>13. The Casualty was not due to any fault, neglect, or want of care on the part of Petitioners, the Vessel, or any persons or entities for whose acts Petitioners may be responsible.
This comes out of nowhere and they base everything on this statement! Amazing
“Engine was not maintained well” is so deeply opinionated. The first thing they do is check standards. Was it oiled? Were the parts replaced periodically? Was the fuel type correct?
It could be a mistake. “What kind of engine?” “It needs this type of fuel.” “Oops, no, that was for the older ship. This is a different ship.” “The ship already set sail.” “Nevermind then and keep your mouth shut.”
Not always. We have regular maintenance done on our SMT lines by the company that manufactured the machines. Those things still fuck up once or twice a month, very unexpectedly, and almost always in the middle of a high-value operation (IC or LED placement.)
That said, I don't think it's immediately considered negligence when an airlines engine fails. Its premature to call Dali negligence as well; it may very well be but the investigation needs to complete.