A member has forwarded the following comments

In supporting its actions MNZ is making much of the fact that the bow is now stronger. This is a red herring. Strength is not the issue. The real issue is the matter of her length since it appears that, based on MNZ statements, the regulations are based on length. I do not understand how the drilling of holes in the bow section has reduced her length.  

The ‘total length’ — the words, used in the first part of the MNZ definition and given their usual meaning — has not altered by either hole drilling or the fitting of the bulkhead. Neither the ‘fore side of the stem’ (the words in the second part of the MNZ definition) nor the rudder stock appear to have been moved to alter the length. 

He asks three questions: 

(i) Is there a definition of ‘stem’ in the regulations which may impart a different meaning from that normally associated with the use of the word? 

(ii) What, if any, is the effect on the position of the stem (as used by MNZ) by adding a watertight bulkhead?  

(iii) Does ‘the stem’, by definition other than that in normal use, but in compliance with any different one (if any) in the regulations, shift aft as a consequence? 

If this is the case, can it be argued that her ‘length’ is reduced below the 45m requirement for registration under the New Zealand Safe Ship Management.  If this so the following questions are asked:  

(i))How far can a vessel’s structure, with holes drilled in it, be permitted to extend beyond this watertight  bulkhead? 

(ii)Provided adequate structural strength, especially longitudinal strength, is designed into the ship in the first place, can this hull extension be of any length?  

While a vessel with an extension of say 20m, would involve extra building cost and at first appear completely pointless, attracting additional port dues and other costs, her speed could benefit by increased waterline length. Also, the larger vessel could be expected to have proportionally increased beam thereby increasing her cargo/earning capacity. 

Such a situation is, of course, hardly conceivable and even posing such a question may be considered farcical — but what does it say about the regulations? 

The MNZ counters the Dominion Post comments by stating rightly that the modifications are not a loophole. However, the modifications have been possible because of what can certainly be suggested as being a loophole in the regulations.  

While perhaps quite correctly MNZ was obliged on technical grounds to concede the vessel’s modifications and allow her to fall within the ambit of the SSM regime, clearly the regulations themselves are in need of modifications if their spirit is also to be observed. 

While fully recognising that ships are built or modified to bring them within the scope of certain rules and regulations, and that while under the SSM rules she is not subject to any International regulations, I do not believe that the current operation of ANATOKI fulfils the spirit of any regulations, national or international, intended to make shipping safer. 

Holes bored to shorten ship
By PHIL KITCHIN – The Dominion Post 

 
A New Zealand shipping company has been allowed to drill holes in the bow of a coastal freighter to get around international safety rules for a ship of that size.
The unorthodox modifications allow the cargo ship to be manned by fewer crew as it is now officially classified as smaller than it is.
Senior maritime industry figures say Maritime NZ’s approval of the modifications made the country an international joke.
“This is extreme bending of the rules and I cannot see how they can get away with it,” Auckland marine surveyor Hugh Munro said.
“I don’t think anyone at the International Maritime Organisation would agree with this.”
Coastal Bulk Shipping’s fertiliser carrier Anatoki is 48.6 metres long.
But Maritime NZ has allowed it to be classed as shorter than 45m after holes were drilled at the front to create a “false” bow. A new watertight bow was fitted several metres further back so the ship now officially measures only 45m.
Maritime rules say ships longer than 45m must adopt mandatory international shore and ship safety and pollution prevention systems.
Ships longer than 45m are also required to have more crew, with higher qualifications.
Smaller ships are subject to less stringent safety systems managed by an organisation approved by Maritime NZ.
John Mansell, Maritime NZ operations general manager, rejected criticism of the safety agency’s decision, saying the ship complied with “all required New Zealand standards … consistent with international safety conventions.”
The “false bow” was stronger than the previous bow because of watertight internal modifications behind the holes, Mr Mansell said.
The ship’s owners also rejected the criticism. Doug Smith, general manager of Coastal Bulk Shipping, said the ship had previously operated in Japan under a different interpretation of international shipping rules to New Zealand’s.
“We never intended shortening [the Anatoki] but we were left with no choice … we were stuck with a vessel we could not operate.”
A naval architect had produced the plans to create the new bow and Maritime NZ were “reasonably supportive” in agreeing to the modifications.
Mr Smith said some in the maritime community claimed the bow change was done to allow the company to cut crew numbers.
The ship operated in Japan with a crew of three, whereas in New Zealand it operated with four crew, with Maritime NZ agreement.
Had the agency not approved the modifications, the ship would have required a crew of at least seven, Mr Smith said.
The modifications have bemused Niels Bjorn Mortensen, marine department head of the world’s largest private shipping organisation, Bimco. “I suggest that the holes drilled in the original bow be named `loopholes’,” Mr Bjorn Mortensen said.
Mr Munro, speaking personally and not on behalf of the surveying company he works for, said drilling holes in a ship “doesn’t change the length of the vessel”.
“Rules are rules, as Maritime NZ keep ramming down our throats.” He agreed with other senior maritime industry sources that the matter made New Zealand a laughing stock.
But Mr Mansell disputed this, saying New Zealand had an excellent reputation for maintaining very high safety standards. The modifications to the Anatoki met all New Zealand’s safety regulations for a coastal freighter, he said.