243129Also I assume you did not access the link for the hiring and training template.
Don't assume. I don't see such a link. Provide the link here to the template.
I read it. Vague. Are you trusting senior engineers to make a determination about the candidates' character traits? There always problems with peers making those judgments, especially when they lack the training.
" I think you need to show how hiring existing employees solves the problem with attitudes."
The answer is in the link.
Where do I duck questions Chuck?
Hey I'm a poet and don't know it!
243129 "The Dupont accident was a bad hire, based on important personality factors as I suggested. What specifically would your proposal do to screen him out at the outset? Why waste the time and money to train someone with such a careless attitude? " You are taking credit for 'solving' the Dupont disaster??? My proposal is in this link. Read it. http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2015/08/11/the-making-of-engineers-and-conductors.aspx
"The Dupont accident was a bad hire, based on important personality factors as I suggested. What specifically would your proposal do to screen him out at the outset? Why waste the time and money to train someone with such a careless attitude? "
You are taking credit for 'solving' the Dupont disaster???
My proposal is in this link. Read it.
http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2015/08/11/the-making-of-engineers-and-conductors.aspx
No, I simply offered my opinion of the engineer and the reason for the accident. I think he needed more training but even with a lot more, with his attitude I predict he would have remained careless and prone to not watching carefully.
I read FF and the comments. You are much too abrasive, especially when you don't understand a comment or are ducking questions. That said, you have the germs of some plan, but especially on the hiring/qualifying part, I think you need to show how hiring existing employees solves the problem with attitudes. Digging into a murky pond only gets you mud.
charlie hebdo 243129 "The FRA has also said fatigue from shift work is a major factor in accidents. How would you address that? How do you force a person to rest? And OSA (obstructive sleep apnea) If those questions are not addressed at least in your proposal (to name just three) you won't be taken seriously." OSA screening should be included in the medical screening of candidates. #1. If you want to persuade someone, don't answer a question with a dismissive question. #2. Good. How to maintain after screening and training? Yearly exams?
243129 "The FRA has also said fatigue from shift work is a major factor in accidents. How would you address that? How do you force a person to rest? And OSA (obstructive sleep apnea) If those questions are not addressed at least in your proposal (to name just three) you won't be taken seriously." OSA screening should be included in the medical screening of candidates.
"The FRA has also said fatigue from shift work is a major factor in accidents. How would you address that?
How do you force a person to rest?
And OSA (obstructive sleep apnea) If those questions are not addressed at least in your proposal (to name just three) you won't be taken seriously."
OSA screening should be included in the medical screening of candidates.
#1. If you want to persuade someone, don't answer a question with a dismissive question.
#2. Good. How to maintain after screening and training? Yearly exams?
So tell me how do you ensure a person will be rested for their assignment?
So are you taking credit for 'solving' the Dupont disaster?
Also I assume you did not access the link for the hiring and training template.
243129 Another reason why proper hiring and training procedures are so important. This was back in2011. https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/automation-addiction-pilots-forgetting-fly/story?id=14417730
Another reason why proper hiring and training procedures are so important. This was back in2011.
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/automation-addiction-pilots-forgetting-fly/story?id=14417730
Interesting, but airline accidents are pretty rare. They have far more automation than the rails. The two accidents in question on here, Dupont and Philly, would have been prevented with PTC.
All you seem to be able to do is rant and insult. You have no data except to cite a few spectacularly bad incidents. Neither of those alone confirm your contentions. I didn't cherry pick, I just gave a few peiods. I gave you the link so you yourself can go through the data base and do the work to show human-error collisions from back maybe as far as 1971 to the present. These are from official FRA data banks. I also quoted from the FRA long-term study. Is that cherry picking? No.
I'm not trying to persuade Amtrak or the FRA to adopt a better program. You say you are. Fine. But you will need to be able to demonstrate the need with more than citing a few accidents. You need to use data. That's what pros use. If you want to be listened to, you need to consult with folks who know how, as Volker and others suggested. You reject that, claiming the behavior required is beneath you, in so many words. I would suggest that it just another rationalization becaise you are unwilling to tend to the details.
The Dupont accident was a bad hire, based on important personality factors as I suggested. What specifically would your proposal do to screen him out at the outset? Why waste the time and money to train someone with such a careless attitude? The FRA has also said fatigue from shift work is a major factor in accidents. How would you address that? And OSA (obstructive sleep apnea) If those questions are not addressed at least in your proposal (to name just three) you won't be taken seriously.
I doubt if you will do anything beyond complaining and ranting, as you have been doing for five years, but I hope I am wrong.
Aha! Now I understand. You 'cherry pick' the statistics to fit your 'argument'.
Tell the families of the folks on #188 and #501 who lost their lives that the statistics reflect that Amtrak's safety culture is improving.
I see that you have dodged my questions again. They are straightforward why can't you answer them?
So your point is that Amtrak's training is acceptable?
What data and specifics do you say I don't have?
243129I believe "human factor" also encompasses grade crossing incidents also. We are talking human error factors so the statistics you quote are no barometer by which to base your 'argument'.
If you actually examined the charts with the care you devoted to your former job, you'd see tht the tables are for "All Collisions" (specifically does not include highway grade crossing accidents, only the minor RR Crossings ).Here is the link. You can look at any four-year period by selecting the last year of the reporting period. In this case, I chose 1987-1990. Amtrak had a lot more accidents back then. I don't know when you switched to Amtrak
I could see what comes up for derailments, but this includes a lot of accidents caused by non-engineers.
charlie hebdo 243129 charlie hebdo Sorry pal. That post is my point. It's clear to anyone. Do the work. It's simple. Why are you avoiding an explanation of the point you are attempting to make? Because the *point was made already. You either don't understand or simply disagree and want an unproductive back-and-forth, which is your game, since you have no data or specifics. * "If you actually bothered to read the two charts, you'd see the Amtrak human-factor collision accidents were always small in number and generally have been stable back through 2011." [I could go back farther and list the numbers, but they are actually slightly higher 10+ years ago. Clearly if the training were as awful as you contend, there would be more accidents now, but the FRA report, which I quoted, shows a 30-year downward trend on the railroads, including Amtrak.
243129 charlie hebdo Sorry pal. That post is my point. It's clear to anyone. Do the work. It's simple. Why are you avoiding an explanation of the point you are attempting to make?
charlie hebdo Sorry pal. That post is my point. It's clear to anyone. Do the work. It's simple.
Sorry pal. That post is my point. It's clear to anyone. Do the work. It's simple.
Why are you avoiding an explanation of the point you are attempting to make?
Because the *point was made already. You either don't understand or simply disagree and want an unproductive back-and-forth, which is your game, since you have no data or specifics.
* "If you actually bothered to read the two charts, you'd see the Amtrak human-factor collision accidents were always small in number and generally have been stable back through 2011." [I could go back farther and list the numbers, but they are actually slightly higher 10+ years ago. Clearly if the training were as awful as you contend, there would be more accidents now, but the FRA report, which I quoted, shows a 30-year downward trend on the railroads, including Amtrak.
I believe "human factor" also encompasses grade crossing incidents also. We are talking human error factors so the statistics you quote are no barometer by which to base your 'argument'.
243192 Frankly, a lot of what you say on here and other locales, is pretty contemptuous of other engineers' qualifications, etc. Did you ever present your ideas to the BLET? What was their response? I wonder what folks like Jeff Hergert and other rail operating personnel on here think of your comments? Clearly the engineer in Washington state should have never been hired based on his lack of conscientiousness*, a measurable trait.
* Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being careful, or vigilant. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well, and to take obligations to others seriously. Conscientious people tend to be efficient and organized as opposed to easy-going and disorderly.
format error
OvermodExactly what's in this "corrective action plan" regarding the sort of issues regarding engineer training effectiveness that have been taken up here? Here is a PDF of what I believe WSDOT was requesting Amtrak to produce. Hard to imagine A
I haven't seen Amtrak in the paper. On page 16 the concerned transit lines are listed: As of September 1, 2013, the following RTAs and their RFGPTS are ultimately subject to therequirements of the state’s program standard:• City of Seattle (RTA)o Seattle Center Monorail (RFGPTS)o Seattle Streetcar (RFGPTS)• Sound Transit (RTA)o Tacoma Link (RFGPTS)o Link Light Rail (RFGPTS)In many places across the document the FTA is mentioned. I think the Cascade trains fall under FRA's jurisdiction.Regards, Volker
243129Here's another, pre Dupont, thankfully with no fatalities.
And, from Lindblom's story:
Meanwhile, the Washington State Department of Transportation’s rail division, a co-owner of the regional Cascades trains, asked Amtrak to produce a “corrective action plan” to prevent future incidents. WSDOT is spending $800 million in stimulus funds from the Obama administration to improve passenger train speed and reliability.
Exactly what's in this "corrective action plan" regarding the sort of issues regarding engineer training effectiveness that have been taken up here? Here is a PDF of what I believe WSDOT was requesting Amtrak to produce.
Hard to imagine Amtrak management would or could blow off a "request" from this major a government agency, albeit state, but it might be interesting to track the subsequent history of development of this plan, and the people at Amtrak (and perhaps elsewhere) involved with it.
We are talking operator error accidents are we not?
Here's another, pre Dupont, thankfully with no fatalities. Another Beatson/Hines trained engineer?
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/speed-human-error-blamed-for-amtrak-derailment-near-chambers-bay/
243129 Deggesty I presume that you aread the report Charlie posted. Here is a portion of the report: The railroad industry’s overall safety record is very positive, and most safety trends are moving in the right direction. While not even a single death or injury is acceptable, progress is continually being made in the effort to improve railroad safety. This improvement is demonstrated by an analysis of the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) database of railroad reports of accidents and incidents that have occurred over the nearly three decades from 1978 through 2006. See 49 CFR part 225. (The worst year for rail safety in recent decades was 1978, and 2006 is the last complete year for which preliminary data are available.) Between 1978 and 2006, the total number of rail-related accidents and incidents has fallen from 90,653 to 12,833, an all-time low representing a decline of 86 percent. Between 1978 and 2006, total rail-related fatalities have declined from 1,646 to 915, a reduction of 44 percent. From 1978 to 2006, total employee cases (fatal and nonfatal) have dropped from 65,193 to 5,035, the record low; this represents a decline of 92 percent. In the same period, total employee deaths have fallen from 122 in 1978 to 16 in 2006, a decrease of 87 percent. Even with increased traffic, the accident rate has declined greatly in the period reported. Not on Amtrak.
Deggesty I presume that you aread the report Charlie posted. Here is a portion of the report: The railroad industry’s overall safety record is very positive, and most safety trends are moving in the right direction. While not even a single death or injury is acceptable, progress is continually being made in the effort to improve railroad safety. This improvement is demonstrated by an analysis of the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) database of railroad reports of accidents and incidents that have occurred over the nearly three decades from 1978 through 2006. See 49 CFR part 225. (The worst year for rail safety in recent decades was 1978, and 2006 is the last complete year for which preliminary data are available.) Between 1978 and 2006, the total number of rail-related accidents and incidents has fallen from 90,653 to 12,833, an all-time low representing a decline of 86 percent. Between 1978 and 2006, total rail-related fatalities have declined from 1,646 to 915, a reduction of 44 percent. From 1978 to 2006, total employee cases (fatal and nonfatal) have dropped from 65,193 to 5,035, the record low; this represents a decline of 92 percent. In the same period, total employee deaths have fallen from 122 in 1978 to 16 in 2006, a decrease of 87 percent. Even with increased traffic, the accident rate has declined greatly in the period reported.
I presume that you aread the report Charlie posted.
Here is a portion of the report: The railroad industry’s overall safety record is very positive, and most safety trends are moving in the right direction. While not even a single death or injury is acceptable, progress is continually being made in the effort to improve railroad safety. This improvement is demonstrated by an analysis of the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) database of railroad reports of accidents and incidents that have occurred over the nearly three decades from 1978 through 2006. See 49 CFR part 225. (The worst year for rail safety in recent decades was 1978, and 2006 is the last complete year for which preliminary data are available.) Between 1978 and 2006, the total number of rail-related accidents and incidents has fallen from 90,653 to 12,833, an all-time low representing a decline of 86 percent. Between 1978 and 2006, total rail-related fatalities have declined from 1,646 to 915, a reduction of 44 percent. From 1978 to 2006, total employee cases (fatal and nonfatal) have dropped from 65,193 to 5,035, the record low; this represents a decline of 92 percent. In the same period, total employee deaths have fallen from 122 in 1978 to 16 in 2006, a decrease of 87 percent.
Even with increased traffic, the accident rate has declined greatly in the period reported.
Not on Amtrak.
If you actually bothered to read the two charts, you'd see the Amtrak human-factor collision accidents were always small in number and generally have been stable back through 2011.2011 = 2
2012 = 0
2013 = 1
2014 = 3
2015 = 0
2016 = 1
2017 = 2
Seven year average = 1.285.
But apparently the actual data does not fit with your "sky is falling" agenda.
You cannot explain your point to me because you don't have one. Stop embarrassing yourself. You are pathetic.
Johnny
charlie hebdo Even so, you should be capable of reading the text from FRA. The data fields are clearly labeled.
Even so, you should be capable of reading the text from FRA. The data fields are clearly labeled.
No I want YOU to explain what YOUR point is.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.