Western Railroad Discussion > NTSB Preliminary Investigation Results Out Midland, TX

The results are quite an example from a team of experts representing a government agency. The NTSB is not part of the U.S. Dept of Transportation. They are an independent federal agency that reports directly to Congress. Their board members are appointed by the president. Knowing this explains a lot.

autorack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The results are quite an example from a team of
> experts representing a government agency. The
> NTSB is not part of the U.S. Dept of
> Transportation. They are an independent federal
> agency that reports directly to Congress. Their
> board members are appointed by the president.
> Knowing this explains a lot.

Auto,

Care to share where you are getting this information?

J.

Here you go: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2012/midland_tx/midland_tx.html

Here is the link:

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2012/midland_tx/Midland_Preliminary_Report.pdf

Not much here

John Gezelius
Tustin, CA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/12 20:04 by john1082.

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2012/midland_tx/midland_tx.html


The preliminary investigation is pretty much a summary of the incident. Honestly, just that. Give it 6 months to a year for the final investigation to come out then let the chat begin. There is reasons for the appointed members of the NTSB, they are not influenced by him at all. Ive worked with them on a few incidents and are absolutely great at there jobs.

J.

The link others furnished are the one concerning the preliminary report results. The remainder concerning the organization is here: http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/ntsb_statute.html

I guess that I was a little disappointed, because they cited more detail in their press releases, than was provided in the skeletal preliminary report. Pardon the sarcasm in my post; probably my fault in setting my expectations too high.

autorack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> J.
>
> The link others furnished are the one concerning
> the preliminary report results. The remainder
> concerning the organization is here:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/ntsb_statute.html
>
> I guess that I was a little disappointed, because
> they cited more detail in their press releases,
> than was provided in the skeletal preliminary
> report. Pardon the sarcasm in my post; probably
> my fault in setting my expectations too high.

Auto,

The NTSB has been proven over the years to be highly impartial. Their remit is not to find fault but to find out the whys of an accident and to make recommendations on how to avoid them in the future. Their reports are VERY complete. In this case they will interview everybody they can including the UP crew the dispatcher and folks on the ground at the site. They will do tests, They will if need be re-enact the accident. This is how thorough they are. Because of this their full reports take 1 to 1 1/2 years to complete. They are never in a rush. Given them the time and you will get a report that will answer all questions.

J.

autorack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess that I was a little disappointed ...

Think about it this way: YOU aren't going to find out what happened until after THEY find out what happened.
And that isn't going to happen quickly. If nothing else at the moment, there are a whole lot of self-interested parties and lawyers running around, and most of them will be lying thru their teeth to make it look like they or their party is completely blameless, and all the blame falls on <where can I find some money>.

The investigators have to listen to that and record it, then they have to look at the physical evidence before the rain or highway department washes it away. They have to impound equipment so they can see if it really is working <every time>, or if it has problems, and find that out before it is very quickly repaired by someone unknown at night. They also have to listen to a bunch of other experts and witnesses, some of whom might be telling the truth.

When all is said and done, they will then anger the press, the lawyers, and most of the watchers BY NOT LAYING BLAME. It turns out that isn't their mandate.

Their business is to figure out what really happened, and then to see if something reasonable could be done to make things work better in the future so this doesn't happen somewhere else again. If they can come up with some REASONABLE recommendations for improvement, they will then make those reservations.

Of course the lawyers will take anything they say, file off the part of the cause that lays at their party's feet, and use the rest of it very selectively in their quest to accumulate all the money in the universe for themselves. The court cases will probably outlast us all.

One aspect of the NTSB process is surfacing any previous similar incidents, etc. In aircraft issues, that will sometimes highlight processes that should be changed in a company's, airport's etc processes.

For example, the former SwissAir pilot training required the crew to pick up any food service items already served before dumping fuel or making a planned rapid descent during an emergency.

the ten to 12 minutes in that process later proved fatal to the crew and passengers in the Halifax emergency. The rules have been changed. Now, passengers are directed to shove the trays etc to the floor as the pilot immediately begins emergency procedures.

We can hope that the recommendations from the Midland mess will save lives in the future and codify processes when parades, large movements like funeral corteges, etc cross active, high speed railroads.

lwilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Of course the lawyers will take anything they say,
> file off the part of the cause that lays at their
> party's feet, and use the rest of it very
> selectively in their quest to accumulate all the
> money in the universe for themselves. The court
> cases will probably outlast us all.


One of the more accurate descriptions of the role of lawyers I have seen!

lwilton Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------->
> Of course the lawyers will take anything they say,
> file off the part of the cause that lays at their
> party's feet, and use the rest of it very
> selectively in their quest to accumulate all the
> money in the universe for themselves. The court
> cases will probably outlast us all.

Amen, very well said!

Here is a newpaper version of the story of the NTSB's preliminary report

http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news/NTSB-Train-Crash-report-182274841.html


Note how the author used the adjective "barreling"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/12 06:24 by ArgyleEagle.

By law, NTSB recommendations cannot be used in litigation.

The information you are looking for will come in the "probable cause" report.

kansas1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By law, NTSB recommendations cannot be used in
> litigation.

But I believe findings of fact can be.

whats to investigate, the truck driver was on the tracks when the train hit him. media said gates had already started down when he entered the crossing.

1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> whats to investigate, the truck driver was on the
> tracks when the train hit him. media said gates
> had already started down when he entered the
> crossing.

Taking your question seriously, which I assume was not the intent:

A first thing to investigate would be whether the media reports are correct or they are just blowing smoke to improve circulation. They have been known to do things like that before.

Another thing to investigate would have been when the lights started before the collision.

Another thing would be whether the truck/trailer was moving, in which direction, and at what speed.

Another thing would be whether the driver saw/heard the warning, and if so when. And if not, why not.


The purpose of the NTSB is to find out why the collision happened, and then see if there are any rational equipment or procedural changes that could keep it or collisions like it from happening in the future.


I grant such research hard to understand, since as near as I can determine, it is the absolute belief of all forum members here that ANY train-vehicle collision was the deliberate brute animal stupidity of the person that got in the way of the train, and no other explanation is possible. Frankly that attitude annoys me.