He does claim, now, not to remember the crash.
Assuming he is telling the truth, that’s common, and not a sign of a stroke. He did apply the emergency brakes, but way too late to do any good. They did slow the train down, so they worked.
It’s true that some people can be incapacitated by a sudden medical incident (e.g. stroke, heart attack, etc.) seemingly out of the blue (i.e. not as a complication of a previously diagnosed condition), but don’t most trains carry at least two operators for basically that very reason?
Sorry that my comment was read as advocating a rush to lynching. I was primarily commenting on the fallibility and malleability of memory. Full disclosure, I’m a lawyer - actually a judge. I’m not an accident investigator, but I could imagine that my representation of events might be different immediately following a horrific accident, than after I had spent a couple of days turning over in my mind whether or not I had done anything wrong. Heck, it would probably be best to get detailed statements at multiple times, to see what could be gleaned from differences among them.
Asking questions is - in my mind - just a tad different from a hail of bullets or screaming YOU GUILTY BASTARD!!!
Yeah, there is a possibility that mechanical failure was responsible. If so, that should be pretty easily shown through the black box. But I have to admit that I was not shocked to learn that that el train in Chicago ended up on the escalator after the driver decided to take a nap!
Seizure, possible, highly unlikely.
He didn’t exactly have to volunteer blood and urine samples since SKINNER v. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES’ ASSN found that
I’m not a lawyer but I believe Skinner still holds. From what I can see FRA regulations require random testing as well as testing after serious incidents. Similar to regulations for commercial pilots. He was compelled by law and regulation to give samples. All the sources I saw as of yesterday stated he refused to give a statement to police. Any statement that has come out came through his lawyer.
Don’t these trains have a dead man’s switch?
It is an accident investigation but just like a fatal motor vehicle investigation it can lead to criminal charges. Both investigations will run concurrently.
It also helps investigators figure out more so they know what to ask. Note it didn’t say that questions were not asked. Just that further questions were allowed to wait.
It also makes sense for the engineer’s mental well being. They got their initial report and no reason not to him him recover from this event.
Any pop artists with fragile bone syndrome seen suspiciously hanging around? Too soon?
Easily cockblocked with a handy toolbox.
No.
At least, I don’t ever recall being on a train with more than one person in the front cab driving, and that includes the Amtrak ride I was on that had an accident (although nowhere near as spectacular as this one). There’s not a “co-pilot” able to take over immediately on a train like there is on an airplane, at least so far as I know. If someone who works for Amtrak knows otherwise I’ll accept the correction. Trains have a “deadman switch” so if the driver keels over in sudden death or unconsciousness the train will be brought to a halt, but that sort of incapacitation won’t necessarily occur with a stroke or mild seizure.
What I find disturbing, now that I know you’re a judge, is that you seem completely unaware that failure to remember an accident that results in a head injury, even a mild concussion, is perfectly normal, common, and in no way indicates lying, evasion, or anything of the sort. The man did have a head injury requiring medical attention, including staples, and almost certainly has at least a low-level concussion. In such circumstances failure to remember the accident, as well as some time period before it, is entirely explainable due to the way the brain converts short term into long term memory. A process a knock on the head is capable of disrupting. In such cases the memory of that time period is gone. It’s not a matter of suppression, lying, changing the story, or anything of the sort. It’s biology.
Yes, he’s required, but supposedly he did absolutely nothing to delay obtaining such specimens as opposed attempting to stonewall. You can demonstrate willingness to comply with a requirement as well as resisting compliance with requirements. You don’t understand the difference.
Giving a statement through his lawyer is NOT “refusing to give a statement”. It’s giving a statement. That’s like saying having a lawyer represent you in court is the same as not showing up. You are allowed to employ a lawyer as your legal representative. Given the propensity to rush to judgement it seems like a pretty smart idea on his part.
From what I read this one did. There was something that had to be pressed every minute or so or else the train would stop. I don’t know how long it would take for the train to build up speed to 100 mph, but I’d suspect over a minute. Which argues against seizures or sleep.
Since it is vital to obtain the specimens in a timely fashion, I’d guess he had no choice. I suppose if he was going to resist that could be taken and held in escrow, kind of, until his appeal was heard. Which I suspect would get rejected.
The lawyer’s statement was to the public and press. That statement isn’t all that important. The statement to the investigators is what is in question. They get to follow up.
Asleep, drug-impaired or distracted by cellphone or other electronic device is a good bet.
I sort of doubt a person would suddenly recover from a seizure, stroke or other medical event just in time to apply the emergency brakes.
No, the difference is between protesting medical personal taking the specimens vs. not protesting vs. reminding the medical personal the samples need to be taken. If he were unconscious the medical people would, due to the court case, have the needed authority to proceed anyway but if he’s alert enough to communicate he could attempt to throw a wrench in the works. Supposedly, he said something along the lines of yes, of course, you need to take the samples, go ahead which to my mind indicates compliance.
Yes, the lawyer made a public statement.
Law enforcement also made a public statement that the train driver was cooperating with them, as did the NTSB. It’s the word of the latter two parties I’m considering here.
That’s why I said if he had a seizure it would have to be an “absence seizure”, which yes, you COULD recover from sufficiently quickly to apply the emergency brake. That could be consistent with the train accelerating, him coming out of a hypothetical seizure, going “oh shit!” and trying to slam on the brakes.
It’s a long shot, but in such cases I really do feel a need to examine every possibility.
Foremost, there are speed limit signs. Usually for daylight speed, a line, and underneath is night time speed.
Also, I believe they are trained on the route, but not at all sure about that.
I think we know enough at this point to be able to say definitively that this accident was the direct result of distraction, incapacity or a deliberate act by the engineer.
Just a couple of musings:
The train must have accelerated fairly hard to get up to more than 100 mph by the time it hit Frankford Junction, where it derailed. Leaving 30th Street Station, its last stop, you can’t really accelerate for the first mile or so, due to complex station trackage and a sharp right-hand turn to cross the Schuylkill River. Once over the river, it’s only about six miles to Frankford Junction. it probably would have taken about half that distance to get up to full speed. That is to say, train 188 wasn’t at 100mph very long.
Also, about halfway between the River and Frankford is North Philadelphia station, which was not a stop for train 188. It would be interesting to know whether anyone who might have been on the platform noticed the train going through at unusually high speed.
[Quote=camp]
Foremost, there are speed limit signs. Usually for daylight speed, a line, and underneath is night time speed.
Also, I believe they are trained on the route, but not at all sure about that.
[/quote]
Yes, engineers have to qualify to operate in a given district and generally have to know it by heart. Required speeds for a given block of railroad are based on data in an employee’s timetable and orders issued by the dispatching center (often there can be temporary ‘slow orders’ in locations en route where maintenance is under way. While there are speed limit signs as a backup, my understanding is that engineers mostly base their throttle and brake settings on their visual knowledge of the route, their judgment of the train’s mass, and the specific orders they’ve been given for that run.
I don’t put much stock in mandatory cooperation. He knows he has no option. Sure he could have refused and then they would have gotten a telephonic warrant to hold him down and get the blood he was required to give. Same results. As an experienced operator he knows the requirements. Giving in to the inevitable is not a sign of high morals. It shows he knows what he is required to do, no more. if you feel different fine.
If I were part of the investigation team I would of course feel the need to examine every angle before passing judgement. As some random asshole on the internet I feel no such obligation. Logic tells me that most likely the driver was distracted or asleep and didn’t realize how fast he was going until too late.