Regarding this NTSB report on the Iowa rear end collision last year on the BNSF:
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2012/red_oak_ia/index.html
Quote from the link:
“15. Had an inward-facing video and audio recorder been installed in the cab of the locomotive of the striking train, additional valuable information about the train crew’s actions before the collision would have been available.”
The NTSB does not clarify exactly what they believe would be the value of the “additional valuable information.” But, it sounds like the point they are making is that the “additional valuable information” would have been valuable in investigating the cause of the collision.
However, it seems to me that the greatest value in observing the crew by camera would have been first, in learning that they were asleep, and then second, acting on that information by waking them up. In other words, the value would have been in preventing the collision rather than in investigating it.
In any case, the NTSB had no problem in learning that both crewmembers were asleep even though they were not observed to be sleeping.
An important point to consider is that if a camera is used to monitor crew wakefulness, the camera has to be watched by another person full time in real time. Perhaps just the presence of inward-facing cameras on locomotives would intimidate the crew into being more diligent in their behavior, and therefore they would work harder to stay awake. That way, the camera could do its job without even needing to be monitored. But the crew would not know whether the camera was being monitored or not, so they would have to act as though it were being monitored.
The camera would not be monitored as much as "reviewed". An inspector can play it back at 30x speed and see what was happening in the cab. You would also be watching for texting, reading, or watching TV. (Yes, *that* was involved in a wreck on the LIRR)
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
Bucyrus MONITORING CREW ALERTNESS Regarding this NTSB report on the Iowa rear end collision last year on the BNSF: http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2012/red_oak_ia/index.html Quote from the link: “15. Had an inward-facing video and audio recorder been installed in the cab of the locomotive of the striking train, additional valuable information about the train crew’s actions before the collision would have been available.”
There is soon to be technology that may address this issue. There is evidently an option on Lexus cars to intervene in some similar case.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_Monitoring_System ->
Specifically, the Driver Monitoring System includes a CCD camera placed on the steering column which is capable of eye tracking,[2] via infrared LED detectors.[3] If the driver is not paying attention to the road ahead and a dangerous situation is detected <etc>
What is the relevance to railroading?
John
Just a brief comment on the Point #15 mentioned above.
About 2000 I was in the Atlanta Area and had a number of contacts in the Railroad and DOT Enforcement areas.
The in-cab camera installations were just being widely placed at that time. One of the options being talked up at that time was the concurrent installation of a voice recording device to record the conversations of the Crews along with the tape run in the camera.
There was also conversations about both inward and outward facing cameras, as well. To add there there was vehement arguments AGAINST the recording of the engine crew on an inward facing camera; would be putting it mildly. Not only the employees, but the Union Reps were almost up in arms about those aspects. Needless to say cooler heads prevailed and the outward facing option Without recording was the final choice of the Railroads.
It seemed to be the regulatory types on the Federal side that had come up with the alternative of putting the crew in the cab on camera and on tape. Just another effort to make THEIR jobs easier....IMHO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_Monitoring_System
Was what jpwoodruff was posting about.
It looks like an interesting idea...I have one in my Lexus now...but I am wondering how that actually might work..the alarm, for one thing would need be a lot louder...
Myself, I still think the issue is someone circumventing the training program though by bringing people on to the rail before they are really ready.....
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
blownout cylinderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_Monitoring_System Was what jpwoodruff was posting about.
That is exactly the type of system that I believe will be the ultimate solution to the shift work sleep disorder problem for railroaders.
However, at this point, it is clear that the NTSB and FRA want to solve the problem by a different method. They want to test all employees doing safety-sensitive work to see if they have sleep disorders. The employees who have the sleep disorders will be removed from service and treated. If they can be successfully treated, they will be returned to service.
The only problem with this approach is that testing and treatment are both uncertain in outcome. I believe that this is indicated by this item from the NTSB in their report on the Iowa crash:
“7. Because biomathematical models of fatigue are relatively new to the railroad industry, the use of this technology should be evaluated for its effectiveness within the context of the railroads’ fatigue management plans through independent scientific peer review.”
Does that sound like a road that leads to a clear, reliable, and accurate outcome?
So, while it is logical to discover sleep disorders as a medical condition, and then screen for them and treat them, I don’t think it will lead to consistently objective conclusions. It will lead to some, but some sleep disorders will still go undetected and cause accidents. Some accidents will happen with sleep disorders as being suspected, but not proven. And I also suspect that sleep disorders will be diagnosed when they do not actually exist. Maybe some day this screening and treatment will be as airtight as drug testing or vision testing, but I doubt that it will be any time soon.
Therefore, as the intent to solve the sleep disorder problem becomes set in place, I believe this diagnose-and-treat approach will fall by the wayside as being too unreliable and way too costly. A different approach to solving the problem will be needed.
As I mentioned in the locked thread on this topic, I believe that preferred solution will be a personal monitoring system as others have mentioned above. It will fight the battle right where the employee falls asleep on the job. It would be like a personal dead man control. It would not prevent people from falling asleep, but it will prevent them from getting hurt or killed if they do fall asleep.
This is the obvious solution to the problem. The technology is here now. It will be a small electronic unit that is carried around by the employee. It may seem a little far-fetched, but it not nearly as far-fetched as testing and treating sleep disorders in the context of shifting scientific peer review. That is the far-fetched approach.
In the circus, they use a net to protect people who might fall from the high wire. They don’t send their high wire people off to be evaluated medically and psychologically to see how likely they are to lose their balance. This personal sleep monitor would be the net, so to speak. If an engineer running a train falls asleep, the monitor stops the train.
The technology is simple...
You put GPS on the train, the computer knows where the train is and what the signal is, and if the engineer is not in compliance with the signal the train stops.
apparently, the way someone responded on the locked tread in response to my tripper posting, it seems that the Last Signal before some obstruction could be "Restricting" and not "STOP". Well, if it is at a switch, if the train is not in an attitude to make the stop then it stops. If it is a block signal, the GPS already knows where the leader is, and enforces speed and brakes to keep the train safe.
It any parameter is out of spec, there is an alarm and a brake application.
It is IMPOSSIBLE under the way a railroad operates to prevent fatigue, ergo: you must presume that your crews may be fatigued and we have the ability to build equipment to cope with this.
Why must you assume any such thing?
How many thousands of train starts happened today, and how many accidents happened because of fatigue?
The percent is so small it is an acceptable risk.
Most of us show up for work rested and ready, it is the very few that are really fatigued to the point they cannot stay awake.
Your statement is like saying one person in the stands at a football game is drunk, so everybody at the game must also be drunk, after all, drinking beer in the stands is normal for football games, right?
You judge all of us by the actions of a few, and sadly those few often pay for their mistakes with their lives, but for the most part, we as a group work safer than we ever have before, and move more stuff farther than ever before in railroading's history.
You guys are making a single incident into a blown up condemnation of all of us.
23 17 46 11
Which is precisely why I believe this whole topic is for conspiracy theorists.
Just because the technology is there...and, yes, it is in my car as well...does not, nor should it, mean that it should be incorporated into everything. There are far more motor vehicle accidents than train related fiascos...
Others accused me of being micromanaging...sheeesh...
The fact is, no matter how many rules are associated with a inward facing camera, it will be abused.
We have "crossing" cameras mounted on the roof of our locomotives, they are remotely controlled and record either 24/7 or can be selectively turned on and off by management.
These cameras face both forward and rearward, and the view from them afford an excellent shot into the trailing or leading cab of an MU, and management has used footage from these to discipline some of our crews for simply things, like smoking in the cab, getting on or off moving equipment, or lining a switch "incorrectly" so you can argue the point all you want, they will spy on the crews at their leisure.
Like any power, once someone has it, they cannot resist using it.
I am entitled to a degree of privacy at my work place, just as you are, and having a camera in my face violates that.
You wouldn't want to be "on camera" the entire day at your job, no matter what you may say, neither do I.
Oh, and PTC is not really about crew safety, its about cramming as many trains onto a track as close behind each other as you can, making as much profit in a 24 hour day as possible, and one step closer to remote run mainline trains, which the carriers would love to have.
3. Had the two crewmembers on the striking coal train completed the BNSF's fatigue training program, they would have had the opportunity to learn that they were at risk for sleep disorders, particularly obstructive sleep apnea, and the computer-based training program would have displayed a message advising them to consult with a physician.
And herein lies the crux of the whole thing.
Obviously someone might have circumvented the training program or dropped out of the voluntary training portion...
I am not sure, and will ask to clarify, but I think the "Fatigue Training" on BNSF is voluntary, not mandatory.
And again, anyone who wants to keep their job will quickly figure out the "right" answers to offer.
edblysard I am not sure, and will ask to clarify, but I think the "Fatigue Training" on BNSF is voluntary, not mandatory. And again, anyone who wants to keep their job will quickly figure out the "right" answers to offer.
Fixed my post to reflect yours....
edblysard Like any power, once someone has it, they cannot resist using it. I am entitled to a degree of privacy at my work place, just as you are, and having a camera in my face violates that. You wouldn't want to be "on camera" the entire day at your job, no matter what you may say, neither do I.
Just for the record though not taking sides, I *am* on camera, most of the day in my job. And I just work with computers and networks all day. You get used to it. If you get to feeling particularly froggy, just look at the camera, square in the eye and start picking your nose. I think its suitable revenge. If they want to stare while you work, make 'em pay for it. The rest of the time, who cares? It belongs to them, it costs a lot of money and a lot of people depend on it, and bad things happen when it goes wrong.
I think there could be a reasonable case made that railroads, airlines, trucking-- shipping in general, whether by truck, train or air-- and maybe even just driving in your car *ARE* activities of such importance that maybe we *should* be being monitored while we do them. However-- and this I think is a crucial point. In the event of an accident or incident-- the MONITORS also have to bear an element of the blame. After all, that's supposedly why they're monitoring, right? So if there is an accident or wreck-- it can't all be laid at the feet of the engineers, drivers or pilots.
But then, I'm also for monitoring the activities of members of congress, members of state and local governments, politicians in-general, the police, all Federal agencies-- to make THEM accountable for their work as well. To make sure they aren't busy living it up on the taxpayer's dime and are making the right calls with respect to governance. Too much of our government takes place behind closed doors for no good reason.
And in the same vein and token, railroad-- trucking, airline, etc.-- *management* should also be under the same measure of surveillance, After all, they are arguably in charge of large chunks of the transportation infrastructure and their decisions are just as vital and relevant as any made in the cab-- wouldn't you say?
In response to some previous comments by others:
There are two different purposes for cameras on the crew:
1) Rules enforcement.
2) Personal protection from sleep disorders.
The latter is conceptually the same as the high visibility vest or steel toe boots.
I don’t think than anyone is condemning all railroaders in this sleep disorder issue. And my focus on the problem is not so much in reaction to what happened in the Iowa collision. My reaction is mainly to the NTSB’s pronouncement in using the accident to highlight the fatigue management issues and what they want to see done about them. And in doing a little research into rail worker sleep disorders, I find a boatload of information and concern over the problem. So bringing up the topic is hardly what I would call conspiratorial.
It is the NTSB that says inward facing cameras would have been advantageous, even though they don’t make it clear why. I only see the inward facing cameras as loosely associated with the monitoring system I mentioned above. Indeed, the monitoring system does utilize a camera to watch eye movement. But the point is to protect people, not to prosecute them. In any case, I would not want inward facing cameras if I had a choice in the matter. I would feel the same way about privacy. But then, I cannot convince myself that I actually have a right to privacy while working for somebody on their premises.
Realtime Monitoring and Feedback of Individual Alertness Levels
Current locomotive alerters attempt to determine the alertness of the engineer by sensing inactivity of locomotive control functions. They assume that if locomotive controls are not being manipulated, the engineer may be asleep. But there are flaws in this concept. In effect, alerters send a lot of false alarms as they warn engineers who are fully awake. Engineers become accustomed to resetting the alerter in anticipation of alarms, and because the alerter is sending an excess of alarms, the resetting becomes routine. And it becomes so routine that engineers are able to reset the alerter in their sleep if they are drowsy. So the alerter defeats its purpose by too many false alarms.
So experts are working on a new generation of smarter alerters. However, the NTSB and FRA are not just concerned about the alertness of engineers running locomotives. They also want to monitor wakefulness of conductors, switchmen, signal workers, and anybody who is working in safety sensitive roles. Monitoring alertness of these non-engineer employees requires an alerter that is not only smart, but also one that is not a part of a locomotive.
In the locked thread on sleep disorders, I speculated that the problem will be solved by a personal device that will monitor rail worker alertness levels, and will take action if alertness falls below the safety threshold. This device would be carried by individual workers engaged in safety-sensitive tasks. Ideally, the device would be very small and unobtrusive.
When I suggested this approach in the locked thread, I predicted that we would hear of it being under development within one year. Forum member Zugmann was incredulous that I would predict such a cure-all device is so short of a time. He referred to it as a “magic bullet” and also a “silver bullet.” I kind of like silver bullet, so I will refer to it as that.
But I was wrong about my one-year prediction of the announcement of the development of the silver bullet. Its development has already begun. This is the net for the high wire act, so to speak. In other words, it would take action when a person shows signs of falling asleep, and it would eliminate the need to screen out people who are expected to have trouble staying awake on the job.
Much of this development is focused on drowsiness detection systems for motor vehicles. Like locomotive alerters, these vehicle sleep monitors are vehicle-based, so the monitoring equipment is part of the vehicle rather than being an apparatus carried by the driver. These vehicle-based monitors are paralleling the new development of smarter locomotive alters for enginemen. The Silver Bullet will not be vehicle-based. Instead, it will be a hand-carried, personal device that goes with the person being monitored.
Not only do these new smart personal alerters need to be lightweight and portable, but they also need to be able to directly monitor key physiological characteristics that indicate wakefulness and the onset of drowsiness. Although development is under way, the silver bullet is not yet ready for application. I suspect the hardest part will be the human interface. How do you connect a human being to a machine that will detect drowsiness? It is one thing to accomplish that with engineers and other seated employees as well as drivers of cars and trucks. But it is quite another thing to monitor drowsiness in employees engaged in more physically active work such as switchmen and signalmen.
source?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann source?
A couple of sites I fell over just this morning...
http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/alertness.html
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/CVonline/LOCAL_COPIES/AV0910/macmillan.pdf
http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/edp/2012/iPhoneDriverAlertnessMonitoringSystem.html
This kind of thing is already in some motor vehicles...my own car has an earlier version of it ...
I should have clarified. I was wondering what the source is on the FRA/NTSB/DOT/ABCwhomever looking at personal alertness devices, the so called "silver bullet".
There are lots of references to personal fatigue monitoring systems currently under development. They want to move from current locomotive alerters to real-time monitoring and feedback of individual alertness levels. And they want to extend this to all crewmembers. I don’t find a clear definition of what they mean by crewmembers. But they do want sleep disorder fatigue prevention for everyone working in safety sensitive jobs. So by default, that requires the silver bullet, assuming that real-time monitoring is applied to the problem. Based on that, I conclude that the silver bullet has been defined as an objective. When and if it is perfected is an open question.
If the silver bullet is not perfected and introduced, they might amend their objective to limit real-time monitoring of individual alertness to employees who work in a seated position, and then rely on screening and treatment for employees who work in active positions, but that requires perfecting the screening / treatment process.
Generally, I conclude that the nightshift sleep disorder problem has been defined in a way that makes it unsolvable with current technology.
So, the answer is, you don't have a source?
I'm having trouble differentiating what is actual FRA/NTSB/DOT/ABC actions, and what is happening in Bucyrus-land.
No that is not the answer. Maybe you are reading more into what I predicted about the silver bullet than what I actually did. All I predicted is that the concept would in introduced as an objective, and I believe it has. But it does require connecting dots. I can give you some sources for the dots, but you might not believe they connect.
From your post:
"So experts are working on a new generation of smarter alerters. However, the NTSB and FRA are not just concerned about the alertness of engineers running locomotives. They also want to monitor wakefulness of conductors, switchmen, signal workers, and anybody who is working in safety sensitive roles. Monitoring alertness of these non-engineer employees requires an alerter that is not only smart, but also one that is not a part of a locomotive. "
I'm sure I'm not the only one cornfused.
Here is a link to locomotive alerters that describes the problem of alerters warning when no fatigue issue is present. It describes how excessive unnecessary warnings are lead to reset routine, and the routine becomes so automatic that engineers can sleep while performing it. It talks about a new generation of smarter alerters being developed:
http://mvl.mit.edu/MVLpubs/OmanLiu_AlerterTechnologyAssessment_2007.pdf
This report has a lot of interesting information on alerters and the issues with them. Particularly interesting is the description of the Macdona, TX collision starting on page 29.
Here is a link to several high tech objectives for railroads:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/887.shtml
Note the title and first sentence:
“A Vision For The Future: Intelligent Railroad Systems. A theme cutting across virtually all the RD&D program elements is the use of sensors, computers, and digital communications to collect, process, and disseminate information to improve safety, security, and operational effectiveness of railroads.”
Note the paragraph in the 7th section of the page about real-time monitoring and feedback of individual alertness levels. When I read this whole page, I find the implications staggering. It is as if the sky is the limit for new control systems for everything that can be imagined.
Quoted from the link:
"Crew alertness monitoring systems promote on-duty alertness and vigilance of train crews through the use of non-invasive technology applications. Mental lapses and other human errors that result in unsafe safe job performance are often due to reduced alertness or vigilance. Real time monitoring and feedback of individual alertness levels will allow crew members to modify their behavior and reduce their risk of unsafe performance. Risk-appropriate countermeasures, such as napping, social interaction, and postural changes, will be suggested by the system, and in the case of high risk (e.g., the crewmember falls asleep), the system can both notify the control center over the digital data link communications network and stop the train. Real time monitoring and feedback of population alertness levels will allow managers to dynamically adjust work schedules and help ensure the most well-rested individuals, or teams, are available for high-risk assignments. Models of fatigue and alertness in the system will accurately predict future risk of non-alertness in individuals and groups of individuals so that countermeasures can be applied to maintain optimal performance either before or throughout a work shift."
Perhaps an easier answer would be to ensure that crews work on a 24 hour cycle, like most of the rest of the world.
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...
tree68 Perhaps an easier answer would be to ensure that crews work on a 24 hour cycle, like most of the rest of the world.
zardoz tree68: Perhaps an easier answer would be to ensure that crews work on a 24 hour cycle, like most of the rest of the world. Even easier would be to just replace the people with droids.
tree68: Perhaps an easier answer would be to ensure that crews work on a 24 hour cycle, like most of the rest of the world.
SHHHHHHH! Don't give 'em any ideas!
tree68 zardoz: tree68: Perhaps an easier answer would be to ensure that crews work on a 24 hour cycle, like most of the rest of the world. Even easier would be to just replace the people with droids. SHHHHHHH! Don't give 'em any ideas!
zardoz: tree68: Perhaps an easier answer would be to ensure that crews work on a 24 hour cycle, like most of the rest of the world. Even easier would be to just replace the people with droids.
I'm sure it's something they've already thought of.
Georgia Railroader tree68: zardoz: tree68: Perhaps an easier answer would be to ensure that crews work on a 24 hour cycle, like most of the rest of the world. Even easier would be to just replace the people with droids. SHHHHHHH! Don't give 'em any ideas! I'm sure it's something they've already thought of.
tree68: zardoz: tree68: Perhaps an easier answer would be to ensure that crews work on a 24 hour cycle, like most of the rest of the world. Even easier would be to just replace the people with droids. SHHHHHHH! Don't give 'em any ideas!
From upcoming movie Prometheus we have David6...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Es_JimQFXw
Uh oh, I bet HAL is seriously po'ed now....
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.