Passenger Trains > ABC: Feds Trying to Determine if Amtrak Engineer Was Using Phone

Headline says it all.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/feds-determine-amtrak-engineer-phone-31183861

There's no suggestion that he did.  But they wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't check into it.

Wow!!
If you want to see how uninformed most Americans are...about anything.... just read the comments section of this article.

Danny Harmon
Tampa

The problem is that they are uninformed even about the very fact that they are uninformed. Many think they are the fount of knowledge while sitting in the abyss of ignorance and refusing to reaad and learn because they are convinced that they already know that which they don't. Sigh....

Is this an instance where the dreaded inward facing camera would be useful?

filmteknik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is this an instance where the dreaded inward facing camera would be useful?

Might be....in any event it could quickly and conclusively prove the engineer innocent of the action implied in the headline. 

This release by the NTSB seems needless and, in my opinion, is subtly accusatory without any proof of wrongdoing by the engineer. So, he used his phone sometime during that day. So what?

It should not take a team of experts and weeks of analysis to determine whether he made or received calls or texts while operating the train. Both of those actions are clearly timestamped on both the phone (which they have) and on the carrier records (which they have). For those two items, he either did it or he didn't and they know that right now. Why release that he used the phone "the day of the crash" without saying whether calls and texts were made while he was operating the train as if they don't know?

Determining the timestamps for data usage over the cellular network may be more complex (even though, I don't think it is). But, even if they can't complete that work that for some period of time, why not just say that? Presuming there were no calls or texts, say that there were no calls or texts made while operating the train, and that the timestamps for data usage is still being reviewed, and leave it at that.

The NTSB is usually very careful in the information they release. This particular release seems to me to say nothing of factual importance for the public knowledge of the investigation, while leaving a distinct impression to those who only read headlines that the engineer did something wrong.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/15 07:18 by prr60.

prr60 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This release by the NTSB seems needless and, in my
> opinion, is subtly accusatory without any proof of
> wrongdoing by the engineer. So, he used his phone
> sometime during that day. So what?
>
> It should not take a team of experts and weeks of
> analysis to determine whether he made or received
> calls or texts while operating the train. Both of
> those actions are clearly timestamped on both the
> phone (which they have) and on the carrier records
> (which they have). For those two items, he either
> did it or he didn't and they know that right now.
> Why release that he used the phone "the day of the
> crash" without saying whether calls and texts were
> made while he was operating the train as if they
> don't know?
>
> Determining the timestamps for data usage over the
> cellular network may be more complex (even though,
> I don't think it is). But, even if they can't
> complete that work that for some period of time,
> why not just say that? Presuming there were no
> calls or texts, say that there were no calls or
> texts made while operating the train, and that the
> timestamps for data usage is still being reviewed,
> and leave it at that.
>
> The NTSB is usually very careful in the
> information they release. This particular release
> seems to me to say nothing of factual importance
> for the public knowledge of the investigation,
> while leaving a distinct impression to those who
> only read headlines that the engineer did
> something wrong.


You can do many things on
your phone that aren't calls or texts...

Posted from Android

The NTSB didn't write the AP headline.

I'd be interested to know what's going on immediately hehind the scenes.  FBI, NTSB, Philly mayor, Amtrak, all have their points of view.

The mayor seemed in an awful hurry to throw the engineer under the wheels, and the FBI issued a definite "not bullet holes" pretty quickly. But no mention of the other two trains which were hit in the same time period, nearby.  I wonder if Septa / Amtrak had to sequester the affected equipment?

I would amend that to say the NTSB does not have their own "point of view."  They investigate the incident and follow where any and all evidence points.  They have no vested interest in one cause or another.

On the other hand....

Politicians have points to try to score for the next election.  The media has money to make through advertising, necessitating driving ratings by whatever means.  Passenger train proponents and opponents have their own agendas.  You get the idea.

All the NTSB is about is determining the direct cause, and factors leading up to, the incident being investigated.

Mary McPherson
Dongola, IL
Diverging Clear Productions

MaryMcPherson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (snip)
>
> All the NTSB is about is determining the direct
> cause, and factors leading up to, the incident
> being investigated.

That's perfectly logical, but why are the other two trains "off limits" to the NTSB investigation? IF they were hit by projectiles, in the same area, at the same time, that would seem like a lead worth following up.

But, if it's been decided that the neighborhood is not a factor in this investigation, then ignoring the other trains makes lots of sense.  Hence, the point of view.

The SEPTA train that was struck by an object WAS/IS part of the investigation. It is widely reported that the SEPTA consist was inspected and its Engineer has been interviewed by the NTSB. 

when i had my heated encounter with the Philly policeman last Sat, i was talking to the proprietor of the store and i said that train 188 was shot at ... well the Philly cop immediately went off slamming his hand on the glass counter ... he stated he was on scene and was an investigating officer ... he was adamant with anger sayng, screaming more like it, that the train wasn't shot at and the impacts on the windshield of the 601 were not bullet holes ... he stated he had shot at windshields and those impacts weren't made by bullets ...

he certainly had a jug of Mayor Nutter's Cool-Aid and adamant that the engineer was guilty of killing those people and wrecklessly responsible for derailing the train ... i being my usual sarcastic self was saying deliberately at this point just the opposite, saying the engineer was shot at and the impacts were bullet holes ...

well as it turned out Mr Philly cop was indeed correct ... i still have feathers in my throat from the crow dinner i had after the NTSB announcement that the impacts on the 601 were not made from bullets ...

now in all his anger saying the engineer was going to be spending years in jail he stated something really really interesting that caught me quite off guard that falls under the topic of this thread headline ...

Mr officer said they were still looking for his phone ... i told him Mr Bostian and his lawyer turned his phone into the police ... here's the interesting part ... he said they were looking for a SECOND PHONE ... i was really taken back by that ... he was insistent that the engineer had another phone besides his personal cell phone ... that was interesting because no one in any of the press conferences mentioned a second phone ... he was adamant they'll find it and it will show Mr Bostian was using the 2nd phone (a burner phone i guess is what they're lookin for) ...

i told him he was crazy and they won't find any 2nd phone ... i still stand by Mr Bostian at this point in time and will continue to until it is proven he was negligent without mitigating factors ... i don't sway ... i stick with my beliefs and i'll either be right or wrong ... i hope and pray that Mr Bostian acted professionally albeit with a distraction that either injured him or completely lost his focus due to an outside factor ... but i can't help think about that 2nd phone ... that really bothers me because the possibility is there ... and where did the police get the idea that a second phone was in the cab ... just more fuzziness for my feeble brain to comprehend ...

Posted from Android

Note that the engineer used a cellphone to call 9-1-1 after the wreck.  How soon after?  My cellphone, if
it is powered down as engineers' phones are supposed to be, takes a while to power on and boot up
before it can be used.

Does the phone number on the call match the one on the phone he voluntarily surrendered to
investigators?

>I would amend that to say the NTSB does not have their own "point of view."

Ya, right, and pigs can fly. Why then did "they" flat out refuse to consider signal visibility in the Chatsworth accident? And why in the succeeding two weeks after the accident did Metrolink change out all of its incandescent and fresnel lens signals, which were (and are) notorious for being difficult to see, in favor of the new LED signals, which are very easy to see??

>Mr officer said they were still looking for his phone ... i told him Mr Bostian and his lawyer turned his phone into the police ... here's the interesting part ... he said they were looking for a SECOND PHONE ... i was really taken back by that ... he was insistent that the engineer had another phone besides his personal cell phone ... that was interesting because no one in any of the press conferences mentioned a second phone ... he was adamant they'll find it and it will show Mr Bostian was using the 2nd phone (a burner phone i guess is what they're lookin for)

This is in line with the cops' throw-away gun practice. I'm waiting for the little silver men to enter in from their advance bases on the far side of the moon. OOOOOwwwwEEEEE ooooooo!

>i hope and pray that Mr Bostian acted professionally albeit with a distraction that either injured him or completely lost his focus due to an outside factor

I think "they" are flailing around like a fish out of water because there are no hard statistics to support this scenario, which I happen to think is what occurred, having been shot at and rocked many times over my RR career.

>... but i can't help think about that 2nd phone

Stop, because he didn't have one.

>and where did the police get the idea that a second phone was in the cab

The throw-away gun thing: "if we do this sort of thing, others can too".

MaryMcPherson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would amend that to say the NTSB does not have
> their own "point of view."  They investigate the
> incident and follow where any and all evidence
> points.  They have no vested interest in one
> cause or another.

Sounds a lot like the Warren Commission.  I wonder if evidence indicating that LBJ was behind the assassination would have made it into the final report?  

In my opinion, the credibility of anything coming from Washington DC disappeared after 1964 and slipped further when we were told, repeatedly, that we were winning the war in Vietnam. 

Examples are numerous.  To think that our Government never lies to us is naive.

filmteknik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is this an instance where the dreaded inward
> facing camera would be useful?

Only if they are built to a standard to survive a crash.  Strangely, the carriers are insisting that they be able to install the cheapest, flimsiest cameras.  The unions are insisting that if we get stuck with inward facing cameras, that they be able to survive a crash.

Why do you think the carriers want cameras, but don't want them to survive a crash?  Hint ... it has to do with discipline, and being able to shirk liability following a major incident.

What is a typical schedule for an Amtrak engineer on the NEC?  Also, the engineer on 188 seems to be fairly young.  Back in the day, a pasenger train engineer was one with seniority allowing him to hold down a regularly scheduled job, no?

DubyaM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is a typical schedule for an Amtrak engineer
> on the NEC?  Also, the engineer on 188 seems to
> be fairly young.  Back in the day, a pasenger
> train engineer was one with seniority allowing him
> to hold down a regularly scheduled job, no?

attrition ... the railroad hired a whole lot of us baby boomers in the 70s ... it's our time to see ourselves out the door of employment into the land of that wonderful ideal of retirement ...

Posted from Android