Engineering Judgement When the Answer Isn’t Clear

Engineering claims rarely begin with a clear answer. More often, they start with incomplete evidence, damaged components, and an initial account of what might have gone wrong. In many cases, those first assumptions do not hold up under closer scrutiny. For Andrew Kingshott, recognising that uncertainty is not a weakness, but a necessary starting point, is central to the role.

“Certainty is a very dangerous place to start,” he explains. “When you are first presented with a case, there is always a degree of uncertainty. You might have a good idea of what has happened, but any good surveyor knows that you have to keep an open mind and work from the evidence, not from assumptions.”

That mindset reflects the reality of engineering claims, where early conclusions can take hold before the evidence has been properly examined.

One of the most important early steps is preserving the evidence. Retaining damaged components and ensuring they are handled correctly can have a direct impact on the outcome of a case, particularly where findings may later be relied upon in legal proceedings.

“You have to think about where the case might end up,” Andrew says. “If components are not retained properly, or the chain of custody is not clear, it can affect any chance of recovery later on. Getting that right early on is essential.”

As investigations develop, multiple explanations often emerge. Rather than focusing on one theory too quickly, engineers must consider all reasonable possibilities and test them against the evidence.

“You have to review every proposed cause,” he explains. “Someone else might have information that you do not have, or they may raise a point you had not considered. The key is to assess everything against the facts in front of you.”

This is not about defending a position, but about understanding which explanation carries the most weight.

“It is not about winning,” Andrew says. “It is about establishing which argument has the most merit based on the evidence. If you stick to the facts and present them clearly, that is what ultimately stands up.”

Collaboration plays a key role in reaching that point. With expertise across engineering, naval architecture, metallurgy and laboratory testing, investigations are rarely carried out in isolation.

“One of the strengths of Brookes Bell is that you are never working in isolation,” he says. “If there is something you are unsure about, there is always someone you can speak to. That collaborative approach makes a real difference when you are dealing with complex cases.”

At the same time, technical analysis does not always tell the full story. Claims must be understood in their operational context, particularly where human factors are involved.

“On paper, it can look like the crew should have done something differently,” Andrew explains. “But you have to place yourself in their position. When alarms are going off and decisions are being made under pressure, you have to consider what was reasonable at the time.”

Where evidence is incomplete, engineers are often required to form a view based on what would reasonably be expected to have happened. Ultimately, engineering claims are not just about analysis, they are about judgement.

“There will be cases where you do not have all the information,” he says. “You are forming an opinion based on the balance of probabilities, combining the evidence you have with experience of how machinery behaves and how people respond. You still need to interpret that information properly.”