After reading Russ's post, this appears to be similar to many things the rest
of industry (and military) are trending towards. Inevitably, a problem (lets
say a wreck) will occur that will be attibuted to the decrease in inspections.
Emperical data will probably show that no real decrease in margin of safety
occurred but those opposed will site lack of human intervention a the cause.
Big industry is will to accept one big cost (wreck) when compared to overall
cost savings realized by reduction of inspections.
Mostly it comes down to change and reduction in the labor force that cuases the
most opposition versus real safety concerns. And yes, I've been in the crowd
opposed to both the change and reduction in manpower (but in a different area,
not railroading).
Rick Keil
Wichita, KS
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_5G_0907
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:CBQ-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:CBQ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|