[Varley]

You are right. I have tried 'incognito' and is members only. I think copying verbatim in this case might bring chastisement as the article is written by a fellow and I am a mere associate member.

However, I am sure I can precis the report and its conclusion:

The episode reported develops over some unspecified period of time (although the onset of particular parameters is marked), we are led to understand days.

Starting with the conclusion - Poor communications is blamed.

A piston is replaced in the slow speed crosshead engine during a port call (we are not told by whom).

A sleeve in the piston cooling circuit was omitted. This caused the engine to leak unmanageable quantities of lub oil (collected in drums and put to renovation) and, once the piston crown had burned away, exhaust gas. The latter to the point that engine-room was only tenable wearing paint masks due to the exhaust gas and oil mist. The oil-mist detector and fire alarms are 'continuous' and are ignored, as is the piston cooling temperature differential.

The oil mist in the wider engine room eventually ignited and amongst the expected mayhem there were two fatalities. The vessel is disabled and she is towed in. The initial assumption is of a crankcase explosion but is discounted on more forensic examination.

Here the precis ends and my opinion takes over.

Politically correct bollocks.

In the name of Newcomen what intracompany communications could be blamed for every man-jack onboard, let alone the senior officers, to not know of the situation and that the ship was in peril because of it?

The only form of catalytic communications that I could swallow would be ones encouraging the ships staff to maintain charter speed with a less than candid reporting of the situation.

Is that enough to go on?