243129Would you care to explain why you do not consider poor vetting relevant? It is one of the reasons for this disaster.
I'm not Balt, but I'll comment.
Unless you consider vetting an ongoing activity, odds are you're talking about someone who was (theoretically) vetted some years ago (I don't recall how long this particular engineer had held the position, or been with the railroad). Unless he has/had an ongoing history of issues, even an ongoing vetting process likely would not have shown a problem.
Training and supervision is ongoing. It seems obvious that there was little training on a specific task here, and supervision was lacking at several levels for that lack of training to exist.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I wasn't asked either. I will comment strictly for myself. Vetting is relevant because you want to hire or promote guys with the "right stuff" including the ability to adapt successfully to changing conditions.
tree68 243129 Would you care to explain why you do not consider poor vetting relevant? It is one of the reasons for this disaster. I'm not Balt, but I'll comment. Unless you consider vetting an ongoing activity, odds are you're talking about someone who was (theoretically) vetted some years ago (I don't recall how long this particular engineer had held the position, or been with the railroad). Unless he has/had an ongoing history of issues, even an ongoing vetting process likely would not have shown a problem. Training and supervision is ongoing. It seems obvious that there was little training on a specific task here, and supervision was lacking at several levels for that lack of training to exist.
243129 Would you care to explain why you do not consider poor vetting relevant? It is one of the reasons for this disaster.
Had the engineer been vetted properly he would not have been hired for the position. Read the NTSB report on his actions, lack of, and his testimony.
charlie hebdo I wasn't asked either. I will comment strictly for myself. Vetting is relevant because you want to hire or promote guys with the "right stuff" including the ability to adapt successfully to changing conditions.
I agree. Vetting by experienced operations personnel is step one in the hiring process.
243129 charlie hebdo I wasn't asked either. I will comment strictly for myself. Vetting is relevant because you want to hire or promote guys with the "right stuff" including the ability to adapt successfully to changing conditions. I agree. Vetting by experienced operations personnel is step one in the hiring process.
Yes, at least input, plus some sort of industry/job specific personality and cognitive evaluations, as I've noted previously.
243129Had the engineer been vetted properly he would not have been hired for the position. Read the NTSB report on his actions, lack of, and his testimony.
I read the report. Not sure what problem areas an experienced engineer would have been able to detect four years previous. By the sounds of it, the engineer didn't exhibit any suspicious behaviors prior to the incident. He had been an Amtrak conductor since 2004. Not addressed in the report is what the engineer did for a living in the 20-some years before he was hired into those positions. Was he an engineer/conductor then, too, or did he work in an unrelated field?
The lack of training is obvious. I really have to fault Seimens for their overspeed alerting, and Amtrak for accepting it, never mind the lack of training on the locomotive by Amtrak, etc.
I still put the bulk of the blame on poor training and supervision.
Larry, what is your issue with the Siemens overspeed alerting? I don't understand.
Just that it's a distraction?
Lithonia Operator Larry, what is your issue with the Siemens overspeed alerting? I don't understand. Just that it's a distraction?
The engineer said it wasn't like the others he'd worked with and he didn't recognize it for what it was.
That made it a distraction.
This would be little different from an auto manufacturer putting certain indicators in that video screen most cars have now instead of on the speedometer, where most folks look for them. Once you learn to look for the high beam indicator on the video screen, no problem. Until you do, though, you'll have a lot of upset drivers flashing their high beams at you...
I'm not familiar with modern overspeed alerters in terms of their displays, so I don't know what specifically is different about the Seimens version. The engineer also said it wasn't mentioned in the orientation on the locomotive - a training issue.
I can identify with the problem - our newer ALCO's have overspeed alerters, but it uses the same high pitched beeeeeeep for all alerts (including when the distance counter runs out), with no visual cue unless you happen to notice that the speedometer is indicating as such. In my case it was wheel slip, not running too fast. Given the wheel slip issues I'd been having that morning (leaves), it took a couple of times to put two and two together. I had been taught to keep an ear open for the sound of a wheel taking off and had dealt with that when it happened.
And I was running up-hill, so hitting a curve too fast wasn't an issue. And I'm probably lucky I didn't spin out a traction motor, though.
I'm much better at dealing with wheel slip now. Sand isn't always the full solution.
Back on overspeed - if an engineer does a decent job managing his speed, he'll never see the alerter activate. In this case, it appears that his loss of orientation on the route meant he was getting some help from gravity that he apparently wasn't expecting just yet, for several reasons.
Who vets the experience of the operations personnel - the same (by definition) inexperienced personnel that are vetting new hires?
Once a employee is hired and successfully completes his 'probationary period' (which was 90 days when I hired out and for many years thereafter - to my knowledge) vetting is no longer the issue - training and supervision is what is required to continue to mold employees into the resource that the company desires.
Those that 'wash out' during the probationary period would be considered vetting failures - no matter the reason they did not successfully complete the probationary period.
Vetting gets one in 'the game'; training, supervision and continual performance of the duties of the position keep one in the game.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The only element of training that was in play with this accident was the requirement to know the territory. It seems very unlikely that that element was never covered in the engineer’s training. What seems far more likely was that he was well instructed about the importance of the requirement to know the territory; but that he did not have the “right stuff” to fully recognize that it was entirely his responsibility to know the territory.
Apparently, the “stuff” the engineer possessed was a tendency to blame Amtrak for sending him into unfamiliar territory rather than to recognize that it was his responsibility to refuse the run through territory that he knew he was not fully familiar with.
The engineer had a tendency to regard his mistake in running without knowing the territory as being Amtrak’s mistake; and also an apparent belief that he had no responsibility to bring the mistake to Amtrak’s attention. It is a personality trait that just does what they are told even if they know it is wrong.
Even if he had not been trained at the outset to know that it was essential to know the territory, he went on to acquire several years of experience. How long should it have taken for him to grasp the importance of knowing the territory if he was running trains every day?
Vetting should have disclosed the engineer’s weakness of making excuses rather than taking full responsibility.
BaltACDWho vets the experience of the operations personnel - the same (by definition) inexperienced personnel that are vetting new hires?
Yes, who can best assess the acumen for the position of locomotive engineer than a panel of experienced locomotive engineers, certainly not a human resources person with no experience at the job for which they are hiring/interviewing.
BaltACDOnce an employee is hired and successfully completes his 'probationary period' (which was 90 days when I hired out and for many years thereafter - to my knowledge) vetting is no longer the issue
Vetting is the primary issue when not conducted in a comprehensive and in-depth manner.
BaltACDtraining and supervision is what is required to continue to mold employees into the resource that the company desires.
As is in evidence in the NTSB report Amtrak has the unknowing 'teaching' the unknowing.
It all begins with proper vetting and progresses from there.
Had this engineer been properly vetted the odds would have been increased that this accident may never have taken place.
Euclid The only element of training that was in play with this accident was the requirement to know the territory. It seems very unlikely that that element was never covered in the engineer’s training. What seems far more likely was that he was well instructed about the importance of the requirement to know the territory; but that he did not have the “right stuff” to fully recognize that it was entirely his responsibility to know the territory. Apparently, the “stuff” the engineer possessed was a tendency to blame Amtrak for sending him into unfamiliar territory rather than to recognize that it was his responsibility to refuse the run through territory that he knew he was not fully familiar with. The engineer had a tendency to regard his mistake in running without knowing the territory as being Amtrak’s mistake; and also an apparent belief that he had no responsibility to bring the mistake to Amtrak’s attention. It is a personality trait that just does what they are told even if they know it is wrong. Even if he had not been trained at the outset to know that it was essential to know the territory, he went on to acquire several years of experience. How long should it have taken for him to grasp the importance of knowing the territory if he was running trains every day? Vetting should have disclosed the engineer’s weakness of making excuses rather than taking full responsibility.
Very well said Euclid.
Euclid, may I request that you send your comment in a personal and highly-confidential letter to Mr. Andnerson?
daveklepper Euclid, may I request that you send your comment in a personal and highly-confidential letter to Mr. Andnerson?
That has already been done (by me). There was no acknowledgement other than the certified mail receipt.
243129 Euclid The only element of training that was in play with this accident was the requirement to know the territory. It seems very unlikely that that element was never covered in the engineer’s training. What seems far more likely was that he was well instructed about the importance of the requirement to know the territory; but that he did not have the “right stuff” to fully recognize that it was entirely his responsibility to know the territory. Apparently, the “stuff” the engineer possessed was a tendency to blame Amtrak for sending him into unfamiliar territory rather than to recognize that it was his responsibility to refuse the run through territory that he knew he was not fully familiar with. The engineer had a tendency to regard his mistake in running without knowing the territory as being Amtrak’s mistake; and also an apparent belief that he had no responsibility to bring the mistake to Amtrak’s attention. It is a personality trait that just does what they are told even if they know it is wrong. Even if he had not been trained at the outset to know that it was essential to know the territory, he went on to acquire several years of experience. How long should it have taken for him to grasp the importance of knowing the territory if he was running trains every day? Vetting should have disclosed the engineer’s weakness of making excuses rather than taking full responsibility. Very well said Euclid.
Ditto! The personality or character traits so essential can be systematically uncovered in the vetting process through instruments such as the MMPI-2-RF or MMPI-3.
Blaming Amtrak for some oversight in training is what some on here choose to do. The blame attached to Amtrak is for inadequate vetting.
We keep coming back to vetting. And the insistence that this particular engineer wouldn't have passed said vetting.
So, what exactly does that entail?
Joe Railroader (a ten year conductor with a clean record) wants to become an engineer. You're on the vetting team.
How are you going to test his suitability? What values are you going to measure? What questions do you ask? What information do you seek from his past? Can he challenge your opinion? If you know him personally, can you be on the vetting team? How about if you know him professionally?
If you approve him and four years later he misses several landmarks and derails a train at 80 MPH, can he come back on you for failing to discover a shortcoming in his qualifications?
Joe, as a highly experienced Amtrak engineer would know what sort of questions should be asked or situations the candidate should be grilled on. A psychologist skilled in the use and interpretation of the instruments (or others) I mentioned would handle the character issues.
tree68We keep coming back to vetting.
No, I keep coming back to vetting.
tree68Joe Railroader (a ten year conductor with a clean record) wants to become an engineer. You're on the vetting team. How are you going to test his suitability?
His past performance in train service would be one test of his suitability.
tree68 What values are you going to measure?
Common sense, which Stephen Brown lacked, would be one.
tree68If you approve him and four years later he misses several landmarks and derails a train at 80 MPH, can he come back on you for failing to discover a shortcoming in his qualifications?
Anyone can make a mistake, proper vetting minimizes that chance.
How about you? Can you assess the acumen a person might have for the position of firefighter?
charlie hebdo Joe, as a highly experienced Amtrak engineer would know what sort of questions should be asked or situations the candidate should be grilled on. A psychologist skilled in the use and interpretation of the instruments (or others) I mentioned would handle the character issues.
Which are?
Does the fact that I have to take a shopping list with me to the grocery store mean I can't retain important details?
Does the fact that I can't solve some puzzle in under a minute mean I suck at problem solving?
Who certifies that the tests are valid and applicable?
I tend to agree with Larry. I find it hard to believe that some vetting process can be that predictive.
To me the idea that some testing can find out if a person has the "right stuff" or not is a stretch. Humans are not that binary. And even if (according to some testing) someone is deemed to have the right stuff, will they still have it years later?
If you want guaranteed Right Stuff, you might as well watch old Tom Cruise movies; that whole concept seems Hollywood-ish to me.
You need the best vetting, AND the best training and supervision. Then you need to add some luck.
I say this and given the opportunity I can prove it. There are engineers and conductors actively working on Amtrak's NEC that are a danger to the traveling public. They are poorly vetted, trained and supervised. They and Amtrak are an accident waiting to happen. I am not alone in this opinion.
I can prove it but Amtrak will not allow me to.
Lithonia OperatorYou need the best vetting, AND the best training and supervision. Then you need to add some luck.
It starts with vetting. Step one which Amtrak fails miserably at. As I have stated ad nauseam, poor vetting, poor training, poor supervision. The RX for disaster.
Who best to vet for a position than a panel of experienced veterans from that position?
243129 would not pass his own vetting. Demonstrated abiltity not to learn.
BaltACD 243129 would not pass his own vetting. Demonstrated abiltity not to learn.
When you choose to be sarcastic, denigrate or criticize others you should have your 'ducks in a row'.
243129Who best to vet for a position than a panel of experienced veterans from that position?
So, what should Amtrak be looking for as they vet their potential employees/promotees?
You state repeatedly "poor vetting, poor vetting, poor vetting." What, specifically, is good vetting? Or is it simply something which "you know it when you see it?"
You've also stated that the engineer in question wouldn't have passed muster. What qualities (or lack thereof) would he have displayed four years ago when he was promoted to engineer that would have disqualified him?
243129 Lithonia Operator You need the best vetting, AND the best training and supervision. Then you need to add some luck. It starts with vetting. Step one which Amtrak fails miserably at. As I have stated ad nauseam, poor vetting, poor training, poor supervision. The RX for disaster. Who best to vet for a position than a panel of experienced veterans from that position?
Lithonia Operator You need the best vetting, AND the best training and supervision. Then you need to add some luck.
But who picks the panel? There are plenty of experienced veterans who probably shouldn't be on such a panel.
Almost all the exCNW old heads are gone from my area. Most that I had the priviledge to work with were good rails. (There were a few, maybe not so much.) They 'grew up' so to speak learning the job and doing the work when micromanagment wasn't as much possible because you didn't have the instant reliable communication from almost anyplace you do today. Back when everyone knew what had to be done and how to do it. And they did the work to be done.
To hear them tell of when they were new-hires, the old heads back then thought most were as useful as t..., well just let's say the old heads didn't think the new-hires would ever amount to anything close to a railroader.
Jeff
tree68So, what should Amtrak be looking for as they vet their potential employees/promotees?
Someone who possesses the acumen to be a locomotive engineer.
tree68You state repeatedly "poor vetting, poor vetting, poor vetting." What, specifically, is good vetting? Or is it simply something which "you know it when you see it?"
The answer is contained in this thread. Had you read it you would not have asked this and many other of your questions.
tree68You've also stated that the engineer in question wouldn't have passed muster. What qualities (or lack thereof) would he have displayed four years ago when he was promoted to engineer that would have disqualified him?
Common sense.
jeffhergert To hear them tell of when they were new-hires, the old heads back then thought most were as useful as t..., well just let's say the old heads didn't think the new-hires would ever amount to anything close to a railroader. Jeff
No 'Old Head' has ever thought a new hire was worth two s..ts. The Older Heads thought the same things of the Old Heads.
jeffhergertBut who picks the panel?
The union and the company.
tree68 charlie hebdo Joe, as a highly experienced Amtrak engineer would know what sort of questions should be asked or situations the candidate should be grilled on. A psychologist skilled in the use and interpretation of the instruments (or others) I mentioned would handle the character issues. Which are? Does the fact that I have to take a shopping list with me to the grocery store mean I can't retain important details? Does the fact that I can't solve some puzzle in under a minute mean I suck at problem solving? Who certifies that the tests are valid and applicable?
I previously mentioned several validated, heavily used tests examining personality and character traits, such as conscientiouness, judgement and caution. Other neuropsych tests could examine pertinent cognitive factors such as attention, impulsivity, memory and vigilance. Most of these could be completed in a relatively short time and some of the neuropsych tests could be repeated as a form of renewal in order to identify those of declining abilities.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.