Sunday, October 15, 2006

"If I take refuge in ambiguity, I assure you that it's quite conscious" (1)

In a recent message, the Treasury Solicitor writes:You have indicated that in your view the chutes were a design fault. This is your view but appears not to have been accepted as such by any of the retained experts.

Having contacted one of the retained experts, I learned that the design fault they had considered was in fact related to the difficulty of maintenance of the non-return flaps (2) (3), and that they had not identified or even seen, within the documentation that had been made available to them, any reference to a design fault in terms of inadequate strength of the inner covers and possible malfunction of the non-return flaps.
There is definitely a difference in perception here. Could some occlusion of the communication lines between those involved in the 2004 investigation be the explanation for that?
Anyway, that the vessel had a design fault in the construction and arrangement of the duff and offal chutes is an engineering fact (see the technical report on our website).
Why this has not also become a legal fact, is something that should be explained – plainly and without procrastination.
(1) Kingman Brewster

Concluding remarks from Mr Meeson (Investigation transcript) suggesting answers to the formal questions:
“………Although the design of the non-return flap was deficient, in that it was liable to seize over time and had no real means whereby it could be maintained, proper use……..”

(3) This was also questioned in the technical report published on our website:

No comments: