They never calculated the required strength of locking devices, they had no means to do so at that time, it was part of the responsibility of the Classification Society and also of the Yard.
In addition, it had to be assumed that due to the fact that the same procedure had been performed one year before with the, in this respect, identical DIANA II by the Swedish Sjöfartsverket, this may also have contributed in convincing F.B.N. that no activity of their own was required.
As far as the Yard is concerned it has to be assumed that von Tell had sent a copy to the Yard of the approved drawing 49111-330 - General Arrangement of bow visor and ramp - with the respective remarks:
»1. Arrangement of locking devices and protection against shifting cargoes subject to the approval of the National Authorities.
2. Watertightness of the ramp and bow visor to Surveyor's satisfaction.
3. Local reinforcement of the ship's structure in way of
- locking devices
- cylinders
- hinges to Surveyor's satisfaction.
4. High pressure flexible pipes must be approved by B.V.«
As the remark just referred to the "Arrangement", i.e. number and placing, and not to the "Dimensioning" of the locking devices and as further it was the intention to use an identical installation to that installed a year before on the near-sister vessel DIANA II, which had been approved by B.V. and Sjöfartsverket, there was no reason for the Yard to do anything, in particular, there was no reason to talk to F.B.N.
As to the upper extension of the collision bulkhead there is apparently no correspondence between the Yard and F.B.N. This issue had been clarified beforehand between the owners and F.B.N., and it was confirmed by Director Valkonen that the bow ramp was considered to be the upper extension of the collision bulkhead above bulkhead deck, although located too much forward. This was allegedly permissible according to SOLAS since the intended trade would allow the vessel to stay within 20 nm off the nearest land and under such conditions it was within the discretion of the Maritime Administration to exempt the owners from otherwise mandatory obligations. This however required the issuance of an exemption certificate by F.B.N., which apparently was not done and reportedly also not customary in those years (see page 84).
In summary:
It was agreed between the Yard and owners that »bow and stern ramps' arrangement same as on DIANA II« (see Enclosure 2.4.1.16), and further it was specifically stated in the specification, being part of the building contract, that
»No partial collision door required for the intended trade by F.B.N.«
As the location of the bow ramp, being the upper extension of the collision bulkhead, was in line with the B.V. Rules and F.B.N. - having received all relevant drawings - did not raise objections either - there was thus no reason for the Yard to have doubts that this construction would not be in line with the SOLAS requirements for the intended trade.
After delivery, F.B.N. issued a temporary Passenger Ship Safety Certificate (PSSC) - Enclosures 2.4.4.55 (Finnish/Swedish) and Enclosure 2.4.4.56 (English) - for the voyage from Papenburg to Mariehamn without passengers, which was valid until 20 July 1980.
When the vessel came to Turku for the first time, the responsible F.B.N. Director H.Valkonen and the F.B.N. surveyor from Kotka, Gunnar Peippo, marked on a respective drawing all parts of the vessel not to be used by passengers and limited the number of passengers to 700. They further stated that the 20 nm limit was valid until the vessel was fully completed. At a subsequent meeting on 19.07.80 it was decided that the vessel was now completed and the first permanent PSSC was issued - Enclosure 2.4.4.57 (Finnish/Swedish) and Enclosure 2.4.4.58 (English) - however, restricted to "Kustfart mellan Finland och Sverige", i.e. "coastal trade between Finland and Sweden".
The PSSC was issued
in two different versions, i.e.
(a) in Finnish/Swedish
language which was considered to be the original.
(b) in English
language for foreigners.
The English
wording is to be considered as a translation only.
By the PSSC the
F.B.N. confirmed the following:
- the vessel
could be employed for "short international voyages" as defined in SOLAS 1974,
Chapter 3 - Lifesaving Appliances, etc. Regulation 2 - Definition:
»Short international voyage signifies an international voyage in the course of which a ship is not more than 200 miles from a port or place where the passengers and crew could be placed in safety, and which does not exceed 600 miles in length between the last port of call in the country where the voyage begins and the final port of destination.«
- the vessel complied
with »the requirements of the Regulations annexed to the said Convention
as regards: 1. the structure ..«.
- the vessel may carry 2000 passengers »i kustfart mellan Finland och Sverige«
which means translated: "in coastal trade between Finland and Sweden." Actually
the respective (wrong) wording in the English certificates is: »For a short
international voyage between Finland and Sweden«. This later led to considerable
confusion because in particular the media only received the English version
and interpreted the term "short international voyage" in this context as a
reference to the SOLAS regulation cited above, which is wrong.
Whilst "short
international voyage" refers to SOLAS Chapter 3 "Lifesaving Appliances,
etc.", the term "Kustfart" is a trading limit defined by the F.B.N. in their
letter of 27 June 1995 - Enclosure
2.4.4.59 - as "not south of Latitude 59°30'N", which again is wrong.
The term "Kustfart" appears only in the Finnish "Statute on Officers
on Merchant Vessels 522/1964".
This statute governs
the number of and the competence of officers onboard merchant vessels. Under
section 2 the types of vessels are defined as well as the trading areas for
purposes of this statute. E.g. by the coastal trade/"kustfart" is, according
to section 2, item 8 understood "trade outside the inner trading area on the
Gulf of Finland as far as 23 degrees long, and on the Gulf of Bothnia and
in the Baltic up to lat. 59 degrees 30 and trading within the Swedish Archipelago
up to Söderköping". This statute comprises a number of general and specific
rules (chapters 1 and 5), and also detailed rules on the certificates of engine
and deck officers (chapters 2 and 3). Under chapter 4, the number of and the
competence of deck officers is governed. E.g., under section 24 it is in very
detail established what the number and competence of the deck officers onboard
a vessel in coastal trade (kustfart) is. However, the statute does not refer
to the vessel itself. The narrow scope of application of the statute is also
described under section 40, which stipulates what pieces of legislation are
cancelled by means of this new statute. Not a single statute referring to
the construction, seaworthiness, equipment etc. of vessels is mentioned under
that section. Consequently it has to be concluded that the definition "kustfart",
"coastal trade" as mentioned in the PSSC is actually based on section 2, item
8 of the "statute on ship's officers 522/1964" and that the explanation given
by F.B.N. in its letter signed by Mr. Jukka Häkämies (enclosure
2.4.4.59) clearly refers to this same section, comprising the definition
of "kustfart" "as not south of latitude N 59 deg. 30 min". A similar definition
is not to be found in any other pieces of legislation pertaining to vessels
or navigation, there is not even a reference to coastal trade in such legislation.
This definition is not based on a possible exemption as per Chapter II, Regulation
1 c) of the at the time with regard to Finnish vessels applicable SOLAS 1960
Convention.
It is another
matter that the F.B.N. later in the above letter, is alleging that the background
of "kustfart mellan Sverige och Finland" would somehow be the exemption rule
of the SOLAS convention.
When looking
upon the application of a definition comprised in various statutes, a general
principle is that a certain definition is only applicable on matters regulated
by a law comprising that specific definition.
Accordingly, the
statute itself restricts the application of the definitions of that particular
statute solely to the scope of application of the statue itself, that is on
matters relating to number and competence of a vessel's officers. Therefore,
the restricted trading area "kustfart", "coastal trade" has only been issued
and it can only be used in matters relating to the number and competence of
the officers onboard that is in connection with matters regulated by the statute
of 1964.
The trading
area "coastal trade between Sweden and Finland" (i kustfart mellan Sverige
och Finland) has not been issued due to the construction of or particulars
affecting the construction of the vessel but solely due to the composition
of the crew, that is the restricted number of officers onboard. It only means
that when the vessel is trading in coastal trade between Sweden and Finland
- which it did - it has to be manned as per section 24 of the statute on ship's
officers.
Thus, the restriction
"coastal trade" does not relate to the construction of the vessel, however,
if it is assumed that this particular restriction was intended to refer to
the construction of the vessel, i.e. that the F.B.N. when issuing the certificate
would have found that the vessel was only safe in coastal trade between Sweden
and Finland, the conclusion would then be that the FBN should have made a
respective remark in the PSSC which doubtless would have led to re-inspecting
the vessel in case the trading area would be changed.
As stated in
Subchapter 2.2 and as it has been confirmed by the SOLAS experts of Germanischer
Lloyd it was common practice in those years for the National Maritime Authorities
not to issue "Exemption Certificates", but that a respective handwritten remark
by the inspector in the vessel's file was sufficient. In addition, however,
this remark, that the trading area was restricted to "sheltered waters - 20
nm", should have been made in the PSSC as well, which could have been the
case by the entry "i kustfart mellan Finland och Sverige".
It may thus
be concluded that the F.B.N. issued the PSSC - after receipt of copies of
the class certificates - in accordance with common practice in those years,
i.e. it confirmed by the PSSC that the vessel complied with the SOLAS requirements,
however, restricted the trade to "Kustfart mellan Sverige och Finland" = "coastal
trade between Finland and Sweden". This should have ended, however, when the
issuance of "exemption certificates" became mandatory in 1985/86 and copies
had to be sent to IMO. At the latest then the F.B.N. should have issued an
"Exemption Certificate" in respect of the wrong location of the bow ramp as
upper extension of the collision bulkhead above bulkhead deck (cardeck) and
should have sent a copy to IMO in London as also required by SOLAS. This was
not done. Even when the trading area was changed to the middle of the Gulf
of Bothnia and the vessel's name was changed to WASA KING, the F.B.N. continued
to issue the same PSSC's even though the vessel had left the "sheltered waters"
on the leg Sundsvall-Vaasa when she was regularly more than 20 nm from the
nearest land, thus the granting of exemptions was no more permissible according
to SOLAS and the F.B.N. should have required the installation of a "partial
collision door" or similar in way of the proper location required by SOLAS
for the "the upper extension of the collision bulkhead above bulkhead deck".
Also this was not done and the vessel kept sailing in the same condition as
delivered by her builders in 1980 and with the same worded PSSC as first issued
in 1980. This was the situation when the vessel was sold in January 1993.
