The cargo-securing manual on Finnbirch

According to SOLAS Chapter VI, all ships except for pure bulk-carriers and tankers should be provided with a ship-specific cargo-securing manual. The manual is to be approved by the relevant authority of the country of registra-tion and the cargo is to be secured in accordance with the instrucregistra-tions in the manual. The manual is to be prepared in accordance with the guidelines in MSC/Circ 745 and is to contain information regarding the accelerations which can affect the cargo on board and the strengths/dimensions of the means of cargo securing required to withstanding these accelerations.

An approved cargo-securing manual designated ”M/S Bore Gothia SLNK Cargo securing Manual” was kept on board Finnbirch, and SHK has been pro-vided with access to the copy submitted for approval to Swedish Maritime Administration, SMA, in Stockholm. The manual was dated 1996-06-26 and was received by SMA on that day. There was no stamp of approval on this copy but SMA has certified their approval. Copies of another manual which had not been submitted to SMA for approval were kept at the Owner’s office and on board Finnbirch. The contents of this manual, apart from certain departures from the original manual, were largely in agreement with the one submitted to SMA but were translated into English.

The arrangement of chapters in the original manual differs somewhat from MSC/Cirk. 745. The manual also contained an example of the calculation of the listing of the ship caused by a hypothetic total cargo shift.

The manual further contained the rules which applied on Swedish ships for the securing of cargo in accordance with SJÖFS 1994:27. In addition, the manual referred to IMO Resolution A.489 (XII) with respect to layout.

The acceleration values given in the manual were calculated with the help of the Det Norske Veritas method and not in accordance with the Annex 13 to IMO Code of Safe Practice for Cargo Stowage and Securing (CSS).

In the introduction to the manual, it is stated that ”This cargo-securing manual specifies the arrangement and equipment for the securing of cargo on board the ship, for the correct placing and securing of cargo units, based on transverse, longitudinal and vertical forces which can be experienced under heavy weather and sea conditions.”

The manual, however, did not contain the warnings given in CSS Annex 13 which state that the accelerations given can be exceeded unless special caution is observed in certain circumstances such as a heavy head sea, resonance with beam seas or with heavy following seas.

The cargo securing was given schematically for each deck i.e. showing that the same number of lashings was specified for a certain type of cargo unit, irre-spective of its weight and the location of its centre of gravity. The manual con-tained no calculations of the stresses these cargo securings were to withstand nor the weight of the secured unit assumed for this. Thus there was no relation between the calculated accelerations and the number and strength of the lash-ings in the different securing arrangements.

No instructions were provided nor examples given of how the strength and number of lashings required could be calculated on the basis of the accelera-tions specified.

Section 4.1 of the manual stated how different types of load; sto-ro, roll-trailers, semi-roll-trailers, tractors/machinery, vehicles etc. should be stowed and secured on the different decks. Section 4.2 described the securing of these dif-ferent types of load on an unspecified deck. This section was largely obtained from Finnlines’ instructions for securing cargo on board ship (see below).

There were no instructions regarding the angular placement of the lashings to effectively prevent sliding and/or tipping.

During interviews it was disclosed that the manual had been assembled by a group of ship’s officers and its parts obtained from different sources. Much was copied from the guidelines used within Finnlines. Otherwise, the manual described approximately how the cargo was habitually secured in the ship. In the introduction to Chapter 4, it is stated that the description of how the cargo is to be secured is based on both calculations and experience.

The following instructions for the securing of different cargo types are given in the cargo-securing manual:

Securing of roll-trailers

According to the cargo-securing manual for Finnbirch, roll-trailers are to be secured with chains without the required strength of these being specified.

The lightest chain to be used on board for cargo-securing was specified in Chapter 3 as 11 mm chain with minimum breaking load (MBL) 15 tonnes. With designation and safety factor according to CSS Annex 13, this gives a maxi-mum permitted loading (MSL) of 7.5 tonnes.

For block-stowed roll-trailers, the manual states ”If the ends of roll-trailers cannot be secured to the deck, they may be lashed together provided that a sufficient number of the roll-trailers in the block are properly secured to the deck”. The sufficient number is not specified.

The following arrangement was shown in the manual for the securing of block-stowed roll-trailers.

Fig. 16 Instructions in the cargo-securing manual for securing of block-stowed roll-trailers.

It was stated that lashings marked 1 were a minimum provision whereas those marked 2 were extra, without it being specified when the “extra” lashings were to be used.

According to section 4.1 of the manual, 40-foot roll-trailers stowed in lanes (not block-stowed ) were to be secured to the deck with six chains, two on each end and one on each long side. In section 4.2.3 it is stated that four chains are to be used for basic securing, two per end which should be cross-lashed to the

deck. There are no corresponding instructions for crossed lashing in Finnlines’

guidelines in which it is specifically stated that cross-lashing is to be avoided.

All of the roll-trailers shown in the manual have low loads (Fig. 16), and no maximum height or weight for which the lashings specified are applicable is given.

Securing of semi-trailers

According to the cargo-securing manual for Finnbirch, semi-trailers are to be secured on the Tank Top and Main Deck with chains, without the required strength of these being given, and it is therefore not certain if the arrangement requires the use of a 11 or 13 mm chain. The use of 13 mm chains are specified for securing semi-trailers on the Upper Deck and Weather Deck. The number of chains for securing semi-trailers on the different decks was specified in the manual and the requirements can be summarized by the following table.

Specified lashings (CSM) Deck

Number

Strength MSL (tonnes)

Tank Top 6 7,5–10

Main Deck 8 7,5–10

Upper Deck 8 10

Weather Deck 8 10

According to the instructions in the manual approved by the Swedish Mari-time Administration, the landing legs should be wound down on semitrailers and a rubber mat placed under the feet of the legs after the trailer has been located on the supporting trailer horse.

Securing of sto-ro-cargo

According to the cargo-securing manual for Finnbirch, the free end of Sto-ro cargo should be secured with lashings from the deck above, over an aluminium corner protection and down to the lashing points in the deck on which the cargo is placed. The lashings may be either web lashings or chains.

Air bags or similar should be used to fill the spaces between the units of the sto-ro cargo.

Cargo securing in and on cargo transport units

According to the cargo-securing manual for Finnbirch, cargo on cargo trans-port units should be secured to withstand at least the dimensioning forces for the route concerned in accordance with SJÖFS 1994:27 §§ 7 and 8. An extract from this regulation was attached to the manual and from this it appears that for transport on the Baltic Sea, cargo on cargo transport units should be se-cured transversely to withstand a force equivalent to half the weight of the cargo; 0.5 g or 5 m/s², for transport on the Baltic Sea, in combination with gravitational forces according to Fig. 17.

For trade area A, the cargo shall be secured transversely to withstand at least the dimensioning forces given in the figure.

FT = 0.5g * M (kN) horizontal force FV = 1.0g * M (kN) vertical force M = MASS OF THE CARGO (tonnes) g = 9.81 (m/s²) Fig. 17 Extract from SJÖFS 1994:27.

Listing after cargo shift

The cargo-securing manual for Finnbirch also contained calculations for the listing of the ship resulting from the shift of the cargo. The cases considered were a full load of units stowed in lanes and secured individually and a load consisting of several units on the Main Deck and on the Tank Top, block- stowed as usually.

The results obtained are shown e.g. in the diagram below showing the righting and heeling lever.

Fig. 18 The calculated righting and heeling lever at a total cargo shift. The larger heeling moment applies for the loading case with completely free-standing units.

The diagram shows that the ship would capsize if a total shift of completely free-standing units occurred. The lower value of the heeling moment applies with a corresponding loading situation but where parts of the load on the Main Deck are block-stowed. The heeling angle is judged in this case to reach 38.5 degrees with a very small stability margin remaining.

The following was noted further in this chapter: ”With heeling angles of this order of magnitude, the scupper openings on the Main Deck would be under sea level and all of these should be closed as soon as possible (if accessible under the shifted cargo) to reduce the risk of water entering the Main Deck (non-return valves are fitted). ” It was also pointed out that the poop decks (the aft berthing decks) would also be under water at such considerable heel-ing angles and therefore important to keep the hatches to trunks from these decks and the spaces underneath closed.

Amendments made in cargo-securing and in the cargo-securing manual with the passage of time

From interviews, it has been elicited that cargo-securing practices on board Finnbirch changed over the years, not least when the ship entered into Baltic Sea traffic in 2000. Inter alia, web lashings were used instead of lashings of chain on the Main Deck and the Tank Top. This change followed an agreement between the Finnlines securing department, who supplied the cargo-securing equipment, and the Masters of both sister ships. This was known to the ship’s owners even if they had not been engaged in the discussions which led to the decision. In October 2002, Finnbirch reported a non conformity to the ship owner that the cargo-securing equipment was not in accordance with the requirements of the cargo-securing manual, this having been pointed out during a PSC in Denmark. It was also noted at this time that no information about the strength of the cargo-securing equipment was available on board. It was requested that the relevant information should be obtained from Finnlines to permit subsequent correction of the manual. This has been done and is con-firmed by notes on the non conformity report.

The cargo-securing manual was a part of the documented safety system (ISM) in use by the ship owner. The proposed amendments in the manual re-quested from the ship were entered into the system and a new document was prepared and sent to the ship to be signed by the Master for filing in the man-ual on board. A copy of the new document was also filed with the ship owner’s copy of the manual.

The copy of the manual held at the owner’s office is the English transla-tion/revision of the manual approved by the company’s managing director in November 2003. It contains the following differences as compared with the manual approved by Swedish Maritime Administration:

1. A sketch showing the location of the fixed cargo-securing equipment has been included in Chapter 2.

2. In the inventory of loose securing equipment in Chapter 3, the breaking