Hacker News Reader

Comment by jabl | Hacker News Reader

If the prop shaft or the hull is bent due to the collision, the stuffing boxes would not seal?

Then again, with a glancing blow to the side of the ship, this should not happen?

Sure, there are plenty of reasons a good design might still fail. But while further investigation might be necessary, the authorities determined the design might be to blame for the sinking not the collision. It doesn't look like they're trying to pass the blame. The ship may have been still able to stay afloat after the collision assuming the seals worked as expected.

Isn't "while further investigation might be necessary" incompatible with "the authorities determined the design might be to blame for the sinking not the collision." or is it just me?

Think of them as statements of probabilities. "while further investigation might be necessary to be 100% certain, the authorities determined that there his a high probability that the design is to blame for the sinking not the collision."

How certain should you be that there is a serious design flaw in a product before you feel it's warranted to warn others who own that product that there might be a problem.

Maybe but we can't really tell from the article if that's the final report on the investigation and if the builder agrees, hence the might in "further investigation might be necessary". It just says:

> authorities determined that the stuffing boxes weren’t working properly

The why and the how could make the difference between bad design, bad implementation, or bad luck.

That's actually my concern: while it is impossible to determine that from the article, the burden is already in someone's shoulders already.

Keep in mind that news articles are not supposed to replace an investigation report and are only to give more of an outline of the subject. It's just for us laymen and puts very little burden on the involved parties. Certainly less than the official investigation report.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com