Engineering Judgement When the Answer Isn’t Clear

Engineering claims rarely begin with a complete picture. More often, they start with partial evidence, damaged components, and an initial explanation of what may have gone wrong. In practice, those early assumptions are not always reliable. For Andrew Kingshott, recognising and managing that uncertainty is a fundamental part of the investigation process.

“Certainty is a very dangerous path to go down,” he explains. “When you are first presented with a case, there is usually a degree of uncertainty.” That perspective reflects experience both at sea and ashore, where machinery failures are rarely straightforward and decisions are often made with incomplete information. In claims work, there is a risk that early assumptions become embedded before the evidence has been properly examined, particularly where the circumstances appear to point clearly in one direction at first glance.

One of the most important factors in establishing cause is the preservation of evidence. Ensuring that potentially relevant parts are retained and handled correctly can have a direct impact on the outcome of an investigation. Proper retention of components and the maintenance of a clear chain of custody is essential if the evidence is later relied upon in dispute or recovery.

As investigations progress, multiple explanations for the same damage often emerge. Rather than focusing on a single theory, engineering analysis requires all reasonable possibilities to be considered and tested against the available evidence. “You have to review every proposed cause,” Andrew says, adding that alternative explanations may be based on information not immediately available to all parties. In this context, transparency becomes critical, particularly where testing is involved and where findings may later be scrutinised in legal proceedings.

Engineering analysis in claims is not about defending a position, but about assessing which explanation carries the greatest weight when measured against the available evidence. This often involves working through competing opinions and presenting findings in a structured way that allows others to draw informed conclusions. It is not a question of “winning” a case, but of establishing which suggestion holds the most merit based on fact.

A key part of that process is collaboration. With specialists across marine engineering, naval architecture, metallurgy, and laboratory testing, investigations are rarely carried out in isolation. Drawing on different areas of expertise allows technical findings to be tested and refined, particularly where cases are complex or the available evidence is limited. “There’s always someone you can speak to,” Andrew says. “If you’re unsure about something, you can get another perspective, and that can make a real difference.” Bringing together different viewpoints helps ensure that conclusions are robust and can stand up to scrutiny.

Claims investigations also need to be considered in their operational context. While technical analysis may identify a failure mechanism, it does not always explain how events unfolded in real conditions. Andrew highlights that, with the benefit of hindsight, it can be easy to identify actions that might have been taken differently. “On paper, it may look like the crew should have done something differently,” he says, “but you also have to place yourself in their position.” Where multiple alarms, loss of power, or cascading failures are involved, understanding what was reasonable at the time becomes an important part of the analysis.

Where evidence is incomplete, engineers are often required to form a view based on what would reasonably be expected to have happened. This relies not only on technical knowledge, but on practical experience of how machinery behaves in service and how crews respond under pressure. That experience provides context for interpreting evidence and weighing competing explanations, particularly where the available information is limited.

In engineering claims, judgement and analysis work together. By recognising uncertainty, preserving evidence, and grounding conclusions in fact rather than assumption, engineering expertise helps ensure that decisions are informed, balanced, and defensible, even where the answer is not immediately clear.