John WRI looked at every report posted and every current investigation posted on the link you provided. I found no reference to anything happening in Iowa on the lists.
Funny, it worked for me. I just tested it again and it seems to be downloading correctly. Is anyone else having trouble with it?
John WR Bob, I looked at every report posted and every current investigation posted on the link you provided. I found no reference to anything happening in Iowa on the lists. John
Bob,
I looked at every report posted and every current investigation posted on the link you provided. I found no reference to anything happening in Iowa on the lists.
John
John, here ya go...
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2012/RAR1202.pdf
Odd how the NTSB states the engineer on the coal train had, for the previous 3 days, been awake during the day and slept at night, then went to work at night on the day of the accident, thus he was “possibly” fatigued due to the altered scheduled….yet the following paragraph on the conductor states she had worked nights the previous 4 days, was again working a night shift, yet somehow, because she had been working nights, her alertness level was low?
Also note that 1 minute 53 seconds before the collision, there was a throttle adjustment, so the engineer was awake then.
Two minutes before the collision, the alerter sounded, and was reset by depressing the reset button, so he was awake at least two minutes before the collision, awake enough to both reset the alerter and reduce the throttle.
23 17 46 11
John WRI'm not familiar with the report you refer to so I will not comment on it.
Read it here, as Bucyrus posted it on Monday. Much of the foregoing discussion makes less sense if you have not read this in detail. It should not take you long.
I find it interesting that the SmartCap technology was already being marketed (in mining applications in Australia) well before the original post a year ago that inspired this thread. So an advanced form of solution to the "Magic Bullet" question was already developed, tested, and commercialized (for mining vehicles).
It would be interesting to see exactly how the Fatigue Processors are programmed, and what algorithm and weighting are used to produce the five levels. It's a little amusing to see that EdanSafe is proud of the claim that they can detect within 5 seconds when somebody takes their hat off...
I do note that the downloadable information file section has had reports on most of the connectivity 'pending' since February 2012. If anyone knows where these .pdfs actually can be downloaded, let me know. They also indicated they were developing a hardhat version of this cap. Be fun to see how advanced any marketing attempts in the United States might be...
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2013/R-13-005-008.pdf
I like the hand held detection device…which would require the carriers to do a form of body and personal baggage (grip) search.
Just what I want, a pat down before I get on my train.
“Hey, who has the box of latex exam gloves?”
BucyrusHowever, the NTSB has stated that the crewmembers lack of response leading to the Iowa crash was caused by those crewmembers having sleep disorders. This is pure speculation stated as fact.
Bucyrus,
I'm not familiar with the report you refer to so I will not comment on it. John
John WR All human beings share a need for economic security. Every last one of us. But to suggest that employees of the National Safety Transportation Board fabricate results when those results do not in fact exist strikes me as a bit of a stretch.
All human beings share a need for economic security. Every last one of us. But to suggest that employees of the National Safety Transportation Board fabricate results when those results do not in fact exist strikes me as a bit of a stretch.
I understand the fact that bureaucracies are always looking for new reasons to justify their existence. And that does not necessarily mean that they are fabricating investigative factors that do not exist.
However, the NTSB has stated that the crewmembers lack of response leading to the Iowa crash was caused by those crewmembers having sleep disorders. This is pure speculation stated as fact. And it is in the context of what is held up to be an official investigation based on fact and not on speculation.
And it is very significant speculation because if the crewmember were asleep due to sleep disorders, the crash was not their fault. If the crewmembers were asleep due to a non-sleep-disorder cause, then the crash was their fault.
You only have so much enforcement ability available. Using those resources to catch people whose impairment is insignificant to safety leaves fewer resources to catch people impaired to the point where it does compromise safety.
Lowering the threshold below the point where it begins to impact safety is a lot like red light cameras. They make lots of revenue for people who never have enough, but do little to make driving safer.
Bucyrus What about making the limit .01%? Would that be even better than .05%?
What about making the limit .01%? Would that be even better than .05%?
Apparently the US has one of the highest DWI thresholds in the world (other than those for whom alcohol is completely taboo), with the great majority of countries using the .05% threshold. On that point, reducing our level to .05% simply brings us in line with our counterparts.
In one respect, what this means is that news reports for the seriously drunk will indicate that their BAC was five times the legal limit, instead of three. I doubt it will have an effect on their level of consumption, though.
It does mean that someone with a drink or two faces the very real possibility of a DWI charge, instead of an impaired charge.
Just what effect a given amount of alcohol has on an individual is subject to debate. Those in favor of lowering the limit seem to have evidence that even a little alcohol is a significant contributor to the number of accidents that occur.
It's easy to argue that such measures will save lives and property - and they probably will. But there may be other costs. A restaurant, for instance, may decide that offering you the opportunity to have an adult beverage with your meal is no longer worth the risk (part of this effort involves knowing who got you drunk).
And in the end, the fellow who blows a .25% won't cut down his drinking at all.
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...
John WR CSSHEGEWISCH I suppose there are going to be more than a few cynical gripes and wisecracks about the latest suggestion from the NTSB that the BAC threshold for legally impaired driving be reduced to 0.05%. It is actually an excellent idea and I hope that it gets taken up by the legislatures of the several states. I agree completely, Mac. John
CSSHEGEWISCH I suppose there are going to be more than a few cynical gripes and wisecracks about the latest suggestion from the NTSB that the BAC threshold for legally impaired driving be reduced to 0.05%. It is actually an excellent idea and I hope that it gets taken up by the legislatures of the several states.
I agree completely, Mac.
Bucyrus A person that spends enough time in bed, but is disrupted to prevent adequate sleep during their rest period will likewise be tired on during their following shift.
A person that spends enough time in bed, but is disrupted to prevent adequate sleep during their rest period will likewise be tired on during their following shift.
This was one of schlimm's points about the practical effect of SA on railroading. Not the apnea, but the effect it has on effective sleep, is the problem. Treating the SA so as to give undisturbed sleep may solve the problem without recourse to fancy caps -- simply because there won't be increased risk of sleep disorder RESULTING from upset due to SA.
Therefore, the industry does have an interest in monitoring employees during their rest period to make sure they get enough sleep.
Not quite, as I understand it. It is the quality of the sleep, not just the 'amount', that is significant. Observation of sleep inertia alone will tell you that.
One problem here is that the Feds concentrate, in time-honored Progressive Era fashion, on one-size-fits-all (aka Procrustean!) regulation: a certain number of hours on, followed by required hours off, but with utterly no regard for the actual circadian rhythm or sensitivity to biorhythm upset of the people concerned.
But, as I understand it, sufficient sleep during the rest period will not preclude the contracting of SWSD. SWSD is caused by the disruption of circadian rhythms, and not by a lack of sleep.
One of the great red flags raised in the BNSF report was that the sleep/wake cycle on the engineer's days off "probably" did not match the sleep-wake cycle on the reported duty days. If someone is sensitive to SWSD, this is one of the worst of all possible behaviors -- whether or not the engineer had quality-of-life issues or wanted quality time with his family on his days off, the FACT remains that changing diurnal schedule in rapid fashion is about the worst thing someone susceptible to SWSD should do. I suspect this was in the BNSF 'fatigue training' but the engineer did not take that training, and apparently there is no requirement that any crew take it. In this particular respect, I would think it ESSENTIAL that every crew member at least understand the risk involved in shifting their sleep periods like that -- even if it would require severe effective sacrifice to family life or use of 'private time'.
However, a lack of sleep can be one of the symptoms of SWSD, so I suppose monitoring employee rest performance would help lead to a diagnosis of SWSD.
Only circumstantially. You'd need to know to look at the cycle shift, not 'rest performance' -- in SWSD as I understand it, the "performance" degradation is the result, not something that can be observed in process.
It appeared to me, reading between the lines, that BNSF was at least making an attempt to call crews at the same time on sequential days. If a railroad is interested in a study of SWSD, we therefore have two distinct subtypes:
1) people who are sensitive to any sleep cycle different from a 'typical' diurnal one: up in the morning, active all day, sleep during dark nighttime;
2) people who are sensitive to CHANGING their sleep-wake cycle: this will be familiar as 'jetlag'. Note that in most cases the effects of the lag dissipate over a few hours or days as the 'internal' circadian rhythm resets to the new environmental cues.
This implies, to me, that you treat people who just can't get used to working nights from people who don't do well when switched back and forth between day to night without effective transition. Reasonable accommodation will be quite different for these two hypothetical groups.
I guess employees will have to wear their SmartCap while sleeping in bed.
Wouldn't make a bit of difference to what the railroads can permissibly monitor *as part of job requirement* Railroads would have to make a business case that detecting periods of non-quality sleep, or determining when sleep-wake cycles are shifting for some reason, are important to job performance, and are non-intrusive for purposes other than those. I think you can see where current events may be going: if you have a diagnosis of a 'preventable condition' that affects safety, the railroad may be justified in screening for it as a condition of employment, or engaging in forms of reasonable accommodation ... specifically including the accepting of some form of performance or sleep monitoring while on duty at 'risky' times.
A 100% monitoring of employees’ brain waves 24 hours a day would certainly diagnose any type of sleep disorder that could put them in danger while on the job.
Well, of course it would -- but how many railroaders would put up with that? Even if unobtrusively stuck inside a fashionable hat? I can see a program that provides additional incentive for people at risk to wear their hats on duty -- but I can see this easily devolving into a program that provides negative incentives for people who inherently behave 'unsafely' by showing up to work 'tired.' (If you think that is ridiculous, consider that New Jersey currently has a law on the books forbidding people to drive tired, which I believe has that time-honored old enforcement means that has been so fruitful for the anti-drunk-driving lobby.
What do the real railroaders on here think about their sleep patterns in relation to how they are called?
A person that does not spend enough time in bed during their rest period will be tired while on duty during their following shift.
BaltACDAll decisions are suspect. Research who is making the decision and what their overriding agenda is when evaluating the decision and the data used to support the decision.
You give me a pretty daunting assignment, Balt. We are a big society. There are many levels and agencies of government making decisions that effect all of us. And there are many private agencies and companies that do so too. I doubt any of us can even begin to research all those decisions.
For all of that I completely agree with your basic principle that we should suspect everything and not accept it at face value. And we should read critically and question conclusions.
edblysardn essence, they have made a mole hill into a mountain, not by miss representing the facts, but by simply omitting the remaining facts.
Thank you for your clarification, Ed. Were I to encounter a situation where some facts are overemphasized and contrary facts are omitted "fabricate" is not the work I would use to describe the situation. I would describe it as "inaccurate." However you are not me and none of us are writing a PhD thesis here. You are certainly free to use your own words.
You are as familiar with the United States Government as I am and I would not presume to instruct you about the nature of our government. I agree with you that few people if any outside the rail fan community are aware of train accidents and I myself am unaware of the last head on collision by trains in the state of Texas.
Finally, your point that rail transportation is as safe as or safer than any other type is absolutely correct. And if the NSTB is to be true to its mission it should focus on the most dangerous type of transportation by far, over the road vehicles. This is true for sleep related issues and every other issue.
tree68Some researchers once proved, using accepted methods, that dimes cause cancer. Dimes were implanted into the abdominal cavities of research mice, and apparently enough cancer, or cancerous conditions, resulted that the researchers could make that claim.
If they had used nickels, the rate might have been even larger!
Of course, if you can't explain how the cancer develops, studies like this are crapshoots. (And I don't really mean dice in the analogy.) I look at the whole lamentable history of the cyclamate ban (and the saccharin non-ban) in this general framework. Delaney was dumb (and, tying more or less directly back into the topic here, passed in the wave of revulsion over Radithor) -- but what would you replace it with?
Meanwhile, the pedantic scientist in me screams "in no way does this PROVE dimes cause cancer'. In order to make that claim absolutely, ALL the mice would have to develop cancerous conditions, in ways that could be associated with the purported cause. Even if using eased statistics: what percentage of the mice actually developed the condition -- taking out any 'adjustment for seriousness of the outcome' or other weasel words often found in risk-benefit analysis.. Also be interesting to see the sample size, heteroscedasticity observations, etc.
Now, I do think there is a much larger problem with fatigue, and even with sleeping crews, than the accident rate indicates. I have heard sleep horror stories from back when Railroad Magazine published them anecdotally. But to use this as a stalking horse to push PTC is not entirely kosher.
What I'm expecting to come next, frankly, is formal 'due-diligence' testing of employees for susceptibility to SA, and perhaps (although I don't want to design a protocol for it) susceptibility to SWSD in different ways. Closely followed by requiring, as a condition of employment, that CPAP be used, and that use verified, for all employees complaining of SA as a potential factor. And that reasonable accommodation, perhaps involving limits to dayparts for call, be "imposed" on all employees who are, or claim to be, susceptible to SWSD. The next step ... and it isn't a large one; NTSB was hinting at it in the BNSF MOW collision report ... is to monitor the employee's day-off and rest activities to ensure normalization of sleep-wake periods to preclude SWSD.
[I have been carefully staying off the subject of 5'4" 221-lb conductors on medication, but sooner or later the industry and the Government are going to have to address that sort of thing where safety is concerned.]
The NTSB has the promotion of safety as its goal but has little to no enforcement power. I suppose there are going to be more than a few cynical gripes and wisecracks about the latest suggestion from the NTSB that the BAC threshold for legally impaired driving be reduced to 0.05%. It is actually an excellent idea and I hope that it gets taken up by the legislatures of the several states.
Some researchers once proved, using accepted methods, that dimes cause cancer. Dimes were implanted into the abdominal cavities of research mice, and apparently enough cancer, or cancerous conditions, resulted that the researchers could make that claim.
Since no one had an agenda to get rid of dimes the exercise ended as little more than a novelty, but research has proved...
I didn’t say they were fabricating results, as you pointed out, there are no “results” to look at.
What I said is they have fabricated a problem from intentionally skewed and inclusive, selectively picked data that supports their position.
They have fabricated an “industry wide problem”, including a pre-determined blanket diagnosis of sleep disorders, based on a relatively small number of accidents when viewed against the sheer number of trains ran from origin to destination with no incidents.
In essence, they have made a mole hill into a mountain, not by miss representing the facts, but by simply omitting the remaining facts.
They only provide the part of the equation that benefits their agenda.
Truth is, outside of the rail fan community, most folks, unless they live nearby the accident, are totally unaware of train accidents.
Without looking on Google or Bing or whatever search engine you use, can you tell me about the last head on accident that happen in Texas?
Odds are no, you can’t.
Now, you can toss out the old Mark Twain quote all you want, but sometime numbers do present a real, very clear picture.
I can almost guarantee you that over 99% of the trains that started moving today reached their final destination, or ran the 12 hours allowed by law, and had zero accidents of any kind between the time the crew got on board and the time they tied it down or handed it off.
Be aghast at me implying that a government agency could bend or even break the law, but also bear in mind that today, the DOJ was ordered by the US Attorney General to start a criminal investigation of a fellow government agency, the IRS, for illegally targeting and overly aggressively auditing several nonprofit conservative fund raising groups because of said groups political inclination.
Oops….
And call me cynical, but I would almost make a bet that the most that comes out of that is the head of the IRS (a political appointee) is forced to resign, a few division managers get canned, one or two mid-level supervisors take a hit for the team and serve a few month in jail, and the issue goes away.
Another rule of government survival is don’t bite the hand (or agency) that feeds you.
John WR BaltACDw data can be represented to prove any and every side of a argument. Figures lie and liars figure. Balt, If we do not use data as the basis for our decisions on what shall we base those decisions? John
BaltACDw data can be represented to prove any and every side of a argument. Figures lie and liars figure.
Balt,
If we do not use data as the basis for our decisions on what shall we base those decisions?
All decisions are suspect. Research who is making the decision and what their overriding agenda is when evaluating the decision and the data used to support the decision.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Raw data can be represented to prove any and every side of a argument. Figures lie and liars figure.
The NTSB, like most “government” agencies, has as its main goal self-sustaining job security.
I know, I worked for a state agency here for a long time, it’s all about the numbers you generate.
Any agency charged with “protecting the public” or some form of “public safety” that’s doesn’t find problems for it to fix loses it funding, and loses jobs.
It’s like going to the doctor, telling him or her you don’t feel well…he sure isn’t going to look you over, tell you nothing’s wrong and send you home to take a nap….naw, he will find something to blame for your issue, and prescribe a medicine, even if he can’t really find anything amiss, and simply prescribes Tylenol.
The NTSB will “find” a problem, even if it has to fabricate one to investigate in the first place.
Again, look at the numbers in real time…over the past 12 months, how many thousands of train starts have happened versus the number of accidents that can be attributed to fatigue or sleeping crews?
You driving to the corner grocery store is more dangerous to you and runs a greater risk of being involved in an accident than if you were standing on the front porch of any moving freight train from any carrier at any time anywhere in the US.
It will be interesting to see what the NTSB says about the Oklahoma head-on collision on the U.P. last year. Why did the engineer fail to stop for the signal? Why did the conductor not respond? Testing will show whether they were impaired by drugs or alcohol. If they were not, what is the explanation for failure to heed the signal?
Technically, there would be no way to answer that question with absolute certainty. Nevertheless, will the NTSB answer with absolute certainty that the crewmembers were asleep because that is a strong probability?
If they were asleep, there is no way to know the reason why. Nevertheless, will the NTSB unequivocally state that the crewmembers fell asleep because they were suffering from sleep disorders caused by working irregular hours?
edblysard Actually, the NTSB agenda is constant audio, visual and physical monitoring of crews. Look at their basic recommendations, inward facing cameras, with audio recording devices, both on constantly, along with a device that “alerts” the carrier if any “electronic device, analog or digital” is activated inside the cab. Meaning cell phones, Kindles, any electronic game, most cameras, you can fill out the list. By adding the fear of sleep disorder to their mix of “dangerous conditions” they are encouraging the carriers to now come up with a way to “monitor” employees, both at home through their sleep/rest testing procedure, hidden as a health test, and through any device the carrier can come up with in the cab. Big brother indeed wants to watch you, 24/7.
Actually, the NTSB agenda is constant audio, visual and physical monitoring of crews.
Look at their basic recommendations, inward facing cameras, with audio recording devices, both on constantly, along with a device that “alerts” the carrier if any “electronic device, analog or digital” is activated inside the cab.
Meaning cell phones, Kindles, any electronic game, most cameras, you can fill out the list.
By adding the fear of sleep disorder to their mix of “dangerous conditions” they are encouraging the carriers to now come up with a way to “monitor” employees, both at home through their sleep/rest testing procedure, hidden as a health test, and through any device the carrier can come up with in the cab.
Big brother indeed wants to watch you, 24/7.
Guess we need to push for inward facing cameras and recorders for NTSB personnel and their meeting. We already know Congress needs to be drug tested before each and every vote they take.
Who is NTSB's master?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
BucyrusWhy does the NTSB have this agenda?
I went to the National Transportation Safety Board's website and input "sleep disorder" on their search function. It returned 87 hits. Some hits involve railroad accidents (including light rail) but not a lot. The biggest number of incidents by far is for driving, especially driving while drowsy. But I think it is fair to say the NSTB is concerned about sleep disorders and all forms of transportation.
Here is the link: http://www.ntsb.gov/search/search.aspx (The link is to the NATB search function; you have to enter "sleep disorder" and search yourself).
edblysardActually, the NTSB agenda is constant audio, visual and physical monitoring of crews.
PTC is also part of the NTSB advocacy. Why does the NTSB have this agenda? Obviously it is opposed by labor. So is the NTSB pushing this on their own, or are they doing it on behalf of the railroad companies? Do the companies want PTC, inward cameras, audio recording, full time fatigue monitoring, SWSD treatment, and the restructuring of their workforce around SWSD?
SWSD not only puts employees and the public in grave danger, but it also causes a host of separate maladies such as cancer and obesity. Once SWSD is accepted on the terms presented, it opens an incredible can of worms. My sense is that the industry is not leading the charge on this, so why is the NTSB leading it?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.