On the morning of 16 May 2015, the master of the HANJIN MIAMI, en route from Singapore to New York, was reported missing on the high seas in the Indian Ocean. The entire ship was searched four times. The search revealed no concrete evidence of a criminal offence, suicide or an accident.
All that was found was a primary key in the galley and a bag that could also be used for post in the vicinity of the port gangway. The vessel turned on a reciprocal course at 12001 midday. At this point, the HANJIN MIAMI was already 306 nm away from the position at which the crew last saw the master at about 2000 on the previous evening.
The search involving Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centres (MRCC) Mumbai and Bremen, as well as several ships, was discontinued after three days and the voyage to the Suez Canal continued under the command of the chief officer.
Two detective superintendents from the Stade criminal investigation department, a superintendent from the owner, a case worker from the seamen’s mission in Alexandria, the substitute master, a technician to read data from the voyage data recorder (VDR), and a P&I lawyer from the transport insurer boarded in the Suez roadstead.
BSU investigation revealed no further circumstantial evidence that would indicate the reason for the disappearance of the missing master.
The BSU’s investigation of the marine casualty revealed no concrete evidence of a criminal offence, suicide or an accident. The master was last seen by several crew members at the self-built bar on the aft edge of the superstructure on E deck between 2000 and 2030 on 15 May. According to the testimony of several witnesses, the master still wanted to send an important spare parts order for the chief engineer. He intended to clear up after everyone had left the bar and then to go to the bridge to do that. The BSU was unable to establish the route he took to the bridge. It is unlikely that the master opted for the direct route through the superstructure because his primary key was found in the galley on the morning after. It is therefore possible that he wanted to take supper, which he still had not had, there. He must have left the superstructure afterwards because he did not arrive at the bridge. It is possible that he wanted to carry out one final inspection (round) outside.
Further details may be found on the report issued by BSU
Source: BSU
