Hi Spo
You remember the vessel design speed and ME rated rpm? Possibly slower ME and high pitch prop (maybe larger dia).
I’ve said it before and will say it again … you certainly do good research.
Transfer of controls IMO would not have made a difference. Question is whether to continue with this speed or risk shut down and not be able to start up. I think when they realized that the throttle was stuck the vessel speed was already 13-15 kts.
Also reasonable to assume that the engine crew monitoring the ME were unaware they had a problem. Telegraph is stepless all the way from DS to FA and sea speed with notches for the positions. Engine crew see the telegraph at DS and assume maybe they have pressed the rpm up for the desired speed. Would be surprised if they called the bridge to say ‘Charleston, we have a problem’.
Better be wearing brown pants to order E-stop at that speed - perhaps a straitjacket for anyone who could press the e-stop. Under the circumstances I think the Pilot and Skipper made the right decision. 244 and others would have done the same.
Aside from all the above and given their stay for so many days in port, wondering if this is a fuel related issue with the individual fuel pumps being so sticky that the governor actuator rated torque is not able to overcome? I am assuming Kongsberg controls with an electronic governor and electric actuator for the fuel rack.
I think the claims are ‘ambulance chasers’. Possibly motivated by the Dali incident.
All in all we should be grateful this incident did not involve any loss of life. Let’s see if the property claim on the lawsuit is justified.