Congress Faces Test After Collisions and Derailments

In the wake of a tragic mid-air collision and a train derailment, Congress is now confronted with a pivotal question: Will they heed the facts?

Last year, a fatal mid-air incident between a military helicopter and a passenger aircraft underscored the need for improved surveillance technology in the airline sector. The Senate had proposed a Rotor Method to enhance aircraft monitoring systems, yet the House recently stalled progress on the bill, largely due to Pentagon pushback against the expanded use of automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B). This failure to act, in hindsight, might have prevented the tragedy.

Interestingly, while railroads grapple with regulatory labor requirements, aviation safety remains at risk due to incomplete tech deployment. It seems like neither industry is benefiting as they should.

In parallel, some senators are advocating for a railway safety law following the 2023 East Palestine derailment. They push for minimum crew requirements, describing it as “data-driven,” despite a lack of concrete evidence that more crew members actually reduce accident rates.

This reaction is understandable; a crisis often sparks urgent legislative action. But, acting quickly isn’t always the same as acting wisely.

If true safety is the ultimate aim, Congress needs to dig deeper: What genuinely lowers risk?

The Core Issue: Human Error

Statistics tell a compelling story. Last year, about 40,000 Americans lost their lives in car accidents alone, a troubling figure compared to most other developed nations.

In stark contrast, the aviation and rail sectors have benefited greatly from automation and advanced safety management systems, significantly diminishing fatality rates. In fact, civil aviation in developed countries reports fewer than 0.1 fatal accidents per million departures. The Federal Railroad Administration indicates a 33 percent decline in train accidents since 2005, thanks to improved protocols that have notably decreased human-caused incidents.

The message is straightforward: Enhancing safety revolves around minimizing human error through better system design and automation.

Automation: A Double-Edged Sword

Fully autonomous systems have shown lower crash rates under controlled conditions, but it’s essential to maintain a cautious approach while examining these results. The idea that reducing reliance on human reaction time can lower collisions is increasingly accepted.

This logic applies to both aviation and railways; much of commercial aviation is now run through automated processes. Active train control has effectively reduced instances of train collisions and speeding-related derailments.

Reflect on the recent mid-air collision: had widespread use of ADS-B been in place, pilots and air traffic controllers would have had accurate real-time traffic data, potentially averting the disaster. Though there’s bipartisan support for advancing this technology in the Senate, progress remains stalled.

Meanwhile, in the railroad sector, some lawmakers are pushing for increased staffing instead of technological upgrades.

Safety Regulations: More Symbolic Than Substantive

The East Palestine derailment wasn’t caused by staffing shortages but rather by mechanical failures, specifically overheating bearings—three crew members were present at the time.

Having additional personnel didn’t improve the situation. What could have helped are predictive maintenance systems, sensor networks, and better data integration to pinpoint mechanical failures ahead of time.

Yet, the proposed RSA aims to set crew minimums across all freight rail operations, disregarding variables such as route and automation levels. This push appears more about political gain than actual risk reduction.

Organized interests seem to hold sway—while workers can rally to protect jobs, the broader public’s fragmented wishes for safer transportation don’t translate into concrete policy demands.

As a result, we end up with a patchwork of “safety” measures that cater to specific interests, rather than coherent, risk-focused solutions.

Focusing on Real Solutions

U.S. freight railroads are generally privately funded, channeling substantial investments into track upgrades and advanced safety systems. With ongoing technological improvements, rail transport remains one of the safest modes of land freight.

Contrastingly, the Federal Aviation Administration, being a government-managed entity, has grappled with the slow modernization of necessary surveillance technologies. Although the FAA has rolled out ADS-B effectively, a gap persists in the defense aviation sector where not all stakeholders are required to adopt this technology fully.

As Congress reviews the RSA, it’s vital that lawmakers emphasize provisions that genuinely minimize accident risks. Decades of transportation data highlight a clear trend: effective safety measures focus on anticipating and correcting human limitations. It’s a mistake to assume that simply adding more personnel will inherently lead to safer outcomes.

Moreover, the government should not shy away from expanding ADS-B and other reliable collision avoidance technologies. These systems exist for a purpose: to prevent the very disasters we’ve experienced, and it shouldn’t take another tragedy for Congress to act.

The evidence is clear. Technology-based risk reduction proves effective, while merely symbolic measures do not. For lawmakers serious about safety, the focus must be on what actually prevents accidents, informed by the facts and a commitment to the data.