Chief Engineer Pleads Guilty Over 2024 Charleston Harbor Runaway Ship Incident

Maritime News Marine Incidents
1

Latest from my Indian friends.

This is ridiculous. What about ship master? Cannot believie he was unaware od all this shit unless he joined in Charleston.

25.09.25 edited and removed “cake & aniversary “ item

QUOTE:

joined the vessel as chief engineer in April 2024……………..San Juan was only given a five-hour handover briefing when he joined the vessel, which they call “insufficient” for him to have obtained a complete picture of the status of the engine room and all the vessel’s critical machinery . ……………….MSC Michigan VII in June 2024, when the vessel had a runaway incident as it was departing Charleston, South Carolina, END QUOTE

Short handover time is not a mitigating factor. Two months should be sufficient to get a picture which it looks the unfortunate scapegoat -the Chief Engineerr got .

But :
QUOTE

San Juan wrote up the issues, and they were reported to the master of the vessel, who notified the shoreside office of the management company..

Further, they report the pilot had not been advised of any mechanical issues with the vessel……………

he agrees to plead guilty to one count that he failed to report a hazardous condition to the U.S. Coast Guard when the ship arrived in South Carolina,

END QUOTE

a) he reported problems to the company /management via master and his obligations here are finished . His reporting job was done.
b) advising the pilot about the impediments to safe navigation while under US pilotage is masters job not the chief engineer. And not reporting it by the master is as far as I remember federal offence.

c) reporting obligations as specified by Marpol Protocol I

image
image961×483 157 KB

Item c) and Item d) are Masters/owners/managements responsibilities not chief engineers.

Unless USCG considers their whistleblowing lure of monetary gratification as an obligation nowadays.

The charges for witness manipulation , obstruction and falsification of information given to investigating body seem to me quite valid although I am not sure He acted on his own w/o being pressed or bullied by master/company tech management .

4 Likes
2

added 25.09.25

3

100% agree. The increased criminalisation of seafarers, despite their only recourse being to report the issue, is wrong.

2 Likes
4

In the United States a USCG 2692 must be filed with the USCG.

The deficiency should be reported to the Captain who should report it to the company. A proactive company would report the 2692 to the USCG. The USCG specifically put the resposability on the Captain and the Chief Engineer as companies could not be trusted to file a 2692. If the Chief Engineer reports it to the Captain and the company and they do not file a 2692 it is the Chief Engineer’s responsibility to file it. It was the Chief Engineer’s lack of insuring the 2692 was filed. It is better to error on the side of caution. File a 2692 or suffer the consequences!

Chief Engineer’s can’t trust the Captain or company to file a 2692. Always demand a copy for your records.

5

File a 2692 AND suffer the consequences is more accurate with MSC and others.

6

I see this as another failure of FOC registry, in that seafarers who fear for their livelihoods are more easily blacklisted for interruptions to shipping than those who work under a legitimate flag/union contract. Who will speak up when your family can face deprivation? Not many.

2 Likes
7

It’s not just FOC. Mariners in the US have zero protections without union representation. In the GOM a 2692 can get you blacklisted, been like that for decades.When the USCG put the burden on the masters and chiefs instead of the companies they were bowing to pressure from the companies. Companies can’t be blamed but the employee can for not reporting. However, if the employee reports he may well not have a job. Great deal for the company but a Catch 22 for the employee. The USCG succumbed to regulatory capture a long time ago.

2 Likes
8

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Inspections-Compliance-CG-5PC-/Office-of-Investigations-Casualty-Analysis/2692-Reporting-Forms-NVIC-01-15/

9

I think it’s kind of hard to expect foreign vessels to be fully aware of our casualty reporting requirements, which forms they must use. I would HOPE a master and chief engineer, with decades of experience, trading to US ports would be familiar with our requirements, but I don’t think you can take that for granted. That’s the whole purpose of having USCG and Class inspectors board the vessel. Are they gonna file charges against whoever the most recent class surveyor was? I’d imagine not. If there was any kind of malicious intent to deceive the inspectors and surveyors, or to hide conditions, then a criminal charge is warranted, but if someone made a good faith effort to try to report the conditions, then no.

10

Quite unbelievable. They should have been on emergency engine side maneuvering rather than screwing around adjusting the link rod on Bridge control. Downright dangerous. And yes, they should have reported the departure conditions to USCG/Class - unless it was the same conditions coming in. If so, they should have reported it before coming in.

1 Like