*SPARKS, Nev. (AP) — Two truck drivers and a train engineer watched helplessly as a semitrailer skidded the length of a football field before it smashed through crossing gates and into two double-decker cars of an Amtrak train at a highway crossing, killing at least six people.
The drivers were part of a three-truck convoy that saw the gates come down and the warning lights go off as the California Zephyr approached, National Transportation Safety Board member Earl Weener said Saturday.
They stopped, but the driver of the big rig in the lead did not, he said.
Investigators on Sunday planned to look over the scene for any clues as to why the truck driver plowed through the railroad crossing on Friday. It’s expected to take up to a year to pinpoint the cause of the crash.*
My question is- how, why will it take “up to a year” to figure out why a truck ran into a train?
Accident investigations have to sort through all data and forensic evidence, disproving any of a large number of plausible causes, before they can render a determination. In the case of a crash for which there is only eyewitness testimony (notoriously unreliable) and forensic evidence with no video or sensor data (e.g. the flight data recorder on an aircraft) there may be a large amount of evidence to sort through, a lot of testing to be performed, background research (such as “how many times have these type of brakes failed in record,”), and so forth. A premature and false determination can lead to millions of dollars of false claims, mistaken product alerts, and other repercussions. The one year timeframe is probably arse-saving, but it is not unusual for forensic investigations for vehicle accidents to take several months.
The train may have a black box, but the truck didn’t. Witnesses say the truck didn’t stop. Was it brake failure? Stuck accellerator? Driver inattention? Driver had a heart attack or seizure? Were the gates really down and the signals flashing? If so, were they activated in enough time? Was there enough time for the train to stop? If so, was there a problem with it trying to stop? And on, and on. . .
The one year timeframe is also the NTSB’s general target for closing investigations (at least it is in the Aviation side of things). There’s no real consequence if it takes more or less time.
Given the stopping distance of your average train, the answer to the first is almost certainly “no”, and the answer to the second “probably irrelevant”.
I was on an Amtrak once that was in an accident, a smaller one than the recent crash train, and it took the better part of a mile to stop once the emergency brake went on, which I knew about because the change in the acceleration had me and everyone else standing face-down on the aisle floor. Trans just don’t stop on a dime.
[slight hijack]Curious expression, that, “stopping on a dime.” I can’t think of a single mode of transportation - except, er, slow walking - where stopping on a dime would be possible or desirable.[/slight hijack]
Evidently the truck did have a black box but it was too damaged to recover any useful information (other than the crash was severe enough to destroy the black box)
This is the main point – the actual investigation certainly won’t take a year; they’ll probably have everything they need within a few weeks. But it may take up to a year to write the official report (which is always very detailed) including recommendations for new safety rules (which take some time to come up with) and get everything approved and stamped before it’s released.
Yep, witnesses have said the truck didn’t make any attempt to stop, but investigators found skid marks about 320 feet long that show that the truck did try and stop. It’s just gonna take awhile to figure out what happened and why, at least if we want to have any kind of certainty as to the conclusions reached.
I mean, why shouldn’t it take this long? Who will be harmed by the investigation taking this period of time, and how?
Let’s say the problem turns out to be a malfunctioning part in the truck’s brake control mechanism. There may be hundreds of other trucks that have been fitted with this part. Wouldn’t it be good to figure this out before they start running into stuff? (Maybe the problem only manifests itself after x hours of use or only in the hot desert conditions?)
If they found concrete evidence of this defect, why in the world would you think they’d deliberately withhold the information? Do you honestly think that if they found something like that, the agency would willingly withhold the information and endanger lives? Why would you think that?
:dubious:
The “1 year” isn’t a schedule that must be kept; it’s a guess as to how long it could take to gather, collate and interpret the information.
Huh? 320 feet?? Even for a fully loaded trailer that sounds like a long distance. Is that normal, or is it some case of the trailer braking while the cab continues to drive (cruise control did not kick off)?
I guess this is where they ask the eyewitnesses “how slow did the truck seem to be going when it hit the train?”
It’s been a few days since I read this, but I seem to recall that the train engineer saw the truck coming, knew it was going to hit the train, and applied the emergency brakes, viewing the accident in his rear view mirror.
But since the train was a passenger train, only a few (8?) cars, and was going 78MPH, it was only in the intersection for a few seconds. I wonder if the truck would have cleared the rear of the train if the engineer hadn’t braked?
Another factor in the time is that this sort of investigation, report, and rulemaking is done by consensus. There’s not a Crash Czar who issues his opinion by fiat; typically, the investigators work together to hash out what they think happened, and then the proposed report is circulated for review and comment, and then the same with proposed rules changes.
There may also be interim reports (depending on the level of public interest in the accident; sometimes they just don’t bother because it’s more work for them) and if at any point a component/design/manufacturing issue is found that may be dangerous, the risk analysis is done and corrective actions/safety recommendations may be made before the final report is published. That is, for example, how Airbus A330/A340s were required by Airworthiness Directive to change their pitot tubes after the Air France flight 447 crash, even though the cause of the accident was (is) still not known.
Actually, the pitot tubes in those models were being changed out even before that particular crash - the crash just sped it up and made it mandatory, if it wasn’t already.
The pitot tubes were being changed via Service Bulletins - they don’t have the same mandatory weight and timeline as an Airworthiness Directive. Basically the AD just sped up the process. In any case, I was just using it as a general example to make a point, as I really don’t remember all the details offhand anyways
