[SystemSafety] a public beta phase ???

[Peter Bernard Ladkin]

On 2016-07-20 14:55 , Matthew Squair wrote:
> Regarding 'unhappy experiences'. 
> 
> Vigilance systems are still widely used in Australia, the US and the RUS, as we all have continental
> rail systems. 

That's what I was wondering about. There is not a huge amount in common between intercontinental
systems with few and large trains, and rail systems such as we have in Western Europe, where the
vigilance systems, where they are in place (they are not in place everywhere!), are effective and
essential.

The kit differs considerably, to the point at which a colleague at Queensland Rail published a
technical paper explaining how they adapted a generic (!) Siemens axle counter for use in Queensland
on the Mount Isa line, on which you have a couple of trains a week and integrity is a very big deal
(was: you could probably conduct adequate surveillance by drone nowadays). You also run "high-speed"
trains (two of them, as of ten years ago!) on lines whose only protection systems are unlighted
marker boards ("speed boards") for speed restrictions and generic balises ("Station protection
magnets" and "mid-section magnets") for station entry/exit and mid-section awareness (north of
Rockhampton on the Cairns line). It's different!

I am not sure it's wise to generalise too much about rail operations.

> Regarding 'profound consequences'
> 
> Do you recall (a while ago) a video of of an Airbus over Paris due to the pilot fighting the
> automation? 

You mean the one referenced in 3.1.11.3 of
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Nagoya/nagoyarep/nag-3.html ?

(Disclaimer: I advised the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case in which relatives of the
passengers sued Airbus et al. in Japan. But I wasn't asked to testify.)

> Changing the way humans interact with a system and therefore the way in which
> accidents occur is (at least to me) a profound consequence of such automation. 

Yes, I would agree. We are now at levels of accidents to commercial aircraft that were almost
inconceivable in 1985 when the incident to which you refer took place. Inconceivably low, that is.
People such as Al Gore were extrapolating from the rates then and pointed out we would be
experiencing one major accident a week (or more). Which we thankfully are not. Most people ascribe
that success to the help afforded by the automation.

PBL

Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Bielefeld, Germany
MoreInCommon
Je suis Charlie
Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319  www.rvs-bi.de





-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20160720/7503871a/attachment.pgp>