WizlishThat indicated to me (and still does) that absent all issues of retrograde amnesia Bostian was aware of the situation with his train
1. Was not it reported the Bastian did have some injuries from the crash with a mild concussion? If so that was why I suggested he might well have retrograde amnesia back to some unspecified point before the accident. Also, it will be hard to determine if he was distracted, sufficiently to cause "situational disorientation."
2. Is there any report of a diagnosis or even suspicion of ADHD, whether medicaed or not?
3. Highway hypnosis is a form of automaticity, usually induced by a repetive, boring task such as driving down a stretch of boring road. Very few cognitive resources are required, so it is quite efficient. Both the conscious (full awareness) and more unconscious (little awareness) mental states are present simultaneously, so it is not the same as actual sleep.
4. A hypnogogic state seems a more likely possibility.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
BaltACD MrLynn Electroliner 1935 Yes, I posted a picture of the Acela cab above; the Acela one goes backward to accelerate; there is a separate dynamic-brake handle. Someone else posted an ACS-64 cab photo earlier. The ACS-64 goes forward to accelerate and backward for dynamic braking (one handle for both). /Mr Lynn Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Worst of all possible ergonomics between equipment. The mind thinks it is closing the throttle when the actions are opening it.
MrLynn Electroliner 1935 Yes, I posted a picture of the Acela cab above; the Acela one goes backward to accelerate; there is a separate dynamic-brake handle. Someone else posted an ACS-64 cab photo earlier. The ACS-64 goes forward to accelerate and backward for dynamic braking (one handle for both). /Mr Lynn
Electroliner 1935
Yes, I posted a picture of the Acela cab above; the Acela one goes backward to accelerate; there is a separate dynamic-brake handle. Someone else posted an ACS-64 cab photo earlier. The ACS-64 goes forward to accelerate and backward for dynamic braking (one handle for both).
/Mr Lynn
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!
Worst of all possible ergonomics between equipment. The mind thinks it is closing the throttle when the actions are opening it.
I agree with Balt. Having the throttlre reversed on some models would be inviting disaster. Not even (mechanical) engineers are stupid enough to create that recipe for disaster.
Norm
schlimmIncreasingly folks are coming around to recgnize that the most likely cause was human error, as a sequela to some lapse in his attention not brought about from external forces.
The thing i find the most interesting is the original report, back when the accident was only minutes old, that the first reported witness heard a series of short horn bursts before the 'crash' of the accident.
That indicated to me (and still does) that absent all issues of retrograde amnesia Bostian was aware of the situation with his train and was providing what warning he could to the workers in the yard area. This has also, somewhat necessarily, colored my 'take' on what kind of 'human error' was involved in the overspeed, and your question about this being a sequela to some other 'lapse of attention' (or perhaps other situation) does involve at least the possibility of multiple causes of that lapse, perhaps both 'parallel' and sequential. What combination of circumstances or events could distract Bostian's foreground attention enough to disrupt his 'situational awareness' while simultaneously keeping his subconscious attention also distracted or suppressed in several key respects -- perhaps, for example, the neutral position of the 'backward' throttle, or the 'seat-of-the-pants' sensation of acceleration. I believe we have at least one expert in 'twilight sleep' on the forum, who might comment here; I also suspect schlimm has professional knowledge of a number of other causes or contributors.
Wizlish schlimm daveklepper And I have not accused anyone with different ideas as being stupid or arrogant, only suggesting possibilities, none stated as proven facts. And the obvious implication of such a statement is that someone said you were stupid or arrogant, but AFAIK, nobody did. But you did say Dave Klepper's desperate search for causes, ranging from "chemicals" to "projectiles" seem to be a real stretch.
schlimm daveklepper And I have not accused anyone with different ideas as being stupid or arrogant, only suggesting possibilities, none stated as proven facts. And the obvious implication of such a statement is that someone said you were stupid or arrogant, but AFAIK, nobody did.
daveklepper And I have not accused anyone with different ideas as being stupid or arrogant, only suggesting possibilities, none stated as proven facts.
And the obvious implication of such a statement is that someone said you were stupid or arrogant, but AFAIK, nobody did.
But you did say
Dave Klepper's desperate search for causes, ranging from "chemicals" to "projectiles" seem to be a real stretch.
My point was simply that Dave's proposals (not theories, which need to have some basis in reality) whether chemcal gas from terrorists (covered up by the FBI) or a projectile that knocked Bastian out briefly are both a real stretch since no evidence to support either notion has been forthcoming.
Increasingly folks are coming around to recgnize that the most likely cause was human error, as a sequella to some lapse in his attention not brought about from external forces.
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/william-vantuono/ptc-for-the-masses.html?channel=
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
oltmannd It is puzzling. The explanation that fits the best is that he lost his situational awareness and thought he was off to the races AFTER the Frankford Jct curve. But, that's hard to believe because:
It is puzzling. The explanation that fits the best is that he lost his situational awareness and thought he was off to the races AFTER the Frankford Jct curve.
But, that's hard to believe because:
If you research railroad accidents its not that hard to believe. All it takes is the engineer thinking about milepost xxx while he's physically at milepost YYY. Just a few moments of lost focus or confusion and the damage is done.
If he just lost track of where he was, he'd have had to figure it out much sooner than he did and get the brake applied. Could he just have been sleepy and just been not quite fully awake?
If he just lost track of where he was, he'd have had to figure it out much sooner than he did and get the brake applied.
Could he just have been sleepy and just been not quite fully awake?
Maybe. Or he could have been wide awake. Think back to the times you have been driving someplace and suddenly realize you just drove past your exit. Have you ever pulled into your driveway and then realized that you can't remember all or part of the drive home? Have you ever been driving someplace and find yourself driving on the wrong route because you took the route to work or church or the school because you had done it so many times you took the route you did out of force of habit? All those situations you were probably wide awake. Your mind was just not where your body was.
He accelerated from 50 to over 100 in probably 3 miles. That means he could have been distracted for 2-3 min at most. That's not that long.
It is quite possible that this didn't involve roving gangs of rock throwers, or sleep disorders or anything nefarious. It could have been caused by the engineer losing focus on where he was for just a few minutes. Very, very, simple. It happens in a lot of other accidents, it could have happened here.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
oltmannd It is puzzling. The explanation that fits the best is that he lost his situational awareness and thought he was off to the races AFTER the Frankford Jct curve. But, that's hard to believe because: There are significant landmarks even casual railfan riders know about. The EL passing overhead. Old Shore tower. Bennet Levin's Juniata Terminal. He was so late in applying the brakes approaching the curve. If he just lost track of where he was, he'd have had to figure it out much sooner than he did and get the brake applied. Could he just have been sleepy and just been not quite fully awake? I really don't like any of these explanations. Might be easier to puzzle out this: http://serialpodcast.org/ Don, I agree with your line of reasoning about losing situational awareness and the sleepy-or-awake theory. Maybe the engineer will have a sudden recollection and shed some light on this matter. I am curious about the entire trajectory of the train. Maybe this has been fully hashed out already. But if not, I observe that the locomotive must have run on the ground, remaining upright, for a remarkable distance. I would guess that the ground is hard and flat. What happened to the locomotive once it left the rails? It appears to have side swiped obstacles, but there is no physical evidence that the front of the locomotive had stuck a significant obstruction. The locomotive has stopped in almost the upright position. How far had it traveled since it left the rails?
oltmannd It is puzzling. The explanation that fits the best is that he lost his situational awareness and thought he was off to the races AFTER the Frankford Jct curve. But, that's hard to believe because: There are significant landmarks even casual railfan riders know about. The EL passing overhead. Old Shore tower. Bennet Levin's Juniata Terminal. He was so late in applying the brakes approaching the curve. If he just lost track of where he was, he'd have had to figure it out much sooner than he did and get the brake applied. Could he just have been sleepy and just been not quite fully awake? I really don't like any of these explanations. Might be easier to puzzle out this: http://serialpodcast.org/
I really don't like any of these explanations.
Might be easier to puzzle out this: http://serialpodcast.org/
Don,
I agree with your line of reasoning about losing situational awareness and the sleepy-or-awake theory. Maybe the engineer will have a sudden recollection and shed some light on this matter.
I am curious about the entire trajectory of the train. Maybe this has been fully hashed out already. But if not, I observe that the locomotive must have run on the ground, remaining upright, for a remarkable distance. I would guess that the ground is hard and flat. What happened to the locomotive once it left the rails? It appears to have side swiped obstacles, but there is no physical evidence that the front of the locomotive had stuck a significant obstruction.
The locomotive has stopped in almost the upright position. How far had it traveled since it left the rails?
What i believe he was actually commenting on was that some others here, myself included, were using 'stupid' in relation to material expressed in certain posts. Dave is better than I am at following the rabbinical advice to say nothing negative where it can be helped. He is right that using such terms does not advance the discussion.
(I'm not sure who "merits" the 'arrogant' comment, but it should be easy to locate with a little topic review.)
daveklepperAnd I have not accused anyone with different ideas as being stupid or arrogant, only suggesting possibilities, none stated as proven facts.
wanswheel wanswheel Why were the wipers on? I continue to wonder if there’s anything remarkable about the windshield wipers ending up in the center of the panes instead of near the center pillar. There wasn’t a drop of rain.
wanswheel Why were the wipers on?
I continue to wonder if there’s anything remarkable about the windshield wipers ending up in the center of the panes instead of near the center pillar. There wasn’t a drop of rain.
Enlarging that top pic shows that there is some kind of tree or shrubbery caught in the engineer's wiper arm. I had assumed they were pulled away from their stowed position by whatever got caught in there.
With the scraping on the side of this locomotive, could it have been sliding on it's side at some point, then pushed back up by the ballast or a berm? I'm having trouble envisioning what else might damage that right front corner the way it is.
Electroliner 1935. . . Has anyone confirmed the throttle difference between the ACS & the Acela?
Don, I'm with you. This is not an easy one. The one thing posted and I don't know the answer is do the throttles operate differently, (Forward to accelerate on the Acela and backward to accelerate on the ACS)? This is an ergometrics issue but it could be a contributor. If he was rocked and thought he was reducing speed by pulling back on the throttle, I think he would sense the acceleration though the seat of his pants. It's been a while since I've been on the coridor but I can recall the push back into my seat when the electric motor we had was put into run 8. But its hard to explain why he did. He appears to be what you want running the train. A young vibrant young man who enjoyed what he was doing. A good paying job. A good life. Makes no sense. Not like the german copilot who locks the pilot out of the cockpit and crashes his plane. He cooperated with the investigators, provided his cell phone, was able to place a 911 call after the crash. Just does not compute. Someone has questioned the the fly by wire throttle, reminicient of the Audi and another car mfg with unexplained acceleration. Again, this remains an unlikely but not impossible line of inquiry. Has anyone confirmed the throttle difference between the ACS & the Acela?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
gardendance daveklepper The projectile could have forced a quick backward movement banging his head against the rear cab wall. Wouldn't that have entailed him getting out of his seat and walking back a few feet?
The projectile could have forced a quick backward movement banging his head against the rear cab wall.
Wouldn't that have entailed him getting out of his seat and walking back a few feet?
daveklepper Two other incidents of rock throwing or some other projectiles at the same neighborhood and suggesting there might have been a third is a stretch? And I have not accused anyone with different ideas as being stupid or arrogant, only suggesting possibilities, none stated as proven facts.
Two other incidents of rock throwing or some other projectiles at the same neighborhood and suggesting there might have been a third is a stretch? And I have not accused anyone with different ideas as being stupid or arrogant, only suggesting possibilities, none stated as proven facts.
At least one of those incidents was NOT in the same neighborhood. As I and others have mentioned a few times already, the north-east bound SEPTA train got hit south-west of North Philly, which is where Amtrak 188 passed it, and we've already heard that Bostian radioed that he passed it, so it's unreasonable to think this was after he was distracted. I think, but don't know, that the west-southbound Acela express train got hit west-south of North Philly. I don't think I've ever said that there couldn't be mulitple throwers, shooters, or locations, and I sure don't think I've ever said you're being stupid or arrogant.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
daveklepper The projectile could have forced a quick backward movement banging his head against the rear cab wall.
and I don't think any of my alternative explanaitions are real stretches. Two other incidents of rock throwing or some other projectiles at the same neighborhood and suggesting there might have been a third is a stretch? And I have not accused anyone with different ideas as being stupid or arrogant, only suggesting possibilities, none stated as proven facts. Euclid is entitled to his opinions --- and so am I.
I will answer your questions as to what caused him to hit his head and what happened to my theory of a terrorist attack. I first should point out that nowhere have I ruled out completely that it was primarily the engineer's fault. I am simply pointing out that there several, not just one, alternative possibilities for the fault being primarily that of whoever launched a possible (not certain) projectile at the locomotive cab. I have also pointed out that the finding of the projectile may be kept secret to easier find the launcher of the projectile.
Without going into politics, the current Federal Governmen position, officially, is that the Ft. Hood incident, the Bengazi Incident, ISIS, the Iranian Nuclear Threat, the deaths of hundreds of Egytian Copts, the pentagon and WTC events, and our local quarrel with our cousins where I live, are all separate "unrelated" matters with seperate causes. "Violence caused by inadequate education and poor living standards." A certain ideology with its propensity for terror and violence just doesn't exist according to the present administration. So, just maybe, the FBI may have been ordered to shut up.
The projectile could have hit him in the head. The projectile could have forced a quick backward movement banging his head against the rear cab wall. The projectile could just have distracted him and nothing more. All possibilities.
I have reason to sympathize with people who get rocks thrown at them. Contact me at daveklepper@yahoo.com, and I will give you some personal history, beginning at age eight in 1940.
And it is not just the current Administration. USA has been funding that ideology through oil-company money ever since WWII. And I do believe there are good people in every population, and one of the people most associated with rock-throwers literally saved my life in December 1966.
A lot of what I am accused of saying is made up according to the expectations on the part of those doing the accusing. I recall Simon and Garfunkel saying, “A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.” I have not offered any radical or unlikely theories here. Not a single one. Probably the most radical position is what I have predicted about the NTSB’s conclusion. All of this torture about my imagined misuse of the word “prove” actually highlights a point about what I expect from the NTSB.
I expect them to conclude that the cause of the wreck is unknowable because they cannot “prove” what happened to cause the acceleration. They will take a metaphysical stand on the requirement of proof beyond any conceivable doubt. In my humble opinion, the NTSB does not want this to be about projectiles or a rule violation by the engineer, as they craft their conclusion.
You beat me to it. Why do you guys have this incredible animosity towards Euclid, and not towards some of the other folks who put out implausible speculation? At least for the most part Euclid expresses his opinions as opinions. Or he asks questions, and quite often then gets accused of claiming he knows the answer. As I mentioned before, that joke got stale a long time ago.
I'm not trying to say you should start or increase the vitriol against other far out theorists, but rather please exercise a bit more civility, or if you can't say anything nice say nothing at all.
Wizlish schlimm The terms "proof" and "prove" are misplaced. In the sciences, social and natural, the null hypthesis is rejected if the μ < .05 οr even better, <.01. So it is all about error and probability. Many theories have been proposed. All are not equal. Some are consistent with reported evidence. Some seem to be a stretch. Which is a reason you can never prove a theory. In mathematics, the term 'proof' is reserved (in my opinion, rightly) for situations where something that has been postulated is either demonstrated to be true or not true. While I immediately grant that there's some semantic 'leeway' involved in going from this definition of proof to the adjectival form in common use, there still remains the essential element of testing against data. There is no room in science for 'I want to believe hypotheses are data, therefore it's proven to me'. I'm not even quite sure why we're having this 'discussion'. There is a difference, at least as far as I'm concerned, between the "let's all pile on Bucky" type of criticism, and the 'your understanding of logic is improper' type of criticism. I can easily understand why Euclid feels he needs to be defensive when conclusions that he clearly believes in are questioned by others. But he cannot claim something to be factual without much harder data than he could possibly have at this point... again, taking that word 'proven' to mean what it does. Had Euclid said 'I believe that it's highly likely, verging on certainty, that the engineer was responsible for accelerating his train up to the point of the accident', I would have agreed with him. I posted very early in the accident that I was trying hard to find any evidence that could demonstrate it wasn't 'engineer error' (and not really finding it). But to say that this is 'proven' reduces the sense of the word to how the Russians used to use it, with the old joke about 'there is no Pravda in Izvestiya' and vice versa.
schlimm The terms "proof" and "prove" are misplaced. In the sciences, social and natural, the null hypthesis is rejected if the μ < .05 οr even better, <.01. So it is all about error and probability. Many theories have been proposed. All are not equal. Some are consistent with reported evidence. Some seem to be a stretch.
The terms "proof" and "prove" are misplaced. In the sciences, social and natural, the null hypthesis is rejected if the μ < .05 οr even better, <.01. So it is all about error and probability. Many theories have been proposed. All are not equal. Some are consistent with reported evidence. Some seem to be a stretch.
Which is a reason you can never prove a theory.
In mathematics, the term 'proof' is reserved (in my opinion, rightly) for situations where something that has been postulated is either demonstrated to be true or not true. While I immediately grant that there's some semantic 'leeway' involved in going from this definition of proof to the adjectival form in common use, there still remains the essential element of testing against data. There is no room in science for 'I want to believe hypotheses are data, therefore it's proven to me'.
I'm not even quite sure why we're having this 'discussion'. There is a difference, at least as far as I'm concerned, between the "let's all pile on Bucky" type of criticism, and the 'your understanding of logic is improper' type of criticism. I can easily understand why Euclid feels he needs to be defensive when conclusions that he clearly believes in are questioned by others. But he cannot claim something to be factual without much harder data than he could possibly have at this point... again, taking that word 'proven' to mean what it does.
Had Euclid said 'I believe that it's highly likely, verging on certainty, that the engineer was responsible for accelerating his train up to the point of the accident', I would have agreed with him. I posted very early in the accident that I was trying hard to find any evidence that could demonstrate it wasn't 'engineer error' (and not really finding it). But to say that this is 'proven' reduces the sense of the word to how the Russians used to use it, with the old joke about 'there is no Pravda in Izvestiya' and vice versa.
My remarks were not limited to Euclid's posts. Dave Klepper's desperate search for causes, ranging from "chemicals" to "projectiles" seem to be a real stretch.
FWIW, my take at this point:
If mechanical and software failures are ruled out (as the NTSB seems to have done), then perhaps the simplest explanation (Occam's Razor) of the engineer's continued acceleration out of North Philadelphia and his failure to slow for the curve is 'situational confusion': either he thought he was in a different location, or he confused the throttle action of the ACS-64 with that of the Acela he had run on the way south, or both.
The reason for the confusion, if it happened, whether distraction or fatigue or something else, probably cannot be determined unless the engineer regains his memory (assuming he actually lost it, as his lawyer says).
wanswheel, thanks for the photo
daveklepper Pat B., here is a likely sequence of events, the projectile of what effort causes the engineer to duck or move back quickly and he simply bangs his head and then is dazed.
Pat B., here is a likely sequence of events, the projectile of what effort causes the engineer to duck or move back quickly and he simply bangs his head and then is dazed.
Please describe on what did he hit his head? I see no likely culprit in this photo, so I don't call that a likely sequence of events.
By the way, what happened to your prior theory, or at least suggestion that authorities investigate, about an outside incapacitating chemical agent? I
remember a post or posts where you mentioned it, but I don't remember seeing any subsequent posts from you saying you still believe it possible, or
explaining why you changed your mind and are now repeatedly claiming projectile damage or distraction as likely. And maybe you don't mean to claim it's
likely, maybe I'm reading more emphasis than you intend, but I usualy think folks who repeat things feel strongly about them.
dehusman Yes all of that is possible but it would take a lot of stars to align. IF the engineers window was open IF there were multiple gangs of rockers (1 gang several miles prior that hit the SEPTA train and a second gang to hit AMTK)
Yes all of that is possible but it would take a lot of stars to align.
IF the engineers window was open
IF there were multiple gangs of rockers (1 gang several miles prior that hit the SEPTA train and a second gang to hit AMTK)
If we're going to accept 1 gang, I don't see why we can't accept multiples. And they don't even need to be coordinated, they could be independent of each other.
dehusman IF there were at least 3 rockers (two hits on the windshield and 1 in the cab) IF the rockers were in a couple different vantage points (the big hit would be something dropped from above, others strikes could be from the sides)
IF there were at least 3 rockers (two hits on the windshield and 1 in the cab)
IF the rockers were in a couple different vantage points (the big hit would be something dropped from above, others strikes could be from the sides)
What is the big hit? I assume you feel it came from above because it's very unlikely somebody was standing in front of the train in order to hit the windshield.
dehusman IF the engineer was standing (not sitting in his seat at the controls) IF at least of the 3 of the rockers all hit the engine at the same time, to strike him and put two impact marks in bullet resistant glass
IF the engineer was standing (not sitting in his seat at the controls)
IF at least of the 3 of the rockers all hit the engine at the same time, to strike him and put two impact marks in bullet resistant glass
I don't think they needed to hit at the same time. If we accept that the engineer doesn't remember other stuff we should accept that he also doesn't remember 2 other hits before the one that incapacitated him. If a hit incapacitated him we should accept that he wouldn't know about 2 other hits after that.
dehusman IF the projectile was big enough to stun him but not big enough to leave a definitive mark IF he either had no marks, marks that weren't immediately apparent or marks that were attributed to a different cause IF the when he fell, IF standing, he could reach the controls from where he was standing (around his seat) IF the controls are set up where his falling or slumping would allow the throttle to advance (but wouldn't hit the brake handle which is near the throttle) Also consider that if rocking trains is so common and has such a devastating effect on the engineer, how come there aren't more of these incidents, how come the SEPTA train wasn't a runaway? It actually did the exact opposite. It heightened the engineer's focus to the point he called the dispatcher to report the incident and stopped the train to be inspected. In the absence of evidence, I tend to find the scenarios that have fewer contingencies more plausible.
IF the projectile was big enough to stun him but not big enough to leave a definitive mark
IF he either had no marks, marks that weren't immediately apparent or marks that were attributed to a different cause
IF the when he fell, IF standing, he could reach the controls from where he was standing (around his seat)
IF the controls are set up where his falling or slumping would allow the throttle to advance (but wouldn't hit the brake handle which is near the throttle)
Also consider that if rocking trains is so common and has such a devastating effect on the engineer, how come there aren't more of these incidents, how come
the SEPTA train wasn't a runaway? It actually did the exact opposite. It heightened the engineer's focus to the point he called the dispatcher to report the
incident and stopped the train to be inspected.
In the absence of evidence, I tend to find the scenarios that have fewer contingencies more plausible.
Norm48327 schlimm Can anyone cite examples of Eurosprinter locomotives or other similar Siemens products having throttle failure leading to uncontolled acceleration, with or without derailment? I doubt it. I, too, have my doubts but there is a possibility. I'm basing that on the fact there have been uncommanded events on airliners. It's something worthy of investigation.
schlimm
Can anyone cite examples of Eurosprinter locomotives or other similar Siemens products having throttle failure leading to uncontolled acceleration, with or without derailment? I doubt it.
I, too, have my doubts but there is a possibility. I'm basing that on the fact there have been uncommanded events on airliners. It's something worthy of investigation.
I, too, have my doubts, but I thought I read the investigators already said "no evidence". Or maybe they said "evidence of no", and others have posted recently that investigators have definitevely ruled out the computer taking over control.
sorry for the double post, this looks like a duplicate of the one below
Wizlish Which is a reason you can never prove a theory. In mathematics, the term 'proof' is reserved (in my opinion, rightly) for situations where something that has been postulated is either demonstrated to be true or not true. While I immediately grant that there's some semantic 'leeway' involved in going from this definition of proof to the adjectival form in common use, there still remains the essential element of testing against data. There is no room in science for 'I want to believe hypotheses are data, therefore it's proven to me'. I'm not even quite sure why we're having this 'discussion'. There is a difference, at least as far as I'm concerned, between the "let's all pile on Bucky" type of criticism, and the 'your understanding of logic is improper' type of criticism. I can easily understand why Euclid feels he needs to be defensive when conclusions that he clearly believes in are questioned by others. But he cannot claim something to be factual without much harder data than he could possibly have at this point... again, taking that word 'proven' to mean what it does. Had Euclid said 'I believe that it's highly likely, verging on certainty, that the engineer was responsible for accelerating his train up to the point of the accident', I would have agreed with him. I posted very early in the accident that I was trying hard to find any evidence that could demonstrate it wasn't 'engineer error' (and not really finding it). But to say that this is 'proven' reduces the sense of the word to how the Russians used to use it, with the old joke about 'there is no Pravda in Izvestiya' and vice versa.
Wislish,
You start a post addressing me with this comment and you have to ponder why I might react defensively?
“I have seen plenty of stupid things in my day, but that is the pinnacle of obstinate, witless stupidity. At least so far.”
You continued with this:
“Proving something implies ... no, requires PROOF. Actual, undeniable, evidence, or finding of fact, that demonstrates something is so beyond reasonable doubt -- or speculative conjecture.
The word SEEM does not belong in a proof. Even if it's a really, truly, 'seem', or if you really can't figure out something else. Or can't figure out what proving something actually means in English, or in Western rational thought.”
Here are a few points to consider:
1) I never proclaimed to have proven anything even though you insist on characterizing it that way. I think you are being too defensive about the infallibility of the word “proof.”
2) You may be right that the word “seem” does not belong in a proof, but what I offered is not a proof, so it does not need to pass your test of whether or not it includes the word “seem.”
3) In your definition of the word “proof,” you include facts that “demonstrate something is beyond reasonable doubt.” Do you have an ironclad definition of “reasonable doubt”?
Let’s consider the facts: We are told that we must accept the pronouncements of the NTSF investigation as truth. The incorrect acceleration was NOT caused by a malfunction of the locomotive. There was one person in the cab accessible to the controls. Does this pass your reasonable threshold of being beyond a reasonable doubt? If not, what exactly is your reasonable doubt? Please give me an example of what would be a reasonable alternative explanation for the premise that the engineer did not advance the throttle.
In most situations, a software failure would be classified as a mechanical failure. After all, the computer or microprocessor is part of the operating system.
EuclidIf the engineer did not move the thottle, who did? We know it did not move on its own because the NTSB said so by virture of their statement that there were no mechanical failures. . .
Does "no mechanical failures" exclude a software bug? There is a computer between the throttle and the traction motors.
Why do I say that it is a working hypothesis that he moved the throttle and not say that it is a proven fact? Because the history of science does have events that seemed highly improbable and that changed the course of physics or medicine radically. But I agree that it is highly probable that he moved the throttle, and in science and engineering, that is called a working hypothesis, something to keep in mind as the basis of further research. But again, even if proven that he moved the throttle to accelerate, that does not necessarily mean he should receive the major share of the blame. There is a strong possibility that some type of projectile did hit a cab window just before the acceleration. This is a strong possibility, but not (yet?) a working hypothesis. I can admit that there is also a possibility that he has the major share of the blame.
Why does Amtrak allow habitual rock throwing at a specific and dangerous location? Should not some kind of fencing and screening been provided long ago? This is in addition to the blanket stupidity of disabling the capable overspeed detection system that was in place by the PRR before the replacement was in operation. (I am getting angry at Amtrak's current management; too many cases of passengers trapped on stalled trains for hours without ventilation, operating toilets, etc.m absolutely inexcusable!)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.