Metrolink peer review report - Ventura County Star

More documents

Recommendations

Info

METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL SAFETY PEER REVIEW PANEL Final Report – January 5, 2009 Issue Papers within the system-specific software. The system logic is then thoroughly tested for compatibility with the DigiCon system and adjusted, if necessary, prior to full service. Metrolink signal engineers have been trained to maintain the hardware of the DigiCon system, and have been trained on the diagnostics and trouble shooting of the system. In addition, SCRRA maintains an inventory of spare parts. A redundant system is in place should the software fail and there is an ability to resurrect the system through backups. These measures suggest that, while the solution regarding Digicon is not ideal, Metrolink has taken effective steps to guard against dispatching system failure in the near to mid-term. 58
METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL SAFETY PEER REVIEW PANEL Final Report – January 5, 2009 e. Annual Medical and Psychological Evaluations for Train Crews Issue Papers Observations SCRRA Board of Directors, in a motion on October 10, 2008, requested information regarding SCRRA’s authority to require train crews to undergo annual health and psychological evaluations. The Panel reviewed the FRA’s 2005 Final Report on Medical Standards for Railroad Workers, the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) website, and information related to the RSAC Task No 06-03: Medical Standards for Safety-Critical Personnel. The Panel also conducted a high-level review of related academic literature in the ABI/Inform Global database. Recommendation a. The Panel recommends that SCRRA implement medical evaluations prior to placement of contractor employees in safety critical positions and at a minimum of every three years, with more frequent evaluation in specific circumstances. This recommendation is consistent with the preliminary studies by the FRA RSAC. b. The Panel did not find any evidence that psychological6 evaluations for train crews would reduce exposure to risk for Metrolink. However the Panel does recommend that SCRRA perform research in this area to determine if psychological exams would increase safety on its Metrolink system. Background This issue of annual medical and psychological evaluations for train crews raises two questions: 1. Does SCRRA have the authority to require them of contractors; and 2. Would such a requirement improve safety at Metrolink? SCRRA has the right to negotiate changes to its contractors’ provisions; however, depending on the requested contractual change, it may create potential labor issues with the contractor and the contractor's employees. SCRRA can also change its SSPP and create a safety requirement of medical and psychological evaluation of train crews. It's also important to consider that in contemplating changes to the contract or the SSPP, that the changes reflect the need for contractors, not Metrolink, to maintain a direct relationship with the contractor’s own employees, so that an independent contractor relationship is maintained. The Panel considered the efficacy of annual medical evaluations separately from annual psychological evaluations. Regarding medical evaluations, the FRA’s 2005 Final Report on Medical Standards for Railroad Workers clearly establishes the medical condition of crew members as an exposure to fatal and non-fatal accidents. The FRA has tasked the RSAC with developing recommendations for medical standards for safety-critical personnel. The RSAC is currently engaged in a collaborative study of the efficacy, feasibility, and the myriad legal issues surrounding medical evaluations for railroad workers. Although the RSAC recommendations have not been published, the Panel has not seen any indication that they will include annual evaluations. Much more likely are recommendations to require medical evaluations prior to 6 By psychological evaluation, it refers to psychological or psychiatric screening that could result in a diagnosis from the American Psychological Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV-TR). 59
Page 1 and 2:
METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL SAFETY PEER
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12: METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL SAFETY PEER
Page 61: METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL SAFETY PEER
Page 85: METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL SAFETY PEER
show all

Metrolink peer review report - Ventura County Star

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?