PHOTO: PÄR-HENRIK SJÖSTRÖM

The “Estonia” disaster from an Estonian perspective

“Estonia” was the first large Estonian passenger ferry and became a symbol for the young nation. Here the SSG editor in Estonia, Madli Vitismann, gives us an Estonian perspective on the disaster that ten years ago claimed the lives of 852 people.

The ferry “Estonia” arrived in Vene-Balti port in Tallinn on a stormy afternoon on 16 January 1993. In the high winds the vessel’s master navigated the long ship into the port almost diagonally between the breakers and berthed at the quay.

Second officer Tormi Ainsalu from Saaremaa proudly presented his new workplace – Estonia’s largest and most beautiful bridge. On 28 January, “Estonia” left for Stockholm so that the crew could obtain their safety degree from the National Maritime Academy and receive their Estline uniforms.

On 2 February “Estonia” berthed in the passenger harbour in Tallinn. The ferry was open to the media and invited guests; in the afternoon the passengers boarded the vessel. My next encounter with the crew was on 22 February, when the Maritime Academy dedicated its new flag on the ferry.

Later encounters included the time when 66 Kurds were found in a trailer on car deck, or when the Estonian president showed the president of Kazakhstan the most handsome vessel under Estonian flag. My acquaintances with the onboard crew were cemented on the journeys to Sweden – I also knew many of the closely-knit crew from previous encounters. “Estonia” was a step up the career ladder for each of them.

	“Estonia’s” masters Rein Erlach, Arvo Andresson and Avo Piht received Estonia’s first national masters certicates on board their vessel in January 1994.

Affected the entire society
Naturally, it was difficult to believe the first phone call that said Estonia’s flagship no longer existed. In the morning, phone calls from the first survivors were broadcasted on radio, among them also some people I knew.

However, the casualties far outnumbered the survivors. Among them the dexterous engineer Mati, who verified the theory that everything man has produced can also be repaired. And the cabin hostesses, who had stood on the stairs to welcome the passengers. Only one of them made it to safety. Gone was also Tormi Ainsalu, who so proudly had presented his new vessel.

Estonian society was hit hard by the loss of “Estonia” . The percentage of the population that was lost in the disaster was larger than in any other country. For Estonian maritime society the shipwreck was an even heavier loss – everyone working in the shipping industry had fellow students, friends or acquaintances on board the ferry. Estline’s office in Tallinn had lost six employees – one fifth of the total staff. Despite this they had to work day and night after the disaster.

The time that followed the disaster was emotionally very difficult for a lot of people. Despite this they had to fulfil their obligations. Everyone did their job while mourning lost friends.

In the young nation many structures were still only under development, but everyone had to shoulder complete responsibility. One of the experts on the Estonia commission, who was a shipping industry professional, expressed it as follows: “In Sweden there are people especially educated for each purpose. They even have media communications experts for talking to the media, whereas here everything is done by regular people like you and I.”

Immediately following the shipwreck the mourning seamen were hit by accusations from the neighbouring states, which the Estonian media picked up on. The days after the disaster the media focused on releasing lists of those saved and lost, and wrote about their relatives’ feelings. After that they started to quote Finnish and Swedish newspapers and strengthened their attitudes, which call attention to that the Estonian seamen weren’t skilled enough.

The Estonian press changed their attitude, when only a month later photographs were found on board “Estonia's” sister vessel “Mare Balticum” (ex “Diana II”), which showed that the vessel had had the same problems with her bow visor. The bow visor on “Mare Balticum” was welded shut before she started liner traffic for Estline, and later the bow ramp was rebuilt.

	Outfitting of the “Estonia” in the port of Vene-Balti prior to her first voyage to Stockholm on January 28, 1993. PHOTO: MADLI VITISMANN

Over and above full-time job
In Estonia, JAIC’s (Joint Accident Investigation Commission) work was treated with understanding and supported, maybe particularly because it wasn’t the commission members’ main job. Sweden’s severe criticism of the Estonian members was seen as irrelevant. Naturally, even in Estonia there were know-alls, like the fisherman who published a number of articles on the disaster.

Unfortunately one of the crewmembers on “Estonia” managed to delay JAIC’s inquiry with a full year with his testimony. That is how long it took to find the “lost” ten minutes missing from the time frame of the sinking, which he long tried to conceal very carefully.

JAIC’s final report did not cause much controversy in Estonia. The reason for the wreck stated in the report was generally accepted. Later, many wanted to know who was responsible for the ferry not being able to ride out the storm.

Memento associations
The Estonians lost in the disaster, both crew and passengers, were mostly young people. Many of them had small children. The loved ones left behind were required to carry on. Memento Mare, an association for family members, assisted with insurance claims and offered legal and psychological support. The association Memento Estonia, for families of deceased crewmembers and surviving crew, also negotiated with the employer. At the time, the compensation for the death of a seaman was rather small due to Estonian law and collective agreements.

Both associations worked in co-operation with the Swedish association for family members, headed by Swedish-Estonian Gunnar Bendreus, as well as with association solicitor Henning Witte. Unfortunately, these two did not live up to the expectations of the people who relied on them.

Obscurities
Being a coastal nation, Estonia did not quite understand Sweden’s desire to raise the victims at all costs and even less why they tried to cover the wreck in cement, as if they wanted to hide something.

Some unclear points and a wall of silence surrounding the fate of the ship’s master Avo Piht and chief engineer Lembit Leiger as well as doubts regarding the circumstances around some other missing persons have left family members and many others unsatisfied. Due to this they were even influenced by Jutta Rabe in the beginning of her activities. She also managed to arouse suspicions as to the possibility of a hole in the hull.

People wanted light shed on this issue. However, the German shipyard’s two exhibitions in Stockholm and their two inquiry reports, of which one was obviously rushed, could not sway the by nature sceptical Estonians. By using the phrase “bad Estonian welders” in conjunction with the bow visor, the organisers tried to divert attention from questions such as who built the vessel, who handled technical maintenance and who declared her seaworthy.

At the ITF and NTF conference in Arlanda in the autumn of 1998, the atmosphere was such that the invited JAIC members’ speeches did not get enough attention. The presentation by commission chairman Uno Laur, which contained a clear legal analysis, was unfortunately drowned in the general buzz. He wrapped up his speech with the following words: “I want to underline that a similar accident with the vessel which was supposed to be able to cross oceans could have happened at every voyage during her lifetime with you or me occasionally on board.”

A number of books and dozens of newspaper articles have been written questioning JAIC’s work. However, most of them have lost credibility due to superficiality and incorrect facts. One of the more in-depth contributions in Estonia is Andi Meister’s book “The unfinished log book”.

Meister was JAIC’s first chairman and transport minister at the time. The book was written after he resigned from his post.

In it he sheds light on the differences of opinion within the commission. The book shows that JAIC’s final report of 1 December 1997 was a compromise, in order to get signatures from all nine commission members. Despite that there are to this day no more thorough or better justified conclusions than those presented by JAIC.

New white ferries
Estonia took part in a universal rescue drill in the Stockholm archipelago on 2 February 1994. One of the instructors, pilot Dorje Hellgren, was thoroughly satisfied with the crew’s actions. Helicopter pilot Lars Flemström also remembers the same drill, in which many Swedish authorities took part. “As regards safety work, the system on board the ferry was exemplary. There was also a fine atmosphere and a positive attitude towards future rescue drills on board.”
“Estonia” was equally (50:50) owned by N&T and ESCO. At the time, the Swedish party handled technical maintenance of Estline’s vessels while the manning of “Estonia” was the responsibility of the Estonian party.

Today there are 12 passenger vessels under Estonian flag in international traffic, with a total capacity of 11,000 passengers and thousands of crewmembers. Among them are people who survived the “Estonia” disaster. Still, there is no answer to the question of responsibility.

//Madli Vitismann