I think I understand why the judge has ignored the possibility that Bostian simply lost situational awareness and thought he was accelerating after passing through the curve. I suppose there are a lot of people demanding answers as to the cause of the disaster. They may have lost loved ones in the wreck. They may refuse to just accept the vague reference to a loss of awareness and wonder why that should be a legitimate explanation for the disaster. They might think it just should not be possible that a simple act of forgetting is free to wreak such profound havoc.
So to put all the questions to rest for the victims of the accident, the judge wants a trial which will bring forth all the evidence and weigh it to reach a conclusion. So to justify a trial, the judge cites Bostian’s training about the curve and the fact that Bostian failed to comply with the training. That is the essence of the trial, and there is no point in mentioning the loss of situational awareness which would act to make it seem like no trial is needed. And also, the theory of losing situational awareness is only a theory, so he leaves it out of his reasoning that a trial is needed to resolve all the questions.
If there is evidence for the loss of situational awareness, I am sure that will be introduced into the trial for fair consideration. I don’t think we can look at this through blinders, only focusing on putting Bostian through an ordeal. The ordeal is just one of the risks of doing his job.
charlie hebdoI'm not sure about the judge's reasoning either, but if Bostian walks away Scot free because of some vague loss of situational awareness, then every train being permitted to be operated by humans is in danger of an accident, which is absurd. Loss of situational awareness is a pretty lame excuse for negligence. I hope a trial will reveal the real, underlying cause.
So now you are proposing that every accident - no matter the discovered reason or lack thereof is now an act of ciminality.
A trial in this case will be no more than political theater.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Electroliner 1935The fireman bitched to the engineer the whole way about all his union issues with the railroad, never called a signal and was more of a distraction than a help. Engineer did a good job of grunting at the proper points. But that was a short run (about 3 hr.).
hey, sometimes that's the only thing we have left out here. Everyone gets to take their turns.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
blue streak 1This procedure is just why I am in favor for 2 persons in the cab of a loco. One person drives the train while other deals with problem. Person driving train stays out of the problem solving unless it affects operation o of train.. Add Quote to your Post
Sounds good but I will never forget my trip from Cincinnati to Richmond in the cab of the E8. The fireman bitched to the engineer the whole way about all his union issues with the railroad, never called a signal and was more of a distraction than a help. Engineer did a good job of grunting at the proper points. But that was a short run (about 3 hr.).
Airlines train differently now when there is the possibility of distraction. Whenever there is an abnormal or emergency one pilot will deal with the problem and the other will fly the airplane without getting involved with the incident. The only expception is when dealing with incident will the pilot dealing with the problem notes to the pilot flying what problem solver does will have an effect on flying characteristics.
An example would be a landing gear not extending. Pilot not flying will tell pilot flying that he is using an alternate method of extending the gear. Pilot flying will then adjust controls for the action. Mean while pilot flying tells ATC what is going on. Of course pilot flying will use the auto pilot if available for the problem.
This procedure is just why I am in favor for 2 persons in the cab of a loco. One person drives the train while other deals with problem. Person driving train stays out of the problem solving unless it affects operation o of train..
I'm not sure about the judge's reasoning either, but if Bostian walks away Scot free because of some vague loss of situational awareness, then every train being permitted to be operated by humans is in danger of an accident, which is absurd. Loss of situational awareness is a pretty lame excuse for negligence. I hope a trial will reveal the real, underlying cause.
Not a very good judge!
EuclidAlso, the Judge, in referring to Bostian’s training, claims that Bostian CONSCIOUSLY acted in violation of his training. Yet if Bostian lost situational awareness, he could not have been acting consciously.
Lithonia OperatorMy heart goes out to the guy, because he made a terrible mistake, and a the very least will have to live with that his entire life. I wish they would leave him alone, on the criminal side of things.
Well said, L.O. My sentiments exactly.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Lithonia Operator Euclid Bostian lost situational awareness of his location on the territory. Bingo. I 99.99% believe this is all it was. The consequences were tragic, but I find it virtually impossible to believe that Bostian intended to enter that curve that fast.
Euclid Bostian lost situational awareness of his location on the territory.
Bostian lost situational awareness of his location on the territory.
Bingo.
I 99.99% believe this is all it was. The consequences were tragic, but I find it virtually impossible to believe that Bostian intended to enter that curve that fast.
I want to clarify that what you quoted as being an example of what you conclude, it is not what I conclude. I cite it only as one of three different possible conclusions of the coming criminal trial, which are:
Bostian intentionally over sped into the curve with no known motive.
Bostian intentionally over sped into the curve with the motive to wreck the train.
Of those three, I do think the one you quote (#3) is the most likely, but I cannot rule out the other two conclusions that Bostian intentionally over sped into the curve.
Beyond that, I do not know at what point causing a crash by simply forgetting can be dismissed without accountability because it was a mistake and we all make mistakes. I think that is an interesting point when it comes to serious accidents with loss of life. The mistake is then a crime of negligence, but amount of fault that must be paid for through legal punishment appears to be quite complex. It is the same thing that confronted Tom Harding, the engineer of the runaway oil train that devastated Lac Megantic.
An important point of this trial of Bostian is that conclusions #1 and #2 will be ruled out if the trial upholds conclusion #3. That would be an important and worthwhile accomplishment of the trial of Bostian.
Also, as I recall, the NTSB concluded that Bostian lost situational awareness because he was rattled about the news of the stoning of another nearby train. While he may have lost situational awareness, I think the reason for that lapse asserted by the NTSB is nothing more than speculation as they have no way of knowing and evaluating the billions of possible thought processes that could have caused Bostian to lose situational awareness. And also, because of the existence of items #1 and #2, the NTSB has no basis to rule them out.
But overall here, what I find most interesting is the reasoning of the Judge. He cites Bostian’s training that would include knowing about the curve, its speed restriction, and the consequences of over speeding in the curve. Part of Bostian’s training also included knowing the territory. So in the Judge’s mind, anything Bostian did that was outside of his training would apparently be negligence.
But Bostian was not trained to be continuously, perfectly, situationally aware. Nobody is trained for that because being trained to be continuously, perfectly, situationally aware is impossible. Yet the Judge seems to base his reasoning on that prospect as well as the other training details of the curve.
Therefore, the Judge’s reasoning seems weak because it excludes the possible loss of situational awareness. Also, the Judge, in referring to Bostian’s training, claims that Bostian CONSCIOUSLY acted in violation of his training. Yet if Bostian lost situational awareness, he could not have been acting consciously.
Maybe he was distracted, as he stated. Maybe he was really asleep (I don't how recently he had had to acknowledge a buzzer or something). Maybe he had a medical event that even he does not remember, some kind of mini-stroke.
Probably he just screwed up, bad. He was confused. But AFAIK there is zero evidence of malice.
State laws vary, but my guess is the only thing that might stick to him would be Negligent Homicide (or Pennsylvania's equivalent thereof).
And if it has not already happened (and it probably has) he will be bombarded with civil suits.
My heart goes out to the guy, because he made a terrible mistake, and a the very least will have to live with that his entire life.
I wish they would leave him alone, on the criminal side of things.
BaltACDDidn't see any in the one opportunity I had for CSX locomotive simulator time. That being said, riding with yard crews into and out of Curtis Bay Yard in Baltimore - you got practice every time your train went past a community known as Cherry Hill - day, night, hot, cold it didn't matter - then again track speed was 25 MPH and inbound you were approaching an Absolute Signal that governed entrance into the yard proper - so you were normally running on an Approach indication - prepared to stop at the Absolute Signal.
deleted
Erik_Mag Balt: Classic example of "unstabilized approach" was the December 29, 1972 Eastern Airlines L-1011 crash. The crew was distracted by a problem with the landing gear indicator light and forgot that their first job was to fly the airplane. Similar things is with many (but not all) drivers talking on cell phones while driving - they forget their first job is to drive the car. Being a potential target of rock throwing would be distracting - wonder if there is any training for engineers on how to handle rock throwing incidents?
Balt:
Classic example of "unstabilized approach" was the December 29, 1972 Eastern Airlines L-1011 crash. The crew was distracted by a problem with the landing gear indicator light and forgot that their first job was to fly the airplane. Similar things is with many (but not all) drivers talking on cell phones while driving - they forget their first job is to drive the car.
Being a potential target of rock throwing would be distracting - wonder if there is any training for engineers on how to handle rock throwing incidents?
Didn't see any in the one opportunity I had for CSX locomotive simulator time. That being said, riding with yard crews into and out of Curtis Bay Yard in Baltimore - you got practice every time your train went past a community known as Cherry Hill - day, night, hot, cold it didn't matter - then again track speed was 25 MPH and inbound you were approaching an Absolute Signal that governed entrance into the yard proper - so you were normally running on an Approach indication - prepared to stop at the Absolute Signal.
charlie hebdo Loss of situational awareness seems the most likely cause, as intentionally engaging in reckless behavior has never been alleged by investigations, to the best of my recollection. My question is why situational awareness was lost. Did Bostian have an non-diagnosed or unreported cognitive impairment preceding the crash? The question is not a moot one for several reasons. If not diagnosed, perhaps better medical screening on a regular basis is needed. If he knew he had difficulty sustaining attention, he had a duty to report this.
Loss of situational awareness seems the most likely cause, as intentionally engaging in reckless behavior has never been alleged by investigations, to the best of my recollection. My question is why situational awareness was lost. Did Bostian have an non-diagnosed or unreported cognitive impairment preceding the crash? The question is not a moot one for several reasons. If not diagnosed, perhaps better medical screening on a regular basis is needed. If he knew he had difficulty sustaining attention, he had a duty to report this.
charlie, my mantra: Poor vetting, poor training, poor supervision.
Video of a explanation of aircraft procedures for landing and how situations can cause a overload of the pilots 'workload' and end up resulting in accidents. Reports of stoning on Bostain's intended route created additional 'work' to his existing workload.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiNHsukIkCg
DeggestyHow could anyone determine which conclusion is the "true conclusion"? What evidence is present?
What evidence is present NOW, that wasn't present when the charges were dismissed twice previously for what has to be assumed as a lack of evidence to warrant a conviction.
Prosecutors frequently take cases to trial with evidence that juries and/or judges rule is insufficient for a conviction. When prosecutors dismiss charges they feel that the evidence is even more ephemeral and non-existant.
Quoting Euclid: "I have no idea whether Bostian getting lost on the territory could be used to dismiss the charges. It seems to me that the trial could reach the following conclusions:
I suppose that because all three of these potential conclusions are possible, the trial can be deemed to be necessary to attempt to learn which one is true."
How could anyone determine which conclusion is the "true conclusion"? What evidence is present?
Johnny
Charges have been dismissed twice - presumably for lack of prosecutorial evidence.
No new evidence has been alledged in reinstating the charges for the third time.
Electroliner 1935 Euclid So I think the Judge is overlooking the fact that although Bostian knew all about the dangerous curve, none of that would have mattered if Bostian did not realize he was at the curve. I concur but does "overlooking" that fact becomes grounds for an request by the defense for a reconsideration?
Euclid So I think the Judge is overlooking the fact that although Bostian knew all about the dangerous curve, none of that would have mattered if Bostian did not realize he was at the curve.
I concur but does "overlooking" that fact becomes grounds for an request by the defense for a reconsideration?
I have no idea whether Bostian getting lost on the territory could be used to dismiss the charges. It seems to me that the trial could reach the following conclusions:
I suppose that because all three of these potential conclusions are possible, the trial can be deemed to be necessary to attempt to learn which one is true.
Criminal intent could easily be a part of items #1 and #2. I have no idea about whether criminal intent or criminal negligence could be part of item #3.
EuclidSo I think the Judge is overlooking the fact that although Bostian knew all about the dangerous curve, none of that would have mattered if Bostian did not realize he was at the curve.
charlie hebdo Euclid charlie hebdo Electroliner 1935 charlie hebdo Denigating our court system is a favorite sport here. To those who do so, would you prefer a show trial system of jurisprudence, ala Roland Freisler or as in the Stalin era? No, but, (this raises hackles) for a case of this nature where there is very emotional issues involved, I have concerns over whether the jury can be influenced to "ignore" the pain and suffering of the victims and determine if the engineer could have consciously CHOSEN to overspeed into the curve. If the prosecution trots out all the “body parts” and blood and gore and paints him as a monster, which I am afraid they will do, it can be hard to keep the jury focused on whether there was INTENTION to ignore the curve and its speed restriction. The defense may have a hard time. I watch too much TV and would see this as a case for the show, BULL. I understand your concerns but as far as I know, and I may be wrong, he is not being charged with deliberately choosing to derail his train and kill passengers. I believe that is one possible conclusion for the trial. It is the only conclusion I can think of that would support the allegation that he consciously knew he was entering the curve at a possible roll-over speed. Who alledged that? Citation, please?
Euclid charlie hebdo Electroliner 1935 charlie hebdo Denigating our court system is a favorite sport here. To those who do so, would you prefer a show trial system of jurisprudence, ala Roland Freisler or as in the Stalin era? No, but, (this raises hackles) for a case of this nature where there is very emotional issues involved, I have concerns over whether the jury can be influenced to "ignore" the pain and suffering of the victims and determine if the engineer could have consciously CHOSEN to overspeed into the curve. If the prosecution trots out all the “body parts” and blood and gore and paints him as a monster, which I am afraid they will do, it can be hard to keep the jury focused on whether there was INTENTION to ignore the curve and its speed restriction. The defense may have a hard time. I watch too much TV and would see this as a case for the show, BULL. I understand your concerns but as far as I know, and I may be wrong, he is not being charged with deliberately choosing to derail his train and kill passengers. I believe that is one possible conclusion for the trial. It is the only conclusion I can think of that would support the allegation that he consciously knew he was entering the curve at a possible roll-over speed.
charlie hebdo Electroliner 1935 charlie hebdo Denigating our court system is a favorite sport here. To those who do so, would you prefer a show trial system of jurisprudence, ala Roland Freisler or as in the Stalin era? No, but, (this raises hackles) for a case of this nature where there is very emotional issues involved, I have concerns over whether the jury can be influenced to "ignore" the pain and suffering of the victims and determine if the engineer could have consciously CHOSEN to overspeed into the curve. If the prosecution trots out all the “body parts” and blood and gore and paints him as a monster, which I am afraid they will do, it can be hard to keep the jury focused on whether there was INTENTION to ignore the curve and its speed restriction. The defense may have a hard time. I watch too much TV and would see this as a case for the show, BULL. I understand your concerns but as far as I know, and I may be wrong, he is not being charged with deliberately choosing to derail his train and kill passengers.
Electroliner 1935 charlie hebdo Denigating our court system is a favorite sport here. To those who do so, would you prefer a show trial system of jurisprudence, ala Roland Freisler or as in the Stalin era? No, but, (this raises hackles) for a case of this nature where there is very emotional issues involved, I have concerns over whether the jury can be influenced to "ignore" the pain and suffering of the victims and determine if the engineer could have consciously CHOSEN to overspeed into the curve. If the prosecution trots out all the “body parts” and blood and gore and paints him as a monster, which I am afraid they will do, it can be hard to keep the jury focused on whether there was INTENTION to ignore the curve and its speed restriction. The defense may have a hard time. I watch too much TV and would see this as a case for the show, BULL.
charlie hebdo Denigating our court system is a favorite sport here. To those who do so, would you prefer a show trial system of jurisprudence, ala Roland Freisler or as in the Stalin era?
I understand your concerns but as far as I know, and I may be wrong, he is not being charged with deliberately choosing to derail his train and kill passengers.
I believe that is one possible conclusion for the trial. It is the only conclusion I can think of that would support the allegation that he consciously knew he was entering the curve at a possible roll-over speed.
Who alledged that? Citation, please?
The following in blue is a quote by Judge Stabile;
“Given his extensive training and experience and despite having 250 passengers aboard, (Bostian) consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk of derailment,” Stabile wrote. “He was going twice over the speed limit… Moreover, the evidence indicates that, based on his training and experience, (Bostian) was aware of the risk inherent in navigating the Frankford Curve.”
The following was my comment about what the judge wrote. I believe what I said in red basically matches what the judge said above.
“I believe that is one possible conclusion for the trial. It is the only conclusion I can think of that would support the allegation that he consciously knew he was entering the curve at a possible roll-over speed.”
So what I am saying is that it seems to me that the judge is leaving open the possibility that Bostian intentionally wrecked the train. The judge says Bostian had been trained to know about the curve, its speed limit, and the rollover consequence of entering the curve over the speed limit. And he says Bostian had to be conscious of these facts when he entered the curve because of his training about the curve.
If you look at it that way, I can see no explanation for the disaster other than Bostian wanting to wreck the train. What else could explain it if he knew all about danger and consciously defied it?
But there is also an explanation that Bostian did not intend to wreck the train when he entered the curve. And this is what the Judge is apparently overlooking. Although Bostian knew all about the curve and its location, he may have gotten lost in relation to the curve location, and did not realize he was about to enter the curve. And in that scenario, Bostian did not consciously enter the curve.
I believe Bostian stated that he thought he has already passed the curve and therefore began to accelerate to the speed limit that would have governed after passing through the curve. Isn’t that also what the NTSB concluded?
So I think the Judge is overlooking the fact that although Bostian knew all about the dangerous curve, none of that would have mattered if Bostian did not realize he was at the curve.
charlie hebdoBostian was an experienced operator who for unexplained reasons took his train at twice the safe speed around a curve.
Obviously not experienced enough to be distracted so easily.
charlie hebdoDenigating our court system is a favorite sport here.
Be careful there Charlie, no-one's denigrating the court system here. I'm sure most will agree with me there are thousands of district attorneys and prosecuting attorneys laboring long hours unsung and unknown in a never-ending struggle to keep us safe from the predators out there, and we're grateful for them.
What I, and again I'd say most us, denigrate are the ambitious ones who let their ambitions get the better of the sense of justice they're supposed to have. They're out there, in fact the Supreme Court just threw out the convictions in the Federal "Bridgegate" case due to prosecutorial overreach.
And let me tell you, most of their colleagues have no use for them either, just as no-one hates a bad cop more than a good cop.
There's seeing justice done, and there's scalp hunting.
And as Balt said, the original charges were dismissed. That should have been the end of it, whether we agree with that finding or not.
Ever since the charges were first dismissed - this 'case' has been nothing more than a political grandstanding maneuver for the individual reinstating the charges; this is not about justice it is all about political theater.
charlie hebdoDenigating our court system is a favorite sport here. To those who do so, would you prefer a show trial system of jurisprudence, ala Roland Freisler or as in the Stalin era?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.