WASHINGTON, D.C. ISSUED: July 8, 198.5 President Florida East Coast Railway Company 1 Malaga Street Post Office Drawer 1048 St. Augustine, Florida 32084 SAFETY RECOMMENDATION (S) R-85-74 …
About 6:55 a.m., on September 27, 1984, a northbound Florida East Coast Railway Company freight train struck a westbound Indian River Academy schoolbus stalled at a grade crossing on Walton Road in Port St. Lucie, Florida. The grade crossing was a two-lane, asphalt-paved, county road intersecting a single railroad track with automatic flashing signals and gates. The 1968 Bluebird/Chevrolet 66-passenger schoolbus was occupied by the driver and four students. Two of the students fled the stopped schoolbus before impact and were not injured. In the collision, the schoolbus body separated from the chassis, and the three remaining occupants were ejected. The two students were killed, and the busdriver was injured seriously. Neither of the two train crewmembers was injured.
Northbound FEC freight train Extra 412 North was approaching the crossing at a reported speed of 38 miles per hour with its locomotive headlight illuminated. The engineer was operating the locomotive unit from the right side. The conductor was seated on the left side opposite the engineer. The engineer said he began sounding the standard whistle signal at the Riverview grade crossing, 2,688 feet south of Walton Road. According to the
In the other thread on this, Jeff had posted the following:
It says the crew first saw the bus at a preceding crossing 2688 feet from it. The report says the engr waited 11 seconds to place the train in emergency. In that time they travelled 612 feet towards the xing. Once in emergency, the engine put down sand for 628 feet. What happened to the other 1400 feet?
If you read it carefully, it seems to me that the NTSB wants the reader to think the crew had a half-mile view of the bus on the tracks. In reality, the train was closer when the bus rolled onto the tracks. The conductor says when he saw the bus move forward and stop for the final time he was reaching for the emergency valve when the engineer dumped the air before he could open it. The NTSB says the engineer waited 11 seconds before dumping the air after seeing the bus on the tracks. I freely admit math wasn’t my strongest subject in school, but something here doesn’t add up. I think the train was a lot closer to the bus when it ended up on the tracks.
The NTSB report also says he could have made a service application before the emergency application. I don’t see anywhere the length or type of train or it’s make-up. Since they say he took 11 seconds to decide to dump the air after seeing the bus, I doubt a service application would have done anything in that amount of time. They also don’t say what type of service application. Do they mean a minimum reduction, a 10lbs reduction or a full service reduction?
What Euclid posted was actually only a letter sent to the FEC RR chair. In the probable cause portion of the reports, the primary cause is blamed on lack of training for the bus driver.
Probable Cause
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the inadequate standards for certifying nonpublic schoolbus drivers, insufficient training and testing programs, and the limited experience of the schoolbus driver, which led to the intrusion of the schoolbus onto the railroad track when the driver misshifted the transmission. [my bold] Contributing to the accident was the absence of a stop line on the westbound approach to the grade crossing. Contributing to the severity of the accident was the engineer’s delay in applying the train brakes and the locked deadbolt on the rear emergency door of the schoolbus.
Would tend to agree with Schlimm’s assessment [ Commented by BOLD emphasis] But there are specific rules that an operator of Commercial Vehicles MUST act on at a Highway-Rail Grade Crossing; and similarly, a School Bus ( or vehicle with multiple passengers, a
“In which case, it would seem that the responsibility for the ‘incident’ would reside with the School Bus Operator(?), and not the Train’s crew. (?)”
Sam
_______________________________________
I would not assume that the probable cause is limited to just the first sentence, just because the part following is referred to as contributing. In any case, this detail still stands, (which is the relevant point where I posted it in the other thread conversation):
“Contributing to the severity of the accident was the engineer’s delay in applying the train brakes…”
Probable cause of the accident was the school bus driver and inadequate training. This bus was for a private school, where training standards for staff are often lax.
The engineer did not cause the accident, but his delay in applying brakes contributed to the severity of the crash, i.e., the train hit the bus with greater force than if he had started slowing earlier and thus struck bus at a slower speed. The crash was multifactoral, as are most things in the real world.
Here is a link to a site which indicates that in Florida, a bus of the size involved in this incident [66 passengers] the DRIVER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A State Issued CDL; for which he/she would further be required tio have passed a specific written test/ followed by an Inspection of Vehicle test, and Road test for that Class of CDL license [Class B]. See link for more information on the Florida CDL and some of their other Class of liscense requirements.
The fact, that the Driver was an employee of a Private Institution; would be seperate from the driver’s need to have a State of Fla. CDL Class Certification. My guess would be that, that information might play into the mechanical condition of the bus(?)
Getting a CDL does not guarantee competence as a driver. The report clearly blamed the driver. As it occured in 1984, any criminal/civil charges have long since been finished.
I am quite certain the NTSB investigators thoroughly checked out data and mechanical conditions of train and bus. As I pointed out before, those teams are composed of experts with much experience in the relevant fields.
Observed an empty ( fortunately ) school bus stop too close to tracks fouling distance. Talked to supervisor and he returnd call few days later saying driver got more training.
I’ve often wondered if those who drive church busses are required to have a CDL and training. I’ve seen them do some pretty dumb things like blowing through a crossing without stopping.
As I have mentioned before I had one experience working with the NTSB in a derailment cause finding investigation. I was very shocked at the single mindedness of the lead investigator. It was clear he had an agenda. The information that the outside team produced was largely ignored even though it cast significant doubt on the NTSB investagator’s focus on his main issue. (BTW he still plays a major role in the rail safety community).
Since that experience I have far less faith in the objectivity of the NTSB’s cause finding.
Later I was offered a job with the NTSB but declined.
Even later I encountered the same individual in a derailment cause finding in Australia (he was now working as a consultant) and he was much more open minded.
“…Posted by Norm48327 on Wednesday, September 14, 2016 7:54 AM”
"I’ve often wondered if those who drive church busses are required to have a CDL and training. I’ve seen them do some pretty dumb things like blowing through a crossing without stopping.
Norm…"
Not trying to beat this topic to death, but as some one with a background in Transportation Safety, I think I can add some substance to the conversation.
The regulations would seem to have some minor variences [Church Busses(?) ] in each State as to the specifics that have been regulated in those jurisdictions.
"probable cause of this accident was the inadequate standards for certifying nonpublic schoolbus drivers, insufficient training and testing programs, and the limited experience of the schoolbus driver, which led to the intrusion of the schoolbus onto the railroad track when the driver misshifted the transmission. "
So the standards for certifying private school and church bus drivers must have been less rigorous in FL at the time of the accident.
The father of a 10-year-old boy killed when an Indian River Academy school bus was hit by a train last September has filed suit against his ex-wife, who was driving the bus when their son was killed. Stephen M. Douthitt is acting as personal representative of the estate of Jonathan Douthitt, 10, and Raimie Finn, 12, who died when the bus driven by Jonathan’s mother was struck by a train. Raimie’s parents filed a $1 million suit over the accident in March, but did not name the bus driver as a defendant.
Douthitt also named the school, Florida East Coast Railway and two FEC employees as defendants. The suit seeks payment for medical and funeral expenses, compensation for pain and suffering and punitive damages. Douthitt and his ex-wife Cindy Burnett were divorced in January. Divorce proceedings were started in March 1984, before the accident.
Douthitt also named the school, Florida East Coast Railway and two FEC employees as defendants. The suit seeks payment for medical and funeral expenses, compensation for pain and suffering and punitive damages. Douthitt and his ex-wife Cindy Burnett were divorced in January. Divorce proceedings were started in March 1984, before the accident.
“I have nothing I want to say,” Douthitt said yesterday when contacted about the suit. Ms. Burnett could not be reached for comment.
Jonathan Douthitt and Raimie Finn died when the bus driven by Jonathan’s mother was struck by a train at the Walton Road crossing. Raimie left the bus, then returned to awaken Jonathan who was sleeping in the back. Their escape was thwarted by a deadbolt lock on the emergency exit, according to a Florida Highway Patrol report on the accident.
Raimie’s parents filed a $1 million suit over the accident in March, but did not name the bus driver as a defendant. Their attorney said at the time they excluded Ms. Burnett from the suit because she had lost her own son and “has been through hell.”
Douthitt’s suit, filed by West Palm Beach attorney Fred Hazouri, claims
I highly recommend the new movie SULLY about Chesley Sullenberger’s landing in the Hudson River and the investigation into the event by the STB. It is excellent. It looks like they are trying to pin it on Sully for not returning to the airport. Seems relevant in light of earlier posts herein.
There’s a lot of discussion of the film in aviation forums. Seems the film makers took license as they usually do and painted the NTSB folks as the bad guys. NTSB has commented on that saying they were not trying to hang Sully at all. The movie folks ,on the other hand, need to have a plot of sorts. Hard to cram a few minutes of flight into an hour-and-a-half movie without some friction between the sides.
