Northeast Regional 188 - Accident In Philadelphia

Greg, well said. In support of both your and my statements, this article about a Singapore Airlines dual-flameout (IE both engines out over pacific ocean)

This unusual and terrifying situation is often called a “dual flameout,” and is possibly the most undesirable malfunction to occur aboard a twin engine airliner. Fortunately, pilots are trained extensively to handle such emergencies and the Singapore Airlines crew reverted to their checklists and standard operational procedures in order to restore power.

http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/airbus-a ... 1708736517" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's no PTC here, no cries to go back to flight engineers or navigators, they go to the binder and start doing things by procedure and training to restart engines. Procedure takes precedence, and Singapore has a fantastic safety record in addition to the best service in the world.

I can see someone start argument that Singapore Airlines had two in cab , let record speak for it self. 90% of all train accidents have 2 or even 3 people in cab .
result crash with 3 people claiming they did not know what happened.

DutchRailnut wrote:I can see someone start argument that Singapore Airlines had two in cab , let record speak for it self. 90% of all train accidents have 2 or even 3 people in cab .
result crash with 3 people claiming they did not know what happened.

Can't recall if it was here or elsewhere I read a good point about 2 in the cockpit vs the cab. In general your option on a train is "dump air and come to a stop". Not many options other options. You can't maneuver, glide to the next train station, etc.

In an airplane, you not only have a lot more options, you're required to act on them. i.e. you can't "dump air and come to a stop", you have to keep altitude or start finding a place to land before you run out of air. An excellent example is reading the transcript of the "Miracle on the Hudson" where the co-pilot is going through the engine restart checklist while the pilot is discussing options with ATC. They were working at least two separate solutions to the same problem (arguably more if you count every option ATC offered up). So yeah, I'd argue an airplane can effectively use 2 people far more than a train cab.

This is a layman's observation, but as you point out, 2-3 people in a cab doesn't necessarily seem to have made much of a difference in the past.

BTW, I would say to, one of the BIG differences that has made a difference in air traffic accidents is the concept of a "sterile cockpit" below 10,000 feet and CRM (crew resource management) and how crews are expected to interact with each other. (one can argue that part of the failure of the Air France flight over the Atlantic as a breakdown in CRM).

So if you're going to have two people in a cab, you're going to have to establish clear rules of communication. You can't have the 2nd person thinking, "well I'm not going to say anything, the engineer must know where we are, I must be wrong". If you're going to have 2-3 people in a cab, you have to create an environment where not only the 2nd person feels like they CAN question the authority of the lead engineer, but they're expected to.

I have no idea if this approach is currently in place in engines or how 2 person crews work, but if it doesn't exist, it (or something similar) would almost certainly have to exist.

I've made a few posts to this thread, and reading most of the others makes me either laugh or shake my head.

The engineman's cell phone had no bearing on this incident. NONE. It's already been established that it was turned off, until AFTER the wreck, when he turned it on and used it to call for help.

The speculation of "rocks being thrown" is a "McGuffin" (if you don't know what that means, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)
There were no "rocks".

The engineman's drug and blood tests in all likelihood have already come back and are "clean as a hound's tooth". Drugs have no bearing on the incident at all.
These tests are usually available in about 2-3 days, there's nothing that would prevent the results from being known by then.
And as a personal experience, I've had a railroad random drug test that came back postive for opium. Not a "false positive" but a REAL positive.
I worked the same day of being notified of this and having an interesting conversation with Amtrak's medical director -- a good story, but I ain't tellin' it here.

I'm reading the post by adamj023 above and grinning:
[[ But something in that testimony troubled me and stuck out like a sore thumb. We still don't know the cause and the options of what caused the crash are narrow. The infrastructure was fine, train checks out fine and the train had multiple safeguards built in. ]]

Huh?
Of course we "know" what "caused" the crash.
The train wrecked because it was going far too fast for the curve it encountered.

And "the infrastructure was fine, train checks out fine..."
The only factor in question is why did the locomotive accelerate approaching a curve where it should have been braking?

I can think of two reasons:
1. The locomotive accelerated suddenly out of control of the engineman, due to electrical or mechanical malfunction.
or
2. The locomotive accelerated because the engineman advanced the throttle to make it accelerate.

Really, folks.... what other explanations are possible?
And what is the likelihood of possibility #1 above?

A few other interesting pieces of information have emerged since the wreck:
- The engineman was relatively "new to the territory", I believe he'd only been qualified for the run about two or three weeks?
- The trip down had been a difficult one due to a cab signal (or similar) failure.
- The engineman didn't have much turnaround time to "rest up" because of this.

I believe I posted this before, and i'll restate it.

Think of a musician playing a piece. At first, he needs the sheet music score before him, to prompt him and keep him "on track" (pun intended). But after playing that piece over and over and over and over, the notes come automatically from memorization. The player "knows where he is, and where he's going."

Looks like the guy was still new enough to the territory that he had to be consciously keeping track of where he was. Once you do this for a while, your "sense of place" becomes more ingrained, you almost can look out at the railroad anywhere and just "know" where you are. After doing the same run for years, running the engine becomes a "set of moves" that are close to "automatic".

But this guy "wasn't there yet", he had not yet reached that point where the "moves came automatically" to him. He still had to "think on it" to get from one mile to the next.

Well, it could have been "newness", he could have been tired, or something else, but for a few important moments he appears to have forgotten just where he was.

Wasn't there a 70mph curve behind him, and a stretch of about 80mph for a mile or so just before the Frankford curves? And, beyond the curves tangent track with a 110mph normal speed? (I was a Zone 1 guy, NY to DC wasn't my territory)

Looks like he was doing fine till he cleared that last slowdown behind, but at that point he "forgot the score".
He thought he was now into the 110mph territory -- about a mile or two "ahead of where he actually was."
Thus, he is accelerating the locomotive towards 110 -- when he should be braking for the 50mph curves.
And then, at around 108mph, he sees the first curve looming in front of him, and suddenly his mind "snaps back" to the realization of where he REALLY is.
So.... he does the only thing he can do -- he dumps it.

But it's too late.
The curve "got him".

It's as simple as that.
And that's why no one seems to be able to "explain" it.
Well, HE could explain it -- but he "can't recall".

He'll have two choices at the investigation:
- Admit he made a mistake
or
- Continue to claim "he can't recall".

Which choice will shed the better light on his mistake?

- John
(32+ years on Conrail, Metro-North, and Amtrak)

I was told the airlines procedure was implemented after an incident went a engine caught fire on a 2 engine jet.The senior pilot acted quickly, and isolated the fuel to the wrong engine.
Procedures, simple or complex, are only failsafe if people follow them. In the electrical industry we have the simple Test-Prove -Test procedure that should always ensure isolation. yet , experienced electricians still die from shock form sections a\that are supposed to be dead.
People make mistakes , and always will , no matter how experienced.
PTC would have prevented this accident, there is no doubt about that.

G. Norman wrote above:
[[ Apparently Passenger Engineer Bostian was on continuous time between inbound train and 188. I believe such was practice from PRR days.
Should the NTSB recommend that a four hour break in time "respite" and the FRA impose such, this will mean that Engineers can no longer be scheduled in an economic and efficient manner with the result being "heap big wampum" expended. ]]

This has NO effect in Amtrak Zones 1 and 2.

Crews are on CONTINUOUS TIME, INCLUDING rest (and including a "4 hour cut") from signup time until arrival time on their returning trains.

All other Amtrak Zones are under a different pay agreement.

and even PTC is not failsafe but we discuss that after next crash..

Nothing is failsafe,but it would have prevented this accident.

maybe ?? a cause has not been established , just suspicion.

"Sterile cockpit" was mentioned earlier above. On CSX, we now have new rules with the establishment of "Sterile Cab" about 7 or 8 months ago. The principle is the same, but the basics involve no non-essential conversation when running on any signal indication that may require a stop at the next signal, approaching work authorities, or speed restrictions. If the dispatcher or another train calls us at any of those times, we have to inform them we are under sterile cab and will communicate at the next available opportunity. If a need to copy a mandatory directive is involved, the train must be stopped to do so, if practical. And in addition, responsibility to call signals where the next signal may require a stop on the radio now falls to the engineer instead of either crew member.

Fishrrman wrote:....
So.... he does the only thing he can do -- he dumps it.
...

Some veteran railroaders believe the only chance he had of getting around that curve was by not dumping it.

Silverliner II wrote:"Sterile cockpit" was mentioned earlier above. On CSX, we now have new rules with the establishment of "Sterile Cab" about 7 or 8 months ago. The principle is the same, but the basics involve no non-essential conversation when running on any signal indication that may require a stop at the next signal, approaching work authorities, or speed restrictions. If the dispatcher or another train calls us at any of those times, we have to inform them we are under sterile cab and will communicate at the next available opportunity. If a need to copy a mandatory directive is involved, the train must be stopped to do so, if practical. And in addition, responsibility to call signals where the next signal may require a stop on the radio now falls to the engineer instead of either crew member.

Very interesting, thank you. That seems even more restrictive than the general aviation rules are.

Fishrrman wrote: The engineman's cell phone had no bearing on this incident. NONE. It's already been established that it was turned off, until AFTER the wreck, when he turned it on and used it to call for help.

I agree with that 100%

Fishrrman wrote: The speculation of "rocks being thrown" is a "McGuffin" (if you don't know what that means, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)
There were no "rocks".

This I totally disagree with for three reasons:
1.) Two other engineers (In the US we call them engineers, NOT enginemen) say their cab windows got hit in roughly the same area around the same time that the accident happened.
2.) I PERSONALLY have been in a locomotive cab when this type of thing happened, AND it was RIGHT IN THAT AREA (just after SHORE but going westbound) (this was back in the 1970's) I was in the jump seat on an E-60 (third seat between the engineer and fireman), and I HIT THE DECK!!! In my case the windshield shattered and a brick came sailing through and nearly killed the engineer.
3.) I have also had a bird strike in a Piper Turbo Sartoga SP (I have a private pilot license) and even though it was a small bird and it hit the windshield, it scared the HELL out of me, and I lost my concentration and had to execute a missed approach. I could easily see how a rock/brick/frozen turkey/etc... could cause someone to "Hit the deck" and shake them up and confuse them so that they could advance the power rather than dumping the air.

Fishrrman wrote: It's as simple as that.
And that's why no one seems to be able to "explain" it.
Well, HE could explain it -- but he "can't recall".

He'll have two choices at the investigation:
- Admit he made a mistake
or
- Continue to claim "he can't recall".

Which choice will shed the better light on his mistake?

Maybe not so simple...
(If I am starting to sound like "Cliff Clavin" from "Cheers" I apologize ...)
I will bet that his medical records will show that he suffered a pretty severe concussion during the accident. It is very common for someone who has had a concussion to suffer some memory loss.

To further back up Mr. n2cbo's post, in 2000, I was mugged in a parking lot by three juveniles who delivered a severe blow just below my right eye, and I apparently blacked out. When I regained full consciousness, I was already engaged in a coherent conversation with a police officer. In view of the visible damage to the right front of the locomotive, I can't rule out that an impact directly in front of him at speed might have disoriented Engineer Bostian in a similar manner.

I'm given to understand that hypnosis can sometimes address short-term memory loss, and wouldn't be surprised to learn that this course is being pursued.

Have to remember in this country we're innocent until found guilty. And that's by an impartial jury, not an armchair critic. I know it's frustrating when it seems like the fog of BS is thick, but when it's a serious incident like this, we can't just come to conclusions at our home office, we're just not equipped for it.