These thoughts occur to me as we wait for the final rollout of the NTSB’s conclusions about the cause of the wreck of Amtrak 188, scheduled for today.
Yesterday, they reported that the cause of the wreck was the engineer being distracted by radio conversations regarding the rock throwing incident nearby. What I am waiting for today is news indicating whether the wreck is blamed on the engineer for being distracted—or—blamed on distraction. There is certainly a difference.
Distraction can be caused by distracting behaviour, so it is easy to outlaw that behaviour such as texting while driving. But distraction can also be caused by simply thinking about something that becomes compelling and engaging.
In railroading, there is plenty of legitimate and legal activity that can cause distraction in addition to basic “day dreaming.” It has always been my understanding that no rules infraction is forgiven on the basis that the employee was distracted at the time.
In operating a motor vehicle, a driver who becomes distracted is negligent, and if the distraction causes a crash, it is the fault of the distracted driver, even if the driver was engaged in no typically distracting behaviour.
Here is a legal article about it:
http://www.all-about-car-accidents.com/resources/auto-accident/after-car-accident/what-cognitive-distraction
From the article:
"Once again, cognitive distraction is negligence, plain and simple. If a plaintiff’s lawyer can prove that the defendant in a car accident case was doing something to cause his/her attention and focus to be taken off of the road, the plaintiff is likely to win."
So it follows that if there is no way to show an activity on the part of the driver that would have caused distraction, there is no way to prove that the driver was distracted. But if distracting activity can be shown, the driver is likely to be found at fault for being distracted.
In the case of Amtrak 188, the NTSB is clearly making the case that the engineer was engaged in distracting activity by listening to radio conversations about a troubling event. Yet, so far, they stop short of actually saying that the engineer is to blame for causing the wreck. So far, it sounds like they are saying that the distraction caused the wreck, thus leaving the impression that the engineer cannot be faulted for succumbing to distraction, because the distraction was caused by legitimate railroad business.
I could be entirely wrong, and we might soon find out, but it sounds to me that the NTSB is making an excuse for the engineer by making him a victim of distraction. Yet in so doing, they are actually making the legal case that the engineer was negligent by citing evidence of him being distracted.
It seems odd that the NTSB would jump to that speculative conclusion since the engineer says he is suffering from a loss of memory during the timeframe that includes the radio transmissions. A loss of memory could well be entirely unrelated to hearing the radio transmissions. So if they don’t know what caused the loss of memory, or what effect it may have had in the cause of the crash, it seems really strange for the NTSB to set aside the claim of memory loss and speculate that distraction was the key to the cause.
Logically, I must interpret the NTSB to be saying, in effect, that they do not believe the engineer’s claim of memory loss; and instead, they conclude that he was distracted by the radio transmissions. Legally, it would therefore follow that the engineer’s negligence caused the crash. I am waiting for the NTSB to provide clarity on that final point about the responsibility for the distraction, which they say caused the wreck.
Nonsense. Hearing aboiut rocks bgeing thrown is very different than texting. If rocks are being thrown, one might be aimed at you!
And their is still that unexplained hole in the windshield./
Euclid,
You should have the common decency to hold your speculation until after the NTSB says whatever they will say.
You should also remember that while the NTSB is supposed to be a fact finding agency, they are as political as anyone else in that town, so there is no particular reason to accept what they conclude as true unless it is consistent with the evidence, but they also control the evidence!
Mac
There are plenty of perfectly legitimate distractions in the cab of a locomotive. Most are brief - glancing at the speedometer or other gauges - but that second or two could be enough to be a factor in an incident.
Might the engineer have been distracted by the entire rock-throwing factor? Sure! I'm sure any of us would be. It's not hard to imagine hearing on the AM/FM in your car a traffic report that rocks were being thrown at cars in an area you are about to enter. Would you be watching your speed, or watching for rock throwers? (Rhetorical question - don't answer it.)
So we have another potential piece of the puzzle. Once we see the final report, we'll hopefully know exactly how that piece fits in.
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...
Every day we encounter “distractions.” I would say that the term refers to something that is intrusive enough to cause a person encountering it to become distracted. But not every “distraction,” as a source of disturbance encountered by a person, causes that person to become distracted. Whether that happens or not depends on the person.
In railroad rules, there is nothing that forgives a rules infraction because the rule breaker was distracted. The railroads require employees to not become distracted when the encounter a “distraction” such as an intrusive or confusing event.
This relates to the legal principle referred to above in the quote from the article:
“Once again, cognitive distraction is negligence, plain and simple.”
It has nothing to do with whether the distraction suffered by a person originates from a legitimate source of distraction, such as railroad radio transmissions.
NTSB report will recommend some kind of new training course for engineers, designed to help maintain the all-important situational awareness despite distraction.
Euclid Every day we encounter “distractions.” I would say that the term refers to something that is intrusive enough to cause a person encountering it to become distracted. But not every “distraction,” as a source of disturbance encountered by a person, causes that person to become distracted. Whether that happens or not depends on the person. In railroad rules, there is nothing that forgives a rules infraction because the rule breaker was distracted. The railroads require employees to not become distracted when the encounter a “distraction” such as an intrusive or confusing event. This relates to the legal principle referred to above in the quote from the article: “Once again, cognitive distraction is negligence, plain and simple.” It has nothing to do with whether the distraction suffered by a person originates from a legitimate source of distraction, such as railroad radio transmissions.
I would caution not to jump to a conclusion in this case....
WE were not in the cab of Engineer Bastion's(?) locomotive; and we have NOT heard all the testimony that was offered in this case.
Distraction is something we all live with in this day of 'personal devices' available to everyone who operates anything from a machine to a vehicle of any sort ( except where those devices are precluded by 'work rules').
Locomotive Engineers, Airline Pilots, and Watercraft Pilots, and Vehicle Operators are all working in environments laced with any number of destractions; such distractions are delt with as a matter of routine in the course of their job functions. Sometimes, those distractions result in tragic, negative outcomes.
AMTRAK #103, AMTRAK #2 (@ Bayou Canot,Al.1993) and American Aillines#965 near Cali, Col. in1995. Tragic instances where distractions were involved. The investigators investigate, the politicians point fingers; while the inocent pay.
PNWRMNM Euclid, You should have the common decency to hold your speculation until after the NTSB says whatever they will say. You should also remember that while the NTSB is supposed to be a fact finding agency, they are as political as anyone else in that town, so there is no particular reason to accept what they conclude as true unless it is consistent with the evidence, but they also control the evidence! Mac
So then, if the NTSB is a political body masquerading as a fact finding agency, why is it indecent to speculate about the facts they claim to have found?
This week's cause du jour: Distracted railroading.
I can vouch for communications-based distractions being enough to disrupt thought processes, especially when one is emotionally involved with the issue. That applies to a nincompoop telling you how to do a job that he couldn't do himself, or to hearing about a threat to your life or physical well-being in your vicinity. It could involve trying to make out unintelligible conversations that may or may not be pertinent.I wasn't involved with mainline movements, and that engneer had a lot of constraints under which he had to work that I didn't have. Toward the end of my career, we were given an option (with some sort of code name that I can't remember) by which anyone could call a stop to operations and a job briefing be held on the spot to get everyone on the same page (and that page had better be somewhere in the rules or instructions!). I used it once, and got some assistance in when our hump conductor was insisting on ignoring special instructions concerning car handling. I handled the job briefing, and the conductor got reprimanded, both for his attempt to violate the rule and for attempting to work around the job briefing and get back to work. Sometimes you have to do that to get issues addressed. Mr. Bostian either had no such opportunity, or had no willingness to exercise an opportunity. The difference could be crucial.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
So eliminate the rock throwers either by sniper or arrest, the engineers don't have to worry about rocks being lofted at the while running a 90 mph trains, and incidents like these don't happen anymore?
One thing's certain, that tantalizing tidbit of information released by the NTSB has raised a lot more questions than answers.
Makes me wonder why they said anything at all before the official release of the accident report.
Well, here's what Mr. Schanoes has to say about this, especially his analysis of what did and didn't happen in the 2 - 3 minutes before the fatal acceleration started:
http://ten90solutions.com/the_short_the_long_the_skinny_and_the_fat
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr Well, here's what Mr. Schanoes has to say about this, especially his analysis of what did and didn't happen in the 2 - 3 minutes before the fatal acceleration started: http://ten90solutions.com/the_short_the_long_the_skinny_and_the_fat - Paul North.
If Mr. Shanoes representation is to be considered factual - then we are discussing the happenings of 35 seconds. The time when the train was under control and in compliance with rules and speed limits to when the emergency brakes were applied - either by Mr. Bastain or the train derailing.
I ask again with Mr. Bastain having previously operated an Acela run - Do the throttles of the Acela and ACS-64 operate the same? - Forward for Faster(more power) and Back for Off(less power). 35 seconds of intended decceleration that was actually acceleration????? The Dinosaur in me wants to know what idiot permitted the same control to operate diametrically oposite of each other on two different sets of equipment operated by the same work force.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD ask again with Mr. Bastain having previously operated an Acela run - Do the throttles of the Acela and ACS-64 operate the same? - Forward for Faster(more power) and Back for Off(less power).
It's a great question and should be answered by the authorities easily. But if throttle direction is not even mentioned, likely that means the direction of it is the same on both engines.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm BaltACD It's a great question and should be answered by the authorities easily. But if throttle direction is not even mentioned, likely that means the direction of it is the same on both engines.
BaltACD
I believe it has been said repeatedly (by reputable sources) that the data indicate a normal, commanded acceleration over that last 35 seconds, reconstructed from the haptic inputs recorded by the locomotive controls. That neither supports the theory of a physically incapacitated engineer nor the theory that the 'controls were reversed'. As has been previously noted, and perhaps beaten past the point of death, the 'loss of memory' is better explained as retrograde amnesia than as physiological incapacitation especially due to trauma occurring before the accident, in that context (and this is further supported by the multiple warning horn bursts reported just before the sound of the crash). [EDIT: and as I see schlimm mention in the other thread on this subject.]
Someone who knows needs to answer this inquiry. How exactly does an engineer operate the radio in an ACS-64 ? In a few older locos have noted engineer would have to lean over to the speaker / microphone combination and press a PTT button.
On todays modern aircraft pilots can plug into jacks a combined headset with separate mike. The mike can be keyed by a yoke switch or switch on headset cord. As well can also use a standard mike pluged into another jack. Then a separate speaker or headset can be used as well.
So the question is " can trying to operate a radio on an ACS-64 itself be distracting ? "
blue streak 1 Someone who knows needs to answer this inquiry. How exactly does an engineer operate the radio in an ACS-64 ? In a few older locos have noted engineer would have to lean over to the speaker / microphone combination and press a PTT button. On todays modern aircraft pilots can plug into jacks a combined headset with separate mike. The mike can be keyed by a yoke switch or switch on headset cord. As well can also use a standard mike pluged into another jack. Then a separate speaker or headset can be used as well. So the question is " can trying to operate a radio on an ACS-64 itself be distracting ? "
At least some Amtrak radios are the same (or very similar) as those used by the freight carriers. Those types have the PTT button and the capability to use a microphone or headset. (We don't have the headsets, but I've seen them in use by some railroads.)
We have a Cab Red Zone rule that applies in certain situations, such as passing a signal that indicates a stop may be required at the next signal. The idea is to focus on the operation of the train. Radio conversations are limited to the immediate movement of the train. If it doesn't affect the immediate movement, it isn't allowed. For example, if we go by an approach, we can't dial up the dispatcher and ask for a signal or why we are being held. Not until we are stopped. For those radio conversations allowed, the engineer at the controls of a moving train isn't allowed to use the radio. It must be done by someone not at the controls of a moving train.
Jeff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LmdUz3rOQU
I think the NY subway system has a similar point requirement for their conductors leaving the stations. Seem to recall a YouTube showing this several years ago.
EuclidHere is a technique used in Japan called the Point and Call System.
We've got a system for ensuring that the engineer is awake and alert - in fact, it's called the alerter. Yet it has been shown reseting the alerter can become a reflex action, resulting in suggestions that a more complex reset system be used.
How long before "point and call" becomes reflexive and means virtually nothing? Just because a crewmember points at two or three things doesn't mean he/she actually registers what they are displaying. It just means the crew member pointed at them.
I'm not even sure the fellow crossing the road really looked both ways. But he did point!
I think that point and call technique is intended as a sort of conscious framework for mental discipline. It requires an employee to have the pride and confidence to actively participate, work with it, and use it as a tool. Perhaps someone can post a detailed analysis of the theory behind point and call. I think there is more to it than meets the eye. The independent nature of an alerter leaves the employee in a passive, reactive state of mind, where he or she is free to fight it by resetting without being disturbed.
tree68 Euclid Here is a technique used in Japan called the Point and Call System. We've got a system for ensuring that the engineer is awake and alert - in fact, it's called the alerter. Yet it has been shown reseting the alerter can become a reflex action, resulting in suggestions that a more complex reset system be used.
Euclid Here is a technique used in Japan called the Point and Call System.
Please no, the current alerter is already annoying enough as it is. How about letting the engineers operate the train again instead of just monitoring a "Trip Optimizer" system that runs the train itself? This way the engineer is doing something besides just blowing the horn. How about making a good train lineup system where crews know when to get the proper rest to come to work?
A more complicated alerter system might be a quick fix, but does nothing in the way of resolving the true issue at heart-lack of sleep due to an unknown work schedule.
rockymidlandrrPlease no, the current alerter is already annoying enough as it is. How about letting the engineers operate the train again instead of just monitoring a "Trip Optimizer" system that runs the train itself? This way the engineer is doing something besides just blowing the horn. How about making a good train lineup system where crews know when to get the proper rest to come to work? A more complicated alerter system might be a quick fix, but does nothing in the way of resolving the true issue at heart-lack of sleep due to an unknown work schedule.
Agree wholeheartely. Just making the point that the pointing system can rapidly become reflexive, too.
tree68We've got a system for ensuring that the engineer is awake and alert - in fact, it's called the alerter.
I thought it was called coffee?
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
rockymidlandrrPlease no, the current alerter is already annoying enough as it is. How about letting the engineers operate the train again instead of just monitoring a "Trip Optimizer" system that runs the train itself? This way the engineer is doing something besides just blowing the horn. How about making a good train lineup system where crews know when to get the proper rest to come to work?
You want the moon and stars with that, too?
Yeah, I agree with you 100% and then some.
Coffee is a major food group.....
23 17 46 11
jeffhergertAt least some Amtrak radios are the same (or very similar) as those used by the freight carriers. Those types have the PTT button and the capability to use a microphone or headset. (We don't have the headsets, but I've seen them in use by some railroads.) ...... For those radio conversations allowed, the engineer at the controls of a moving train isn't allowed to use the radio. It must be done by someone not at the controls of a moving train. Jeff
......
For those radio conversations allowed, the engineer at the controls of a moving train isn't allowed to use the radio. It must be done by someone not at the controls of a moving train.
*Watch for tresspassers*Watch for conditions which might affect the safe movement of the train*Monitor the locomotive's operation*Keep situational awareness regarding location of the train and all speed restrictions that apply*Monitor radio transmissions*Use the radio to communicate with other trains and the dispatcher*WATCH FOR THE LOW-LIFES THAT WISH TO CAUSE YOU HARM BY THROWING ROCKS, DROPPING LARGE OBJECTS FROM OVERPASSES, HANGING HEAVY OBJUECTS FROM OVERHEAD STRUCTURES, ETC.
zugmann tree68 We've got a system for ensuring that the engineer is awake and alert - in fact, it's called the alerter. I thought it was called coffee?
tree68 We've got a system for ensuring that the engineer is awake and alert - in fact, it's called the alerter.
Well, there's that, too. Although I know some folks who can drink a cup of coffee and head straight to bed...
zardozWhich is a good idea. Of course, on those 100+mph Amtrak trains, there is only one person in the cab to: *Watch for tresspassers *Watch for conditions which might affect the safe movement of the train *Monitor the locomotive's operation *Keep situational awareness regarding location of the train and all speed restrictions that apply *Monitor radio transmissions *Use the radio to communicate with other trains and the dispatcher *WATCH FOR THE LOW-LIFES THAT WISH TO CAUSE YOU HARM BY THROWING ROCKS, DROPPING LARGE OBJECTS FROM OVERPASSES, HANGING HEAVY OBJUECTS FROM OVERHEAD STRUCTURES, ETC.
Add:
*Watching for items in the bulletins.
*Remembering which stations to stop at and which to skip.
*Keeping track of times and delays.
My hat's off to those passenger guys. They have a lot of challenges us freight guys don't have (and vice cersa, of course).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.