243129 tree68 You keep bringing up this nebulous thing called vetting, but you don't seem to be able to give us any real life examples There is nothing unclear about vetting, it is a very important procedure in the hiring of candidates for railroad operations. I gave you a real life example and you dismiss it as "hindsight" or clearly based on this incident.
tree68 You keep bringing up this nebulous thing called vetting, but you don't seem to be able to give us any real life examples
There is nothing unclear about vetting, it is a very important procedure in the hiring of candidates for railroad operations. I gave you a real life example and you dismiss it as "hindsight" or clearly based on this incident.
So, offer up something else you'd ask. I'm sure that wouldn't be the only question you'd want an answer to.
I get to evaluate our engineers (along with several others). Your valuable knowledge might help me do a better job, if you'd be willing to share. We might save ourselves some valuable time trying to train a new engineer if we knew what values you felt were important to look for at the outset.
Physical agility? Within reason. I know of an NS conductor applicant who couldn't make the grade because they couldn't hang off the side of a car long enough.
Initial and ongoing training - absolutely. We have to take a territory test each year, too, plus check rides, unannounced tests, etc. The FRA looks over our shoulders as well.
Not trying to be difficult here - just trying to dig a little deeper into the process. "Then a miracle occurs" doesn't get it.
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...
adkrr64 If properly vetted, would it be possible for an engineer with, say, 10 or more years of solid experience (works safely and concientiously by all accounts during that time) to then make a mistake, such as missing a speed restriction? Would that, then, constitute a failure of the vetting process ten years earlier?
If properly vetted, would it be possible for an engineer with, say, 10 or more years of solid experience (works safely and concientiously by all accounts during that time) to then make a mistake, such as missing a speed restriction? Would that, then, constitute a failure of the vetting process ten years earlier?
Mistakes are always possible, but vetting is not intended to weed out people who are capable of making a mistake.
Moreover, this DuPont crash was not caused by the engineer making the mistake of not watching for the 2-mile curve warning sign. He was required to know the territory, which means he should have recognized where the sign was located without needing to actually spot the sign to learn his location. He also should have recognized he was approaching the curve, and slowed down accordingly.
But he was mostly unfamiliar with the territory, and decided to rely on mile markers, signal locations, etc. One problem with mileposts is that you only know you are passing one if you see it go by. If you fail to notice you are passing one, you will believe you have not yet gotten to it. His plan for this rickety form of navigation fell apart for some reason. By the way this was described, I believe he began to question his location, and at that point, he should have slowed to 30 mph to be prepared for the curve. But this may have led to questions from management if he prematurely slowed the train. Saying he was lost would have been embarrassing. So he crossed his fingers and sped on in blind faith that everything would work out okay. This was a major failure to take the responsibility that the situation gravely required.
This failure to take responsibility is likely to be a personality trait than just a miscalculation or mistake. Looking for such a trait is what vetting would be intended to accomplish. Many other traits should be looked for as well. And even for this one trait of taking responsibility, many questions should be asked in order to evaluate the candidate. Vetting is never going to catch everything that might be a personality issue, but some vetting that catches some issues is better than no vetting at all.
BaltACDVetting will NEVER prevent ALL incidents that happen -
Nobody intimated that it would.
BaltACDVetting gives a better opportunity for success than not
Ergo the importance of proper vetting.
Vetting will NEVER prevent ALL incidents that happen - especially 5 years, 10 years and more after the vetting process was completed for the individual.
Vetting gives a better opportunity for success than not, but nothing is perfect in the real world. Even the best fail.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
243129 Lithonia Operator Less filling! No! Tastes great! No! Less filling! No! Tastes great! No! Less filling! No! Tastes great! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjoMQJf5vKI Not interested anymore? Don't participate.
Lithonia Operator Less filling! No! Tastes great! No! Less filling! No! Tastes great! No! Less filling! No! Tastes great! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjoMQJf5vKI
Less filling!
No! Tastes great!
No! Less filling!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjoMQJf5vKI
Not interested anymore? Don't participate.
I just did.
Look, I'm interested in the subject. But both sides have made good points. I agree with you personally on some, and with others on different points. But certainly I don't see either faction ever "prevailing."
And if I wish to make a fun post rather than argue, that is precisely what I will do.
(Or maybe I'll argue. This is America.)
Carry on!
243129 adkrr64 If properly vetted, would it be possible for an engineer with, say, 10 or more years of solid experience (works safely and concientiously by all accounts during that time) to then make a mistake, such as missing a speed restriction? Would that, then, constitute a failure of the vetting process ten years earlier? Anyone can make a mistake. No procedure is perfect or fail-safe.
Anyone can make a mistake.
No procedure is perfect or fail-safe.
The purpose of vetting is to reduce the probabilities of a new hire making serious errors in the future. Everything is using probabilities to guide choices, just as in games of skill and chance, like poker.
Left unsaid is the need to retain those good hires in skilled positions and not lose them through layoffs at every downturn in the economy. They are not easy to replace at an upturn. A modern, enlightened management would find ways to do that.
charlie hebdoBut neither Amtrak management nor folks like Tree and Balt will do anything beyond sniping
You left out zugmann
Joe:
That's a more comprehensive and detailed program than you presented before. Good, though you shouldn't overlook the screening I've suggested or something similar in the vetting stage. But neither Amtrak management nor folks like Tree and Balt will do anything beyond sniping, for obvious reasons.
Here is an excerpt from a letter I sent to numerous Amtrak officials just after Frankford Jct.
It was ignored.
Hiring and Training Template for Train and Engine Service EmployeesAmtrak is rife with inexperience from top to bottom. Since it's inception Amtrak, eschewing the knowledge and experience of the veteran workforce it inherited in the 1983 takeover of operations on the Northeast Corridor (NEC), has used hit and miss trial and error tactics and nowhere is it more apparent than in their hiring and training procedures which have resulted in many incidents, most notably the incidents in Philadelphia involving the 'wrong way train' and the tragedy at Frankford Junction which could quite possibly have been avoided through vetting and proper training by experienced operations personnel not those of questionable pedigree that Amtrak chooses to employ.That being said I have a template for hiring and training of operations personnel. It is a comprehensive and multifaceted program.I have experienced operations personnel for an oversight committee made up of seasoned T&E veterans which can also screen prospective candidates, advise instructors, conduct field testing and evaluate trainees. Seasoned operations veterans can better assess the acumen for train operations a candidate possesses than a non experienced in operations Human Resources employee.Physical ability. Candidates must be able to pass a physical agility screening. How can one assist in an evacuation situation if that person cannot safely and without assistance evacuate themselves?OJT, OJT and more OJT. Nothing beats on the job training. Real-time situations with the accompanying conditions in all classes of service. Basic rules at the outset, more instruction midway, intense instruction at the end of OJT to be followed by final examination. All instructions on rules and special instructions are to be tailored to situations on the division for which hired. This way there is a mental picture when applying the rules. No 'generic' rules situations. Physical characteristics for engineers are extremely important and the candidate must exhibit intimate knowledge of such. Testing will be conducted by veteran engineers with 35 or more years of experience in all classes of service.Train handling for engineers, which I suspect is one of the culprits in the recent rash of crude oil derailments, instruction should be intense and evaluated strictly.Car handling for train service candidates should be extensive and equally intense.Present operating employees and supervision, most of who are 'victims' of Amtrak's inadequate training program, would be subject to evaluation and field testing and if need be assigned to other duties should they not measure up. No loss of a job to present employees. Create a new position for those who cannot attain the standards for participating in train operations i.e. “ticket taker” where the individual would only be involved in collecting revenue and have nothing to do with train operations. They can observe operations and benefit with what would be considered 'paid training' Seniority would be preserved in the craft from which they came should they be able to pass the required exams/tests at a later time.Amtrak must shed its arrogance and acknowledge its shortcomings and yield to the willing assistance from seasoned active and retired operations employees.Amtrak in its present state is an accident waiting to happen.
tree68You keep bringing up this nebulous thing called vetting, but you don't seem to be able to give us any real life examples
EuclidIf I had a candidate in front of me today, one question I would ask is: "What would you do if you were not entirely sure of your location?"
And my answer would be "it depends."
And what it depends on is the consequences of not knowing exactly where I am.
Hindsight tells us that for the incident in question, there were issues.
However, If I'm not sure exactly where I am, if there is no potential for issues, and I can regain my orientation in short order, then that's exactly what I'll do.
For clarity, common sense is a layman's term that encompasses several character and cognitive features in an individual. These would include In the personality realm: conscientiousness, responsibility, a realistic sense of one's own strengths and weaknesses, as opposed to an inflated, know-it-all attitude and non-defensiveness (taking and using constructive feedback). In the cognitive area, abilities to learn, remember and be vigilant would be key. There may be others, but these would be some which I think would be essential and which can be measured directly or inferred. There are also physical standards which are also important
tree68 243129 tree68 And don't cop out with "it's in the thread, if you read it." It's not. "Cop out"? No "cop out" here, you obviously have no Class I railroad experience which is why you cannot see that the engineer was not a good candidate for his position. He had to learn 15 miles of new territory with a maximum speed limit of 79MPH and a 30MPH speed restriction in the mix. Common sense would dictate that upon entering that territory foremost on your mind would be the drastic change in speed would it not? Common sense would also dictate that as time went on you must be getting closer to the restriction and common sense would dictate that you slow down if you were not entirely sure of its location. Common sense would also dictate that if you were not familiar with your locomotive that you call for a 'rider' to instruct you. Common sense would also dictate that if you feel you have not had enough instruction on the territory that you call for a 'rider'. The above should have been presented to the candidate during the vetting process in the form of questions The vetting process obviously did not contain the question: What would you do if you were not entirely sure of your location? 15 miles is not a lot of territory. All hindsight. If this candidate were sitting in front of you four years or so ago, what questions would you have asked him, not knowing that four years hence this incident would occur? Or maybe a better way to frame this, if a new candidate were sitting in front of you today, what questions would you ask him? You keep bringing up this nebulous thing called vetting, but you don't seem to be able to give us any real life examples. Other than one question that is clearly based on the incident in question. Most of us have no Class 1 experience. Here's your opportunity to educate us.
243129 tree68 And don't cop out with "it's in the thread, if you read it." It's not. "Cop out"? No "cop out" here, you obviously have no Class I railroad experience which is why you cannot see that the engineer was not a good candidate for his position. He had to learn 15 miles of new territory with a maximum speed limit of 79MPH and a 30MPH speed restriction in the mix. Common sense would dictate that upon entering that territory foremost on your mind would be the drastic change in speed would it not? Common sense would also dictate that as time went on you must be getting closer to the restriction and common sense would dictate that you slow down if you were not entirely sure of its location. Common sense would also dictate that if you were not familiar with your locomotive that you call for a 'rider' to instruct you. Common sense would also dictate that if you feel you have not had enough instruction on the territory that you call for a 'rider'. The above should have been presented to the candidate during the vetting process in the form of questions The vetting process obviously did not contain the question: What would you do if you were not entirely sure of your location? 15 miles is not a lot of territory.
tree68 And don't cop out with "it's in the thread, if you read it." It's not.
"Cop out"? No "cop out" here, you obviously have no Class I railroad experience which is why you cannot see that the engineer was not a good candidate for his position. He had to learn 15 miles of new territory with a maximum speed limit of 79MPH and a 30MPH speed restriction in the mix. Common sense would dictate that upon entering that territory foremost on your mind would be the drastic change in speed would it not? Common sense would also dictate that as time went on you must be getting closer to the restriction and common sense would dictate that you slow down if you were not entirely sure of its location.
Common sense would also dictate that if you were not familiar with your locomotive that you call for a 'rider' to instruct you.
Common sense would also dictate that if you feel you have not had enough instruction on the territory that you call for a 'rider'.
The above should have been presented to the candidate during the vetting process in the form of questions
The vetting process obviously did not contain the question: What would you do if you were not entirely sure of your location?
15 miles is not a lot of territory.
Here is a real life example:
If I had a candidate in front of me today, one question I would ask is: "What would you do if you were not entirely sure of your location?"
tree68And don't cop out with "it's in the thread, if you read it." It's not.
We've heard reasons after the fact why he lacked common sense. I'm still waiting to hear how that would have been determined four plus years earlier when he was hired as an engineer.
And don't cop out with "it's in the thread, if you read it." It's not.
So please - you're on the panel vetting a potential new engineer. What questions are you going to ask, and/or what information are you going to seek in order to determine that this person should or should not become an engineer?
We got information from Charlie Hebdo on the psychological side, complicated as it is. Let's hear what the "old heads" are looking for.
zugmann 243129 Asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum Breaking 2 of the forum rules in one post? That's very efficient. - No swearing or foul language. And we don’t care if you use symbols to mask the words. The meaning is still conveyed and we don’t want it in our forum. Please keep in mind that we have readers of all ages. - No personal attacks or name-calling. Please keep conversations cordial. We understand that there will be differences of opinion. Please don’t let those differences turn ugly. Accept that others might not have your same point of view, don’t sink to personal attacks.
243129 Asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum
Breaking 2 of the forum rules in one post? That's very efficient.
- No swearing or foul language. And we don’t care if you use symbols to mask the words. The meaning is still conveyed and we don’t want it in our forum. Please keep in mind that we have readers of all ages.
- No personal attacks or name-calling. Please keep conversations cordial. We understand that there will be differences of opinion. Please don’t let those differences turn ugly. Accept that others might not have your same point of view, don’t sink to personal attacks.
I'll bet you ran crying to the principal's office in school. Your snarky aside was met with a snarky aside and now you run crying to the mods.
243129Asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
BaltACDAnd you KNOW he wasn't vetted properly how?
For the reasons, you yourself have listed in your post.
BaltACDWe do know on this day he was not qualified by training and the lack of supervision to be in the operating cab of the locomotive on that section of track with the train he had. Supervision told him he was qualified on the route, supervision gave him a locomotive he had never (to our knowledge) operated. Supervision probably gave him a 'win one for the Gipper' type pep talk if he had voiced any misgivings about the situation he was being place in.
He knew he was not qualified to operate on this territory yet he took the train anyway and killed three people because of his lack of common sense which I am reasonably sure had been displayed previously in his career.
zugmann BaltACD And you KNOW he wasn't vetted properly how? Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
BaltACD And you KNOW he wasn't vetted properly how?
Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
Asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum
243129 BaltACD Vetting just gets you in the door. Proper Supervision, training and follow-up keep employees 'inside the company' and performing in the manner that is acceptable to the company I'm glad you agree with my mantra, "(poor) vetting, (poor) training, (poor) supervision". However, had Steven Brown been vetted (step one) properly there is a very good chance the Dupont disaster would not have taken place.
BaltACD Vetting just gets you in the door. Proper Supervision, training and follow-up keep employees 'inside the company' and performing in the manner that is acceptable to the company
I'm glad you agree with my mantra, "(poor) vetting, (poor) training, (poor) supervision". However, had Steven Brown been vetted (step one) properly there is a very good chance the Dupont disaster would not have taken place.
And you KNOW he wasn't vetted properly how?
The incident itself does not prove his vetting one way or the other. We do know on this day he was not qualified by training and the lack of supervision to be in the operating cab of the locomotive on that section of track with the train he had. Supervision told him he was qualified on the route, supervision gave him a locomotive he had never (to our knowledge) operated. Supervision probably gave him a 'win one for the Gipper' type pep talk if he had voiced any misgivings about the situation he was being place in.
With Safety, not being ingrained in Washington DOT and Amtrak's culture he was set up for failure and encouraged to fail along every step of the way.
BaltACD 243129 I see that this thread has evolved from a discussion on Amtrak's vetting, training, supervisory procedures and subsequent disasters to devising a program to interview thousands in order to hire 500 engineers. What it has evolved to is the clash betweeen vetting and reality. You can have very high vetting standards, but can you find candidates to fulfill those standards in the quantities necessary to fulfill your hiring requirements. Ivory Tower meets reality. After hiring, vetting is no longer a issue. Training and Supervision of those hired to insure they are performing their duties as intended and taking necessary actions with those that are falling short of performing those duties in the proper manner. The actions of supervision, training and performance follow up apply to all hired employees - those who passed the most strict of vetting procedures as well as those who were hired under less strict vetting procedures. Vetting just gets you in the door. Proper Supervision, training and follow-up keep employees 'inside the company' and performing in the manner that is acceptable to the company. Strictly vetted employees also fail acceptable performance standards during their employment as well as the less strictly vetted.
243129 I see that this thread has evolved from a discussion on Amtrak's vetting, training, supervisory procedures and subsequent disasters to devising a program to interview thousands in order to hire 500 engineers.
What it has evolved to is the clash betweeen vetting and reality. You can have very high vetting standards, but can you find candidates to fulfill those standards in the quantities necessary to fulfill your hiring requirements.
Ivory Tower meets reality.
After hiring, vetting is no longer a issue. Training and Supervision of those hired to insure they are performing their duties as intended and taking necessary actions with those that are falling short of performing those duties in the proper manner. The actions of supervision, training and performance follow up apply to all hired employees - those who passed the most strict of vetting procedures as well as those who were hired under less strict vetting procedures.
Vetting just gets you in the door. Proper Supervision, training and follow-up keep employees 'inside the company' and performing in the manner that is acceptable to the company. Strictly vetted employees also fail acceptable performance standards during their employment as well as the less strictly vetted.
Vetting tailored to the specific job description allows for training and supervision to be effective, not just a way of getting rid of underperformers.
It's not ivory tower, as higher level criminal justice folks and high security clearance folks make use of proper vetting routinely as a standard procedure. It's far more efficient than the rails practice on constant hiring and firing and hiring. But then nobody ever accused railroad management of being up-to-date.
BaltACDVetting just gets you in the door. Proper Supervision, training and follow-up keep employees 'inside the company' and performing in the manner that is acceptable to the company
243129I see that this thread has evolved from a discussion on Amtrak's vetting, training, supervisory procedures and subsequent disasters to devising a program to interview thousands in order to hire 500 engineers.
I see that this thread has evolved from a discussion on Amtrak's vetting, training, supervisory procedures and subsequent disasters to devising a program to interview thousands in order to hire 500 engineers.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.