PA - Amtrak train from Washington crashes in Philadelphia, May 2015

[Inthedetails]

Except they are saying this alleged projectile hit the front of the windshield. I personally think that all of the strikes on the windshield are from the accident.

What I find confusing is all of the excuses being made for this man. I am not crucifying him. He made a tragic error and caused this accident. There is just nothing I have seen to explain away his actions - certainly not a rock hitting his windshield!!

This wasn't a "few seconds" of increased speed. It increased for 45 seconds. That is a long time to be so distracted that you have no idea what is happening to the train you are in control of.

The explanation (at this point in the investigation) is bolded above. He made a tragic error. That is not an excuse - the error was NOT OKAY, but it was an accident (as far as we know at this point).

I recall airline pilots - two in the cockpit - who missed the airport completely and a flight attendant had to remind them they forgot to land. Oops.

I'm thinking of surgeries where the doctor removed the wrong body part or forgot a medical tool inside the body. This is in a surgical room full of intelligent professionals who want to do the right thing...but for some reason failed.

These were errors, accidents, negligence...but that doesn't make them intentional and it also doesn't make them excusable. But it does mean that the person made a mistake that can't be explained any other way except humans f' up sometimes and it can be a tragedy.

And just because it's an accident doesn't mean the person is not held responsible. If you cause an accident by human error, you are responsible for it.

 

[corundogs]

The explanation (at this point in the investigation) is bolded above. He made a tragic error. That is not an excuse - the error was NOT OKAY, but it was an accident (as far as we know at this point).

I recall airline pilots - two in the cockpit - who missed the airport completely and a flight attendant had to remind them they forgot to land. Oops.

I'm thinking of surgeries where the doctor removed the wrong body part or forgot a medical tool inside the body. This is in a surgical room full of intelligent professionals who want to do the right thing...but for some reason failed.

These were errors, accidents, negligence...but that doesn't make them intentional and it also doesn't make them excusable. But it does mean that the person made a mistake that can't be explained any other way accept human f' up sometimes and it can be a tragedy.

And just because it's an accident doesn't mean the person is not held responsible. If you cause an accident by human error, you are responsible for it.

I wholeheartedly agree!! There is no where in any of my posts where I said - nor do I think - this man drove the train off the track on purpose.

 

[jjenny]

If the projectile was directed at the train from its side, I doubt it would be captured on the video. Trains take an incredibly long time to slow down but I think the question is why didn't the engineer apply the brakes? I'd like to know if the train had a dead man's switch on it.

JMO

If it hit the window, I presume the video would show that (regardless of where it came from).

 

[jjenny]

Except they are saying this alleged projectile hit the front of the windshield. I personally think that all of the strikes on the windshield are from the accident.

What I find confusing is all of the excuses being made for this man. I am not crucifying him. He made a tragic error and caused this accident. There is just nothing I have seen to explain away his actions - certainly not a rock hitting his windshield!!

This wasn't a "few seconds" of increased speed. It increased for 45 seconds. That is a long time to be so distracted that you have no idea what is happening to the train you are in control of.

Yes, that's exactly what they are saying. The alleged projectile damage is supposedly on the left side of the front window. Should have been on video (presumably) but yet they watched it and didn't see anything coming toward the window.

 

[galiuro]

They said he was going 70 which is the speed limit and then 44 seconds before the derailment, he increased the speed to 106. When he should have been decreasing to 50. That is a major issue! And being distracted by a rock flying into your window is not enough of an explanation. Apparently, I might be the only one who thinks so.

The speed limit in that area is NOT 100!!!! There is just no reasonable explanation for him to be going that fast.

What I understand this engineer to be saying is that they 'open up' the throttle before this stretch and then apply the brakes as they approach the curve. So what happened isn't so much that he applied more throttle but rather that he didn't apply the brakes and maybe also throttle back? ie the key part isn't the throttle so much as the lack of braking.

 

[bettybaby00]

Yes, that's exactly what they are saying. The alleged projectile damage is supposedly on the left side of the front window. Should have been on video (presumably) but yet they watched it and didn't see anything coming toward the window.

If it hit the window, I presume the video would show that (regardless of where it came from).

This is what I'm trying to say with regard to it being "seen" on the video.

 

[corundogs]

What I understand this engineer to be saying is that they 'open up' the throttle before this stretch and then apply the brakes as they approach the curve. So what happened isn't so much that he applied more throttle but rather that he didn't apply the brakes and maybe also throttle back? ie the key part isn't the throttle so much as the lack of braking.

But how would have increased in speed from 70MPH to 106MPH in the span of 45 seconds...if he didn't apply more throttle? If there was no increase in throttle, then his speed would have stayed at 70 - breaks or not.

 

[galiuro]

The quoted engineer says they 'opened the throttle' meaning they 'floored it' from what I read...perhaps it went downhill? Just another unexplained issue, I don't know what happened either. But I certainly understand tapping the brake before sliding into a curve when driving...and if you don't tap the brake at the right point, bad things can happen...

 

[jjenny]

This is what I'm trying to say with regard to it being "seen" on the video.

Yes, they didn't see anything coming toward the front window on the outbound video. They are going to watch it again.
I said it before, but it's very surprising to me they went public with what conductor supposedly overheard on radio transmission, without verifying it with actual radio transmission or by interviewing SERTA engineer. Especially considering they didn't see anything on video suggesting a projectile. What's the rush? Seem to me that before suggesting something like that, they should have used methods of verification available to them. Can they listen to the actual radio transmission to see what exactly was said? Does SERTA engineer confirm that he heard it? Would it be possible for a projectile to hit the front window without it being on video?

 

[renee300]

The quoted engineer says they 'opened the throttle' meaning they 'floored it' from what I read...perhaps it went downhill? Just another unexplained issue, I don't know what happened either. But I certainly understand tapping the brake before sliding into a curve when driving...and if you don't tap the brake at the right point, bad things can happen...

My understanding from the engineers that have spoken on the issue is that the train continues to accelerate when the throttle is open.

http://wric.com/2015/05/14/retired-amtrak-engineer-talks-speed-challenges-of-job/

 

[MyBelle]

Except they are saying this alleged projectile hit the front of the windshield. I personally think that all of the strikes on the windshield are from the accident.

What I find confusing is all of the excuses being made for this man. I am not crucifying him. He made a tragic error and caused this accident. There is just nothing I have seen to explain away his actions - certainly not a rock hitting his windshield!!

This wasn't a "few seconds" of increased speed. It increased for 45 seconds. That is a long time to be so distracted that you have no idea what is happening to the train you are in control of.

BBM. It is unknown at this time what error, if any, the engineer made or what caused this accident yet you continue to leap into "blame" mode. I prefer to wait for the real investigation to conclude.

JMO

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

NYC mourners laud Amtrak victim Rachel Jacobs

Detroit News and wire services 11:59 p.m. EDT May 16, 2015

New York — Friends of a Metro Detroit native, educational-software executive and charity founder killed in the Amtrak train crash in Philadelphia said they have learned from her life as they mourned her death Saturday.

Hundreds of people packed a memorial service in New York for Rachel Jacobs. The 39-year-old Huntington Woods native was among eight people killed when the speeding train derailed as it rounded a 50-mph Philadelphia curve at about 106 mph.

"She was really seen as a beacon of light," mourner Brett Leitner said as he left the service. "She touched a remarkable amount of people. It's a deeply felt loss." ...

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...rs-laud-amtrak-victim-rachel-jacobs/27469345/

http://deathnotices.michigan.com/view-single.php?id=1000001546&token=

 

[jjenny]

Yes, they didn't see anything coming toward the front window on the outbound video. They are going to watch it again.
I said it before, but it's very surprising to me they went public with what conductor supposedly overheard on radio transmission, without verifying it with actual radio transmission or by interviewing SERTA engineer. Especially considering they didn't see anything on video suggesting a projectile. What's the rush? Seem to me that before suggesting something like that, they should have used methods of verification available to them. Can they listen to the actual radio transmission to see what exactly was said? Does SERTA engineer confirm that he heard it? Would it be possible for a projectile to hit the front window without it being on video?

Well, I knew it. They went ahead and released information without verification, based on something conductor supposedly overheard. Now they say there is no communication from Amtrak that something hit the train.

“We interviewed the dispatchers and we listened to the dispatch tape, and we heard no communications at all from the Amtrak engineer to the dispatch center to say that something had struck his train,” Sumwalt said during an interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos on “This Week.”
http://abcnews.go.com/US/ntsb-inves...neer-communications-suggest/story?id=31101697

 

[jjenny]

I know that there have been responses to this...but there are no HOLES in that windshield. In order for a projectile to get to the engineer, it would have had to make a hole. All we see is a tempered glass windshield that has been damaged by something. And of course, that projectile would still be in the cockpit - and they would have the answer.

And I also agree with the poster who said that the video should have proof, since it was a front facing camera.

I just don't believe that this man would have been so distracted by something hitting his windshield that he forgot where he was.

I really wish someone could answer how far down the track you can see. This is a main point that I haven't seen answered.

IMO, this is a tragic accident caused by human error. Like most of you. Is it better if he got distracted by something and forgot where he was along the track? If an engineer is so easily distracted, does that mean you want them in charge of YOUR train?

ETA - and to those that think he was so distracted...is it OK that when someone is so distracted, they choose to speed up? I would think instinct would be to slow down to see if there was more complicated damage.

They didn't see anything hitting the train on video, and they didn't hear the Amtrak engineer saying anything about his train being hit when they listened to the actual radio dispatch recordings. To me, it seem kind of ridiculous that NTSB went to the press with a claim that conductor overheard something, when there doesn't appear to be anything to verify that train was hit by an object or that engineer claimed train was hit by an object. So far, I don't think there is any evidence this train was hit by any objects. Except for damage to the front window, but considering the train was derailed, I bet the damage to the window happened after derailment.
I don't know what happened, but I find human error difficult to believe, considering this guy claims he wasn't texting, was not on drugs, was not fatigued or sick, and knew the speed limits.

 

[jjenny]

My understanding from the engineers that have spoken on the issue is that the train continues to accelerate when the throttle is open.

http://wric.com/2015/05/14/retired-amtrak-engineer-talks-speed-challenges-of-job/

According to NTSB, an engineer would have to push it forward for the train to accelerate.

"Speaking Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Mr. Sumwalt said the only way a normally operating train would accelerate like the Amtrak train did ahead of a sharp curve would be if the conductor “pushed the throttle forward.” A data-recording box recovered from the crashed train could shed light on whether that occurred, Mr. Sumwalt said."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/amtrak-...hers-train-was-struck-investigator-1431879464

 

[sonjay]

The explanation (at this point in the investigation) is bolded above. He made a tragic error. That is not an excuse - the error was NOT OKAY, but it was an accident (as far as we know at this point).

I recall airline pilots - two in the cockpit - who missed the airport completely and a flight attendant had to remind them they forgot to land. Oops.

I'm thinking of surgeries where the doctor removed the wrong body part or forgot a medical tool inside the body. This is in a surgical room full of intelligent professionals who want to do the right thing...but for some reason failed.

These were errors, accidents, negligence...but that doesn't make them intentional and it also doesn't make them excusable. But it does mean that the person made a mistake that can't be explained any other way except humans f' up sometimes and it can be a tragedy.

And just because it's an accident doesn't mean the person is not held responsible. If you cause an accident by human error, you are responsible for it.

I agree with everything you said here.

I would like to add that we (society/legal system) generally judge people less harshly, and generally punish people less harshly, for honest human errors than we do if they did the thing on purpose, or if they were deliberately being reckless or careless.

It's not that the the error is "okay." But an honest human error is far more forgivable than a deliberate act or a deliberately reckless act.

Most of us make honest human errors all the time. Often, it's because of some momentary distraction. You miss your regular interstate exit — the one you take every day of your life — because you were trying to remember if you took the pork chops out of the freezer that morning. You get home from the grocery store without 2 of the things on your list because your favorite song came on the overhead speakers just as you were checking your list to see if you had everything. You forget to send an important, time-critical email because just as you were about to click the "send" button your kid came running into the house crying over a skinned knee.

Most of us are fortunate to live our whole lives without ever having such a distraction-based error result in someone's death. We're not perfect, just lucky.

 

[Bravo]

The problem is that the employer is a government agency. President Reagan showed in 1981 when he fired striking Air Traffic Controllers that the feds have no regard for unions when they express concerns over safety.

JMO

Thanks for your response. I too am Governed by a Government agency. Ministry of Community and Social Services is one sector I do provide services too. No way in heck would those hours/days fly.

 

[CARIIS]

Yes, that's exactly what they are saying. The alleged projectile damage is supposedly on the left side of the front window. Should have been on video (presumably) but yet they watched it and didn't see anything coming toward the window.

I kind of feel like media is failing to remembeer, that , like airplanes, these are giant machines. Acceleration, decleeration, the time it takes for engines or locomtive to even repond to inputs by whoever is in control is a lot longer than most imagine. In aviation we are looking at around, 10 11 seconds for an engine to spool up if the throttles are pushed forward.

There are steps :a human to realize an action is needed, then time to order arm to do the action, then do the action, then the machine needs to order the machine to respond to the input command, then the machine itself needs time to understand the command, then it starts to respond to command, then it needs time to get to the input level requested .

The crack on the left definatly looks much different than the breakage that occurred during the accident sequence. The one on the left looks like the other two trains in the area.

I just learned a few posts back that they apparently dont reduce throttle THEN brake, they just thro brakes on top of a increasing locamotive. That was fascinating to me. I visualize, increase in throttle like normal, window strike startle responsee resulting in throttle being moved up more than anticvpated, jerk?. Some process time to absorb process what had just happened, then refocus attention, then abosrb actual location as it relates to upcoming curve, the think brakes, then order arm to do brake, then brake system needs to start reacting , then the machine needs to start to slow due to the brake application having started.

there are both mentally and mechnically "time processes" involved in all of it - and the scenario as we kind of know it now is total congruent in terms of all the crash reports I have read as it relates to human brain/eyes/muscles processing of info, making choices, action etc.

And yeh, in terms of human factors, if it was indeed hit, NTSB will evaluate process time to the miliseconds for eyes to register break in windshield, brain to and the amouont of time that distracted his attn. THey should be ale to get throttle input by seconds to.

No accident is ever one thing, it is a string of events that must occur in a certain order to set up the accident sequence.

I do think that NTSB will give much merit, if the train was hit by something, as it relates to engineers actions milisecond by milisecond, IMO

 

[corundogs]

I kind of feel like media is failing to remembeer, that , like airplanes, these are giant machines. Acceleration, decleeration, the time it takes for engines or locomtive to even repond to inputs by whoever is in control is a lot longer than most imagine. In aviation we are looking at around, 10 11 seconds for an engine to spool up if the throttles are pushed forward.

There are steps :a human to realize an action is needed, then time to order arm to do the action, then do the action, then the machine needs to order the machine to respond to the input command, then the machine itself needs time to understand the command, then it starts to respond to command, then it needs time to get to the input level requested .

The crack on the left definatly looks much different than the breakage that occurred during the accident sequence. The one on the left looks like the other two trains in the area.

I just learned a few posts back that they apparently dont reduce throttle THEN brake, they just thro brakes on top of a increasing locamotive. That was fascinating to me. I visualize, increase in throttle like normal, window strike startle responsee resulting in throttle being moved up more than anticvpated, jerk?. Some process time to absorb process what had just happened, then refocus attention, then abosrb actual location as it relates to upcoming curve, the think brakes, then order arm to do brake, then brake system needs to start reacting , then the machine needs to start to slow due to the brake application having started.

there are both mentally and mechnically "time processes" involved in all of it - and the scenario as we kind of know it now is total congruent in terms of all the crash reports I have read as it relates to human brain/eyes/muscles processing of info, making choices, action etc.

And yeh, in terms of human factors, if it was indeed hit, NTSB will evaluate process time to the miliseconds for eyes to register break in windshield, brain to and the amouont of time that distracted his attn. THey should be ale to get throttle input by seconds to.

No accident is ever one thing, it is a string of events that must occur in a certain order to set up the accident sequence.

I do think that NTSB will give much merit, if the train was hit by something, as it relates to engineers actions milisecond by milisecond, IMO

I think you need to read some of the more recent posts CARIIS.

The NTSB said that the train was not hit...and there was nothing on the radio about this train.

And that no, trains don't just increase speed until breaks are applied. The only way for that train to increase it's speed from 70 to 106 is if the engineer applied the throttle, or whatever.

 

[CARIIS]

I am not sure - I do not think the FBI has examined it yet - but it sure looks the same as the other two- we need to wait for FBI analysis of windsheild -
Ntsb will have no expertise in that arena!

I vote the left thing was not in accident sequence - IMO! Well see!


and the post a few back from a train engineer explained that they dont reduce throttle (sounds strange I know!) but do apply brakes before entering a curve

But Mark Rosenker, a former N.T.S.B. chairman, said the impact from a thrown object could have affected the engineer and led to the crash. He could have been startled to a point of distraction to lose situational awareness and forget that he was supposed to slow down instead of accelerating,” Mr. Rosenker said in an interview Friday.



Usually you just leave the throttle open until you get up to 80 miles per hour, then put on the brake for the curve,” he said. “Seems reasonable that something happened right about that time he would have started slowing down that kept him from taking the throttle off. He was startled by the impact or whatever. And by the time he realized it, it was too late.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us...phia.html?_r=0