MONITORING CREW ALERTNESS
Regarding this NTSB report on the Iowa rear end collision last year on the BNSF:
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2012/red_oak_ia/index.html
Quote from the link:
The camera would not be monitored as much as “reviewed”. An inspector can play it back at 30x speed and see what was happening in the cab. You would also be watching for texting, reading, or watching TV. (Yes, that was involved in a wreck on the LIRR)
ROAR
[quote user=“Bucyrus”]
MONITORING CREW ALERTNESS
Regarding this NTSB report on the Iowa rear end collision last year on the BNSF:
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2012/red_oak_ia/index.html
Quote from the link:
“15. Had an i
Just a brief comment on the Point #15 mentioned above.
About 2000 I was in the Atlanta Area and had a number of contacts in the Railroad and DOT Enforcement areas.
The in-cab camera installations were just being widely placed at that time. One of the options being talked up at that time was the concurrent installation of a voice recording device to record the conversations of the Crews along with the tape run in the camera.
There was also conversations about both inward and outward facing cameras, as well. To add there there was vehement arguments AGAINST the recording of the engine crew on an inward facing camera; would be putting it mildly. Not only the employees, but the Union Reps were almost up in arms about those aspects. Needless to say cooler heads prevailed and the outward facing option Without recording was the final choice of the Railroads.
It seemed to be the regulatory types on the Federal side that had come up with the alternative of putting the crew in the cab on camera and on tape. Just another effort to make THEIR jobs easier…IMHO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_Monitoring_System
Was what jpwoodruff was posting about.
It looks like an interesting idea…I have one in my Lexus now…but I am wondering how that actually might work…the alarm, for one thing would need be a lot louder…[:^)]
Myself, I still think the issue is someone circumventing the training program though by bringing people on to the rail before they are really ready…
That is exactly the type of system that I believe will be the ultimate solution to the shift work sleep disorder problem for railroaders.
However, at this point, it is clear that the NTSB and FRA want to solve the problem by a different method. They want to test all employees doing safety-sensitive work to see if they have sleep disorders. The employees who have the sleep disorders will be removed from service and treated. If they can be successfully treated, they will be returned to service.
The only problem with this approach is that testing and treatment are both uncertain in outcome. I believe that this is indicated by this item from the NTSB in their report on the Iowa crash:
The technology is simple…
You put GPS on the train, the computer knows where the train is and what the signal is, and if the engineer is not in compliance with the signal the train stops.
apparently, the way someone responded on the locked tread in response to my tripper posting, it seems that the Last Signal before some obstruction could be “Restricting” and not “STOP”. Well, if it is at a switch, if the train is not in an attitude to make the stop then it stops. If it is a block signal, the GPS already knows where the leader is, and enforces speed and brakes to keep the train safe.
It any parameter is out of spec, there is an alarm and a brake application.
It is IMPOSSIBLE under the way a railroad operates to prevent fatigue, ergo: you must presume that your crews may be fatigued and we have the ability to build equipment to cope with this.
ROAR
Why must you assume any such thing?
How many thousands of train starts happened today, and how many accidents happened because of fatigue?
The percent is so small it is an acceptable risk.
Most of us show up for work rested and ready, it is the very few that are really fatigued to the point they cannot stay awake.
Your statement is like saying one person in the stands at a football game is drunk, so everybody at the game must also be drunk, after all, drinking beer in the stands is normal for football games, right?
You judge all of us by the actions of a few, and sadly those few often pay for their mistakes with their lives, but for the most part, we as a group work safer than we ever have before, and move more stuff farther than ever before in railroading’s history.
You guys are making a single incident into a blown up condemnation of all of us.
Which is precisely why I believe this whole topic is for conspiracy theorists.
Just because the technology is there…and, yes, it is in my car as well…does not, nor should it, mean that it should be incorporated into everything. There are far more motor vehicle accidents than train related fiascos…
Others accused me of being micromanaging…sheeesh…[(-D]
The fact is, no matter how many rules are associated with a inward facing camera, it will be abused.
We have “crossing” cameras mounted on the roof of our locomotives, they are remotely controlled and record either 24/7 or can be selectively turned on and off by management.
These cameras face both forward and rearward, and the view from them afford an excellent shot into the trailing or leading cab of an MU, and management has used footage from these to discipline some of our crews for simply things, like smoking in the cab, getting on or off moving equipment, or lining a switch “incorrectly” so you can argue the point all you want, they will spy on the crews at their leisure.
Like any power, once someone has it, they cannot resist using it.
I am entitled to a degree of privacy at my work place, just as you are, and having a camera in my face violates that.
You wouldn’t want to be “on camera” the entire day at your job, no matter what you may say, neither do I.
Oh, and PTC is not really about crew safety, its about cramming as many trains onto a track as close behind each other as you can, making as much profit in a 24 hour day as possible, and one step closer to remote run mainline trains, which the carriers would love to have.
- Had the two crewmembers on the striking coal train completed the BNSF’s fatigue training program, they would have had the opportunity to learn that they were at risk for sleep disorders, particularly obstructive sleep apnea, and the computer-based training program would have displayed a message advising them to consult with a physician.
And herein lies the crux of the whole thing.
Obviously someone might have circumvented the training program or dropped out of the voluntary training portion…
I am not sure, and will ask to clarify, but I think the “Fatigue Training” on BNSF is voluntary, not mandatory.
And again, anyone who wants to keep their job will quickly figure out the “right” answers to offer.
Fixed my post to reflect yours…
Just for the record though not taking sides, I am on camera, most of the day in my job. And I just work with computers and networks all day. You get used to it. If you get to feeling particularly froggy, just look at the camera, square in the eye and start picking your nose. I think its suitable revenge. If they want to stare while you work, make 'em pay for it. The rest of the time, who cares? It belongs to them, it costs a lot of money and a lot of people depend on it, and bad things happen when it goes wrong.
I think there could be a reasonable case made that railroads, airlines, trucking-- shipping in general, whether by truck, train or air-- and maybe even just driving in your car ARE activities of such importance that maybe we should be being monitored while we do them. However-- and this I think is a crucial point. In the event of an accident or incident-- the MONITORS also have to bear an element of the blame. After all, that’s supposedly why they’re monitoring, right? So if there is an accident or wreck-- it can’t all be laid at the feet of the engineers, drivers or pilots.
But then, I’m also for monitoring the activities of members of congress, members of state and local governments, politicians in-general, the police, all Federal agencies-- to make THEM accountable for their work as well. To make sure they aren’t busy living it up on the taxpayer’s dime and are making the right calls with respect to governance. Too much of our government takes place behind closed doors for no good reason.
And in the same vein and token, railroad-- trucking, airline, etc.-- *managem
In response to some previous comments by others:
There are two different purposes for cameras on the crew:
-
Rules enforcement.
-
Personal protection from sleep disorders.
Realtime Monitoring and Feedback of Individual Alertness Levels
Current locomotive alerters attempt to determine the alertness of the engineer by sensing inactivity of locomotive control functions. They assume that if locomotive controls are not being manipulated, the engineer may be asleep. But there are flaws in this concept. In effect, alerters send a lot of false alarms as they warn engineers who are fully awake. Engineers become accustomed to resetting the alerter in anticipation of alarms, and because the alerter is sending an excess of alarms, the resetting becomes routine. And it becomes so routine that engineers are able to reset the alerter in their sleep if they are drowsy. So the alerter defeats its purpose by too many false alarms.
source?
A couple of sites I fell over just this morning…
http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/alertness.html
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/CVonline/LOCAL_COPIES/AV0910/macmillan.pdf
http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/edp/2012/iPhoneDriverAlertnessMonitoringSystem.html
This kind of thing is already in some motor vehicles…my own car has an earlier version of it …
I should have clarified. I was wondering what the source is on the FRA/NTSB/DOT/ABCwhomever looking at personal alertness devices, the so called “silver bullet”.
There are lots of references to personal fatigue monitoring systems currently under development. They want to move from current locomotive alerters to real-time monitoring and feedback of individual alertness levels. And they want to extend this to all crewmembers. I don’t find a clear definition of what they mean by crewmembers. But they do want sleep disorder fatigue prevention for everyone working in safety sensitive jobs. So by default, that requires the silver bullet, assuming that real-time monitoring is applied to the problem. Based on that, I conclude that the silver bullet has been defined as an objective. When and if it is perfected is an open question.
If the silver bullet is not perfected and introduced, they might amend their objective to limit real-time monitoring of individual alertness to employees who work in a seated position, and then rely on screening and treatment for employees who work in active positions, but that requires perfecting the screening / treatment process.