3 ms·
>This special mobile communication standard is designed to make communication fail-safe Mmm, nope.
by wrs 4mo ago
>This special mobile communication standard is designed to make communication fail-safe
Mmm, nope.
- ExoticPearTree 4mo agoIf nothing works, eveything is safe, no?
- fhars 4mo agoThat is the point of failing safe. It would me much worse if some of the trains kept running...
- throw7 4mo agoIt's not if nothing works, it's what works when nothing works, i.e. the safe thing must always work. period. (i'm not trying to be pedantic or an ass)
- Ekaros 4mo agoSafe in this kind of context means no property damage or no casualties or no injuries. Not no financial damage. Sometimes repairable property damage is accepted if that is active or passive safety component.
- NamTaf 4mo agoIt did fail safe though? Interference led to the network stopping, not trains just racing towards each other due to bogus line authorities. That is, by definition, fail-safe
- wrs 4mo agoThat seems like a fail-safe interpretation of communication: if there is no communication, stop the train. But that's a special case. GSM-R is much more than line authorities. >GSM-R is a secure platform for voice and data communication between railway operational staff, including drivers, dispatchers, shunting team members, train engineers, and station controllers. Designing the communication network itself in such a way that the entire thing can apparently fail, doesn't sound "fail-safe" to me. (Though its failure may trigger fail-safes in higher-level systems.) In particular, some functions may require communications to be "safe"; e.g., emergency personnel not being able to communicate is not "safe". But perhaps this is being overstated in the vague reporting, and it's only a regional failure.