Originally Posted by
ashill
...
At the same time, I think the talk about PTC misses the mark somewhat. Yes, it would help; based on what we know now, it seems likely that it would have prevented this accident. But the engineer slowing down appropriately would also have prevented the accident, and I don't think it's unfair to expect an engineer (or a driver in a motor vehicle) to obey the posted speed limit (or at least be close to it). Just like with partially self-driven cars, though I'm sure it is a considerable net safety improvement, I also fear the safety implications of engineers relying on PTC instead of it being a backup. I think it goes without saying that this accident should not have happened irrespective of PTC being in place, and treating PTC as a panacea is dangerous.
I agree with your premise that the engineers cannot be relieved of their responsibilities.
But, would you remove all of the warning signals that airline pilots receive... or, for that matter, autopilots... for fear that the pilots might become too reliant on them?
PTC should only be a back-up to engineer diligence.
But, people become distracted. Their performance can be degraded by myriad factors. Having a safety system to supplement their performance is prudent, and the technology exists.
Spending $180 million on this line, and starting it up without proven, available safety technology in place and fully functioning was tragically shortsighted.
I suspect that there are at least three families that would agree with that assertion.