2.3.

DIANA II THE FORERUNNER DIANA II - SUBSEQUENTLY RENAMED

MARE BALTICUM / MELODY

In 1979 - subsequent to the previously described series of 6 ferries - the DIANA II (Hull No. S 592) was delivered to the Viking Line partner, AB Slite, Stockholm. Not only the tonnage of 11 700 GRT but also the fitments of this vessel demonstrate the speedy development of ferry-shipping in this part of the world, which became known as the 'Baltic phenomenon'. Both DIANA II and her near-sister, the following newbuilding from Meyer Werft VIKING SALLY, were products of the 'Baltic phenomenon' and considered to be trend setters for the ever growing 'jumbo' ferries in this trading area. (See further Chapter 4.)

 

2.3.1

Newbuilding contract and approval procedure

As far as could be ascertained DIANA II was designed by the Stockholm consulting office Simson Ship in close co-operation with AB Slite and Meyer Werft as an enlarged version of the predecessors APPOLO and DIANA. According to the newbuilding contract (see Enclosure 2.3.1.5) - written in German - Meyer Werft was inter alia obliged to build the vessel according to SOLAS 1974. Consequently, an upper extension of the collision bulkhead above bulkhead deck = car deck at the minimum distance from the forward perpendicular as required by SOLAS 1974 - Chapter II-1, Rule 9, was imperative. Exemptions could be granted by the National Maritime Administration of the flag state - in this case the Swedish Sjöfartsverket - should the vessel operate exclusively in "sheltered waters", i.e. not more than 20 nm from the nearest land (SOLAS 1974 - Chapter II-1, Rule 1 (C) ). The position of Sjöfartsverket in this respect has already been explained in this report in the preceding Chapter 2.2. It reveals that the bow ramp was accepted by the National Maritime Administration as the upper extension of the collision bulkhead above bulkhead deck.

The same refers to Bureau Veritas according to the memo concerning a discussion in the BV-Hamburg office on 23 June 1978 (Enclosure 2.3.1.6). This office is responsible for the plan approval of vessels built in Germany to B.V. classification rules. In this memo it is stated under item 1:

»The collision bulkhead has to be extended up to the C-deck by a watertight ramp. The location of the ramp as to the forward perpendicular can be determined by means of the geometrical means in the obliquity. Agreement with B.V. and the Swedish Maritime Administration.«

In addition, the building files reveal that the Yard subsequently endeavoured to obtain this agreement directly from the Swedish Sjöfartsverket. This was basically done verbally in discussions and/or telephone conversations, which, however, were recorded in the diary of the Meyer Werft project manager H.Wahnes.

So it is stated for example in a note dated 23 October 1978 under item 2:
»K.S.S. collision bulkhead.«
Note: K.S.S. = Royal Swedish Shipping Authority, i.e. today's Sjöfartsverket (Enclosure 2.3.1.7).

In a further memo dated 20 November 1978 it is stated inter alia :
»Participants: Mr. C.B. Myrsten, Mrs. B.M. Myrsten, Mr. Kure, Mr. Tillberg, Mr. L. Andersson, Mr. H. Sjöholm collision bulkhead = bow ramp (N.S. 23.06.78)«
(Enclosure 2.3.1.8).

Note:

- H. Sjöholm was then the manager of the Rotterdam office of Sjöfartsverket and DIANA II was built in his area of responsibility.
- C.B. Myrsten was the owner of AB Slite and Mr. Kure was his technical adviser.

 

By the above quoted notes of project manager H.Wahnes it is documented that:

a) According to an agreement with Bureau Veritas and Sjöfartsverket the collision bulkhead was to be extended above bulkhead deck to C-deck by means of a watertight ramp, the location of which was to be determined by the geometrical mean in the obliquity (freeboard-deck = car deck = A-deck).
b.) In the presence of the owner, C.B. Myrsten, and his technical consultant Kure, it was discussed and agreed by the representative of Sjöfartsverket, Sjöholm, that the bow ramp should act as upper extension of the collision bulkhead above bulkhead deck, i.e. as such there was a deviation from the requirements of SOLAS 1974.

In hindsight the cited documentation in respect of such an important deviation from the SOLAS 1974 requirements appears to be meagre. The following, however, has to be considered:

- The Yard had already delivered 6 vessels of similar design to the same owners trading in the same service for which also DIANA II was built. Upon application of the owners to the National Maritime Administrations of the respective flag states these had issued - without problems - the 'Passenger Ship Safety Certificates', thereby confirming that the vessels complied with 'SOLAS 1974' requirements.
- In the same manner the National Maritime Administration had dealt with a large number of other car/passenger ferries in the Baltic. This was in conformity with the 'General Scandinavian Practice' described in the preceding Chapter 2.2.
- In the 'pre-computer age' it was uncommon to confirm every agreement in writing. Verbal agreements and handwritten notes or memos were accepted and honoured.

 

It is the considered opinion of the members of this 'Group of Experts' that on basis of the above explained notes/memos in connection with own knowledge and experience the deviation from SOLAS 1974 in regard to the location of the upper extension of the collision bulkhead above bulkhead deck was approved by the competent Swedish Maritime Administration - Sjöfartsverket - already in the planning stage of the vessel in accordance with accepted customs.

After all, this is confirmed by the fact that the 'Sjöfartsverket' upon delivery of DIANA II issued to her owners the 'Passenger Ship Safety Certificate' (PSSC) and has, ever since, renewed it annually without a trading restriction and without issuing an Exemption Certificate. The PSSC valid at the time of the ESTONIA casualty was issued on 10.06.1994 by the Malmö office of Sjöfartsverket and is attached as Enclosure 2.3.1.9. The certificate was signed by chief inspector Åke Sjöblom who also inspected ESTONIA during her last afternoon in Tallinn (see Chapter 15).

The locking devices of the visor and bow ramp were calculated by the subcontractor von Tell AB, Gothenburg and - most probably - also by the Yard. Although the von Tell archive in Gothenburg - subsequently taken over by Kvaerner Shipsequipment AB - contains considerable design and calculation material concerning DIANA II, the respective calculations relating to the locking devices of the visor and bow ramp are, however, missing. - See Enclosure 2.4.2.25.

At the time when these calculations were made, i.e. in 1978, the B.V. Rules still did not contain any specific requirements for the dimensioning of the locking devices for visors of Ro-Ro vessels in general and also not for car/ passenger ferries in particular, and although B.V. classed Ro-Ro vessels had had a number of serious bow door incidents in previous years - see Chapter 33 - for example:

The Swedish flag STENA SAILOR, commissioned only in 1973, broke the locking devices of her bow door already on 16.01.74 and called at a port of refuge. The subsequent investigation by Sjöfartsverket revealed that sister-vessels had had similar incidents before and that the locking devices were underdimensioned for the loads to be absorbed. Since Sjöfartsverket as well as the other maritime administrations of the Nordic countries were lacking technical staff and facilities to carry out load calculations themselves, this was delegated to a number of acknowledged Classification Societies, among them B.V., who had to do these calculations anyway, respectively had to check the calculations performed by the Yard and/or its subcontractor.

Sjöfartsverket informed B.V. about the results of the STENA SAILOR incident investigation, viz. that the locking devices of this less than one year old vessel had been too weak. B.V. replied at the end of July 1974 that it was their intention to increase the requirement for the locking devices of bow doors. Since Sjöfartsverket's internal system at that time did not contain a follow-up of such promises, it was apparently left to the respective class of a vessel, in this case B.V., to determine the strengthening of the locking devices and it was not cross-checked by Sjöfartsverket whether this had really been carried out (see Investigation Report of Magnus Sjöberg - Enclosure 6.3.116).

This was the situation in 1978 when DIANA II - including the locking devices of her bow visor - was designed and subsequently approved by B.V.