Public Safety and the upcomming contract

Monsterboy: You may want to hire a proof reader for your upcomming novel.

Having a department separate from the maintenance supervision hierarchy for inspecting the cars or wayside equipment is part of the "Don't let the fox watch the chicken coop" paradigm.

The subject of eliminating the vehicle inspectors came up briefly close to twenty years ago when the carpetbaggers from SEPTA in Phila. showed up at BART with GM Frank Wilson. They didn't get anywhere with it.

This is one of those things where some know-it-all who doesn't understand why the system is set up the way it is decides, based on their total ignorance of the details, that it is stupid and unnecessary.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall when BART tells the California PUC:

"Oh yeah, we're going to abolish the vehicle inspectors and just have the shop foreworkers inspect the cars. We promise they won't let anything go out the door that shouldn't when the car count is low."

Unless something has changed recently, BART can't just up and do this without approval from the PUC.

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/GENERAL_ORDER/67952.htm

"3 REQUIREMENTS FOR SYSTEM SAFETY PROGRAM PLANS

3.1 Each new RTA shall submit its initial SSPP to Staff for Commission approval. No new RTA shall begin transit operations prior to Commission approval of its initial SSPP. Each RTA shall annually certify by a letter to Staff that it has reviewed the SSPP to determine whether the plan should be modified or updated. If an RTA determines revisions of the SSPP is necessary, the RTA shall submit the revised SSPP to Staff with a request for approval. If the revised SSPP is acceptable to Staff, Staff shall issue a formal letter to the RTA approving the revised SSPP as consistent with Section 3.2, best industry practices, and in furtherance of the public's interest in system safety and security. If it is not acceptable, Staff shall communicate its rejection to the RTA, and the RTA shall file a formal application seeking approval by the Commission."

3.2 The SSPP shall include, at a minimum:

n. A description of the process used for facilities and equipment safety inspections, including:

i. Identification of the facilities and equipment subject to regular safety related inspection and testing;

ii. Techniques used to conduct inspections and testing;

iii. Inspection schedules and procedures..."

So, what distinguishes an inspector from a foreworker as to ABILITY to spot a defect? No, job title doesn't count--is there third party certification? And ,speaking as an electrician, you don't want to know what the inspectors miss or ignore.

It is clear to me here after reading the response to the original posting, that there is a mentality that Inspectors at BART R.S.S. are no more qualified than lets say a mechanic or foreworker to "Buy OFF" the work of mechanics.The real issue here is a second set of eyes finalizing a given procedure that is clearly within the guidelines of "SAFETY" written by our own engineering dept.We as inspectors all supposd to come from a prequalified field of public transportation. Be it some from the Airlines, Military or civil backgrounds. Inspectors at BART R.S.S. HAVE to be 3 years prior experience as a final line inspector.That said,there is no other department where that pre-Qual exist's.Especially in management where they obviously have BART's job posting's mirror images of thier own personal resumes. where we have managers that in the past have been ex Burger King supervisors.Also keep in mind that we are also the only department that can not be upgraded due to absence.Ohh...and to the last post.I assume that you are more concerned with punctuation than the ACTUAL word's within.While pansy @#$%$ idiots like you were getting your FRATHOUSE butts buttered in college,I was in Iraq giving YOU the right for your free speech. So use it wisely!.