Taiwan train derails at least 17 dead

[Lala81]

the driver was a relief driver that day and not familiar with the route and he was troubleshooting while driving.

 

i doubt he was even aware the train was traveling at high speed. Accident happen while he was communicating with control centre and obviously he was not looking at where the train is going.

 

I thought usually like SAF/SMRT/SBS bus driver or what, before u do the route, u must have route "orientation" package. 

[Victor68]

I am looking at the angle from the company hiring 'expert' to carry out 'work at height'. If i am able to accertain if their RA is adequate or not, i may be specifying how it should be done. This 'work at height' should be no difference of engaging a QP or LEW for electrical work. Employer requirement is to ensure that company they engaged has a QP.

[Carbon82]

This Taiwan derail very happening.

 

Now there are report this driver was under drug influences. He was previously convicted for drug offences. Hmm like Taiwan hokkien drama..

 

https://www.jqknews.com/news/87180-Taiwan_Railway_Accident_train_driver_has_been_checked_for_addiction_because_of_drug_abuse.html

 

the driver was a relief driver that day and not familiar with the route and he was troubleshooting while driving.

 

i doubt he was even aware the train was traveling at high speed. Accident happen while he was communicating with control centre and obviously he was not looking at where the train is going.

 

All these and many others that have been reported (e.g. speeding, poor maintenance, etc.) are what I would call, contributing factors. The investigation committee (COI / BOI) will have to dive deep to first determine the causal factors, the key factors that directly the accident to occur, and then find out the root cause leading to the causal factors, follow by mapping out the appropriate corrective and preventive actions.

 

OK, I might sounds too technical, so let use a 2 examples to illustrate my point.

 

1) Will the familiarity of the driver resulted in accident of such scale? I would say no, as the system will have many fail safe features built-in to guide the driver and the train. So NOT a causal factor.

 

2) Will poor maintenance lead to such accident? A big YES. Safety system need proper maintenance to keep it functioning (e.g. brake, warning device, sensing system, etc.)

 

So now, why the train was not properly maintain? Is it because

- maintenance requirement was not properly defined and documented?

- someone never follow the maintenance schedule/regime?

- of resource (manpower, tools, parts, $$$) constraint?

- the maintenance team is incompetent?

- not one bother to check?

- etc. etc.

 

I better stop here before you fall asleep. In a nutshell, need a lot of analysis using the right accident investigation tools to uncover the underlying root cause, NOT from just misleading news reporting or surfaced evidences.

 

I am looking at the angle from the company hiring 'expert' to carry out 'work at height'. If i am able to accertain if their RA is adequate or not, i may be specifying how it should be done. This 'work at height' should be no difference of engaging a QP or LEW for electrical work. Employer requirement is to ensure that company they engaged has a QP.

 

You are partially right. The 'expert' own the RA, but without having the customer going through it to ascertain it it has covered all hazards and risks present at their place (work site), how can one be absolutely sure what documented in the RA is 100% applicable at the work site?

 

Using the LEW as an example, his RA is likely to have covered all risks associating with the turning on and switching off of electrical installation, BUT have it take into consideration of special power setup / requirement at the place of work, e.g. monitoring and protection system (heat detectors), other hazardous operations (storage and dispensing of flammable liquid), ventilation system in a confined space, etc.?

[Victor68]

All these and many others that have been reported (e.g. speeding, poor maintenance, etc.) are what I would call, contributing factors. The investigation committee (COI / BOI) will have to dive deep to first determine the causal factors, the key factors that directly the accident to occur, and then find out the root cause leading to the causal factors, follow by mapping out the appropriate corrective and preventive actions.

 

OK, I might sounds too technical, so let use a 2 examples to illustrate my point.

 

1) Will the familiarity of the driver resulted in accident of such scale? I would say no, as the system will have many fail safe features built-in to guide the driver and the train. So NOT a causal factor.

 

2) Will poor maintenance lead to such accident? A big YES. Safety system need proper maintenance to keep it functioning (e.g. brake, warning device, sensing system, etc.)

 

So now, why the train was not properly maintain? Is it because

- maintenance requirement was not properly defined and documented?

- someone never follow the maintenance schedule/regime?

- of resource (manpower, tools, parts, $$$) constraint?

- the maintenance team is incompetent?

- not one bother to check?

- etc. etc.

 

I better stop here before you fall asleep. In a nutshell, need a lot of analysis using the right accident investigation tools to uncover the underlying root cause, NOT from just misleading news reporting or surfaced evidences.

 

 

You are partially right. The 'expert' own the RA, but without having the customer going through it to ascertain it it has covered all hazards and risks present at their place (work site), how can one be absolutely sure what documented in the RA is 100% applicable at the work site?

 

Using the LEW as an example, his RA is likely to have covered all risks associating with the turning on and switching off of electrical installation, BUT have it take into consideration of special power setup / requirement at the place of work, e.g. monitoring and protection system (heat detectors), other hazardous operations (storage and dispensing of flammable liquid), ventilation system in a confined space, etc.?

If as owner i need a job to be done and i eblngagaed a specialist contrsctor with the right QP. They provide the RA and i have to sigm although i really dont know what was written is correct or not. So, when an accident happen, who is responsible? What does signing the RA by owner mean and purpose?

[Carbon82]

If as owner i need a job to be done and i eblngagaed a specialist contrsctor with the right QP. They provide the RA and i have to sigm although i really dont know what was written is correct or not. So, when an accident happen, who is responsible? What does signing the RA by owner mean and purpose?

 

What you have mentioned is totally unacceptable from safety point of view. Are you trained in conducting a Risk Assessment? If not, you are in no position to review and make changes to RA, let alone to endorse it! If anything goes wrong, you may be charged in court!!  

 

In a nutshell, RA is a document detailing the hazards and risks associated with the task(s) to be performed, and has the suitable control measures documented to mitigate the risks. Whoever names appears on it, as well as the approver own this document technically speaking, and if there is an serious accident, they will be subjected to be questioned by MOM and the relevant authorities, depending on it severity.

 

Since you (or your company) has engaged the specialist / contractor (with the right QP) to carry a job, did the contract / agreement spell out the need for them to provide their own RA and safety specialist (e.g. safety coordinator / officer / supervisor / manager, etc.) to supervise the job? If so, they are solely responsible for the health and safety of job assignment.

 

BTW, does your company have any safety personnel? Why is he/she not involve in the RA review?

[Victor68]

What you have mentioned is totally unacceptable from safety point of view. Are you trained in conducting a Risk Assessment? If not, you are in no position to review and make changes to RA, let alone to endorse it! If anything goes wrong, you may be charged in court!!

 

In a nutshell, RA is a document detailing the hazards and risks associated with the task(s) to be performed, and has the suitable control measures documented to mitigate the risks. Whoever names appears on it, as well as the approver own this document technically speaking, and if there is an serious accident, they will be subjected to be questioned by MOM and the relevant authorities, depending on it severity.

 

Since you (or your company) has engaged the specialist / contractor (with the right QP) to carry a job, did the contract / agreement spell out the need for them to provide their own RA and safety specialist (e.g. safety coordinator / officer / supervisor / manager, etc.) to supervise the job? If so, they are solely responsible for the health and safety of job assignment.

 

BTW, does your company have any safety personnel? Why is he/she not involve in the RA review?

So, what you are saying is, only fully qualified person is allowed to sign or have any part in RA? As owner, if i engage a vendor and they submit RA, i just keep it for record. No acknowledgement is required?

[Carbon82]

So, what you are saying is, only fully qualified person is allowed to sign or have any part in RA? As owner, if i engage a vendor and they submit RA, i just keep it for record. No acknowledgement is required?

 

May I know under what circumstances you engage the specialist contractor (what is your company relationship with them)? Per legal requirement, if your company do not have someone competent to perform the RA, you are allowed to engage a 3rd party to do one for you.

 

But if today, the contractor are in your company to carry out some jobs, the competent person in your company, say safety officer or appointed RA team lead (who has to undergo risk management training), has to run through the RA to ascertain that all necessary (and practicable) control measures have been taken to mitigate all the foreseeable risks associating with the jobs, as well as interaction with your company activities.

 

Let take this offline, it getting too technical and nothing to do with the train accident. PM me if you need more clarification or assistance. I am more than happy to assist.

[Kopites]

So, what you are saying is, only fully qualified person is allowed to sign or have any part in RA? As owner, if i engage a vendor and they submit RA, i just keep it for record. No acknowledgement is required?

Yes. In legal term boss signature are merely for acknowledgment. Is like chicken and egg. Company need the safety RA signature for tendering.. surveyor need to bring beacon home. Edited October 30, 2018 by Kopites

[Victor68]

May I know under what circumstances you engage the specialist contractor (what is your company relationship with them)? Per legal requirement, if your company do not have someone competent to perform the RA, you are allowed to engage a 3rd party to do one for you.

 

But if today, the contractor are in your company to carry out some jobs, the competent person in your company, say safety officer or appointed RA team lead (who has to undergo risk management training), has to run through the RA to ascertain that all necessary (and practicable) control measures have been taken to mitigate all the foreseeable risks associating with the jobs, as well as interaction with your company activities.

 

Let take this offline, it getting too technical and nothing to do with the train accident. PM me if you need more clarification or assistance. I am more than happy to assist.

I am asking this question because i really couldn't understand the rationale behind this RA. I read your answer and gather you are from an industry that engage your own safety officers, example shipyard or some factory. The work at height include home. For example, you need someone to work on your roof. What is required from you? If your motor workshop is 2 storey high, your mechanic or yourself won't be able to detemine that RA is adequate or not.

 

So under these simple scenarios, just collect the RA or ?

Sorry it is off the tropic but i thought good for everyone to know their obligations should they need to engage contractors on such matters.

[Jman888]

they found out that the driver (or most of the drivers) has been working OT for many months (13 hr averages) and no off for 14 days. One week before the accident he was doing 17 hrs shift for 2 days.

 

this is on top of the faulty ATP data feedback that happen all the time.

[Hoseyboh]

Jitpun Xiao liow loh