721.6| 10460.1| 65.264|7.6E-12| 2.605| 62.847| 11.746| 4.850| | 4.860| 10748.2| 10486.1| 65.258|7.9E-12| 2.611| 62.822| 11.742| 4.860| | 4.870| 10774.8| 10512.0| 65.252|8.2E-12| 2.616| 62.796| 11.737| 4.870| | 4.880| 10801.5| 10538.0| 65.245|8.5E-12| 2.622| 62.770| 11.733| 4.880| | 4.890| 10828.1| 10564.0| 65.239|8.9E-12| 2.627| 62.744| 11.729| 4.890| | 4.900| 10854.8| 10590.1| 65.233|9.2E-12| 2.633| 62.718| 11.726| 4.900| | 4.910| 10881.5| 10616.1| 65.227|9.6E-12| 2.638| 62.692| 11.722| 4.910| | 4.920| 10908.3| 10642.2| 65.221|1.0E-11| 2.644| 62.666| 11.719| 4.920| | 4.930| 10935.0| 10668.3| 65.214|1.0E-11| 2.650| 62.639| 11.715| 4.930| | 4.940| 10961.8| 10694.5| 65.208|1.0E-11| 2.655| 62.612| 11.712| 4.940| | 4.950| 10988.6| 10720.6| 65.202|1.1E-11| 2.661| 62.585| 11.709| 4.950| | 4.960| 11015.5| 10746.8| 65.195|1.1E-11| 2.666| 62.558| 11.706| 4.960| | 4.970| 11042.3| 10773.0| 65.189|1.1E-11| 2.672| 62.530| 11.703| 4.970| | 4.980| 11069.2| 10799.3| 65.182|1.2E-11| 2.678| 62.500| 11.700| 4.980| | 4.990| 11096.2| 10825.5| 65.176|1.2E-11| 2.683| 62.470| 11.697| 4.990| | 5.000| 11123.1| 10851.8| 65.169|1.2E-11| 2.689| 62.441| 11.695| 5.000| | 5.010| 11150.1| 10878.1| 65.163|6.6E-12| 2.694| 62.411| 11.692| 5.010| +------+--------+--------+-------+-------+-------+- ------+-------+------+

Page 254: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

13 Supplementum Page 246

+-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | HYDROSTATIC TABLES | +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | |T AP | Dis.SW | Dis.FW | LCB | TCB | VCB | LCF | KM.T |T FP | |Metre | Ton | Ton |m.f.AP |m.f.CL |m.a.BL |m .f.AP |m.a.BL |Metre | +------+--------+--------+-------+-------+-------+- ------+-------+------+ | 5.020| 11177.1| 10904.5| 65.156|6.9E-12| 2.700| 62.381| 11.690| 5.020| | 5.030| 11204.2| 10930.9| 65.149|7.1E-12| 2.706| 62.351| 11.687| 5.030| | 5.040| 11231.2| 10957.3| 65.142|7.3E-12| 2.711| 62.318| 11.685| 5.040| | 5.050| 11258.3| 10983.7| 65.136|7.6E-12| 2.717| 62.284| 11.683| 5.050| | 5.060| 11285.4| 11010.2| 65.129|7.8E-12| 2.722| 62.251| 11.681| 5.060| | 5.070| 11312.6| 11036.7| 65.122|8.0E-12| 2.728| 62.215| 11.679| 5.070| | 5.080| 11339.8| 11063.2| 65.115|8.3E-12| 2.734| 62.180| 11.678| 5.080| | 5.090| 11367.0| 11089.8| 65.108|8.5E-12| 2.739| 62.144| 11.676| 5.090| | 5.100| 11394.3| 11116.4| 65.101|8.8E-12| 2.745| 62.109| 11.675| 5.100| | 5.110| 11421.6| 11143.0| 65.093|9.0E-12| 2.751| 62.074| 11.674| 5.110| | 5.120| 11448.9| 11169.6| 65.086|9.2E-12| 2.756| 62.038| 11.673| 5.120| | 5.130| 11476.2| 11196.3| 65.079|2.6E-12| 2.762| 62.002| 11.672| 5.130| | 5.140| 11503.6| 11223.0| 65.072|2.7E-12| 2.768| 61.966| 11.671| 5.140| | 5.150| 11531.0| 11249.8| 65.064|2.8E-12| 2.773| 61.929| 11.671| 5.150| | 5.160| 11558.5| 11276.5| 65.057|2.8E-12| 2.779| 61.893| 11.670| 5.160| | 5.170| 11585.9| 11303.4| 65.049|2.9E-12| 2.785| 61.856| 11.669| 5.170| | 5.180| 11613.5| 11330.2| 65.041|3.0E-12| 2.790| 61.820| 11.669| 5.180| | 5.190| 11641.0| 11357.1| 65.034|3.0E-12| 2.796| 61.783| 11.669| 5.190| | 5.200| 11668.6| 11384.0| 65.026|3.1E-12| 2.802| 61.745| 11.669| 5.200| | 5.210| 11696.2| 11410.9| 65.018|3.2E-12| 2.807| 61.707| 11.669| 5.210| | 5.220| 11723.8| 11437.9| 65.010|3.2E-12| 2.813| 61.669| 11.670| 5.220| | 5.230| 11751.5| 11464.9| 65.003|3.3E-12| 2.819| 61.631| 11.670| 5.230| | 5.240| 11779.2| 11491.9| 64.995|3.4E-12| 2.824| 61.594| 11.671| 5.240| | 5.250| 11807.0| 11519.0| 64.987|-5.E-13| 2.830| 61.556| 11.671| 5.250| | 5.260| 11834.7| 11546.1| 64.978|-6.E-13| 2.836| 61.518| 11.672| 5.260| | 5.270| 11862.6| 11573.2| 64.970|-7.E-13| 2.841| 61.479| 11.673| 5.270| | 5.280| 11890.4| 11600.4| 64.962|-7.E-13| 2.847| 61.441| 11.675| 5.280| | 5.290| 11918.3| 11627.6| 64.954|-4.E-12| 2.853| 61.402| 11.676| 5.290| | 5.300| 11946.2| 11654.8| 64.945|-4.E-12| 2.858| 61.362| 11.678| 5.300| | 5.310| 11974.2| 11682.1| 64.937|-4.E-12| 2.864| 61.324| 11.679| 5.310| | 5.320| 12002.2| 11709.4| 64.929|-4.E-12| 2.870| 61.285| 11.681| 5.320| | 5.330| 12030.2| 11736.8| 64.920|-6.E-13| 2.876| 61.246| 11.683| 5.330| | 5.340| 12058.2| 11764.1| 64.911|-6.E-13| 2.881| 61.207| 11.685| 5.340| | 5.350| 12086.3| 11791.5| 64.903|-6.E-13| 2.887| 61.167| 11.687| 5.350| | 5.360| 12114.5| 11819.0| 64.894|-7.E-13| 2.893| 61.127| 11.690| 5.360| | 5.370| 12142.6| 11846.5| 64.885|-7.E-13| 2.898| 61.087| 11.693| 5.370| | 5.380| 12170.8| 11874.0| 64.876|-7.E-13| 2.904| 61.048| 11.695| 5.380| | 5.390| 12199.1| 11901.5| 64.868|-8.E-13| 2.910| 61.010| 11.698| 5.390| | 5.400| 12227.4| 11929.1| 64.859|-8.E-13| 2.916| 60.971| 11.701| 5.400| | 5.410| 12255.7| 11956.8| 64.850|1.9E-13| 2.921| 60.933| 11.705| 5.410| | 5.420| 12284.0| 11984.4| 64.841|2.1E-14| 2.927| 60.895| 11.708| 5.420| | 5.430| 12312.4| 12012.1| 64.831|5.3E-14| 2.933| 60.858| 11.712| 5.430| | 5.440| 12340.8| 12039.8| 64.822|8.6E-14| 2.939| 60.821| 11.715| 5.440| | 5.450| 12369.3| 12067.6| 64.813|1.1E-13| 2.945| 60.784| 11.719| 5.450| | 5.460| 12397.8| 12095.4| 64.804|1.5E-13| 2.950| 60.748| 11.723| 5.460| | 5.470| 12426.4| 12123.3| 64.794|1.8E-13| 2.956| 60.711| 11.727| 5.470| | 5.480| 12454.9| 12151.2| 64.785|2.1E-13| 2.962| 60.674| 11.732| 5.480| | 5.490| 12483.6| 12179.1| 64.775|2.5E-13| 2.968| 60.637| 11.736| 5.490| | 5.500| 12512.2| 12207.0| 64.766|2.8E-13| 2.973| 60.600| 11.741| 5.500| | 5.510| 12540.9| 12235.0| 64.756|3.1E-13| 2.979| 60.564| 11.745| 5.510| | 5.520| 12569.7| 12263.1| 64.747|3.5E-13| 2.985| 60.527| 11.750| 5.520| | 5.530| 12598.4| 12291.1| 64.737|3.8E-13| 2.991| 60.491| 11.755| 5.530| | 5.540| 12627.2| 12319.3| 64.727|4.2E-13| 2.997| 60.455| 11.760| 5.540| | 5.550| 12656.1| 12347.4| 64.718|4.5E-13| 3.002| 60.419| 11.765| 5.550| | 5.560| 12685.0| 12375.6| 64.708|4.9E-13| 3.008| 60.383| 11.771| 5.560| | 5.570| 12713.9| 12403.8| 64.698|5.2E-13| 3.014| 60.347| 11.776| 5.570| | 5.580| 12742.9| 12432.1| 64.688|5.6E-13| 3.020| 60.311| 11.782| 5.580| | 5.590| 12771.9| 12460.4| 64.678|6.0E-13| 3.026| 60.276| 11.787| 5.590| | 5.600| 12800.9| 12488.7| 64.668|6.3E-13| 3.032| 60.241| 11.793| 5.600| | 5.610| 12830.0| 12517.1| 64.658|6.7E-13| 3.037| 60.207| 11.798| 5.610| | 5.620| 12859.1| 12545.5| 64.648|7.0E-13| 3.043| 60.172| 11.804| 5.620| | 5.630| 12888.3| 12573.9| 64.638|7.4E-13| 3.049| 60.137| 11.810| 5.630| | 5.640| 12917.5| 12602.4| 64.627|7.8E-13| 3.055| 60.103| 11.816| 5.640| | 5.650| 12946.7| 12630.9| 64.617|8.2E-13| 3.061| 60.068| 11.822| 5.650| | 5.660| 12976.0| 12659.5| 64.607|8.5E-13| 3.067| 60.034| 11.829| 5.660| | 5.670| 13005.3| 12688.1| 64.596|8.9E-13| 3.072| 59.999| 11.835| 5.670| | 5.680| 13034.6| 12716.7| 64.586|9.3E-13| 3.078| 59.967| 11.842| 5.680| | 5.690| 13064.0| 12745.4| 64.576|9.7E-13| 3.084| 59.935| 11.848| 5.690| | 5.700| 13093.5| 12774.1| 64.565|1.0E-12| 3.090| 59.902| 11.854| 5.700| | 5.710| 13122.9| 12802.9| 64.555|1.0E-12| 3.096| 59.870| 11.861| 5.710| | 5.720| 13152.4| 12831.6| 64.544|1.0E-12| 3.102| 59.838| 11.867| 5.720| | 5.730| 13182.0| 12860.5| 64.534|1.1E-12| 3.108| 59.806| 11.874| 5.730| | 5.740| 13211.5| 12889.3| 64.523|1.1E-12| 3.114| 59.775| 11.881| 5.740| | 5.750| 13241.2| 12918.2| 64.512|1.2E-12| 3.119| 59.744| 11.888| 5.750| | 5.760| 13270.8| 12947.1| 64.502|1.2E-12| 3.125| 59.714| 11.895| 5.760| | 5.770| 13300.5| 12976.1| 64.491|1.2E-12| 3.131| 59.680| 11.901| 5.770| | 5.780| 13330.2| 13005.1| 64.480|1.3E-12| 3.137| 59.638| 11.908| 5.780| | 5.790| 13360.0| 13034.1| 64.469|1.3E-12| 3.143| 59.598| 11.915| 5.790| +------+--------+--------+-------+-------+-------+- ------+-------+------+

Page 255: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

13 Supplementum Page 247

+-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | HYDROSTATIC TABLES | +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | |T AP | Dis.SW | Dis.FW | LCB | TCB | VCB | LCF | KM.T |T FP | |Metre | Ton | Ton |m.f.AP |m.f.CL |m.a.BL |m .f.AP |m.a.BL |Metre | +------+--------+--------+-------+-------+-------+- ------+-------+------+ | 5.800| 13389.8| 13063.2| 64.458|1.4E-12| 3.149| 59.559| 11.922| 5.800| | 5.810| 13419.7| 13092.4| 64.447|1.4E-12| 3.155| 59.519| 11.928| 5.810| | 5.820| 13449.6| 13121.5| 64.436|1.4E-12| 3.161| 59.480| 11.935| 5.820| | 5.830| 13479.5| 13150.7| 64.425|1.5E-12| 3.167| 59.442| 11.941| 5.830| | 5.840| 13509.5| 13180.0| 64.414|1.5E-12| 3.173| 59.405| 11.948| 5.840| | 5.850| 13539.5| 13209.3| 64.403|1.6E-12| 3.178| 59.368| 11.954| 5.850| | 5.860| 13569.5| 13238.6| 64.392|1.6E-12| 3.184| 59.332| 11.960| 5.860| | 5.870| 13599.6| 13267.9| 64.381|1.6E-12| 3.190| 59.297| 11.967| 5.870| | 5.880| 13629.8| 13297.3| 64.369|1.7E-12| 3.196| 59.263| 11.973| 5.880| | 5.890| 13660.0| 13326.8| 64.358|1.7E-12| 3.202| 59.229| 11.979| 5.890| | 5.900| 13690.2| 13356.3| 64.347|1.8E-12| 3.208| 59.196| 11.985| 5.900| | 5.910| 13720.4| 13385.8| 64.335|1.8E-12| 3.214| 59.165| 11.991| 5.910| | 5.920| 13750.7| 13415.3| 64.324|1.8E-12| 3.220| 59.133| 11.997| 5.920| | 5.930| 13781.0| 13444.9| 64.313|1.9E-12| 3.226| 59.103| 12.002| 5.930| | 5.940| 13811.4| 13474.6| 64.301|1.9E-12| 3.232| 59.074| 12.008| 5.940| | 5.950| 13841.8| 13504.2| 64.290|2.0E-12| 3.238| 59.046| 12.014| 5.950| | 5.960| 13872.3| 13533.9| 64.278|2.0E-12| 3.244| 59.017| 12.020| 5.960| | 5.970| 13902.7| 13563.7| 64.266|2.1E-12| 3.250| 58.989| 12.025| 5.970| | 5.980| 13933.3| 13593.4| 64.255|2.1E-12| 3.256| 58.962| 12.031| 5.980| | 5.990| 13963.8| 13623.2| 64.243|2.1E-12| 3.262| 58.935| 12.036| 5.990| | 6.000| 13994.4| 13653.1| 64.232|2.2E-12| 3.268| 58.910| 12.041| 6.000| | 6.010| 14025.0| 13683.0| 64.220|2.2E-12| 3.274| 58.885| 12.047| 6.010| | 6.020| 14055.7| 13712.9| 64.208|2.3E-12| 3.280| 58.862| 12.052| 6.020| | 6.030| 14086.4| 13742.8| 64.197|2.3E-12| 3.286| 58.839| 12.057| 6.030| | 6.040| 14117.1| 13772.8| 64.185|2.4E-12| 3.292| 58.816| 12.063| 6.040| | 6.050| 14147.9| 13802.8| 64.173|2.4E-12| 3.298| 58.795| 12.068| 6.050| | 6.060| 14178.7| 13832.9| 64.162|2.5E-12| 3.304| 58.774| 12.073| 6.060| | 6.070| 14209.5| 13862.9| 64.150|2.5E-12| 3.310| 58.753| 12.078| 6.070| | 6.080| 14240.4| 13893.1| 64.138|2.5E-12| 3.316| 58.733| 12.083| 6.080| | 6.090| 14271.3| 13923.2| 64.126|2.6E-12| 3.322| 58.713| 12.089| 6.090| | 6.100| 14302.2| 13953.4| 64.115|2.6E-12| 3.328| 58.692| 12.094| 6.100| | 6.110| 14333.2| 13983.6| 64.103|2.7E-12| 3.334| 58.672| 12.100| 6.110| | 6.120| 14364.2| 14013.9| 64.091|2.7E-12| 3.340| 58.654| 12.105| 6.120| | 6.130| 14395.2| 14044.1| 64.079|2.8E-12| 3.346| 58.635| 12.111| 6.130| | 6.140| 14426.3| 14074.5| 64.068|2.8E-12| 3.352| 58.616| 12.117| 6.140| | 6.150| 14457.4| 14104.8| 64.056|2.9E-12| 3.358| 58.598| 12.123| 6.150| | 6.160| 14488.6| 14135.2| 64.044|2.9E-12| 3.364| 58.579| 12.129| 6.160| | 6.170| 14519.7| 14165.6| 64.032|3.0E-12| 3.370| 58.561| 12.135| 6.170| | 6.180| 14551.0| 14196.1| 64.021|3.0E-12| 3.376| 58.543| 12.141| 6.180| | 6.190| 14582.2| 14226.5| 64.009|3.0E-12| 3.382| 58.525| 12.148| 6.190| | 6.200| 14613.5| 14257.0| 63.997|3.1E-12| 3.388| 58.507| 12.154| 6.200| | 6.210| 14644.8| 14287.6| 63.985|3.1E-12| 3.394| 58.489| 12.161| 6.210| | 6.220| 14676.1| 14318.2| 63.974|3.2E-12| 3.400| 58.471| 12.168| 6.220| | 6.230| 14707.5| 14348.8| 63.962|3.2E-12| 3.406| 58.454| 12.175| 6.230| | 6.240| 14738.9| 14379.4| 63.950|3.3E-12| 3.412| 58.436| 12.182| 6.240| | 6.250| 14770.4| 14410.1| 63.938|3.3E-12| 3.418| 58.418| 12.189| 6.250| | 6.260| 14801.9| 14440.8| 63.927|3.4E-12| 3.424| 58.401| 12.197| 6.260| | 6.270| 14833.4| 14471.6| 63.915|3.4E-12| 3.430| 58.384| 12.204| 6.270| | 6.280| 14864.9| 14502.4| 63.903|3.5E-12| 3.436| 58.367| 12.212| 6.280| | 6.290| 14896.5| 14533.2| 63.891|3.5E-12| 3.442| 58.350| 12.220| 6.290| | 6.300| 14928.1| 14564.0| 63.880|3.6E-12| 3.448| 58.333| 12.228| 6.300| | 6.310| 14959.8| 14594.9| 63.868|3.6E-12| 3.454| 58.316| 12.236| 6.310| | 6.320| 14991.5| 14625.8| 63.856|3.7E-12| 3.460| 58.300| 12.244| 6.320| | 6.330| 15023.2| 14656.8| 63.844|3.7E-12| 3.466| 58.282| 12.253| 6.330| | 6.340| 15055.0| 14687.8| 63.833|3.8E-12| 3.472| 58.265| 12.262| 6.340| | 6.350| 15086.7| 14718.8| 63.821|3.8E-12| 3.478| 58.248| 12.271| 6.350| | 6.360| 15118.6| 14749.8| 63.809|3.8E-12| 3.484| 58.232| 12.280| 6.360| | 6.370| 15150.4| 14780.9| 63.797|3.9E-12| 3.490| 58.215| 12.289| 6.370| | 6.380| 15182.3| 14812.0| 63.786|3.9E-12| 3.497| 58.198| 12.298| 6.380| | 6.390| 15214.3| 14843.2| 63.774|4.0E-12| 3.503| 58.182| 12.308| 6.390| | 6.400| 15246.2| 14874.4| 63.762|4.0E-12| 3.509| 58.166| 12.317| 6.400| | 6.410| 15278.2| 14905.6| 63.750|4.1E-12| 3.515| 58.150| 12.327| 6.410| | 6.420| 15310.3| 14936.8| 63.739|4.1E-12| 3.521| 58.134| 12.337| 6.420| | 6.430| 15342.3| 14968.1| 63.727|4.2E-12| 3.527| 58.119| 12.347| 6.430| | 6.440| 15374.4| 14999.4| 63.715|4.2E-12| 3.533| 58.104| 12.357| 6.440| | 6.450| 15406.6| 15030.8| 63.704|4.3E-12| 3.539| 58.089| 12.367| 6.450| | 6.460| 15438.7| 15062.2| 63.692|4.3E-12| 3.545| 58.077| 12.377| 6.460| | 6.470| 15470.9| 15093.6| 63.680|4.4E-12| 3.551| 58.065| 12.386| 6.470| | 6.480| 15503.2| 15125.1| 63.668|4.4E-12| 3.557| 58.053| 12.396| 6.480| | 6.490| 15535.5| 15156.5| 63.657|4.5E-12| 3.563| 58.041| 12.406| 6.490| | 6.500| 15567.8| 15188.1| 63.645|4.5E-12| 3.569| 57.593| 12.454| 6.500| | 6.510| 15600.3| 15219.8| 63.632|4.6E-12| 3.576| 57.597| 12.464| 6.510| | 6.520| 15632.9| 15251.6| 63.620|4.6E-12| 3.582| 57.603| 12.467| 6.520| | 6.530| 15665.5| 15283.4| 63.607|4.7E-12| 3.588| 57.608| 12.470| 6.530| | 6.540| 15698.1| 15315.2| 63.595|4.7E-12| 3.594| 57.614| 12.474| 6.540| | 6.550| 15730.7| 15347.0| 63.583|4.8E-12| 3.600| 57.620| 12.477| 6.550| | 6.560| 15763.4| 15378.9| 63.570|4.8E-12| 3.606| 57.625| 12.481| 6.560| | 6.570| 15796.1| 15410.8| 63.558|4.9E-12| 3.612| 57.632| 12.484| 6.570| +------+--------+--------+-------+-------+-------+- ------+-------+------+

Page 256: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

13 Supplementum Page 248

+-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | HYDROSTATIC TABLES | +-------------------------------------------------- ---------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | |T AP | Dis.SW | Dis.FW | LCB | TCB | VCB | LCF | KM.T |T FP | |Metre | Ton | Ton |m.f.AP |m.f.CL |m.a.BL |m .f.AP |m.a.BL |Metre | +------+--------+--------+-------+-------+-------+- ------+-------+------+ | 6.580| 15828.8| 15442.7| 63.546|4.9E-12| 3.618| 57.640| 12.486| 6.580| | 6.590| 15861.5| 15474.7| 63.533|5.0E-12| 3.625| 57.647| 12.489| 6.590| | 6.600| 15894.3| 15506.6| 63.521|5.0E-12| 3.631| 57.656| 12.492| 6.600| | 6.610| 15927.1| 15538.6| 63.509|5.1E-12| 3.637| 57.665| 12.494| 6.610| | 6.620| 15959.9| 15570.6| 63.497|5.1E-12| 3.643| 57.674| 12.497| 6.620| | 6.630| 15992.7| 15602.7| 63.485|5.2E-12| 3.649| 57.684| 12.499| 6.630| | 6.640| 16025.6| 15634.7| 63.473|5.2E-12| 3.655| 57.694| 12.501| 6.640| | 6.650| 16058.5| 15666.8| 63.462|5.3E-12| 3.661| 57.705| 12.503| 6.650| | 6.660| 16091.4| 15698.9| 63.450|5.3E-12| 3.667| 57.716| 12.505| 6.660| | 6.670| 16124.3| 15731.0| 63.438|5.4E-12| 3.674| 57.728| 12.507| 6.670| | 6.680| 16157.2| 15763.2| 63.427|5.4E-12| 3.680| 57.741| 12.508| 6.680| | 6.690| 16190.2| 15795.3| 63.415|5.5E-12| 3.686| 57.754| 12.510| 6.690| | 6.700| 16223.2| 15827.5| 63.403|5.5E-12| 3.692| 57.768| 12.511| 6.700| | 6.710| 16256.2| 15859.7| 63.392|5.6E-12| 3.698| 57.783| 12.512| 6.710| | 6.720| 16289.3| 15892.0| 63.381|5.7E-12| 3.704| 57.798| 12.513| 6.720| | 6.730| 16322.3| 15924.2| 63.369|1.7E-12| 3.710| 57.814| 12.514| 6.730| | 6.740| 16355.4| 15956.5| 63.358|1.7E-12| 3.716| 57.830| 12.514| 6.740| | 6.750| 16388.5| 15988.8| 63.347|1.7E-12| 3.722| 57.847| 12.515| 6.750| | 6.760| 16421.7| 16021.1| 63.336|1.0E-17| 3.729| 57.863| 12.516| 6.760| | 6.770| 16454.8| 16053.5| 63.325|1.9E-17| 3.735| 57.880| 12.516| 6.770| | 6.780| 16488.0| 16085.8| 63.314|3.4E-18| 3.741| 57.896| 12.517| 6.780| | 6.790| 16521.2| 16118.2| 63.303|1.5E-17| 3.747| 57.913| 12.518| 6.790| | 6.800| 16554.4| 16150.6| 63.292|1.0E-17| 3.753| 59.814| 12.320| 6.800| | 6.810| 16586.7| 16182.1| 63.286|5.6E-18| 3.759| 59.830| 12.293| 6.810| | 6.820| 16619.0| 16213.7| 63.279|4.1E-18| 3.765| 59.846| 12.295| 6.820| | 6.830| 16651.4| 16245.3| 63.272|1.5E-17| 3.771| 59.862| 12.297| 6.830| | 6.840| 16683.8| 16276.9| 63.266|5.4E-18| 3.777| 59.878| 12.299| 6.840| | 6.850| 16716.2| 16308.5| 63.259|2.0E-17| 3.783| 59.894| 12.300| 6.850| | 6.860| 16748.6| 16340.1| 63.253|7.3E-18| 3.789| 59.911| 12.302| 6.860| | 6.870| 16781.1| 16371.8| 63.246|9.0E-18| 3.795| 59.927| 12.304| 6.870| | 6.880| 16813.6| 16403.5| 63.240|1.5E-17| 3.801| 59.943| 12.306| 6.880| | 6.890| 16846.1| 16435.2| 63.233|1.5E-17| 3.807| 59.959| 12.308| 6.890| | 6.900| 16878.6| 16466.9| 63.227|1.9E-16| 3.813| 59.975| 12.310| 6.900| | 6.910| 16911.1| 16498.7| 63.221|1.2E-17| 3.818| 59.991| 12.312| 6.910| | 6.920| 16943.7| 16530.5| 63.215|1.3E-17| 3.824| 60.007| 12.314| 6.920| | 6.930| 16976.3| 16562.2| 63.208|6.9E-18| 3.830| 60.023| 12.316| 6.930| | 6.940| 17008.9| 16594.1| 63.202|6.5E-18| 3.836| 60.039| 12.318| 6.940| | 6.950| 17041.5| 16625.9| 63.196|6.1E-18| 3.842| 60.055| 12.321| 6.950| | 6.960| 17074.2| 16657.8| 63.190|6.2E-18| 3.848| 60.071| 12.323| 6.960| | 6.970| 17106.9| 16689.6| 63.184|1.5E-17| 3.854| 60.086| 12.325| 6.970| | 6.980| 17139.6| 16721.5| 63.178|-4.E-18| 3.860| 60.102| 12.327| 6.980| | 6.990| 17172.3| 16753.5| 63.173|-1.E-18| 3.866| 60.118| 12.329| 6.990| | 7.000| 17205.0| 16785.4| 63.167|9.3E-18| 3.872| 60.134| 12.332| 7.000| +------+--------+--------+-------+-------+-------+- ------+-------+------+

Page 257: ESTONIA MILE STONE 1 TUHH anonym...discrepancies was that the whole stability of the ship in the stability booklet was based on even keel hydrostatics, although the stability as such

13 Supplementum Page 249

13.3 Tank Filling