BaltACDAnd the whole point of the NTSB is to speak with factual clarity, which has not been done in the information released so far. Too many lawyers involved who want to couch everyting in 'weasel words', words that can mean a variety of things depending upon how the words are challenged. The NTSB over the past decade or more has become a champion of weasel words.
Public disasters present themselves immediately and produce widespread demand for an explanation. Providing the explanation is the job of the NTSB. The public does not expect them to complete their investigation overnight, but they expect a substantial explanation in a few days at most. The NTSB seems to have grown resentful of the public's expressed need to know, and yet they know it is part of their duty. So they resort to lecturing us like we are children and impressing us with how difficult their job will be and how incredbily extensive it must be.
I have my doubts about these NTSB investigators and their qualifications.
Just because the public (including me) wants answers quickly, that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Too-soon conclusions, just like slipshod media reporting, serves no one well.
Plus, we pretty much already know the engineer was lost or distracted. That’s why the train wrecked.
I say give the NTSB time. They have their realities to deal with. They will get the story in due time.
Still in training.
The public suffers from CSI syndrome. They want everything answered in 45 minutes.
Not going to happen. This is not a TV show. We're dealing with real people and real consequences. Bashing the NTSB and posting conspiracy theories becuase they aren't working fast enough for your personal agendas and obessions is rediculous.
I'd say that I'd doubt some of the qualifications of the posters on here, but hell, we don't know what they are.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zug, I agree with you for the most part. But the distinct lack of any information is well suspicious.
Its been two weeks and all we know is that the train was speeding, it left the tracks and the cameras stopped working.
Unfortunately only one of those statements is indisputable. There's been no proof shown of the other statements and the sound bites only make it more suspect. I'm not one for conspiracy theories but something smells here.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
ruderunner Its been two weeks and all we know is that the train was speeding, it left the tracks and the cameras stopped working. Unfortunately only one of those statements is indisputable.
Unfortunately only one of those statements is indisputable.
I'm kinda leaning towards two being indisputable. But what do I know? I thought it might make sense to bring an airplane guy in as Amtrak safety chief.
I do agree that NTSB isn't in a sharing mood. And isn't in a mood to say WHY they're not in a sharing mood.
Pretty moody, I think.
Ed
I think it has a lot to do with the optics of a possible systemic failure of crew training and safety culture with a public sector entity during the process of unveiling and promoting a modern, new train service. Considering the potential for a huge black eye, I suspect the NTSB and Amtrak are in gridlock over how to present the truth to the public with the least amount of public relations and image damage.
Euclid Considering the potential for a huge black eye, I suspect the NTSB and Amtrak are in gridlock over how to present the truth to the public with the least amount of public relations and image damage.
Considering the potential for a huge black eye, I suspect the NTSB and Amtrak are in gridlock over how to present the truth to the public with the least amount of public relations and image damage.
Oh, I suspect it's even more fun-filled than that.
7j43k ruderunner Its been two weeks and all we know is that the train was speeding, it left the tracks and the cameras stopped working. Unfortunately only one of those statements is indisputable. I'm kinda leaning towards two being indisputable.
ruderunner Its been two weeks and all we know is that the train was speeding, it left the tracks and the cameras stopped working. Unfortunately only one of those statements is indisputable. I'm kinda leaning towards two being indisputable.
I'm kinda leaning towards two being indisputable.
Put me in the “two” camp also.
EuclidConsidering the potential for a huge black eye, I suspect the NTSB and Amtrak are in gridlock over how to present the truth to the public with the least amount of public relations and image damage.
Perhaps you should read the Amtrak Chester accident report: https://ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAR1702.pdf
Quote from 4.2 Probable Cause: Allowing these unsafe actions to occur were the inconsistent views of safety and safety management throughout Amtrak’s corporate structure that led to the company’s deficient system safety program that resulted in part from Amtrak’s inadequate collaboration with its unions and from its failure to prioritize safety.
I think there is no need for conspiracy theories.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid Considering the potential for a huge black eye, I suspect the NTSB and Amtrak are in gridlock over how to present the truth to the public with the least amount of public relations and image damage. Perhaps you should read the Amtrak Chester accident report: https://ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAR1702.pdf Quote from 4.2 Probable Cause: Allowing these unsafe actions to occur were the inconsistent views of safety and safety management throughout Amtrak’s corporate structure that led to the company’s deficient system safety program that resulted in part from Amtrak’s inadequate collaboration with its unions and from its failure to prioritize safety. I think there is no need for conspiracy theories.Regards, Volker
I am sure history will tell us the root cause of the Washington wreck. I see no need for there to be a conspiracy let alone a theory that details one. Certainly there is no evidence of anything conspiratorial. Not all hypothetical explanation is a conspiracy theory. Some consider it inappropriate to use the phrase "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to dismissively discredit hypothetical speculation in any form. However, that usage seems to be the most common these days.
I don't call hypothetical explanations of the accident conspiracy theories but the attempt to explain the delays with wheeling and dealing between NTSB and Amtrak how to present the results.
I think the Chester report shows that the NTSB is not going easy on Amtrak.
Lets wait for the report and judge then.Regards, Volker
EuclidI am sure history will tell us the root cause of the Washington wreck. I see no need for there to be a conspiracy let alone a theory that details one.
Yet you think NTSB and Amtrak are trying to hide/delay/confuse, etc. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
Zug,
zugmannIf it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
Well, one user's posts here does make me quack up.
Norm
Changed my mind. Well, a teeny part of it, anyway.
zugmann Euclid I am sure history will tell us the root cause of the Washington wreck. I see no need for there to be a conspiracy let alone a theory that details one. Yet you think NTSB and Amtrak are trying to hide/delay/confuse, etc. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
Euclid I am sure history will tell us the root cause of the Washington wreck. I see no need for there to be a conspiracy let alone a theory that details one.
I think the marketing optics that I mentioned is their nature, but I would not call it a conspiracy. Crocodiles don’t conspire to bite others. I don’t know about the ducks, but to use the phrase "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to dismissively discredit hypothetical speculation in any form has become a forum fad.
The engineer appears not to have been interviewed yet. It is legitimate to suspect this may be from advice of an attorney.
We have been informed of the train speed, application of brakes (both times and mode). So we know pretty much what happened. NTSB will be investigating why it happened, a much more complicated thing. It probably is a good thing that Amtrak has just hired someone with long experience in aviation safety.
Hopefully he did not suffer amnesia like Bostian.
rdamon Hopefully he did not suffer amnesia like Bostian.
It appears that the other person accompanying him has NOT suffered amnesia. So, while he may not know what the engineer was thinking, he would know what the engineer was doing.
And the cameras also know what both of them were doing.
While having information from the engineer is very nice, I think it is far from necessary.
EuclidI think the marketing optics that I mentioned is their nature, but I would not call it a conspiracy. Crocodiles don’t conspire to bite others. I don’t know about the ducks, but to use the phrase "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to dismissively discredit hypothetical speculation in any form has become a forum fad.
Yeah, I'll give you that. It's not a forum staple like your meaningless word play.
This is a recent example of crew resource management (CRM) failure, and, like the 2015 accident near Philadelphia, is another example of how humans can and do fail, and, they fail without any fault of their own because the fault is due to the human condition.
CRM Failure is why crews continued to consistently and repeatedly fly perfectly good airplanes into the ground since the 1950s.
My wish is that Amtrak is aware of the limitations of humans and would consider to apply at least some of the CRM science that has been developed over the past decades in the airline industry, who have learned from a great many CRM failures to realize that Crew Resource Management is a real science that needs to be studied and taught.
7j43kWhile having information from the engineer is very nice, I think it is far from necessary.
It may not be possible, but I would not conclude that it is anything less than essential. The inquiry naturally wants to know why the engineer did what he did. It is really the final piece of the puzzle. I can’t imagine dismissing its importance. An interview with the engineer could reveal lots of things that could color the final conclusion, if not turn it in an entirely different direction.
There was some reference to an object placed on the track. Not finding such an object might rule out that reference, but we might want to talk to the source of that reference. Did somebody actually see an object on the track? If not where did the idea come from?
It would be helpful to know at what point the engineer realized he was traveling too fast for the curve restriction and why he never made an emergency application. Even if he missed the two-mile warning sign, or had forgotten about it, he still had ample time to dump the air before derailing. There is probably several hundred feet between the curve 30 mph sign and the point of derailment. I am also sure the curve would have been visible before reaching that 30 mph sign. Did he see the curve before seeing the sign and not realize the curve required 30 mph? Had the engineer ever learned about the 30 mph speed restriction for the curve? If he says he was never informed of it and never knew of it, that would raise more questions.
Those would be questions such as whether he was ever informed of the curve speed limit, whether he had seen the speed limit signs in previous training trips, whether head ever read about or been told of the speed restriction during training trips that may have been run at much slower speeds, and did not require slowing to reach the curve speed limit.
Does the engineer believe he missed the curve warnings because he was distracted? If so, what distracted him? Does he remember the details of his thinking and experience leading into the derailment?
Was he having conversations with the other person in the cab? What was the nature of those conversations?
When the engineer made the application of the independent brake six seconds prior to the derailment, was he then aware of the need to slow to 30 mph for the curve, and did he make the independent application for the purpose of slowing to 30 mph for the curve? Or did he make the independent application only for the purpose of responding to the overspeed warning requiring a need to slow to 79 mph?
Did the engineer have an intention to derail the train for some reason? If so, what was the reason?
My take on this whole disaster is that the engineer was 'lost'. The pending question is why was he lost?
You know what? Nevermind. Just isn't worth it anymore.
zugmann You know what? Nevermind. Just isn't worth it anymore.
Care to expand on that?
No.
Euclid 7j43k While having information from the engineer is very nice, I think it is far from necessary. It may not be possible, but I would not conclude that it is anything less than essential.
7j43k While having information from the engineer is very nice, I think it is far from necessary.
It may not be possible, but I would not conclude that it is anything less than essential.
If it's essential, as you sort of state with a double negative, and he won't talk, then there would consequently be no reason to continue the investigation. Because it's essential.
In fact, if he had simply announced that he wasn't going to talk right after he got out of the cab, it would have saved a whole lot of money flying the NTSB crew in. Because they never would have gotten the essential part: his information. So, why continue wasting taxpayers' money?
I side with Zug. One poster here seems to have all the answers even though he doesn't undestand the questiions.
It is time for all of us to back off and let the KIA have his day until he exposes himself as a fraud.
What goes around comes around and given time it will expose that poster for the fraud he is.
Like others I suspect he will soon emerge uncder a new screen name.
7j43k Euclid 7j43k While having information from the engineer is very nice, I think it is far from necessary. It may not be possible, but I would not conclude that it is anything less than essential. If it's essential, as you sort of state with a double negative, and he won't talk, then there would consequently be no reason to continue the investigation. Because it's essential. In fact, if he had simply announced that he wasn't going to talk right after he got out of the cab, it would have saved a whole lot of money flying the NTSB crew in. Because they never would have gotten the essential part: his information. So, why continue wasting taxpayers' money? Ed
Yes I am saying that it is essential, and it is not a double negative. You say that interviewing the engineer is far from necessary.
To me, essential means completely necessary. You say it is far from necessary, which means quite less than necessary. I say it is nothing short of essential.
Whether it is possible or not is another issue. It may not be possible. The engineer might develop amnesia or refuse to talk. But you said talking to the engieer would be far from necessary. I say it is essential.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.