This might come across as a very strange question but is it uncommon to find engineers who did not enjoy school or think highly of the schools that they attended? I have encountered numerous computing and IT types over the years who did not enjoy school or had bad experiences at school but very few electrical or mechanical engineers.
Yes, that was pretty much exactly my thoughts - there was one point where a statement was made along the lines of "we're proving the safety of these cars by doing lots of testing in controlled areas and then on roads" which caused me to actually shout at the radio "you don't prove safety by testing!". But of course that particular speaker was a spokesperson who would have been feed with PR digested material - so it's not to say there wasn't actually solid safety work underlying it. It's just frustrating - showing a film of a car avoiding something appears to, as you say, show they are on top of the safety and actually of course does nothing of the kind.
I think I've told you before about an ex-colleague of mine, a fantastic ISA, whose neat response to any field data was "yes, that proves it hasn't failed yet".
The diagram in the full report that shows the distance the train oscillated over before finally coming to a standstill is one of the more disturbing things I've seen for a while. The cause of the incident is fascinating. It shows that what we've always considered to be the fail-safe braking system - brought in after Armagh type incidents - can still be implemented with common-mode engineering issues.
On a lighter bedtime note: My family are fortunately quite used to me shouting at the radio or television - my daughter frequently reminds me of a couple of dramas we were watching where people were shown on UK railway tracks in yellow high vis gear!!! (I think one was Doctor Who and one was Sherlock, both of which I would have thought it is reasoanble to expect to be 100% factually accurate ) Still they are very understanding, and don't suggest (yet) that I should get a life or be put in a home...
Yes, that was pretty much exactly my thoughts - there was one point where a statement was made along the lines of "we're proving the safety of these cars by doing lots of testing in controlled areas and then on roads" which caused me to actually shout at the radio "you don't prove safety by testing!". But of course that particular speaker was a spokesperson who would have been feed with PR digested material - so it's not to say there wasn't actually solid safety work underlying it. It's just frustrating - showing a film of a car avoiding something appears to, as you say, show they are on top of the safety and actually of course does nothing of the kind.
I think I've told you before about an ex-colleague of mine, a fantastic ISA, whose neat response to any field data was "yes, that proves it hasn't failed yet".
The diagram in the full report that shows the distance the train oscillated over before finally coming to a standstill is one of the more disturbing things I've seen for a while. The cause of the incident is fascinating. It shows that what we've always considered to be the fail-safe braking system - brought in after Armagh type incidents - can still be implemented with common-mode engineering issues.
On a lighter bedtime note: My family are fortunately quite used to me shouting at the radio or television - my daughter frequently reminds me of a couple of dramas we were watching where people were shown on UK railway tracks in yellow high vis gear!!! (I think one was Doctor Who and one was Sherlock, both of which I would have thought it is reasoanble to expect to be 100% factually accurate ) Still they are very understanding, and don't suggest (yet) that I should get a life or be put in a home...
) Still they are very understanding, and don't suggest (yet) that I should get a life or be put in a home...
