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.
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?
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...
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
daveklepper Euclid, may I request that you send your comment in a personal and highly-confidential letter to Mr. Andnerson?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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!
Lithonia Operator Larry, what is your issue with the Siemens overspeed alerting? I don't understand. Just that it's a distraction?
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.
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.
Yes, at least input, plus some sort of industry/job specific personality and cognitive evaluations, as I've noted previously.
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.
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.
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.
243129Would you care to explain why you do not consider poor vetting relevant? It is one of the reasons for this disaster.
BaltACD 243129 Lithonia Operator 243129 Lithonia Operator http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/01/23-engineer-sues-amtrak-over-fatal-cascades-derailment Cue Joe to say "I rest my case!" I rest my case. Poor vetting, poor training, poor supervision. Vetting is too far in the past to be relevant. Poor training and poor supervision are the critical elements for the failure.
243129 Lithonia Operator 243129 Lithonia Operator http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/01/23-engineer-sues-amtrak-over-fatal-cascades-derailment Cue Joe to say "I rest my case!" I rest my case. Poor vetting, poor training, poor supervision.
Lithonia Operator 243129 Lithonia Operator http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/01/23-engineer-sues-amtrak-over-fatal-cascades-derailment Cue Joe to say "I rest my case!" I rest my case.
243129 Lithonia Operator http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/01/23-engineer-sues-amtrak-over-fatal-cascades-derailment Cue Joe to say "I rest my case!" I rest my case.
Lithonia Operator http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/01/23-engineer-sues-amtrak-over-fatal-cascades-derailment Cue Joe to say "I rest my case!"
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2020/01/23-engineer-sues-amtrak-over-fatal-cascades-derailment
Cue Joe to say "I rest my case!"
I rest my case.
Poor vetting, poor training, poor supervision.
Vetting is too far in the past to be relevant.
Poor training and poor supervision are the critical elements for the failure.
Would you care to explain why you do not consider poor vetting relevant?
It is one of the reasons for this disaster.
I have the impression that the people who said, "Let's get the trains running" knew nothing at all of the necessity of knowing the territory--and the people who said, "OK," knew nothing of what it takes to know the territory.
Johnny
Incidentally, there is something Bradasich brought up that has me increasingly uneasy, remembering the potential similarity of the SC44 and ACS64 control layouts. Does anyone know if there is an analogue to this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRValOA7TZo
for the Amtrak (or regional) versions of the SC44 locomotive? Is a copy accessible either via the Web or on request to someone who has one?
Overmod charlie hebdo Not to be picky, but I don't believe I said that last point. You are right, and I take it back as worded. Something we might gainfully take up at this point, in the thread's context, is the rather interesting information we can learn from the two 'road foreman of engines' interview transcripts (RFE and RFE2 in the docket, I believe); one is Charles Beatson and the other is Chris Bradasich. Among other things, you'll be interested to learn what these two considered 'qualified' to mean.
charlie hebdo Not to be picky, but I don't believe I said that last point.
You are right, and I take it back as worded.
Something we might gainfully take up at this point, in the thread's context, is the rather interesting information we can learn from the two 'road foreman of engines' interview transcripts (RFE and RFE2 in the docket, I believe); one is Charles Beatson and the other is Chris Bradasich. Among other things, you'll be interested to learn what these two considered 'qualified' to mean.
I was shocked how lackadaisical those RFEs seemed to be about it all. The "familiarization" Brown (and, I assume, others) got was a sad joke.
Thanks, I'll take a look this evening.
charlie hebdoNot to be picky, but I don't believe I said that last point.
The docket ID again is DCA18HR001 (accident number RRD18MR001), and you'll enter that into the NTSB 'docket management system' to pull up the listings. I have both these as PDFs if anyone would prefer to PM me with their e-mail address to which I can send them as attachments...
(Incidentally, watch for the interesting use of the word 'advisory' ... and pay careful attention whenever you see Beatson begin mentioning the FAST Act.)
Overmod The problem comes, as you note [my bold], when he argues incorrectly that people hold particular opinions in order to justify his own.
The problem comes, as you note [my bold], when he argues incorrectly that people hold particular opinions in order to justify his own.
Not to be picky, but I don't believe I said that last point. My comment was quite different: " Euclid...even if he argues many sides of the same point to death."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.