Really?? Senna's Death was the first in F1 since the day before!!
WTF?
I can only see that working if you add "during a Grand Prix." de Angelis was in testing and Roland in qually.
Posted 27 June 2015 - 23:09
Really?? Senna's Death was the first in F1 since the day before!!
WTF?
I can only see that working if you add "during a Grand Prix." de Angelis was in testing and Roland in qually.
Advertisement
Posted 28 June 2015 - 10:28
As the gears were engaged and the car was fitted with engine idle control, designed to maintain revs at about 4,100 rpm to avoid damage, it was essentially "fighting" De Villota and she was "pushed" along the runway into the lorry.
I assume that the engine idle control is what is normally referred to as the anti-stall system. It was speculated at the time that Maria was caught out by the anti stall system.
From the statements on the BBC website it appears that Maria had not been trained in how to stop the car.
What surprises me is that the HSE are not prosecuting. I've always been told that in the case of a reportable incident you have to supply the risk assessment, training records of the people involved and maintenance records of any equipment.The health and safety at work act is very unusual in that you are not automatically assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, the onus is on you to prove yourself innocent. Hence why you have to prepare risk assessments and keep records.
Posted 28 June 2015 - 11:04
She died doing what she loved.
Posted 28 June 2015 - 11:18
She died doing what she loved.
She died in her hotel room more than a year after the accident.
Posted 28 June 2015 - 12:04
What surprises me is that the HSE are not prosecuting.
Why? HSE were in possession of ALL the facts and were not jumping to ill-founded conclusions. I think we can rely on their judgement rather more than that of the internet.
Posted 28 June 2015 - 14:25
Why? HSE were in possession of ALL the facts and were not jumping to ill-founded conclusions. I think we can rely on their judgement rather more than that of the internet.
Because as I said in my post the HSE stated that Maria had not been trained in how to stop the car. It appears that being unable to stop the car was the main cause of the accident and the team acknowledged they had not trained her in doing this but were reliant upon her experience gained elsewhere.
As an example every job I've ever worked in on the first day has given me instruction on what to do in the event of a fire alarm. Even 1 day training courses normally start with what to do in the event of a fire alarm. For most people I would hope it is obvious what to do in the event of a fire alarm based on their experience and common sense. If a company didn't train people what to do in the event of a fire alarm and when a fire started someone walked in the wrong direction towards the fire because they didn't know where the emergency exits were then it is likely that the company would have breached the health and safety at work act.
This is a simple example but the case would remain the same for Maria. She would have needed adequate training which she doesn't appear to have received. If it were a normal road car it could be argued that she didn't need special training because the controls in most road cars are the same and they don't have anti-stall systems. But an F1 car is totally different. They are complicated machines with special procedures to start and stop them that you have to be taught.
As I had said earlier, the HSAWA is one of the few if not only laws in the UK where someone has to prove themselves innocent. This normally entails showing a valid risk assessment, training records and maintenance records. The team have acknowledged she wasn't trained to stop the car which led to the accident, hence my surprise.
Posted 28 June 2015 - 14:39
When you have a car controlled by software, it will be subject to bugs. You've seen plenty of cars go off in practice because of "stuck" throttles, brakes deciding not to work, gears changing or not changing.
Hopefully nothing like this happens with a car in the pits.
Posted 28 June 2015 - 18:53
Absolute suffering leads to – is the means to – absolute beauty. – PKD
Posted 28 June 2015 - 19:54
Absolute suffering leads to – is the means to – absolute beauty. – PKD
If that's true then Ron Dennis, Jenson Button, and Fernando Alonso are absolutely beautiful.
Advertisement
Posted 29 June 2015 - 00:20
As an aside, what a morbid coincidence that the two F1 drivers in recent memory to be gravely injured both drove for the same team. And both got their grave injuries after somehow finding the absolute worst spot of a truck/tractor to hit.
Posted 29 June 2015 - 22:45
As an aside, what a morbid coincidence that the two F1 drivers in recent memory to be gravely injured both drove for the same team. And both got their grave injuries after somehow finding the absolute worst spot of a truck/tractor to hit.
It is a horrible coincidence. Over the past 20 years F1 cars have seemed to be almost magic and drivers have walked away without much more than a scratch.
Posted 30 June 2015 - 15:58
Really?? Senna's Death was the first in F1 since the day before!!
WTF?
My memory playing tricks on me... I did mean the report on Ratzenberger. *self facepalm*
Posted 30 June 2015 - 19:01
The team have acknowledged she wasn't trained to stop the car which led to the accident, hence my surprise.
What nonsense, of the type that makes H & S such a joke. She was a racing driver employed to drive a racing car. Not a schoolgirl getting a Saturday job for the first time. Did they have to train her to drive the car too? Where is her responsibility on this? If she didn't know how to stop the car, why did she drive it? They were employing a specialist, an expert. You don't expect to train an expert.
Posted 30 June 2015 - 19:21
What nonsense, of the type that makes H & S such a joke. She was a racing driver employed to drive a racing car. Not a schoolgirl getting a Saturday job for the first time. Did they have to train her to drive the car too? Where is her responsibility on this? If she didn't know how to stop the car, why did she drive it? They were employing a specialist, an expert. You don't expect to train an expert.
I tend to agree with this sentiment, but I also think it's reasonable, the way things are these days, to expect that both parties should consider such issues. She should have been proactive in ensuring that she understood the car, but equally the team should have ensured that she did (and, probably gotten her to sign a document to attest to that). It's always best to ensure issues don't arise rather than absolving yourself of responsibility after they do. Very sadly, not enough was done in this case.
Posted 30 June 2015 - 21:57
It is a horrible coincidence. Over the past 20 years F1 cars have seemed to be almost magic and drivers have walked away without much more than a scratch.
Posted 30 June 2015 - 23:16
Not all cars necessarily have the same stopping procedures. Of course they should have trained her. They were not employing an F1 car expert anyway. What was her F1 experience beforehand? Yes, she could have asked, but if you have a car that doesn't stop when someone basically tries to stop it in the normal way (apply the brakes etc.), then really you should let the driver know. Emergency stopping procedures on any piece of machinery is first on the health and safety list, and well above the "gone mad" line.What nonsense, of the type that makes H & S such a joke. She was a racing driver employed to drive a racing car. Not a schoolgirl getting a Saturday job for the first time. Did they have to train her to drive the car too? Where is her responsibility on this? If she didn't know how to stop the car, why did she drive it? They were employing a specialist, an expert. You don't expect to train an expert.
Posted 01 July 2015 - 00:10
While I can understand the logic of anti-stall systems, I do think where the s/w rejects the drivers gear selection input, you have real problems in the systems design (I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that) - any driver should be able to easily kill the engine if they deem it necessary.
Frankly I am appalled at the HSE's analysis of what has happened and I don't believe that this team has any business in designing or running F1 cars.
The tail lift shambles was just ridiculous too, you would have been booted out of any distribution centre for leaving a trailer like that, never mind in the close proximity of a moving F1 car.
Seano
Posted 01 July 2015 - 00:11
What nonsense, of the type that makes H & S such a joke. She was a racing driver employed to drive a racing car. Not a schoolgirl getting a Saturday job for the first time. Did they have to train her to drive the car too? Where is her responsibility on this? If she didn't know how to stop the car, why did she drive it? They were employing a specialist, an expert. You don't expect to train an expert.
Do you expect a military fighter pilot to just step into a model he never flew before and know how to do everything proper, because he's just an expert? That's probably why they do preparations in simulators, etc. According to you experts are "know it all's", like the commercial aircraft in Taiwan this year, where the 2 trained pilots (one with hundred hours of experience on the plane in question, the other having much more flight experience, but was a newbie to be trained on that particular aircraft) suffered one engine malfunctioning after take off and accidentally were trying to restart the one engine, that was still working instead of the one that stalled. End result most people died in the resulting crash. If that is expertise, well that must be why the aviation authorities required the remaining pilots of that airline to undergo 3 weeks of training in the simulators, before they were allowed back into any cockpit of any plane at all. It's simple experts need know how too. And these days even poor F1 teams, can be expected to have an simulator of some sorts. Anti-stall was designed on computers too.
Even full F1 drivers experts "waste" time in simulators these days, .. if the team can afford one that is, to learn the systems. Back when there were no simulators but new systems, do we really think drivers were not instructed how to use new and possibly unfamiliar systems without even mention them or not instructing how to use them? That would be unprofessional, if not even neglect from the team in question.
After all an expert can be an expert only if (s)he knows the ins and out of a system and more important knows how to use those. The report says the team didn't train her. That is not how things can and should be done today. The crash still might have happened, but to assume that someone knows it all, is a very dangerous assumption. Had she been able to complete the straight line runs successfully she'd gotten to be an expert. Before she was a trainee and alas.. let her train with the real car, was obviously not an adequate means in this instance.
Posted 01 July 2015 - 00:57
F1 cars don't have kill switches?
Posted 01 July 2015 - 19:29
F1 cars don't have kill switches?
Don't confuse the debate by being sensible. Apparently no-one can drive a F1 car without a lengthy training session (try telling Max Verstappen that) because they unlike any other race car ever made.
Did the War Museum carry out a risk assessment before allowing a F1 team to test at Duxford? I think we should be told. They may be ultimately responsible, not the poor klutz who got into a car that she didn't know how to drive.
Posted 02 July 2015 - 07:09
I remember that time Webber and Alonso interviewed each other. Fernando said that when he went out in FP1 in Melbourne in his first GP he didn't know how to select Neutral at the end of pitlane when everyone had stopped in front of him.
https://www.youtube....h?v=qdw7MO8pbRA
first question on this video
edit to add video
Edited by wonk123, 02 July 2015 - 07:13.
Posted 02 July 2015 - 07:49
MV was caught out by none other than the anti-stall system in his demo run somewhere in Holland I think it was. So there.Don't confuse the debate by being sensible. Apparently no-one can drive a F1 car without a lengthy training session (try telling Max Verstappen that) because they unlike any other race car ever made.
Posted 02 July 2015 - 08:30
Don't confuse the debate by being sensible. Apparently no-one can drive a F1 car without a lengthy training session (try telling Max Verstappen that) because they unlike any other race car ever made.
Did the War Museum carry out a risk assessment before allowing a F1 team to test at Duxford? I think we should be told. They may be ultimately responsible, not the poor klutz who got into a car that she didn't know how to drive.
I disagree. This is conjecture on my part but I suspect from an operator or driver's point of view the difference between any two power units or cars in terms of operating procedure is probably most pronounced doing the dull stuff, getting the car going to pitlane speed, slow speed manoeuvring, shutting the engine down and so on. She should have had some kind of training but equally as a professional she should have asked for the team to give her the information she needed if they hadn't given it to her voluntarily.
What concerns me more though is that this is the second case where Marussia's safety system reliability has been called into question resulting in serious injury. That is not something that should be majicked away with a few sarcastic words.
Posted 02 July 2015 - 15:35
The problem today is that no-one is allowed to be held responsible for their own actions. There's always a lawyer ready to tell them that somebody else is at fault.
Posted 02 July 2015 - 16:35
What nonsense, of the type that makes H & S such a joke. She was a racing driver employed to drive a racing car. Not a schoolgirl getting a Saturday job for the first time. Did they have to train her to drive the car too? Where is her responsibility on this? If she didn't know how to stop the car, why did she drive it? They were employing a specialist, an expert. You don't expect to train an expert.
I totally disagree. The systems and controls on each F1 car are different between teams. They are not intuitive and someone must be trained in how to use them. Every time a driver changes team they will be explained the car controls and the team procedures. Max Verstappen will have spent a lot of time learning the cars systems and in the simulator before he sat in a Toro Rosso.
Maria didn't have all that much experience as a driver, I wouldn't classify her as a specialist or an expert. The previous F1 car test she took part in was almost a year before the accident when she completed one day of testing in a then 2 year old car for a different team. It's easy in hindsight to see why she was caught out by an unfamiliar system and why she should have had training.
Posted 02 July 2015 - 16:38
The problem today is that no-one is allowed to be held responsible for their own actions. There's always a lawyer ready to tell them that somebody else is at fault.
That's a gross oversimplification and not fair IMO.
The overall priority is to ensure lessons are learnt and the probability of the same problem happening is minimised.
People make mistakes, that is unavoidable. Thats the problem with employing people. What HSE looks at is if there is anything systemic within the organisation where the issue happened that raises the risk of an accident and whether that can be rectified.
It may seem to be diverting attention away from someone making an error, that is true but the underlying assumption is that any system that relies on one individual being supercapable above others is one that is at high risk of failure. It isn't about putting blame on individuals.
Posted 02 July 2015 - 17:24
If you look back, you will see that I was not questioning HSE's competence or their judgement. I was in fact opposing those who were doing just that. It is they who are symptomatic of the problem that I described, that it must be someone else's fault. It is the general H &S culture - if we can call it that - which seeks to lay blame on organisations rather than the individuals. That is sometiems right of course, but often it isn't but that doesn't stop the whole lawyer-driven blame industry from trucking on.
Posted 02 July 2015 - 22:51
The problem today is that no-one is allowed to be held responsible for their own actions. There's always a lawyer ready to tell them that somebody else is at fault.
Do you mean actions like putting someone in a potentially life threatening machine without giving them proper training? Things can be viewed in different ways.
Posted 02 July 2015 - 23:54
You mean the life threatening machine that disregarded the drivers gear changes and clutch, held the revs at 4100 and pushed the machine into a trailer lift left in the way..
Why would anyone design such a machine anyway?
As the driver would you anticipate that anyone would be so insane as to design a machine that wouldn't accept the instructions of the person supposed to be controlling it.
Seano
Advertisement
Posted 03 July 2015 - 00:42
Posted 03 July 2015 - 05:09
Posted 03 July 2015 - 06:41
Posted 03 July 2015 - 06:49
Posted 03 July 2015 - 07:22
As for having the tailgate lift down within the confines of the circuit has got to be a no brainer. If the HSE could not apportion blame to anyone, there must be little chance of Villota's estate extracting damages. Having said that there will be plenty of unscrupulous lawyers willing to ambulance chase the claim.
HSE would look at a criminal standard of proof; a civil claim would look at the civil standard. So if Marussia was probably to blame, but not certainly, then a civil claim would succeed but a prosecution would not.
Obviously there would be a lot more complication that simply that. Contributory negligence for instance. So even if it were bad practice to have a tailgate there, Marussia could say that de Villota had a steering wheel. They could say it was not foreseeable that she would end up at that part of the track. And the company Marussia that existed at the time is already bust. This would go to insurers.
And then there's the probability that de Villota was driving for her own company, which had subcontracted to Marussia; the lack of anyone dependent on her earnings, given that nobody ever paid her to drive; trying to prove causation between the accident and her death, and so on.
Posted 03 July 2015 - 11:17
'unsanctioned ' refers to non FIA approved. If team's decide to test at these sites liability must legally fall on the them if an adverse event occurs. IF HSE found no one to apportion blame then one assumes appropriate risk analysis was performed prior to the run. It's any cases in which there was no risk management that leaves the team liable.
Posted 03 July 2015 - 16:15