Euclid I agree that listening to a company radio transmission cannot be wrong or illegal. However, we do know that it can be distracting. There are two independent things to consider: A source capable of causing a person to be distracted. Whether or not a person becomes distracted by that source. Item #1 is available at every waking second of a person’s life to a varying extent. It cannot be avoided. It can take the form of spontaneous thinking without the involvement of anything perceived through the senses. The only way to limit the overall effect is to ban certain activities that are considered avoidable and are known to be strong sources capable of causing distraction such as cell phone use. So that leaves only item #2 as the last prevention of distraction. In the case of the derailment of train #188, the engineer listened to comments, and was apparently distracted by the ideas related to those comments to the point where he failed to perform his job properly. Others may have heard those comments without being so affected. Are employees expected to have sufficient control to make the choice not to be distracted in the presence of a source capable of causing a person to be distracted? It seems that the answer to that question is yes, based on the often heard admonition to pay attention.
I agree that listening to a company radio transmission cannot be wrong or illegal. However, we do know that it can be distracting.
There are two independent things to consider:
A source capable of causing a person to be distracted.
Whether or not a person becomes distracted by that source.
Item #1 is available at every waking second of a person’s life to a varying extent. It cannot be avoided. It can take the form of spontaneous thinking without the involvement of anything perceived through the senses. The only way to limit the overall effect is to ban certain activities that are considered avoidable and are known to be strong sources capable of causing distraction such as cell phone use.
So that leaves only item #2 as the last prevention of distraction. In the case of the derailment of train #188, the engineer listened to comments, and was apparently distracted by the ideas related to those comments to the point where he failed to perform his job properly. Others may have heard those comments without being so affected.
Are employees expected to have sufficient control to make the choice not to be distracted in the presence of a source capable of causing a person to be distracted?
It seems that the answer to that question is yes, based on the often heard admonition to pay attention.
About a year ago, right after the crash, there was lots of news on the topic of whether the engineer would be prosecuted. Now, in the wake of this latest information from the NTSB, I find no such news. I am just trying to understand the exact terms of the conclusion about the engineer being distracted. Is he now considered to be just one more victim of the derailment, the same as the others who were killed or injured?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/20/opinions/jackson-criminal-case-amtrak-crash/
EuclidAre employees expected to have sufficient control to make the choice not to be distracted in the presence of a source capable of causing a person to be distracted? It seems that the answer to that question is yes, based on the often heard admonition to pay attention.
Yes, and this is one of the defining characteristics that 'used to' be mentioned repeatedly as one of the dominant characteristics of a real railroader.
It's now become something of a cliche that "Safety first, last, and always" consists of a bunch of namby-pamby meetings at every available opportunity, and implementation and enforcement of rules upon rules and policies upon policies to the point where self-conscious concern with not violating some provision of rules may lead directly to commission of what turn out to be dangerous slips or acts. But underlying vigilance and discrimination of particular kinds -- one very good illustrative example being the assumption behind banner tests -- mark the 'right' kind of attitude, mindset, etc. that someone working on railroads should have ... often needs to have.
Part of what is sad in this example is that Bostian, who apparently has loved trains his whole life, is unlikely to be put back in a position of authority on Amtrak or perhaps any other railroad. And that is whether or not it turns out he's "culpable" by being distracted. If he is distractible, at all, then he is a danger to himself or many others in a context where great physical force can provide dramatic consequences for even minute lapses in attention that would be of little importance other places.
Note that there are likely to be many places and many times today that railroaders will operate 'distracted' without bad consequence. In some cases, this is due to underlying discipline, but in some cases it's just luck. That is one reason I feel as strongly as I do about things like sleep cycle or circadian research, and the general stupidity of calling even 'trained and experienced' railroaders on a randomized schedule. Those are the places we should be looking, and concentrating our attention, in the wake of this accident.
I am not certain how you'd address the problem of 'radio distraction' outside of personal discipline. Most of the work with critical communications has in fact gone the other way, finding ways of making operators concentrate on and recognize the actual information contained in messages. (That is the announced reason for the peculiar kind of distortion found in aircraft radios, for example). We've had discussions on stupid implementations of 'alerter' principles that address the wrong things; I wonder whether some of the "right answers" there could be applied to wireless information exchange to and from an engineer-in-command.
The distraction was extraordinary to the empathetic engineer, like there was an elephant in his brain while he absently went through the motions of driving his train. He couldn't get it out of his head.
EuclidAssuming that the derailment was caused by the engineer being distracted by hearing the radio conversation; does that amount to criminal negligence on the part of the engineer?
There's no basis on which that conclusion could be reached. In fact, the "law" required him to have the radio on, and it would be tortured reasoning indeed to say that NOT listening to communications on a mandated channel, at least carefully enough to distinguish that their content -- message by message -- did not concern you or your train, would be necessary to avoid criminal prosecution. Would you argue that Evans not listening to Gates on the handheld radio should have been grounds for finding him criminally negligent in the Chase accident?
It has been remarked on that Bostian would have had the 'book thrown at him' had he even had his personal cell phone turned on or in 'airplane mode' at the time of the accident. Great pains were made to determine that he turned the thing on at the time he made his 'emergency call'. But the train radio is very different.
If the answer cannot be given in legal terms, what is the answer just in moral terms of right and wrong?
I don't really think there is a moral 'wrong' involved in listening to railroad communications on a train radio while operating a train. In this particular case it may be that a particular tired and frustrated engineer momentarily became concerned about personal safety at just the wrong time. i'm sure that some of the distracted-driving proponents who think that talking on a cell phone is the same thing as texting on one (the haptics are completely different, but who cares about science when a political point can be scored) will eagerly try to jump on this as "proof" of their opinions.
One critical point I think ought to be made is that discipline, punishment, Government action, etc. needs to be directed not at punishment, but on prevention of this kind of accident happening again -- and that does involve identifying any root causes and trying to address them. That is different from trying to inject a moral or legal perspective into an accident that has been over and done for many months. And here, the 'moral' question that Euclid was asking takes on a different nuance: What can or should be done with respect to radio procedure or discipline going forward? I would specifically add that it shouldn't be a knee-jerk or PC-sounding response to the accident "problem" that might tend in any way to make future train operations less safe in any respect ... and that rules out a great many things that Euclid's developing argument about 'criminality' and 'morality' in this context might be progressing toward.
I'd like to hear from some of the railroaders at this point: What can, or should, be done with the radio and its use if it does turn out that "listening to a distracting conversation" is a proximate cause of the 188 derailment? And might some of the 'response' be toward determining individual people's perception and predilections, or teaching better discipline to individuals, rather than changing 'rules of the road' for everyone in engine service?
Assuming that the derailment was caused by the engineer being distracted by hearing the radio conversation; does that amount to criminal negligence on the part of the engineer? Or would it be considered something that the engineer had no control over?
I have not seen any recent news coverage that clarifies that point.
NBC’s first story online. Don’t know what they said on TV.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/source-nbc-news-philly-train-crash-caused-distracted-engineer-n574891
The engineer of the Amtrak train that ran off the rails outside Philadelphia in May 2015, killing eight people, was likely distracted by radio dispatches, a source close to the investigation told NBC News on Monday.
The engineer at the controls of the Amtrak 188 told investigators in February that he could barely recall the moments leading up the nighttime crash. Instead, he claimed to have a "dream-like" memory of his locomotive going too fast around a curve, and hitting the brakes as he realized the train was going to tip over.
Another train's engineer had reported that his windshield had been hit by something — possibly a gunshot.
Investigators a year ago theorized that engineer Brandon Bostian was distracted by those reports, may have also been hit by a rock at about the the same time, lost situational awareness and failed to slow his train.
Eight people were killed and 200 were injured when the train derailed.
The National Transportation Safety Board has scheduled a hearing Tuesday in Washington, D.C., to consider its final report. It's possible the probable cause could change somewhat before the meeting ends.
wanswheelCNN, AP, NY Times, Reuters, Bloomberg, etc. knew nothing until Tom Costello of NBC broke the news at 1:01 pm on Monday. Everything said or written elsewhere on Monday was based on Costello’s story. https://twitter.com/tomcostellonbc/status/732300011095109632
https://twitter.com/tomcostellonbc/status/732300011095109632
OK, Mike, let's have some fun with this. Find the "NBC News" story that Costello references as predicting 'radio distraction' as the proximate cause of the accident. And provide a transcript or a link to it.
I don't think this is a guy I'd like to find out is the primary source for all the post-Today reporting about supposed conversation-distracted operation ... based just on looking at the tone of some of the other tweets he made in the short visible timeframe that Mike's posted link produced.
CNN, AP, NY Times, Reuters, Bloomberg, etc. knew nothing until Tom Costello of NBC broke the news at 1:01 pm on Monday. Everything said or written elsewhere on Monday was based on Costello’s story.
RMEWe may need to quote the exact text of the CNN 'article' but I am deeply worried that Mike is right about what reporter Marsh has done. Reading between the lines, she may have assumed the engineer was 'listening' to the "conversation" (meaning whatever radio traffic there was about rocking, whatever it turns out to have been) because he had a radio and she presumed it was turned on; she may have said "participating" only because he made the "hot rail" comment going past the stopped train, knowing the context of why the train had been stopped. Now Mike brings up that the actual words in the story may have been (I haven't checked) "may have participated" -- which is a world of difference if it's his foreground attention that is supposed to have been preoccupied.
Reading between the lines, she may have assumed the engineer was 'listening' to the "conversation" (meaning whatever radio traffic there was about rocking, whatever it turns out to have been) because he had a radio and she presumed it was turned on; she may have said "participating" only because he made the "hot rail" comment going past the stopped train, knowing the context of why the train had been stopped.
Now Mike brings up that the actual words in the story may have been (I haven't checked) "may have participated" -- which is a world of difference if it's his foreground attention that is supposed to have been preoccupied.
What I would like to see again is the news about the conclusion of the NTSB after reviewing all of the radio transmissions to find evidence that would support the statement by the conductor saying that she thought she heard Bostian say his train was rocked. I would like to review that and see if the NTSB said they found no radio transmission from Bostian about the rocking. That is what I recall, but I am not sure now. If they did say that, I was surprised to hear CNN say he participated in the conversation about rocking. That is all.
tree68 And we have to remember that this is an industry that refers to the engineer as a "conductor" on a regular basis... In other words, they oftimes have no clue what they're writing about.
And we have to remember that this is an industry that refers to the engineer as a "conductor" on a regular basis...
In other words, they oftimes have no clue what they're writing about.
GOOD ANSWER! Larry
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...
EuclidThe article says this: "Investigators say seven to nine of those minutes the engineer was listening to and participating in the radio conversations regarding other trains being hit with a projectile.” I am not "reading anything" into the statement. "Other trains being hit by a projectile" means being hit by a thrown rock. A person participating in such a conversation is discussing rocking. Regarding whether the news article is accurate on the point of the engineer participating in this conversation, I don't know. That is why I asked above if anyone could confirm or deny the point about the engineer discussing the rocking.
"Investigators say seven to nine of those minutes the engineer was listening to and participating in the radio conversations regarding other trains being hit with a projectile.”
I am not "reading anything" into the statement. "Other trains being hit by a projectile" means being hit by a thrown rock. A person participating in such a conversation is discussing rocking.
Regarding whether the news article is accurate on the point of the engineer participating in this conversation, I don't know. That is why I asked above if anyone could confirm or deny the point about the engineer discussing the rocking.
We may need to quote the exact text of the CNN 'article' but I am deeply worried that Mike is right about what reporter Marsh has done.
Now Mike brings up that the actual words in the story may have been (I haven't checked) "may have participated" -- which is a world of difference if it's his foreground attention that is supposed to have been preoccupied. Listening or following along is not the same thing as actively speaking, expressing concern, etc. while depending on background recognition of haptic space and 'reflex' train-handling precision to run the train... and the author of the article in question has given the impression of reaching an overarching conclusion not once, but twice, in words whose semantics may well be unjustified by demonstrable events. (That is not a euphemism for 'lying' ... exactly ... but I'm not dismissing that it's part of some sort of spin to establish some sort of narrative.)
Before reaching any conclusions that invoke paranoia, however, we need to go back, check the original article very carefully, find out about sources, and evaluate the sources to see if any new material is contained there, or can be extracted or deduced through comparison with what we already know. (As opposed to what we may believe, or speculate, or assume ... it may be difficult to make the distinctions, but I think we should try.)
I will be watching with some interest to see or to access that material when someone provides it.
wanswheel Euclid, your CNN article isn’t really an article, it’s just an approximate account of what their aviation reporter Rene Marsh had said Monday on live TV, the day before the NTSB meeting. She actually said, “or even participating in.” True, he did participate exactly once, as far as we know.
Euclid, your CNN article isn’t really an article, it’s just an approximate account of what their aviation reporter Rene Marsh had said Monday on live TV, the day before the NTSB meeting. She actually said, “or even participating in.” True, he did participate exactly once, as far as we know.
I am not sure what "or even participating in" means. What do you mean when you say, "True, he did participate exactly once, as far as we know"?
Oh, I guess you are referring to the "hot rail" transmission. That is the only thing that Bostian said, according to the NTSB. It did not pertain to the rocking, but it was a comment made in the conversation about the rocking.
dehusman Euclid Regarding whether the news article is accurate on the point of the engineer participating in this conversation, I don't know. That is why I asked above if anyone could confirm or deny the point about the engineer discussing the rocking. The NTSB has gone through many months of exhaustive investigation. They have listened to all the tapes. Any conversations that occurred would be mentioned in the report. They are the experts on this incident. Read their report. You are once again taking a reporters embellishment of the story as being fact. We all know how unreliable a reporter can be.
Euclid Regarding whether the news article is accurate on the point of the engineer participating in this conversation, I don't know. That is why I asked above if anyone could confirm or deny the point about the engineer discussing the rocking.
The NTSB has gone through many months of exhaustive investigation. They have listened to all the tapes. Any conversations that occurred would be mentioned in the report. They are the experts on this incident. Read their report.
You are once again taking a reporters embellishment of the story as being fact. We all know how unreliable a reporter can be.
No, I am not taking a reporter's embellishment of the story as being fact. I am simply pointing out a conflict of the reported details. You are the one who is taking the hard line position that assumes the story is a non-factual embellishment. And you offer no evidence to support your assumption other than your total faith in the NTSB.
Please show me in the report where it says that the engineer did not participate in the radio conversation about rocking. If it says that in the report, I will assume that the CNN article is incorrect.
EuclidRegarding whether the news article is accurate on the point of the engineer participating in this conversation, I don't know. That is why I asked above if anyone could confirm or deny the point about the engineer discussing the rocking.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusman Euclid No it is not old news. Your version of it may be old news but this news about the engineer discussing the rocking is new news. He wasn't discussing the rocking, he was participating the in the radio conversation. You are reading too much into the statement. As normal.
Euclid No it is not old news. Your version of it may be old news but this news about the engineer discussing the rocking is new news.
He wasn't discussing the rocking, he was participating the in the radio conversation. You are reading too much into the statement. As normal.
The article says this:
EuclidNo it is not old news. Your version of it may be old news but this news about the engineer discussing the rocking is new news.
dehusman Euclid Is there a source now by the NTSB which says that the engineer participated in the radio conversation about the rocking incident?
Euclid Is there a source now by the NTSB which says that the engineer participated in the radio conversation about the rocking incident?
Let us see the transcript of the entire radio conversation about this rocking incident.
EuclidIs there a source now by the NTSB which says that the engineer participated in the radio conversation about the rocking incident?
If I remember correctly the engineer of #188 annouced he was approaching the N Philadelphia station (vauguely recall it being something like "Hot rail" on his track number). It was discussed several thousand posts ago so I'm not going to waste my time going back and find it. Its old news. Since the SEPTA train was reporting an incident to the dispatcher the dispatcher probably had that tower turned on and all the incidental radio conversations at that time were recorded.
Euclid http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/16/politics/amtrak-188-derailment-engineer-distracted/ Quote from the link, my emphasis in red: “The ride from the train station in Philadelphia to the site of the derailment was 11 minutes. Investigators say seven to nine of those minutes the engineer was listening to and participating in the radio conversations regarding other trains being hit with a projectile.” *********************************************** How is it known that the engineer of #188 was participating in those radio conversations? Right after the wreck, a witness said she recalled a radio transmission where the engineer stated that his train had been rocked too. So the NTSB looked for such a radio transmission. I seem to recall that they concluded that there were no radio transmissions about a potential rocking incident to #188; or the known rocking incident to the other train; in which the engineer participated. Is there a source now by the NTSB which says that the engineer participated in the radio conversation about the rocking incident?
Is there a source now by the NTSB which says that the engineer participated in the radio conversation about the rocking incident?
I don't know the system that Amtrak uses, if any, to record radio transmissions. On my carrier, all radio transmissions involving the Train Dispatcher are recorded. Other transmissions when the Train Dispatcher is not taking part in or MONITORING a specific radio channel ARE NOT recorded.
I don't know what, if any, rules Amtrak has for announcing critical information on the Road Radio Channel. On my carrier, signal indications both absolute and intermediate are to be called and identified by the train, engine and location of the signal indication that is being called. Defect Detector announce their presence and then the results of their operation on the ROAD CHANNEL. All trains are to monitor the ROAD CHANNEL for the territory they are operating on unless directed by a Train Dispatcher or Yardmaster to conduct converstaions on their specified channels (TD & YM DO NOT share a channel), at the conclusion of those conversations they are to return and monitor the ROAD CHANNEL.
If Amtrak were to have crews call all signals on the NEC, I suspect no one would be able to hear a single intelligent word for all crews walking all over each others transmissions.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I too would like to see this information, including a transcript. Especially in light of what Mike has just mentioned about what the engineer said he was remembering. I don't remember anything about the engineer 'participating' in the radio traffic except for the "hot rail" notice, but wasn't there some alleged conversation by train crew that no one could find actual record of?
RMEI am so tired of amateur-hour hair-splitting yes-but semantic confusion in this thread I could scream.
Might just as well get used to it. One poster does it all the time and another comes to his defense.
Norm
The guy’s a genius. After 6 months of amnesia, he subliminally conned his ‘human performance’ evaluator to have mercy on his poor distracted situational awareness.
Excerpt from 2nd interview, Nov. 10
http://dms.ntsb.gov/public/58000-58499/58167/585200.pdf
MR. JENNER: Great, thank you. Again, we really appreciate you being here and giving us an opportunity to talk to you a second time. So if you don't have any questions for us, we'll just jump right into it. What we learned, you know, since talking to you is that this incident occurred about eight miles from the Amtrak 30th Street Station and it took about 11, 12 minutes before the train reached the accident curve. During the first interview, you indicated that you didn't have memory of many details after passing the North Philadelphia Station. So I'll just open it up. If you want to talk about anything you may have remembered before passing the North Philly Station and if you have any memories after passing North Philly Station.
MR. BOSTIAN: I'm not sure that I remember anything significant before passing North Philadelphia Station. I guess what happened before then was, I passed the, set the train on the adjacent track that had gone -- the engineer had placed that train into emergency. He had reported that rocks had hit his windshield. He had had a radio conversation with the dispatcher. The dispatcher asked him a couple of times if he needed medical attention. He didn't answer the question directly and so, they went back and forth a few times. I radioed that SEPTA train to alert them that I was passing on an adjacent track. And then I blew my train's whistle quite a bit. And I think that I was concerned, with all the confusion on the radio, that they may have personnel on the ground inspecting their train and that they may not be completely situationally aware at that time. So I blew my whistle probably more than I would have had they acknowledged my radio transmission that I was approaching on an adjacent track. And that was before passing North Philadelphia…
RMEAnd while I was waiting for definitive NTSB commentary on the accident, I regretfully no longer think there is any great chance of producing what I would call clarity or insight here, whatever the NTSB or any other agency reports or says. It'll just be more infinite regress into what shoulda-woulda-coulda been done by people with potential secret agendas or 'axes to grind' in bad old Babylon-on-the-Potomac ... or whatever. Any loss of 'situational awareness' on the stretch of track leading up to the Frankford Junction curve was almost certainly not 'in an impaired state' or 'in an incapacitated state'. The locomotive control inputs demonstrate that beyond any reasonable doubt. The 'memory loss' can be properly explained by traumatic retrograde amnesia...
Any loss of 'situational awareness' on the stretch of track leading up to the Frankford Junction curve was almost certainly not 'in an impaired state' or 'in an incapacitated state'. The locomotive control inputs demonstrate that beyond any reasonable doubt. The 'memory loss' can be properly explained by traumatic retrograde amnesia...
I am not sure what you mean by impaired or incapacitated state, but the NTSB says that the engineer lacked situational awareness during this phase. I don’t understand what it is that you feel the locomotive control inputs demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt. It is true that the control inputs were normal for part of this phase, but at the end, the control inputs caused the derailment.
I am so tired of amateur-hour hair-splitting yes-but semantic confusion in this thread I could scream.
And while I was waiting for definitive NTSB commentary on the accident, I regretfully no longer think there is any great chance of producing what I would call clarity or insight here, whatever the NTSB or any other agency reports or says. It'll just be more infinite regress into what shoulda-woulda-coulda been done by people with potential secret agendas or 'axes to grind' in bad old Babylon-on-the-Potomac ... or whatever.
Any loss of 'situational awareness' on the stretch of track leading up to the Frankford Junction curve was almost certainly not 'in an impaired state' or 'in an incapacitated state'. The locomotive control inputs demonstrate that beyond any reasonable doubt. The 'memory loss' can be properly explained by traumatic retrograde amnesia - I've experienced medical retrograde amnesia a couple of times, so I can attest that the phenomenon is real. The NTSB noted, and I do too, that the control inputs aren't representative of someone knocked out cold or groggy against a throttle, or someone affected by gunshot or rock or shattered-glass trauma ... although they could easily be representative of someone tired and distracted going through the semi-familiar motions of accelerating a new locomotive up to track speed, perhaps in 'relief' to be getting out of rock-throwing and gun-riddled Philadelphia, who can say? Much of the actual 'historical' cause is effectively lost in the retrograde amnesia.
Schanoes pointed out that the curves 'before' and 'after' the 45mph restricted one are reasonably similar, especially in the dark. PDN just mentioned a couple of very significant detail differences - at least one of which (the crossovers) would have been distinctive in the dark ... for those looking for them. There is perhaps a fundamental difference in 'situational awareness' between these two, the general 'shape' of the area being something more processed by background attention than feature recognition and association would be. Schlimm is much more expert in discussing these aspects of cognitive theory than I am, but I can't ask him to participate in this cluster any further than he already has.
Yes, I think there are forces operating to 'cut the kid a break' in some sense, maybe in multiple senses. I suspect that there is quite a bit of jockeying for various kinds of CYA and avoidance of expen$ive liability, too. We can blather about that over and over but are, I see, probably unlikely to reach any sort of reasoned conclusion or even sensible discussion even though the horse has been reduced to a smear of paste at this point.
wanswheel Transcript of NTSB presentation by Stephen M. Jenner, Ph.D. ...AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, THE ENGINEER'S PROLONGED ATTENTION TO THE SEPTA TRAIN MAY HAVE CAUSED HIM TO LOSE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS OF WHERE HE WAS. BUT EVEN IF HE KNEW WHERE HE WAS, THIS INTERRUPTION MAY HAVE CAUSED HIM TO FORGET HIS NEXT TASK, WHICH WAS TO OPERATE THE TRAIN AFTER TRAVELING AROUND THE RIGHT CURVE BEFORE THE DERAILMENT AT NO MORE THAN 80 MILES PER HOUR AND SLOW HIS TRAIN FOR THE UPCOMING CURVE AT FRANKFORD JUNCTION.
Transcript of NTSB presentation by Stephen M. Jenner, Ph.D.
...AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, THE ENGINEER'S PROLONGED ATTENTION TO THE SEPTA TRAIN MAY HAVE CAUSED HIM TO LOSE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS OF WHERE HE WAS. BUT EVEN IF HE KNEW WHERE HE WAS, THIS INTERRUPTION MAY HAVE CAUSED HIM TO FORGET HIS NEXT TASK, WHICH WAS TO OPERATE THE TRAIN AFTER TRAVELING AROUND THE RIGHT CURVE BEFORE THE DERAILMENT AT NO MORE THAN 80 MILES PER HOUR AND SLOW HIS TRAIN FOR THE UPCOMING CURVE AT FRANKFORD JUNCTION.
So we have two forms of situational awareness. Both forms can result in failing to do what is required in response to your location in the territory. Both involve memory loss:
1) Forgetting where you are in the territory, and thus failing to do what is required in response to where you are.
2) Knowing where you are, but forgetting to do what is required in response to where you are.
I suppose there could also be this alternate variation of item #1:
3) Forgetting where you are in the territory, and also forgetting to do what is required in response to where you are; with the latter not being caused by the former.
Therefore, with the NTSB's conclusion about the engineer's actions or inactions that caused the wreck, it follows that those actions or inactions were in turn caused by one, and only one of the above listed three possible responses to being engaged in the content of the radio transmission.
Any one of the three possible responses that caused the engineer to not slow for the curve also could have been caused simply by a line of thinking that prevented the proper cognition of the task at hand.
There are, no doubt, trillions of possible causes involving intrusive thought processes unrelated to the radio transmission.
wanswheel[snipped extensively by PDN] . . . TRAIN ENGINEERS . . . NEED TO REMEMBER ALL PERTINENT OPERATING RULES AS WELL AS PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TERRITORY, INCLUDING THE LOCATION OF TRACK CURVES AND THEIR ASSOCIATED SPEED RESTRICTIONS. AND AS YOU SAW ON THE MAP, THERE WERE SEVERAL DIFFERENT SPEED RESTRICTIONS ALONG THIS ROUTE. AND BECAUSE TRAINS TAKE TIME TO SLOW DOWN, ENGINEERS NEED TO THINK AHEAD TO OPERATE THEIR TRAINS PROPERLY. HOWEVER, IF AN ENGINEER EXPERIENCES AN INTERRUPTION AND LOSES SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, HE MAY FORGET TO TAKE ACTION WHEN IT IS TIME TO DO SO. THE SAFETY BOARD HAS INVESTIGATED AVIATION AND RAILROAD ACCIDENTS WHERE EXPERIENCED CREWS FORGOT TO PERFORM ROUTINE PROCEDURES, IN PART DUE TO INTERRUPTIONS. AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, THE ENGINEER'S PROLONGED ATTENTION TO THE SEPTA TRAIN MAY HAVE CAUSED HIM TO LOSE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS OF WHERE HE WAS. BUT EVEN IF HE KNEW WHERE HE WAS, THIS INTERRUPTION MAY HAVE CAUSED HIM TO FORGET HIS NEXT TASK, WHICH WAS TO OPERATE THE TRAIN AFTER TRAVELING AROUND THE RIGHT CURVE BEFORE THE DERAILMENT AT NO MORE THAN 80 MILES PER HOUR AND SLOW HIS TRAIN FOR THE UPCOMING CURVE AT FRANKFORD JUNCTION. . . .
TRAIN ENGINEERS . . . NEED TO REMEMBER ALL PERTINENT OPERATING RULES AS WELL AS PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TERRITORY, INCLUDING THE LOCATION OF TRACK CURVES AND THEIR ASSOCIATED SPEED RESTRICTIONS. AND AS YOU SAW ON THE MAP, THERE WERE SEVERAL DIFFERENT SPEED RESTRICTIONS ALONG THIS ROUTE. AND BECAUSE TRAINS TAKE TIME TO SLOW DOWN, ENGINEERS NEED TO THINK AHEAD TO OPERATE THEIR TRAINS PROPERLY. HOWEVER, IF AN ENGINEER EXPERIENCES AN INTERRUPTION AND LOSES SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, HE MAY FORGET TO TAKE ACTION WHEN IT IS TIME TO DO SO.
THE SAFETY BOARD HAS INVESTIGATED AVIATION AND RAILROAD ACCIDENTS WHERE EXPERIENCED CREWS FORGOT TO PERFORM ROUTINE PROCEDURES, IN PART DUE TO INTERRUPTIONS. AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, THE ENGINEER'S PROLONGED ATTENTION TO THE SEPTA TRAIN MAY HAVE CAUSED HIM TO LOSE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS OF WHERE HE WAS. BUT EVEN IF HE KNEW WHERE HE WAS, THIS INTERRUPTION MAY HAVE CAUSED HIM TO FORGET HIS NEXT TASK, WHICH WAS TO OPERATE THE TRAIN AFTER TRAVELING AROUND THE RIGHT CURVE BEFORE THE DERAILMENT AT NO MORE THAN 80 MILES PER HOUR AND SLOW HIS TRAIN FOR THE UPCOMING CURVE AT FRANKFORD JUNCTION. . . .
- Paul North.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.