3.4
Surveys, Maintenance, Damage and Repairs

The vessel was maintained by the owners to class satisfaction in line with common practice and requirements. The surveys for maintenance of class were carried out by Bureau Veritas on a continuous five-year timetable for hull and machinery in combination with a schedule of annual surveys. On average, the surveying program involved five to six onboard-survey visits per year which were mainly carried out by the principal surveyor of the BV-Stockholm office, Lars-Olof Ålander, who also carried out the Load Line Surveys on behalf of the F.B.N. - see Enclosure 2.4.3.44.2. At this time the visor was kept weathertight and the rubber packings were renewed when required, at least once a year, either by MacGregor, Turku or by the crew - see Enclosure 3.4.99.
The annual drydockings were mostly done at the Turku Repair Yard. Two were at the Valmet Helsinki Yard, one after grounding damage in 1984 and one in 1985 for repair of ice damage and for modification of the stern area of the hull by incorporation of the "duck tail" extension. Two drydockings were made in Stockholm, one in 1985 for repair of a leaking propeller shaft seal and one in 1988 for repair of grounding damage. The damage was surveyed and repaired in drydock following normal practice.
Besides the ice damage in 1985, two other occasions of ice damage were recorded, during the winters of 1982 and 1987.
The drydocking in conjunction with transfer to the Effjohn Group was done in 1990 at the Naantali branch of the Turku Repair Yard. Thereafter the vessel made some trips as SILJA STAR in her initial trade and was then laid-up at the Perno Shipyard outside Turku for some months until the beginning of 1991 when she was put in service on the Vaasa trade. The interior was upgraded and the sound-proofing in the cabin area was improved by building in ca. 85 tons of steel during this time. Thereafter an inclining experiment was performed by Veli-Matti Junilla of Ship Consulting Oy, Turku and a revised "Stability Booklet" issued, which was approved by the F.B.N. (Edelmann) on 20.01.91 and is attached as Enclosure 3.4.86.

In detail:
(1) Surveys/Inspections

(a) By Bureau Veritas (B.V.)
- The B.V. organisation in Sweden/Finland: head office for Sweden was and is Gothenburg, manager: Hans Olsson, (until 9/98) Stock-holm and Trelleborg/Malmö report to Gothenburg, Gothenburg reports to Paris. B.V.'s office for Finland was and is in Helsinki. As of 1990 a head office for the northern countries was established in Copenhagen without any change in the reporting procedure.
- The vessel participated in the Continuous Survey program for hull and machinery incl. AUT, i.e. in total 1500 items had to be surveyed over a period of 5 years, i.e. 300 items every year.
- B.V. also carried out Load Line Surveys for F.B.N. which consisted of surveys respectively

The B.V. Report Form did not include the visor, but watertightness of the closed and locked visor was to be established by hose-testing as part of the Load Line Survey.
According to the opinion of the previous principal surveyor of the BV-Stockholm office, Lars-Olof Ålander, it was clear to everyone in the field and in the offices that the bow ramp on all older ferries would not fulfil the SOLAS Regulation 10 requirement as upper extension of the collision bulkhead. However, it was not and is not the field surveyor's business to criticise this design characteristic - evidently approved by the head office - see Enclosure 2.4.3.44.2.

Note: This is only correct as long as the surveyor is acting on behalf of the class but not if he is acting on behalf of the National Maritime Administration.

Attached as Enclosure 3.4.87 is a summary of B.V. inspections while the ferry was flying the Finnish flag.

- B.V. surveyors experienced the following in the course of time that the vessel sailed under Finnish flag:

- According to Lars-Olof Ålander the locking devices and sensors of the bow visor and the bow ramp were always considered to be class items and not the responsibility of F.B.N.

Note: This is in direct contradiction to the explanations of BV-lawyer Bengt-Åke Johnson on page 61 where he stated that locking devices were not the responsibility of B.V.

- All electrical systems were subjected to annual megger testing, therefore also the sensors of the bow visor locking devices should have been megger tested once a year.
- The correct functioning of sensors/indicator lights are a pre-condition for the seaworthiness of the vessel. (This was confirmed by the B.V. head office Paris.)
- The manual locking devices of the bow visor were "heavy weather securings" which had to be applied when heavy weather was forecasted.

(b) Inspections by the Maritime Administration - F.B.N.

- The organisation of F.B.N. has already been explained in Subchapter 2.4.4. Reportedly it did not change very much during the following years. The role of the F.B.N. (and also Sjöfartsverket) Ship Safety Inspectors, whilst it was trading under Finnisg flag, was basically to

As long as the vessel remained under Finnish flag and thus under the responsibility and supervision of the F.B.N. periodical inspections were apparently carried out every 3 months by F.B.N. inspectors, as can be seen from the attached extract of the control file together with inspection certificate and inspection report issued by F.B.N. (Enclosure 3.4.88 together with translation). Every year a new PSSC was issued, sometimes just by changing the dates on the previous one.
In any event, the vessel never did create problems from the point of view of the F.B.N. They were not informed by the owners when she was sold. According to the F.B.N. there was no exchange of information/documentation with B.V. before, during or after take-over by the Estonians, because they became aware of the flag and name change only when WASA KING was deleted from the Finnish Register (information H. Valkonen).

(2) Maintenance

- In principle, the vessel was drydocked every second year, but during the intervals the bottom, the rudders and the propellers were inspected and, if necessary, cleaned by divers.
- The hull was at first painted red (VIKING SALLY), subsequently white (SILJA STAR and WASA KING), the underwater ship including the bootop area was coated with INERTA ice-resistant paint - blue. For details reference is made to Enclosure 3.4.89.
- The moving parts of bow visor and bow ramp including the locking devices and hydraulic cylinders (actuators) were checked weekly and greased monthly. General maintenance and necessary repairs were carried out by MacGregor, Turku.
- Occasionally hydraulic pressure hoses and packings were renewed, cracks in the mountings of the lifting cylinders of the bow visor were re-welded by the crew (information: Yngve Röblom, Lars Karlsson), the pockets for the securing bolts of the bow ramp were strengthened by the crew (information: Lars Karlsson).
- According to the boatswain Juhani Luttunen already in 1982 it was noted that the visor was slightly misaligned, i.e. the starboard side stood up by about 1 cm. This resulted in a misalignment of the Atlantic lock arrangement and hence the bolt did not fit anymore. To rectify this, motorman Koivisto changed the position of the lugs on the forepeak deck and also modified the visor lug, but in such a miserable manner that the lugs on the forepeak deck had to be completely renewed. This was done by von Tell AB, Gothenburg. For details see Subchapter 3.3 and Enclosure 3.3.83 - Interview Juhani Luttunen.
- As stated above the vessel was, in principle, drydocked every second year, but due to repeated problems with the Cedarvall stern tube seals she had to be drydocked during the intervals to repair these seals. From 1987 onwards the owners' specifications for all dockings, the quotations of the yard and the final repair invoices of the yard, which since that time was always Turku Shipyard, Turku, are available to this 'Group of Experts'. According to the records of International Paint, the suppliers of Inerta Ice Resistant Paint, the vessel was also drydocked in May 1985 at Valmet Shipyard/Helsinki, where the duck tail was fitted. These records are attached as Enclosure 3.4.89.

Furthermore:

- Invoice Turku Shipyard dated 19.10.87 covering the yard time from 12.-23.01.87 - Enclosure 3.4.90:

- Invoice Turku Shipyard dated 07.10.87 covering the yard time from 06.-08.04.87 - Enclosure 3.4.91:

- Invoice Turku Shipyard dated 12.12.88 covering the yard time from 12.-16.09.88 - Enclosure 3.4.92:

- Invoice Turku Shipyard dated 22.06.89 covering the yard time from 02.-03.05.88 - Enclosure 3.4.93.
- Invoice Turku Repair Yard dated 02.10.90 covering the yard time from 30.04.-07.05.90 - Enclosure 3.4.94:

- Invoice Turku Repair Yard dated 01.02.91 covering the yard time from 20.-23.11.90 - Enclosure 3.4.95:

- After a strong ice-winter, probably in 1985/86, at sea water was noted in the visor up to the outside water level. As it turned out that this condition did not improve notably after renewal of the rubber packings and that the water caused a short-circuit in the mechanical sensors of the Atlantic lock, which also affected other installations on the car deck, the mechanical sensors were replaced by watertight magnetic limit switches.
Lars Karlsson - chief engineer of the vessel for 12 years - stated in respect of rubber packings and the exchange of the mechanical sensors to magnetic limit switches the following:

»The rubber packings of the visor were changed once a year. The packings were mainly damaged on A-deck and ca. 1 m upwards the front bulkheads because the final movement before closure is backwards - not downwards - which destroys the packings due to the rubbing effect. Therefore we did put grease (same as used for the hinges) on the packings and it became better.
At some time, probably after the strong ice winter 1986/87, we increasingly had problems with electrical failures, short circuits, etc. with the sensors for the indicator lights of the Atlantic lock. So I checked with other vessels, e.g. VIKING SONG and VIKING SAGA and also the market, and finally bought rather expensive magnetic limit switches, which were installed by electrician Sjögren and we never had problems again. I have been many times with B.V. surveyor Lars-Olof Ålander inside the closed visor when water or light test was made during Load Line survey. I believe that at the same time also the indicator lights were checked.«

The statement of Lars Karlsson is attached as Enclosure 2.4.5.60.
According to information obtained from Håkan Karlsson/Charles Richardson the rubber packings in way of visor and bow ramp were last renewed by the crew during the lay-up time end of 1990/beginning 1991 before SILJA STAR was renamed WASA KING and nothing was done thereafter until the sale in mid January 1993. Consequently at the time of the take-over the same rubber packings, respectively their remains, were in place which had been renewed at the end of 1990. Therefore the last Finnish crew, when preparing the next yard time scheduled for January 1993, had asked for renewal of 15 m of rubber packing in way of the visor and 10 m in way of the bow ramp.

- In winter it was frequently very difficult to open the frozen visor despite the two ice-cylinders assisting the opening procedure. Lars Karlsson reports in this respect:

»In winter we had problems to open the visor.
It is easy to increase the pressure by just turning a wheel at the hydraulic pump (axial piston pump - make: Vickers). There was a lock nut to regulate the pressure.
In case of difficulties to open the visor, e.g. due to it being frozen, it is the easiest thing to increase the hydraulic pressure.» (Statement Lars Karlsson - Enclosure 2.4.5.60.)

- The lower parts of the visor were subject to considerable wear, i.e. from the outside due to ice contact and from the inside due to the continuous change between seawater/air as well as additionally to the "sloshing effect" caused by the water moving forward/aft and side to side, comparable to a partly filled tank. The outside was coated with ice-resistant paint (Enclosure 3.4.89) which could be renewed only during the annual overhaul at the yard. Therefore the ice damaged parts of the coating were painted over with normal blue paint at the end of the ice season. As the lower part of the visor was difficult to access the electrical blocking between visor and bow ramp was manipulated by the electrician in such a way that the visor could be lowered whilst the bow ramp was open. Thus the bottom and lower part of visor were accessible for maintenance work. According to Håkan Karlsson during the time as VIKING SALLY little or no maintenance work was carried out on the visor inside. Lars Karlsson:

»Although it should be impossible due to the electrical system the visor can be closed if the ramp is open when the valves are operated manually. In case the rails of the ramp should be deformed this is due to the lowered down visor for working purposes.«

Note: The rails of the bow ramp were indented.

- In respect of routine inspection Lars Karlsson reports:

»After every stormy cruise I inspected all the parts in the bow area. Four times a year I inspected in detail all safety relevant parts. This included visual inspection of the visor hinges, its weldings, etc. and also the inside of the visor including locking devices and its welding seams.
During one such inspection I found cracks in way of the foundations of the hydraulic cylinders for the bow ramp bolts which were of fatigue nature and not due to overload. We welded strengthening plates to the foundations to stop the crack development.
Probably in 1990 we had to change the spherical bearing of the port lifting cylinder and after that experienced twice that the Nirosta bolt of the port visor hinges broke the outer securing plate screws and moved out by ca. 1 cm. This was noted by the deck officer being on forecastle deck for berthing because he found the broken off screws. The bolt was hammered back into position, the screw holes in the steel bushing drilled out and the securing plate refitted. If it would have happened again we would have investigated the cause, however, during my time, it did not occur again.
We never had greasing problems. Once per month grease was pressed into the bolts.
I have never seen the bolts out.« (Statement Lars Karlsson - Enclosure 2.4.5.60.)

- All 3 hydraulic pumps broke down one after the other (normal pressure 185 bar, which was apparently not enough). Stronger pumps were built in and operated at 240 bar pressure. The 2 big pumps could produce 400 bar pressure, whilst the smaller one could produce 280 bar.
- There were valves directly at the lifting cylinders of the visor by means of which the speed of the oil flow could be regulated. This had to be absolutely identical on both sides, otherwise one side would open or close faster than the other side and the visor would get out of alignment. These regulating valves were fitted at the outside of the lifting cylinders at their lower side, i.e. at B-deck level (see Enclosure 2.6.4.79).
- Before it was known on board that the vessel would be sold the mates and engineers drew up the repair specification, i.e. what they considered necessary to be repaired during the next scheduled yard time in January 1993. (The vessel had last been in the Yard in January 1991.) The copy received from Turku Repair Yard after the first Stockholm Exhibition in August 1997 was typed in Swedish with handwritten remarks and quoted prices in Finnish. The date "25.09.92" is handwritten on page 1 as well as the Finnish words "Telakuinti Turussa" which means "Docking in Turku". The repair items start with 1. and ends with 65.26 whereafter 6 items are specified under the heading "Sundry", which read - office translated - as follows:

70.22 Stern ramps' locking devices to be serviced and strengthened; 71.22 Stern ramps hinges to be overhauled and new bushings;
72.22 Bow ramp and visor, locking devices to be serviced and strengthened;
73.22 Bow ramp, hinges to be overhauled and possibly new bushings;
74.22 Visor: 15 m rubber packings to be renewed and bow ramp: 10 m to be renewed;
75.22 12 wires on the car deck shelves to be renewed.

Prices are added in handwriting behind all items except for 72.22, where it is stated:

"Price shall be quoted after inspections."

The complete specification (15 pages) is attached as Enclosure 3.4.96. Subsequently probably the Yard typed the "M/S WASA KING - Docking Inspection 1993" - attached as Enclosure 3.4.97 - in Swedish - which contained under "Sundry" still the same wording and number of items. Since such work was not intended to be carried out by the yard but by the owners' contractor MacGregor, Turku, this company was requested to quote on items 70.22 to 75.22. A respective quotation was submitted by MacGregor, which is attached - with office translation - as Enclosure 3.4.98. The items on this quotation remain unchanged until item 72.22, which reads in "Ship Specification" - Enclosure 3.4.96 - and in the subsequent "Docking Specification" - Enclosure 3.4.97.

72.22 Bow ramp and visor, locking devices to be serviced and strengthened,
but in the MacGregor quotations
72.22 Bow ramp, exchange of end hinge bushings and axles (bolts);
and the following items:
73.22 which initially referred to the hinges of the bow ramp now read "bow visor, exchange of 15 m and bow ramp of 10 m rubber sealing gasket", which was initially item 74.22, and item
74.22 became what had initially been item 75.22 - "the replacement of wires on car deck".

The "servicing and strengthening of the locking devices of the visor and bow ramp" disappeared and is not mentioned in the MacGregor quotation at all.
The employee in charge of repair and maintenance work to the ferries in the area, Tarmo Mäkki, had been dealing among other things with VIKING SALLY, SILJA STAR, WASA KING since the guarantee period had expired sometime in 1982. He was questioned after the ESTONIA casualty by the criminal police, Turku in the presence of Dr. Tuomo Karppinnen of the Finnish part of the JAIC and mentioned nothing whatsoever about the above repair specification and his own quotation - possibly because he was not asked. His office translated statement is attached as Enclosure 3.4.99.
There is another copy of the MacGregor quotation available which was found in the files of the Finnish part of the JAIC. The copy is identical to the above-mentioned one, however, item 72.22 has an asterix under which is handwritten in the bottom left corner in Swedish: "The bow ramp's end hinge bearings and hinge bolts have to be replaced." This copy is attached as Enclosure 3.4.100.
This means that the owners (Wasa Line) were then of the opinion that the port and starboard outer hinge bearings including bolts were in September 1992 in such a bad condition that replacement was necessary. Actually absolutely nothing was done to these hinges up to the sinking of the ESTONIA nor was evidently anything done to rectify the other items mentioned under "Sundry" in the initial repair specification. According to the Turku Repair Yard and the two attached invoices No. 31554 to Wasa Line - Enclosure 3.4.102 - and 31575 to Nordström & Thulin - Enclosure 3.4.103 - all the work carried out during the yard time in January 1993 and none of the items 70.22-75.22 stated under "Sundry" in the initial repair specification can indeed be found in these invoices.

Note:

According to the statement of chief officer Stig Lindström (( January 1996), the owners had to strengthen one of the locking devices of the visor already sometime before. This was therefore now the second time that the mates and the engineers having sailed on this vessel for many years were asking for the locking devices of visor and bow ramp to be strengthened. The complete statement of Stig Lindström is attached as Enclosure 3.4.101.
Also Lars Karlsson has reported in his statement (Enclosure 2.4.5.60) that they had to strengthen the locking devices of the bow ramp.

(3) Reported damage and repairs

- Groundings in Åland archipelago in May 1984 and near Stockholm in November 1988 (source: Lloyd's List) caused heavy bottom damage.
- In the course of the severe ice winter 1985/86 the lower part of the visor was damaged in way of the non ice-strengthened area. Repairs were carried out by the Wärtsilä yard at Turku when the vessel was in drydock with the visor closed (Enclosure 3.4.104 - photo showing bow area). Owners took the opportunity to have the renewed plating of the 1st strake above the ice-strengthened part increased to 20 mm. Survey reports, repair invoices, and damage photos are available at Alandia Insurance Company, Mariehamn. According to B.V. these repairs respectively strengthenings are the only ones ever reported to them in respect of the visor and bow ramp with hinges and locking devices.
- Various damages ascertained at the pre-entry condition surveys performed on behalf of the new Hull and P&I underwriters by a surveyor of Trygg Hansa, Stockholm, on 15/16.01.93 and 21/22.03.93 and which are listed in the "Summary of the Pre-Entry Condition Survey" attached as Enclosure 3.4.105 were apparently never repaired.