Dr Anjum Naweed, CQUniversity

31/03/14

1

railcrc.net.au

Innova/on in Research on SPADs

Dr Anjum Naweed Senior Research Fellow, CQUniversity Australia

•  Research Project •  Methodology •  Findings -‐  Phase I -‐  Phase II

•  Discussion •  Where to from here?

Rail Safety Conference 2014 | Sydney, Australia | 26th March 2014 | A Naweed | InnovaNon in Research on SPADs

Overview

31/03/14

2

For you to: •  Improve your understanding of SPADs

•  Appreciate the train driver’s perspective

•  Learn new ways of collecting information

•  Consider how you can adopt project outcomes into your SPAD management programs

My aims


TracNon

Weight

Speed

Gradients

Curvature

Visibility

Railhead condiNon

Adhesion

Temperature

‘Open’ system

FaNgue

ShiW work

Sustained aYenNon

Vigilance

ReacNon Nme

Signals

Crossings

Point switching

Traffic flow

Movement authority

Schedule

Time keeping

Train control

Service delivery

Fuel

consumpNon

The rail system: A HF perspecNve

Train driving is complex, dynamic, and opaque

31/03/14

3

Direction of travel

Clear Caution STOP

‘Danger Signal’

Train drivers spend a great deal of Nme predicNng future states

Rail signals


•  Signal Passed at Danger

The “SPAD”


31/03/14

4

The rail system: A HF perspecNve The technical “SPAD”

What is a “SPAD”?

31/03/14

5



Talk to your manager if you haven’t had a presentationabout maintaining your FOCUS when driving

FOCUS top tips• Scan the track• Talk aloud to yourself• Use all your senses•••

CHICKENCURRYFORDINNER?How do you stay in focus?

Tip of the Month

31/03/14

6

CRC SPADs Project •  Increase in demand for service delivery •  Increase in SPAD numbers •  IdenNfy Key risk factors •  Improve understanding of SPAD causaNon

–  How are train movements and SPAD-‐risk managed from the perspecNve of the train driver?

–  What are the implicaNons of this perspecNve and resulNng behaviour on

the rail organisaNon? –  How can organisaNons improve their understanding of SPADs?


Cab rides Focus groups SPAD scenarios

PHAS

E I

PHAS

E II

Methodology

Future Inquiry Workshops


31/03/14

7

28 Age = 24 to 58 Average = 45

Gender M = 26 F = 2

Train drivers Principal drivers Route tutors Driver trainers

Phase I: Drivers

Findings

1)  The driver-‐signal relaNonship

2) Devaluing the meaning of signals

3)  “Are you fit to conNnue…”

4)  Task-‐related distracNon: key risk factors


31/03/14

8

1) Driver-signal relationship

“Describe your relaNonship with the signal…”


respect total

respect

The Rule

absolute discipline

my top priority

absolute the ulNmate collision avoidance system

“ The signal is…

”



31/03/14

9

God

my lifeline my bread n’ bu,er

my religion

my livelihood my safety

my passengers’ safety


”



the most respected thing out there

my best friend my colleague

my Master

my friend and my enemy


”



31/03/14

10

SPAD = Acute stress response

–  EmoNonal irregularity •  Disbelief, fear, panic anxiety

–  Psychological •  CogniNve impairment •  DisorientaNon, parNal amnesia •  Impaired judgment •  Confusion, daze

–  Physiological •  Release of noradrenaline •  Increased heart rate •  Constricted blood vessels



Direction of travel

Caution Caution Caution

2) Devaluing signal meaning

Yellow is the new green Rail Safety Conference 2014 | Sydney, Australia | 26th March 2014 | A Naweed | InnovaNon in Research on SPADs

31/03/14

11

•  Drivers answer in the affirmaNve even if contrary to what seems intuiNvely right or correct

•  Scare/fear factor •  ExpectaNon to conNnue aWer technical SPADs •  Weak procedural control

3) “Are you fit to continue…(?)”

“yes…”


31/03/14

12

Driver disengaged – task disrupted Controller interacNon -‐ Time pressure/ task distorted SighNng restricNon / task disconnected StaNon dwell / task dislocated

Novel event

Sigh/ng Restric/on

Time Pressure

Controller Interac/on

Sta/on dwell

Time pressure

Controller interac/on

Sta/on dwells

Sigh/ng restric/on

disconnec1on

disloca1on disrup1on

distor1on

SPAD risk

Signal dynamic

Service delivery

Novel event

Novel event

Novel event

Novel event

4) Key risk factors

31/03/14

13

•  Train driver-‐signal relaNonship highly personal •  SPADs = acute stress response •  Single factor (judgmental) explanaNons for SPAD •  Fear factor/taboo •  Fit to conNnue post-‐SPAD check is counterintuiNve •  Yellow is the new green •  Key risks are seen as organisaNonal norms

Summary

NormalisaNon of deviancy

Phase II: System

1

2

3

4

5

>300 Par/cipants

31/03/14

14

>300

Train drivers

Signalers

Controllers

Signal engineers

Track workers

HR managers

Driver trainers

SPAD invesNgators

Human factors people Timetable

designers

Risk managers

Safety mangers

Regulators Union officials

Driver reps

Freight Passenger

Par/cipants

Future inquiry workshop

ScienNfically defensible ‘think-‐tank’

Par/cipants Par/cipants


(BleweY & Shaw, 2008)

31/03/14

15

Future inquiry workshop(s) What was not being done (in Oct last year) •  Managing Nmetable vs. defensive driving •  Reviewing/tesNng Nmetabling •  Training in the right areas •  Retraining aWer incidents •  TargeNng recruitment appropriately •  No common definiNons for SPADs data •  Inconsistencies in SPAD invesNgaNons •  BeYer look at human factors issues/awareness


Future inquiry workshop(s) First acNon steps: 1)  Recruitment & training

-‐ NaNonal training package/standard 2)  Data & informaNon -‐ Capture meaning data/standardisaNon 3)  Cross industry collaboraNon -‐ ClassificaNon/engagement with CEOs 4)  New technology -‐ Signal visibility – LEDs; HF in design; interoperability 5) Further SPADs research


31/03/14

16

Where do we go from here?



Risk factors Potential strategies? Rail Safety Conference 2014 | Sydney, Australia | 26th March 2014 | A Naweed | InnovaNon in Research on SPADs

31/03/14

17


Reports Journal articles Rail Safety Conference 2014 | Sydney, Australia | 26th March 2014 | A Naweed | InnovaNon in Research on SPADs


1)  RISSB SPAD Management Guideline

2)  ARA SPAD ClassificaNons Group

3)  Local level support/guidance in SPAD program and training design

4) QuanNficaNon of risk model – event recorder data, ATP data

31/03/14

18

railcrc.net.au

Thank You

Anjum Naweed Appleton InsNtute, CQUniversity Australia, 44 Greenhill Road, Wayville, SA 5034 08 8378 4520, [email protected]

Some Acknowledgements Sophia Rainbird, Verna BleweY, Lily Hirsch, Jesse Baker, Andy May, Steve Pelham, Stan Sexton, Brent GilleY, Ian CoYon, Eric Holliday, Gareth Williams, Bruce Hamlet, Russ Evans, Ryan Mort, April McCulloch, Max Atkinson, Michael Ruddock, Kirsty Bow, Robert Stopp, Craig Dance, Ron DeviY, Perry Ramsey, Kuljit Singh, Paul Crisp, Todd Bentley, Emma Green, Petra Eibl, and Kym Gellard.

Dr Anjum Naweed, CQUniversity

Business

Transcript of Dr Anjum Naweed, CQUniversity