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

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

In article <3858A8B7.241FE581@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: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 19:54:15 +1100



>Maurie Daly wrote:

>> 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

>By the way, the Book of Rules and Regulations was an act of parliament. I am not sure whether the
>Book of Rules and operating Procedures has the same authority. If it did and the Rules were
>lacking and resulted in an accident who would be liable? The operator or the government?
>David G.

Theoretically , if the rules were at fault , the Government would be at fault, 
but here lies the dilemma.
Under the Victorian Rail Safety Act , which is currently the only available 
legislation which has any power to bring to attribute blame,its the Secretary 
of the administering Dept which must investigate the accident and instigate 
legal action if warranted.
We would then have the curious position of the Secretary of a Govt Department 
(most likely the Secretary of the Dept of Transport),prosecuting the Victorian 
Minister for Transport.
Its more likely that the Govt would not admit blame , 
but would provide some sort of compensation for the operator.

The Ararat accident , as well as the Zanthus accident are two examples of 
where an accident occurred even though both drivers of both trains obeyed all 
the rules.
Im not aware of any other accidents where this situation has existed.
Glenbrook possibly when we know all the circumstances.
In the case of the Zanthus accident , GSR the operator of the pass train would 
have suffered significant losses, both from damage to their train,compensation 
to their passengers , and possible loss of revenue from bad press, even though 
they had nothing to do with the accident.
I wonder who will compensate GSR.

MD