2.2 'The General Scandinavian Practice'

This 'Group of Experts' has also looked into the origin of the so-called 'General Scandinavian Practice' which is meant to be the attitude of the Scandinavian National Maritime Administrations, in particular of the Swedish Sjöfartsverket and the Finnish Sjöfartsstyrelsen respectively the Finnish Board of Navigation (F.B.N.), in respect of the interpretation of and the dealing with certain SOLAS Rules. This refers, in particular, to the location of the upper extension of the collision bulkhead above bulkhead deck, which on the car/passenger ferries is the car deck. This is regulated by SOLAS 1974, Chapter II-1, Rule 9 (1979 Edition) and exemptions are only possible according to Rule 1 (c) if the route of the vessel does not lead more than 20 nm from the nearest land.

In the early years of the Ro-Ro ferries, i.e. end of the 1950's/beginning of the 1960's, the ferries were rather small and sailed only short distances and hence were never more than 20 nm off the nearest land. In this time the maritime administrations accepted the bow ramp in combination with the front bulkheads as the upper extension of the collision bulkhead above bulkhead deck, no matter where they were located.

In searching for the origin of the authorities' attitude it was found that apparently for the first time on the ferries PRINS BERTIL and PRINSESSAN CHRISTINA, built in Aarhus in 1960/61, the bow ramps had been accepted as the upper extension of the collision bulkhead above bulkhead deck by the National Maritime Authorities, most probably with the restriction not to proceed more than 20 nm from the nearest land.

In addition, it has to be noted that at least Sjöfartsverket and F.B.N. took the view already in 1959 that all structural matters - including the position of the upper extension of the collision bulkhead - would have to be dealt with by the Classification Societies, no matter whether SOLAS requirements, which actually were the responsibility of the Maritime Administrations, were involved or not. This attitude is revealed in a letter dated 07.04.59 written by the then Kungl. Sjöfartsstyrelsen now Sjöfartsverket (attached as Enclosure 2.2.3) and in a statement which H. Valkonen of the F.B.N. gave at a meeting with this 'Group of Experts' on 27.10.95 (Memo attached as Enclosure 2.2.4). In other words, as soon as the Classification Society had issued the Class Certificates the National Maritime Administration issued the Passenger Ship Safety Certificate, thereby confirming that the ferry complied with SOLAS, although they did not know this for sure but merely assumed that the Classification Society had checked the compliance of the relevant vessel with SOLAS. This actually was the case only after the Classification Societies had incorporated SOLAS 1974 into their Rules, which, however, was not done simultaneously by all of them; for example Det norske Veritas (DnV) did it quite early while Bureau Veritas did it quite late. As most of the Swedish and Finnish ferries were classified by DnV, both Sjöfartsverket and F.B.N. were accustomed to having the Classification Societies take care of the structural SOLAS requirements. Bureau Veritas, however, incorporated SOLAS 1974 into its Rules only in 1981, i.e. after DIANA II and VIKING SALLY had been built as will be explained in the subsequent chapters, and thus did not feel responsible for SOLAS matters during this time.

In the course of the investigation it was also discovered that the F.B.N. had issued an 'Exemption Certificate' to VIKING SALLY for a deviation from the SOLAS requirements in respect of the lifesaving appliances, however not for the wrongly placed upper extension of the collision bulkhead, being the bow ramp on this as well as on most of the car/passenger ferries trading in the Baltic in those years.

Revealing in this context is the correspondence in 1981 between a Swedish ferry operator, being in the process of taking over a foreign flag ferry, subsequently renamed KRONPRINSESSAN VICTORIA, and Sjöfartsverket wherefrom the following is quoted:

1.) Owners to Sjöfartsverket:
«With reference to the previous exchange of communication we have noted that the bow ramp of this vessel is placed different than required by SOLAS 1974. We are requesting you to check this and reply by return whether the location of the ramp is wrong.»

2.) Reply by Sjöfartsverket to owners:
«The location of the inner bow ramp is in conformity with the national as well as international practice and is accepted by us in the present condition.
The vessel has the required Swedish and international certificate which is also accepted by Denmark and West Germany, whilst Sweden in the same manner is also accepting the certificates of these countries. It is not the intention of Sjöfartsverket to take up these questions with the Maritime Administrations of said countries.»

Copies of the respective telex exchange can be found as Supplement 215 to the Final Report of the JAIC.

Consequently it has to be assumed that in the course of the years and with ever growing ferries three alternatives concerning the bow ramp/upper extension of the collision bulkhead issue developed, viz.:

a) The bow ramp is the upper extension and is located in accordance with SOLAS requirements (the ferry could sail outside 20 nm range without restrictions).

b) The bow ramp is not the upper extension, but at the location on the car deck, as required by SOLAS, a "partial collision door" is installed (also this ferry could sail without restrictions).

c) The bow ramp (in combination with the front bulkheads) is the upper extension, but is not located at the proper place as required by SOLAS and no "partial collision door" is installed. (This ferry could sail inside the 20 nm range, but the National Maritime Administration would have to issue an 'Exemption Certificate' which would have to be renewed annually together with the PSSC.)

as to a)
This version complies fully with SOLAS and from this point of view creates no problems, however, the commercial side is treated badly because in order to take as many cars on the car deck as possible the bow ramp has to be as far forward as possible and this leads over to either version b.) or version c.).

as to b)
This version was already being built into ferries at the end of the 1970's operating in the Irish Sea, North Sea and the English Channel (although not on all of them). It complies fully with the respective SOLAS requirements. This version was also part of the initial quotations/specifications for DIANA II and VIKING SALLY submitted by Meyer Werft to the respective owners, whereafter - after consultations with Sjöfartsverket - respectively F.B.N. - the "partial collision doors" were deleted. The result was version c.).

as to c)
This version existed on DIANA II as well as on VIKING SALLY and on dozens of other ferries in the Baltic and elsewhere. The acceptance of this configuration by the National Maritime Administrations of Sweden and Finland, no matter whether the ferries sailed inside or outside of the 20-nm range and without issuing an Exemption Certificate to cover the wrong location of the upper extension is understood to be the 'General Scandinavian Practice'. It was followed for example by the Malmö office of Sjöfartsverket responsible for the DIANA II when she was sailing between Trelleborg and Rostock, still in 1994 when the Manager - Åke Sjöblom - signed the PSSC thereby confirming that she fully complied with SOLAS, which she did not, because her bow ramp (with the front bulkheads) was the upper extension but as such located too much forward. As she stayed within the 20-nm range in the course of her route the simple issuance of an Exemption Certificate would have put the PSSC in compliance with SOLAS, however, it was not issued. The same refers to VIKING SALLY and SILJA STAR whereas the situation as to the WASA KING and ESTONIA was quite different, as will be explained in subsequent chapters.

In this respect it is remarkable to note that the predecessor of the ESTONIA in the Stockholm-Tallinn service, the Swedish flag NORD ESTONIA, owned by Nordström & Thulin, the technical managers and part-owners of the ESTONIA, had sailed between Stockholm and Tallinn for about 2 years under the strict supervision of Sjöfartsverket without having the upper extension of the collision bulkhead above bulkhead deck at the location required by SOLAS and without having a "partial collision door" at the location required by SOLAS but with an unrestricted PSSC issued and annually renewed by Sjöfartsverket.

In the light of the explanations above it can be concluded that definitely in the years 1978/80 it corresponded to the state-of-the-art as well as to the 'rules of the art' that on car/passenger ferries operating in the Baltic Sea not more than 20 nm from the nearest land the watertight-built bow ramps were accepted as upper extension of the collision bulkhead above bulkhead deck, and compliance with the SOLAS requirements was assumed even without the issuance of an Exemption Certificate.