Re: SAW/ASW - was Re: Computer Question - DTC

[mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly)]

In article <385731A9.19BA2E9B@optusnet.com.au> David Guymer <davidmg@optusnet.com.au> writes:
>From: David Guymer <davidmg@optusnet.com.au>
>Subject: Re: SAW/ASW - was Re: Computer Question - DTC
>Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 17:14:01 +1100



>Maurie Daly wrote:

>> In article <zdY44.81$iZ6.3847@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net> "Notagunzel"
><notagunzel@bigfoot.com> writes:
>> >From: "Notagunzel" <notagunzel@bigfoot.com>
>> >Subject: Re: SAW/ASW - was Re: Computer Question - DTC
>> >Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 12:46:48 +1100
>>
>> >Maurie Daly <mauried@commslab.gov.au> wrote in message
>> >mauried.493.385418F0@commslab.gov.au">news:mauried.493.385418F0@commslab.gov.au...
>>
>> >> As far as cancelling ASW goes in the interim is not bizzarre at all.
>> >> In this accident ,the safeworking system (ASW) was directly involved in
>> >> failing to prevent it .
>> >> Until an inquiry is held and ASW is cleared of any failure,continuing to
>> >use
>> >> it is effectively pre-empting the outcome of any inquiry, ie the operators
>> >of
>> >> the safeworking system are effectively saying that theres nothing wrong
>> >with
>> >> it. (Ie its safe).
>>
>> >If there is an Aeroplane crash, is Air Traffic Control shut down until the
>> >enquiry clears it?
>>
>> Obviously not , as there are no alternative systems that can be used.
>>
>> In the case of Rail Safeworking systems though there are and whilst
>> some may be old , they are at least well tried and proven.
>> One can hardly say this about ASW though.
>> Had just about any alternative safe working system other than ASW or TO been
>> in place,even TS & T , this accident would not have happened.

>Unfortunately some short-sighted management decisions in the late 80's saw the
>removal of Pilot
>Staffs from all ATC and CTC locations. This was a continuing of the downward
>slide of safeworking in
>Victoria. This was never more evident than with the 1991 Book of Rules and
>Regulations. Wgen I
>querrued the absence of some previous rules, I was told that omitting them was
>"an acceptable
>business risk".
>David G.


Yes business risk is a fine thing when its the same business that takes the 
risk,as the business that implements the risk regime.
In the deregulated regime that we now find rail in , the risk is implemented 
by the infrastructure owner, (ie the choice of safeworking system) but the 
risk is to the Rail operator, ie the people who run the trains, so 
infrastructure owners can afford to down grade safeworking systems knowing 
full well that any potential accident will be eventually the fault of the Rail 
operator, given that statistically it is human error that will be blamed .

Its rare indeed that a safeworking system , (even one based entirely on rules)
will be totally blamed for an accident.
Until there is some sort of minimum standards for safeworking systems which is 
enforcable on infrastructure owners, them what you have described above will 
keep happening.


MD