My point was that, as the woman had managed to free herself just prior to the PASSCOM being operated, it is likely that the driver was given misleading information and potentially even been reassured over the intercom that there was NO problem.
If this is a scenario that
may have happened why is it not mentioned in the RAIB report? If the driver had such a conversation with the passenger who operated the PCA (Passenger Communication Apparatus) surely detail of this conversation would be included. It would lend credence to the defence of the driver's actions and would be something the driver should have mentioned.
It is noted in the report that the driver operated the PCA override 3.5 seconds after the PCA was operated by the passenger. That's barely time to ask the passenger why they've operated the PCA, let alone get the answer to that question. It's highly unlikely the driver's question was so short and the reassuring reply from the passenger equally short for this hypothetical conversation to be concluded and acted upon in 3.5 seconds.
For your hypothesis to be possible the driver would have needed to ask what the problem was, hear the reassurance that nothing was amiss and decide to override the PCA in 3.5 seconds. I'd have to disagree that this was 'likely' as you stated. The report also states the driver 'assumed' the problem was
on the train. Why would he assume that if the passenger who operated the PCA had given him a reassuring response?
No, the driver made a mistake or was acting under, or had misunderstood, training from his employer. That much is clear from the report and is addressed in the
'Actions reported....' section of the RAIB report:
FCC has issued a notice to all drivers reminding them that trains must always be stopped immediately if the PCA is operated while the train is leaving a station. FCC also intends to give this requirement greater prominence in driver training.
It's laudable, O L Leigh, that you are defending a fellow rail employee's actions by attempting to provide a scenario where the driver made the correct decision to override the PCA. But there is no evidence in the report that any conversation (even a very short one) took place with the passenger who operated the PCA, so I think your hypothesis is unlikely rather than 'likely'.