Euclid wanswheel They had to discard his November memory because: “There's a very good possibility that could have occurred on a previous trip because that sort of mistake is something that could have happened on any trip. So I don't know. I can't tell you with accuracy, with certainty that that was on the night of the accident.” I looked at that and see what you are saying. After re-reading all of that section, I would not draw any conclusions. The engineer's claims of recalling things is so full of qualifications and limitations that it seems meaningless in trying to determine what happened.
wanswheel They had to discard his November memory because: “There's a very good possibility that could have occurred on a previous trip because that sort of mistake is something that could have happened on any trip. So I don't know. I can't tell you with accuracy, with certainty that that was on the night of the accident.”
They had to discard his November memory because:
“There's a very good possibility that could have occurred on a previous trip because that sort of mistake is something that could have happened on any trip. So I don't know. I can't tell you with accuracy, with certainty that that was on the night of the accident.”
I looked at that and see what you are saying. After re-reading all of that section, I would not draw any conclusions. The engineer's claims of recalling things is so full of qualifications and limitations that it seems meaningless in trying to determine what happened.
As I said long ago, a possible/likely retrograde amnesia makes his recollections of the entire period rather unreliable, through no fault of his own.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I recall you saying that, and it is understandable. Now I see that the actual interview relating to the approach to the curve is largely meaningless due to all the vague qualifiers to the memory, such as aserting a clear memory of what happened when approaching the curve, but not knowin whether that memory was from the night of the wreck or some other day.
He said this:
“So I don't know. I can't tell you with accuracy, with certainty that that was on the night of the accident. But in my mind, that's what I believe. That's when I believe that memory was from.”
schlimm No matter what gets shown on here or what the NTSB says, some people on here (and outsiders, like David Schanoes, who just might have his own agenda) will continue the merry-go-round of speculation. It's just a game for some, conspiracy time for others.
No matter what gets shown on here or what the NTSB says, some people on here (and outsiders, like David Schanoes, who just might have his own agenda) will continue the merry-go-round of speculation. It's just a game for some, conspiracy time for others.
BigJim A quote from Mr. David Schanoes: "We’re wasting money and we’re chasing phantoms, because, in fact, railroad radio communications are not distracting." Making a statement like that tells me that Mr. Shanoes has no idea what he is talking about!
A quote from Mr. David Schanoes:
"We’re wasting money and we’re chasing phantoms, because, in fact, railroad radio communications are not distracting."
Making a statement like that tells me that Mr. Shanoes has no idea what he is talking about!
I completely agree, Schanoes is exhibiting the classic ignorant railroad managment behaviour and attitude that is all too common across North America: Place 100% of the blame onto the employee(s) after an incident, because punishing someone makes them a better worker. Considering his employment history before RailwayAge it is not surprising that he has this attitude.
No incident/accident has one specific cause, and there are always multiple other contributing factors. That is why the NTSB takes such a long time to investigate every possible lead and leave no stone unturned.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
I am still waiting for those who have access to the applicable rule books for hard data on to what extent the PRR ATC took into account permanent (civil) speed restrictions. Anyone have the answers?
I still have the opinion that the accident would not have occured hadthe PRR ATC npt been removed. Hard data can either substantiate that opinion or require me to change it. Always willing to learn.
SD70M-2Dude BigJim A quote from Mr. David Schanoes: "We’re wasting money and we’re chasing phantoms, because, in fact, railroad radio communications are not distracting." Making a statement like that tells me that Mr. Shanoes has no idea what he is talking about! No incident/accident has one specific cause, and there are always multiple other contributing factors. That is why the NTSB takes such a long time to investigate every possible lead and leave no stone unturned.
Despite the seemingly black and white view of Mr. Schanoes, I do not think he actually means that radio conversations are never distracting. What he means is that employees are expected to pay enough attention during radio conversations to avoid becoming distracted to the point of making errors. It is part of the job.
Here is the full context of his quote:
“We’re wasting money and we’re chasing phantoms, because, in fact, railroad radio communications are not distracting.
Radio communications are integral to safe train operations. You might as well be claiming that the operation of other trains is distracting, and that we need to isolate every locomotive engineer from the work environment he or she is trained to assess and respond to. We might as well quit railroading altogether.”
He makes sense. If we are to accept that fatal mistakes can be excused by the assumption that they cannot be avoided because they are the result of distraction caused by the normal work routine, then the only responsible thing to do is park the trains and go home.
However, the NTSB could not disagree more. They conclude that engineers are subject to more distraction than a person can normally cope with, and that they therefore need advanced training and more technology in order to cope with distractions.
Euclid However, the NTSB could not disagree more. They conclude that engineers are subject to more distraction than a person can normally cope with, and that they therefore need advanced training and more technology in order to cope with distractions.
However, more technology tends to generate more distractions, not less. Additionally, humans cannot maintain single focus on a single task and not become bored and complacent in performing that task when it is 99.99% repitition.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Here is what the NTSB says is needed as quoted from the accident report:
Further research on prospective memory has identified countermeasures to reduce vulnerability to forgetting to perform deferred tasks.23 These strategies pertain to both the individual operator as well as the designers of systems and procedures. Some of the strategies relevant to this accident include the following:
23 R. Key Dismukes, “Remembrance of Things Future: Prospective Memory in Laboratory, Workplace, and Everyday Settings,” in Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics vol. 6, ed. Douglas H. Harris (Santa Monica, California: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2010), 79–122.
• Educating individuals and managers about prospective memory vulnerability and pointing out countermeasures individuals can take
• Minimizing the juggling of multiple tasks concurrently if one of the tasks is vital
• Pausing to encode an explicit intention to resume an interrupted task after the interruption has ended
• Analyzing the specific operating environment to identify “hotspots” in which prospective memory and concurrent task demands are high and interruptions are frequent. To the extent possible, redesign procedures and systems to reduce demands, especially when the consequences of memory lapses are serious
• Designing display and alerting systems for the status of tasks not active where the need for prospective memory is high
Training strategies to combat prospective memory errors exist. There is a need for advanced training for locomotive engineers, particularly those alone in the cab who must engage in operations (such as monitoring radio communications) typically assigned to, or shared with, another crewmember. Amtrak’s training for locomotive engineers is comprehensive and incorporates state-of-the-art simulators that require engineers to operate on multiple territories and under varied conditions. The NTSB is also aware that many major railroads also have quality training programs for train operating crews. However, as noted earlier, those training programs do not generally include strategies for dealing with prolonged or emerging situations—such as the SEPTA incident—that may divert crewmember attention for an extended period of time and cause prospective memory errors. Therefore, the NTSB concludes that training focusing on prospective memory strategies for prolonged, atypical situations that could divert crewmember attention may help operating crews become aware of, and take measures to avoid, errors due to memory failure.
Therefore, the NTSB recommends that Amtrak incorporate strategies into its initial and recurrent training for operating crewmembers for recognizing and effectively managing multiple concurrent tasks in prolonged, atypical situations to sustain their attention on current and upcoming train operations. The NTSB also recommends that the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and the Association of American Railroads (AAR) develop criteria for initial and recurrent training for operating crewmembers that reinforces strategies for recognizing NTSB Railroad Accident Report 13
and effectively managing multiple concurrent tasks and prolonged atypical situations to sustain their attention on current and upcoming train operations, and distribute those criteria to their members.
In this accident, the engineer likely would have benefitted from technology that showed him the location of his train in real time, which would have also helped him establish and maintain his situational awareness. The NTSB has advocated the use of memory aids, visual displays, alerting systems, and other strategies and technologies to reduce operator workload and prevent errors. This situational information would assist crews operating in high traffic areas, at night, or in adverse weather conditions. Although there will be less need for such situational information in PTC-compliant territory, and this technology will be available in some locomotives operating in PTC-compliant territories, there are many areas where PTC will not be implemented. Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the FRA require railroads to install devices and develop procedures that will help crewmembers identify their current location and display their upcoming route in territories where positive train control will not be implemented.
These opposing views by Schanoes and the NTSB represent the old school thinking of the industry, as opposed to the new, enlightened thinking of the modern NTSB. The old school thinking is that employees must do their job, and part of that job is to be 100% accountable for their actions. No excuses.
Whereas the new enlightened thinking is that employees are vulnerable to failing to do their job due to distraction over which they have no control. So, in effect, the fault for the wreck of 188 resides with the industry not providing the tools for engineers to safely do their job.
EuclidHe makes sense.
BTW, there is a new head-on collision tragedy in Texas for you to pontificate about!
.
EuclidWhereas the new enlightened thinking is that employees are vulnerable to failing to do their job due to distraction over which they have no control. So, in effect, the fault for the wreck of 188 resides with the industry not providing the tools for engineers to safely do their job.
Yep, it's the liberal way of life. Find someone else to blame. That's not "enlightened" it's pure unadulterated BS.
Norm
BigJim Euclid He makes sense. He might make sense in your head, but, both he and YOU are completely out of your minds. Let me know when you have 10, 20, 30, 40 years of actual experiance running a mainline locomotive, then I might, that is, might give your answers some consideration. BTW, there is a new head-on collision tragedy in Texas for you to pontificate about!
Euclid He makes sense.
He might make sense in your head, but, both he and YOU are completely out of your minds. Let me know when you have 10, 20, 30, 40 years of actual experiance running a mainline locomotive, then I might, that is, might give your answers some consideration.
That collision will likely be labeled as "Bush's fault".
Philadelphia judge orders engineer Brandon Bostian be arrested for involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment.
https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dRpHodOWvUmcZrMfGAsmRokStkAhM&q=%22brandon+bostian%22&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr36SJsOnTAhWCSSYKHd6bAyAQqgIILzAA
Wow. That's really something.
wanswheel Philadelphia judge orders engineer Brandon Bostian be arrested for involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment. https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dRpHodOWvUmcZrMfGAsmRokStkAhM&q=%22brandon+bostian%22&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr36SJsOnTAhWCSSYKHd6bAyAQqgIILzAA
FTL: "...The Philadelphia District Attorney's Office had announced Tuesday, as the two-year deadline to bring charges loomed Friday, that it couldn't prove Bostian acted with "conscious disregard" when he accelerated the train to 106 mph on a 50 mph curve.
That judgment call prompted civil lawyers representing the family of a technology executive killed to seek a private citizen's complaint. They believe Bostian should be held accountable..."
As lawyers chase the deepest pockets, Engineer Bastian will be at point of that spear. Mr. Bastian's problem will be, is he, still an AMTRAK employee; or if, he was terminated (or quit), at what point did that happen? All that will point to the party(s) responsible for any monetary reward for the plaintiff's side, by the court action. That outcome should be of interest here.
Plaintiff's lawyers want a successful criminal prosecution on any charge, no matter how minor. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for that gets them past having to prove liability "by a preponderance of the evidence" - essentially, it's an automatic win on that point. After that, all that's left to do is prove and determine the amount of the damages.
Bottom line, the civil lawyers are looking for the prosecutors to do the 'heavy lifting' for them . . .
- PDN.
Excerpt from Philly.com
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/law/Judge-orders-DA-to-charge-Amtrak-engineer.html
President Judge Marsha Neifield of Philadelphia Municipal Court ordered the city District Attorney’s Office on Thursday to reverse course and charge Amtrak engineer Brandon Bostian with involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment.
To avoid a potential conflict of interest, the District Attorney's Office responded that it would refer the prosecution to the state attorney general.
Neifield issued the order following a request from lawyers for victims of the May 12, 2015, derailment of Amtrak Train 188 that the case be reopened. On Tuesday, the District Attorney's Office had said that, following a lengthy investigation, it had concluded there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.
The following day, lawyers with the office of Richard A. Sprague, a prominent city lawyer and former first assistant district attorney, formally asked the District Attorney's Office to accept a criminal complaint filed by the husband and father of Rachel Jacobs, a young mother killed in the crash.
But the District Attorney’s Office declined, setting the stage for Thursday’s hearing before Neifield.
Plaintiffs lawyers Thomas R. Kline and Robert Mongeluzzi, who between them represented 32 victims in lawsuits against Amtrak, joined in the request for criminal charges against Bostian.
The lawyers asked that Bostian be charged with involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment. The statute of limitations for charges of reckless endangerment expires on Friday.
The decision not to prosecute "was a shock," Sprague said at a Thursday evening news conference. "Can you imagine someone driving down Market Street at 100 miles per hour, hitting people, killing people, and the DA saying we don't have a basis for prosecuting anybody?"
In a statement Thursday afternoon, Cameron L. Kline, communications director for the District Attorney's Office, said, "President Judge Neifield has ordered the filing of two private criminal complaints as a result of the Amtrak Train 188 derailment. In view of our earlier decision not to file charges, we have referred this prosecution to the Pennsylvania attorney general. We take this action to avoid the potential for any apparent conflict of interest, consistent with the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Attorney’s Act."
Although it is unusual for a judge to order a prosecutor to file criminal charges, there is a basis in Pennsylvania law for the judiciary to step in and essentially take control of a criminal investigation, said Temple University law professor Jules Epstein.
The hurdles for such action typically are high, he said, because of the separation-of-powers doctrine, which grants each branch of government wide discretion within its own sphere of authority.
But Epstein said case law in Pennsylvania lays down guidelines for when a judge can compel a prosecutor to accept a citizen’s criminal complaint, the scenario that played out before Neifield on Thursday. Courts are more inclined to hear such requests when there is a dispute over the legal basis for bringing charges, Epstein said. The standard is more stringent when a prosecutor, as a matter of policy, declines to bring criminal charges.
For example, prosecutors may choose as a matter of policy to devote fewer resources to economic crimes, preferring instead to focus on public safety and prosecute violent criminal behavior.
“The law gives prosecutors tremendous discretion on whether to bring charges,” Epstein said.
Excerpt from Newsworks
http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/homepage-feature/item/103871-judge-orders-prosecutors-to-charge-amtrak-engineerinqy
Municipal Court Judge Marsha Neifield asked Thursday that authorities arrest Bostian and charge him with involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment after the family of one of the victims in the deadly wreck filed a private citizen complaint against Bostian.
The order reverses an announcement on Tuesday from the Philadelphia district attorney's office that it would not file charges against Bostian, citing insufficient evidence.
In particular, prosecutors said, there is not enough evidence to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that when Bostian sped into the Frankford Junction curve, he was consciously ignoring the risk of the action. That would be required under Pennsylvania law to convict him of criminal recklessness.
On Wednesday, the family of 39-year-old Rachel Jacobs, who was killed in the crash, filled out a private citizen criminal complaint, which the DA's office declined. The matter then moved to Neifield, who found there was probable cause to file charges against Bostian.
The decision came as a surprise to lawyer Tom Kline, who has represented the family of Jacobs and others in civil lawsuits stemming from the deadly crash.
"Most of the time, a judge will deny it," Kline said of private citizen complaints. "In this case, Judge Neifield didn't even hold a hearing. We presented our papers, and hours later, she ruled on our papers."
In a statement, Cameron Kline, a spokesman for the district attorney's office, said the matter has been referred to the Pennsylvania attorney general's office to "avoid the potential for any apparent conflict of interest."
State prosecutors can choose to pursue the case, or they can fight the judge's order by appealing to Superior Court.
Should the attorney general's office agree to charge Bostian, it would trigger a warrant for his arrest. Involuntary manslaughter carries a maximum possible punishment of five years in prison.
Legal experts said a judge upholding a private citizen complaint after the district attorney's office declined to charge is unusual but not unheard of, although a more surprising outcome, they said, would be the attorney general's office deciding to prosecute Bostian.
"If the AG doesn't take the case, it's dead in the water," said longtime criminal defense attorney Perry de Marco Sr. "And the likelihood of the AG's office taking it is very slim."
De Marco added that appeals courts in Pennsylvania usually show deference to decisions made by prosecutors, so the likelihood of prevailing on appeal would be unlikely.
daveklepper I am still waiting for those who have access to the applicable rule books for hard data on to what extent the PRR ATC took into account permanent (civil) speed restrictions. Anyone have the answers? I still have the opinion that the accident would not have occured hadthe PRR ATC npt been removed. Hard data can either substantiate that opinion or require me to change it. Always willing to learn.
The PRR ATC wouldn't have had any effect. It required a brake application of 17# (if i remember right) for any downward change in cab signal provide you were above the speed for the new aspect (45 mph for Approach Medium, 30 mph for Approach, 15 mph for restricting). Once you got below that speed, you could make a running release.
The PRR did not use cab signals for civil speeds as far as I know. The LIRR did in places, but not the PRR. This from the "old heads" I used to work with on Conrail in the equipment engineering dept.
So, the train in PRR days, would have been running on a clear and could have wheeled into that curve as fast as the equipment would allow. A GG1 and a ten car train - maybe high 80s. Probably wouldn't have derailed.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
BigJim Euclid He makes sense. He might make sense in your head, but, both he and YOU are completely out of your minds. Let me know when you have 10, 20, 30, 40 years of actual experiance running a mainline locomotive, then I might, that is, might give your answers some consideration.
+1
A driving analogy. Ever accidently run a stop sign? The difference between doing it and saying "whew" with maybe 3 points on your licence and doing it and causing wreck is just dumb luck.
Excerpt from NY Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/us/amtrak-derailment-crash-philadelphia.html
On Friday, Pennsylvania’s attorney general, Josh Shapiro, accepted the private complaint, expanded the misdemeanor charges to include all eight people who died and added a charge of causing or risking a catastrophe, which is a felony.
https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/MainSite/Content/Related_Content/PressReleases/Bostian%20Criminal%20Complaint.pdf
Euclid SD70M-2Dude BigJim A quote from Mr. David Schanoes: "We’re wasting money and we’re chasing phantoms, because, in fact, railroad radio communications are not distracting." Making a statement like that tells me that Mr. Shanoes has no idea what he is talking about! No incident/accident has one specific cause, and there are always multiple other contributing factors. That is why the NTSB takes such a long time to investigate every possible lead and leave no stone unturned. Despite the seemingly black and white view of Mr. Schanoes, I do not think he actually means that radio conversations are never distracting. What he means is that employees are expected to pay enough attention during radio conversations to avoid becoming distracted to the point of making errors. It is part of the job. Here is the full context of his quote: “We’re wasting money and we’re chasing phantoms, because, in fact, railroad radio communications are not distracting. Radio communications are integral to safe train operations. You might as well be claiming that the operation of other trains is distracting, and that we need to isolate every locomotive engineer from the work environment he or she is trained to assess and respond to. We might as well quit railroading altogether.” He makes sense. If we are to accept that fatal mistakes can be excused by the assumption that they cannot be avoided because they are the result of distraction caused by the normal work routine, then the only responsible thing to do is park the trains and go home. However, the NTSB could not disagree more. They conclude that engineers are subject to more distraction than a person can normally cope with, and that they therefore need advanced training and more technology in order to cope with distractions.
Regardless of the reasons - valid or not - there are those who feel that heads must roll for this, and virtually any such incident. In this case, it's Bostian's.
If it had turned out that a rock penetrated the windshield and knocked Bostian out, then it would have been the fault of whoever installed an inferior windshield.
Heads must roll...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Euclid“We’re wasting money and we’re chasing phantoms, because, in fact, railroad radio communications are not distracting. Radio communications are integral to safe train operations. You might as well be claiming that the operation of other trains is distracting, and that we need to isolate every locomotive engineer from the work environment he or she is trained to assess and respond to. We might as well quit railroading altogether.”
I believe I see some conflict and lack of operational knowledge in his statement. Perhaps, under normal conditions, they are not distracting but could be in certain abnormal situations. I don't think getting "rocked" was an every-day occurrence in the area. Every other day perhaps. (Sarcasm intended.)
Just for the sake of discussion let's presume all was going well for Bostian prior to another train in the immediate area broadcasting they had just been "rocked" and had a broken windshield. Would that not get one's attentiond and divert it from the task at hand? Knowing human nature as I do I believe it entirely possible he got more concerned about his train encountering the same fate and lost situational awareness. Distractions only take seconds to happen. I've seen this happen in many situations before. Some escaped harm; others suffered consequences because of the distraction. I know it didn't apply in the wreck of Amtrak 188 but think of drivers on their cell phones blowing a red light and having crashes.
MY point is that only a few seconds of distraction can lead people to do the wrong thing at the moment. I've seen it happen many times over. One can never be totally isolated from their surrounding environment.
Edit:
I'm sure Larry has seen the results of distraction in his career as a firefighter as did I back in the dark ages.
tree68 Regardless of the reasons - valid or not - there are those who feel that heads must roll for this, and virtually any such incident. In this case, it's Bostian's. If it had turned out that a rock penetrated the windshield and knocked Bostian out, then it would have been the fault of whoever installed an inferior windshield. Heads must roll...
BINGO!
I think you exaggerate. Obviously, it would have been the fault of whoever threw the rock.
There may be certain types of distractions that most would agee would overpower the person in charge of safe operation, and cause him to fail in that responsibility.
The problem is in determining where that threshold is. Personally I believe that hearing that another train was rocked does not nearly rise to the threshold of justifying the negligence of failing to slow down.
I think that is also what Schanoes is saying.
If there is no definition of how much distraction a person should be able to handle, then we are left to either believeing that no misteps caused by distraction are acceptable; or that anyone causing an accident can claim, as a legitimate defense, that they were distracted. It would really turn all accidents into an act of God with the assumption that nobody can turn off their sucseptibilty to distraction.
1. We should wait for the final NTSB report.
2. Shooting the messenger (Schanoes) because some do not like his opinion that the train's engineer has a major portion of blame (percentage of contributory negligence) seems pretty lame.
3. As radio communications are a normal part of the engineer's job description, that hardly qualifies as an unusual distraction for an unimpaired person.
4. If the engineer had a clinical attention disorder sufficient to impair his job performance, he had a duty to report that diagnosis. AFAIK, he did not.
EuclidThere may be certain types of distractions that most would agee would overpower the person in charge of safe operation, and cause him to fail in that responsibility.
So you are saying there is a certain threshold that applies en-banc to all. That opinion doesn't hold water because it may vary from person to person. Different people have different responses to a given situation. Saying they should or will all act in the same manner is folly.
schlimmWe should wait for the final NTSB report.
Wholeheartedly agreed, but as we all know, Bucky's judgement prevails over that of the investigators and is the ultimate answer, at least in his own warped mind.
Norm48327 schlimm We should wait for the final NTSB report. Wholeheartedly agreed, but as we all know, Bucky's judgement prevails over that of the investigators and is the ultimate answer, at least in his own warped mind.
schlimm We should wait for the final NTSB report.
I'm not going to get into one of these arguments. My four points are simply my opinion, and partly professional (the attention problem part).
EuclidObviously, it would have been the fault of whoever threw the rock.
True, but how much are you going to get if you sue him? The manufacturer of the glass, and the company that installed it have much deeper pockets...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.