Today is October 6, 2019, and the contradiction remains in NTSB report RAB 1901 even though it has been directly reported, by me via telephone May 2019, to NTSB.
Why am I not surprised?[:^)]
After the impact, at 11:18 p.m., the engineer placed the train into emergency braking, announced emergency three times on the radio,
According to the event recorder and the engineer interview, the Amtrak engineer responded immediately and applied emergency braking upon seeing the
Somebody has an ax to grind.
No resumption of ad hominems, please. There may be a point of actual interest here.
Clearly the NTSB has no particular interest in revising its work product. What’s going to be interesting is that lawyers are going to take a particular interest in this issue, and perhaps specifically in errors in the NTSB work product, at which point I somewhat grimly expect to see an increasing flood of changed versions, perhaps with hysterical accompanying letters throwing the perceived culprits under the bus. In certain government prosecutions and proceedings, dotting the 'i’s and crossing the 't’s in legal material is of almost NS-like preternatural importance, regardless of cost.
Probably more likely is a note from someone at NTSB over the Secretary’s signature indicating that what they meant ‘all along’ was what is indicated (overt and tacit) in their interview results and the logical conclusions that can be drawn from them. And then the beat will go on.
I would agree, though, that this is likely not a ‘smoking gun’ proving nitwit incompetence at the NTSB. Although I would not be too keen on having to argue the point…
Pointing out an obvious contradiction/error is considered having “an ax to grind”?
Wouldn’t the NTSB report be considered “evidence”?
As such I believe it needs to be protected “warts and all” through the entire process. You really wouldn’t want evidence to be tampered with even when some well meaning samaritan phones in a correction, let alone anyone who might have a vested interest.
Kind of like the thread about the letter to the head of Amtrak. With the target surrounded by an army of well paid experts expected to have a mastery of their field, isn’t it rather grandiose for John Q Public to assume that such people eagerly await input from the peanut gallery ?
Applies to various staff at the NTSB too. Speaking as a cynic, if there is an issue, almost everyone has an ax needing at least some grinding. Or as lawyers say with considerable truth, "It all depends on whose ox is being gored. "
By statute, NTSB reports are not admissible in a court of law.
Didn’t know that…very interesting…thanks
You motivated me to dig deeper, and not surprisingly there is a specific protocol to be followed when making corrections to errors in the factual reports
And a few gray areas that might allow admissability of portions of the report, or complete review by expert witnesses otherwise involved in a civil proceeding
http://olsonbrooksby.com/blog/tag/admissibility-of-ntsb-fact-reports/
I don’t think that contacting the NTSB about this amounts to having an ax to grind. Their report contains two conflicting statements which are both presented as fact. One of them has to be wrong. And if this accident ends up on court, the issue of whether the engineer of #175 did everything possible to prevent or mitigate the accident will be important. One of the NTSB statements indicates the engineer did do everything possible, and the other indicates that she did not.
Furthermore, the issue of how this detail is presented in two conflicting ways in the report is not difficult to explain or to understand.
I suggest writing a letter to them. I have contacted them by phone in the past and the person answering always says they will have some higher authority call me back. But they never do.
In the interests of avoiding hippoerythritic splatter to a greater degree:
Remember the NTSB proceedings are not admissible per se in court, and I believe that includes civil as well as criminal proceedings.
Assuredly Ms. Sahara will be put on the stand at any trial, and the contradiction more or less definitively resolved … that is, if Amtrak’s counsel is better than what CSX used for the Midnight Rider business.
It won’t matter if the government agency made stupid mistakes or showed how far off their ‘aircraft’ standards that report actually was.
In my opinion we should take it as what it is: a mistake, possibly intentional but certainly incorrect, and ‘leave it to heaven’. And I say this as a grammar and rhetoric nut who gets irritated every time I think of the situation. Game to get it fixed, or even acknowledged, is not worth the candle; in any case, I doubt even with Bella gone they’d have learned anything about careful correctness instead of furthering perceived or putative agendas, for the next time.
Oh yes, I understand the report will not be used in court. I only mention court as being a possible outcome, and mention the NTSB mistake to show that the mistake is about an important issue. I mention court, just to indicate how important the issue is, and how important it is that the NTSB appears not to care about their flawed report, at the same time they take their work so seriously that it takes years to get the report out. That’s all I’m saying.
They certainly made a monkey out of me after I praised their impartiality and implicit professionalism. Ah well: the Newcomen Society isn’t what it used to be in this country, either.
NTSB’s professionalism has been trending toward the political for the past 20 years or more.
Besides the blatant controdiction about when the engineer of #175 made the emergency application, that report contains some of the most ambiguous writing I have ever seen. The problems are in their analysis of the factors affecting the two victims, the recommendations, and the probable cause. That portion raises many questions that the NTSB report seems to be unaware of. Also, the way they conduct the interviews; their questions, and the resulting answers create an almost childlike narrative that seems to address what each other are thinking as much as what they actually say. To a reader, much of the interview is incomprehensible.
In my opinion, the ambiguity encountered in reports like this is intentional, often mimicking the spurious attempts at ‘imprecise precision’ found when speaking or writing Military-Industrial.
It’s pretty clear that these guys were running the ‘we’re from the government and we’re here to help you’ type of fact finding: where they’re acting all concerned about potential PTSD and so on, but slipping in their careful little lawyers’ questions to see who might trip up whom. It pays to watch for this when evaluating what government inspectors of any ‘stripe’ do: they are only “your” friends when it suits their agency’s, or their agency’s friends or superiors, perceived wants. At the time. (But what you say is just as ‘applicable’ after they change their minds or their tune…)
I had the very strong impression that there were factors other than performance, affecting Amtrak concerns that I’m not prepared to discuss on this forum (as they likely involve either permanent moderation or banning even in context), which may or may not be geared as I think they were in Bostian’s case toward letting crew out of ‘personal’ liability … or sticking them with blame … depending on the ‘secret woids’ they’ve been told to keep in mind.
In this particular case, it seems pretty clear that Sahara kept from applying the independent until after the actual impact, and then says she only did so because she’d ‘have to’. Especially after Midnight Rider that’s really going to sit badly with victims’ counsel, and likely with any judge or jury.&n
I understand, and agree with you 100%. Apparently, this agenda kicks in whenever NTSB investigates an Amtrak accident.
They did use confusing language in much of the report, and especially in the development of probable cause and in their recommendation.
But in this point about when the engineer made the emergency application, the problem is not due to confusing language. The language is quite clear. In one part,
I don’t believe that a train doing 75 mph can be considered “sneaking up”. More like it’s “barrelling down” on them.
My comment has nothing to do with the train speed. It refers to the fact that the people fouling the train’s path have no awareness of the train approaching behind them.
You might be surprised as to how quiet an electric locomotive can be. Sneaking up is distinctly possible.
To the victims, the sound was deafening with both trains simultaneously bearing down on them and blowing their horns. Their attention was riveted on the train they were facing. But while the sound was deafening, they were unable to discriminate that it was coming from two trains instead of one.