Metrolink Crash in Chatsworth, CA - 9/12/08

Jtgshu it does not take over a minute to pick up papers or reset an alarm on a locomotive, you are sounding like a apologist.
He started screwing up by not calling the approach signal, then screwed up exceeding speed for approach signal. then he did not look at home board.
His last message was send 22 seconds before impact, he adjusted throttle and went by red board 25 seconds before impact.
The guy screwed up, do you and others talk on phone while driving, do you exceed posted speed limits, ever blow a stop sign, sure we all do.
But do we ever concider what the results are of our actions, NO , but maybe its time to realize we have been putting people at risk, and make changes.

concordgirl wrote: It's time to pick up the pieces and ask ourselves, Where did things go so wrong, that this one guy believed he could effectively do his job and send 22 texts at the same time?

C-girl. Let's get real. I'll tell you the answer to that question and save the tax payers $50,000 worth of consultants fees. The answer is that for an individual to send and receive that many text messsages as has been reported, while engaged in an operation requiring keen obsevation with a possible result of multiple fatalities is that the individual is just plain old not suited for the job. Whether he was burned out, drugged out, fascinated, bored, pre-occupied, makes no difference. He should not have been running that train - and I essentially mean that as a personal issue. As a tenured engineer, he knew the possible repercussions of operating that locomotive without full attention. You mentioned the reference to driving your automobile while texting. Well, multiply that hundreds of times. I also take issue with your comment about how one usually spoils it for the rest, as regards to regulations following an incident. Well, I know 25 people who would disagree.

To me the point is not, This guy was not suited for his job. The point is, How can we, in the future, identify those who will be better suited to do his job, and ensure that others to do a better job? I'm concerned with the future. I am not super interested in the crash itself anymore, now that it seems like we may know why it happened. Making changes to prevent another one, without bogging the rr industry down with a bunch of expensive, unnecessary new regulation is the real issue.

And my other comment referred to the fact that the government tends to go overboard and mess with things outside the immediate issue at hand.

I feel like we are verging on arguing politics here, and nothing could be more boring, I literally would rather watch paint dry... altho preferably paint on a loco @ BET So that's my two cents, I'm done here.

It doesn't take a minute dutch to be distracted and for an incident to happen - something happens and you gotta deal with it, and by that time it might be too late.

I guess you never pulled long at a station before because of a distraction for whatever reason - it doesn't take a whole minute of a distraction to throw you off your game - just one little thing happening at a precise point can really screw you up.

But your right, he did screw up, but hes not the only one - is the conductor physically qualified on the RR?

Should he have contacted the engineer if they frequently have meets in that location.
Did he look at the signal (which was clearly visible from the station) while at the station??? (especially since the Eng didn't call or brake for the Appraoch)
If it was a stop signal, did he commicate it with the engineer?????
Apparnelty he didn't - was his radio working????
Does he have a radio????
Was it charged and working????
Was it on the right channel???
If he (the cond) saw it was a stop signal, why didn't he dump it when he felt the train accelorating up to 52MPH if he saw a stop signal while on the platform?

There are questions that should be asked - the engineers actions obviously caused the wreck, thats a no-brainer, but like i said earlier, its a bunch of litlte mistakes that all have to happen in order for the big accident to happen.

And those questions are only some of the questions that pop into my head that could have prevented the accident. If the Cond contacted the engineer when he saw the stop signal, would that have "awaken" the engineer for his text messaging "trance?"

You gotta look past the whole "text messaging" - its not like that was the only factor. And someone who is as experienced as you are Dutch, should realize that there is always more "than meets the eye".

An apologist? No, just someone who wants real answers and isnt' going to settle for the "easy" answer.

concordgirl wrote:To me the point is not, This guy was not suited for his job. The point is, How can we, in the future, identify those who will be better suited to do his job, and ensure that others to do a better job? I'm concerned with the future. I am not super interested in the crash itself anymore, now that it seems like we may know why it happened. Making changes to prevent another one, without bogging the rr industry down with a bunch of expensive, unnecessary new regulation is the real issue.

And my other comment referred to the fact that the government tends to go overboard and mess with things outside the immediate issue at hand.

I feel like we are verging on arguing politics here, and nothing could be more boring, I literally would rather watch paint dry... altho preferably paint on a loco @ BET So that's my two cents, I'm done here.

Well, you may be done here, C-girl, but you have made some very definitive statements which I believe are outrageously incorrect and the result of imagination and not fact.
First of all, employers will never be able to totally screen employees for suitability for a given job. Particularly if that job is performed solo. There are too many mixes in the formula - time, individual personal problems, addictions, sleep deprivation, hidden psychological issues, etc etc etc to be able to screen 100 %. That's why this needs to be focused as a personal issue.
Secondly - your comment as regards to the government going "overboard and messing with things outside the immediate issue at hand". Examples ? (My experience has usually been the opposite in that I have found the government to usually not address the issue and fall short.)
I'll breathlessly await your responses.

Jtgshu NJT TTSI E3 states: Engineers must have cellphones in off mode, and placed in carry-on bag, briefcase ec or out of reach.
yet how many of NJT engineers use phones ??
MNCR rules state no cellphone can be used in cab of controlling locomotive, and phone can not be in on position, even for business calls, the crew member has to step outside the cab of controlling cab to make a call, so in otherwords train must be stopped, yet I see people using phones all time.
On Metrolink all signals must be called, but crews have gotten in bad habit of calling only those signals, showing other than green signals, so did conductor get distracted, did he assume since aproach was not called that it was green ???
If they have been slack on rule and Metrolink took no action and kept condoning it , does that make Metrolink the cause of accident.
No it makes Metrolink liable , but their engineer is still at fault.

3rdrail wrote:
Well, you may be done here, C-girl, but you have made some very definitive statements which I believe are outrageously incorrect and the result of imagination and not fact.

There ya go getting "outraged" again LOL It seems as though your argument is abt punishment for those who screw up, rather than preventing future accidents. How can you prevent future accidents by making something a "personal" issue? It is neither fair nor possible to monitor people on the job. You have to trust your employees. And good companies DO trust their employees, and give them incentives and training to enable them to better their job performance.

It is totally possible to have more and better employee training, to follow up and have refresher safety training throughout the years on the job. Keeping things fresh, and reminding people of best practices periodically, is one way companies can help make employees better suited to their jobs.

Furthermore, I personally am not in favor of big government, you can yell at me all you want but I still get to vote hehehe

You and I clearly have different takes on this. Guess what.... that's what the forum is all about If everyone on here had the same opinion it'd be pretty dull.

It is impossible to predict or anticipate what a given person will do. All the screening in the world will not help if someone decides to break a rule. My company like all of them prohibits alcohol on duty. They have rules classes, a drug and alcohol program, random testing, the whole works. And I have a long clean record. But if I decided to put a bottle in my grip today and chug it while the conductor is out throwing switches, there is no way the company could foresee or prevent that. It comes down to personal responsibility on the part of each and every employee.

As for the government going overboard and messing things up, Concordgirl is absolutely correct on that. The "rail safety" bill being pushed through in the wake of the California incident contains provisions for mandatory certification of conductors, a study on certification of other crafts, requires railroads to establish and maintain toll-free numbers for all grade crossing signal malfunctions, requires identification of the top 10 states that have the most grade crossing accidents with subsequent action, a reduction in the number of hours a train crew can work in a month, after 6 days work each hours of service employee must be GIVEN (not OFFERED) 48 hours off, authorizes the FRA to listen in on radio communication, gets into solid waste transfer facilities, and a whole host of other items.

Some of those may be very good, some are total BS, but the California wreck is the smokescreen to ram all this stuff through. After all, who could argue with a bill with SAFETY in its name? The knee-jerk reaction is to "quick, make more rules!".

Yeah, I'm outraged. I'm outraged because a reprobate caused the needless deaths of people who's only sin was trying to get home. Quite frankly, anyone that isn't outraged at this one is a cold fish.
You cannot totally reduce "accidents" because of human and mechanical failings. You can institute mandated changes and improvements ( government going overboard, C-girl ?) like seatbelts, outlawing cell phone use while operating any vehicle, ATC, etc.) which may cut the number of victims and accidents - but never totally eliminate them (so far, anyway with today's technology).
As regards to "keeping things fresh" and reminding people of best safety practices periodically - well, I'll let those in the non-corporate world ponder on that ! Why don't we issue happy faces to all engineers with a "be safe" slogan on them ? The point that I'm trying to make is that this is an issue for every person who has the kind of responsibility that Sanchez had that their responsibility is not a joke - even if they are. To continually text message was to give the finger to all those passengers behind him. Whether engineers like it or not, if one ATC system would have prevented those people from being killed by Sanchez, I'm all for it. I don't care if Sanchez wouldn't like it, I don't care if it delays operations, I don't care if it costs money and increased maintenance. I believe that companies have a right to expect that somebody does their job while being paid, and that they have a right to test, re-test, and continually evaluate a persons disposition to do their job. Technological advances such as ATC should be evaluated and installed if they would conceivably be a help in ensuring safety - irregardless if they are looked at by those in the industry as "impeding their control". If they don't like it, I say "get another job". And lastly, and probably most importantly, every person in such an important position should (but won't) evaluate themself for their own suitability to be in charge of another persons life(ves), and should they not choose to do so, there should be no complaints that their memory is being treated harshly.

Actually, refresher safety training was one of the recommendations of the NTSB in the aftermath of an NJT crash a few years back, where the engineer was also a diabetic. The train crews were not properly prepared on how to cope with an emergency, so were unable to direct the passengers in getting out of the coaches quickly after impact. The NTSB said in its report that, had NJT given its employees periodic refresher training instead of a one-time course for new hires, they crews would have been better able to cope in that emergency.

Yes, that was conductors, not engineers, but I still believe everyone benefits from learning. Maybe they're not popular with employees, but I'm an employee, and I also have to deal with s*** that I find annoying and boring on the job... and publishing is not a life-or-death industry like running trains Or are we all so smart that we never forget how to do anything?

I actually DO care abt allowing engineers a reasonable amount of control over their jobs. I still think that, in certain situations, people demonstrate more common sense than computers. And I believe it is possible to balance people's control over their jobs with the safety of passengers. I think that if you remove more and more control from the engineer, you are not going to attract the same quality of person to do that job, because the job will become more frustrating and less interesting. It will end up being a job that can be close to 100% automated.

I'm not saying we shouldn't apply safety features just bc it makes someone unhappy. I just hope there's a solution that is less intrusive for the people who do these jobs.

Ok here is link to new Final FRA rule on cellphones, makes some interesting observations in 17 pages of mishaps, concentrating on multiple crew members being on phones at time of crashes.
so there goes the extra pair of eyes theory.

Here is link to new FRA rule about cellphones:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/PubAff ... rder26.pdf

concordgirl wrote: I'm not saying we shouldn't apply safety features just bc it makes someone unhappy. I just hope there's a solution that is less intrusive for the people who do these jobs.

If it saves lives, WHO CARES ?

we don't know what this guy did on other days, but in all likelihood massive texting on duty was normal for him. Now who knew that he was texting on the job? We know some punk kid "rail fans" did. Who else did he text? If it was ever any of his coworkers did they ever read him the riot act for being an idiot? If they did the message did not take. Did they ever turn him in to either his employeer, Metrolink, or the FRA? Seems not doesn't it? What about the guys who worked with him, did they ever see him sitting around a crew lounge texting? Did they have a conversation with him about how he better not be doing that sh+t while he was on a run? Did anyone ever ride in the cab with him and see him answer his phone on the road or text? I find it difficult to believe that no one ever did. Did metrolink or his employer ever sit him and the rest of the engineers down and tell them that if they are ever found to be texting on the road they will be written-up and suspended? Has anyone ever been written up and suspended.

This is bigger than one guy, this is a problem that includes all of his coworkers and his employer failing to do what they needed to do to "encourage" crew members to pay attention to the safety of their trains above all else.

Actually, your post makes me curious whether the NTSB has pulled his cellphone records for the month before the accident, just to get an idea of what his habits were...

They can't, they can only subpoena records directly pertaining to the accident, thats why they can also not, show or discus the time he was off duty between two half's of his shift.
His private life and whatever happened on another shift does not pertain to the crash.