BaltACD 243129 would not pass his own vetting. Demonstrated abiltity not to learn.
243129 would not pass his own vetting. Demonstrated abiltity not to learn.
How did you determine that? Were you formerly an experienced engineer on the NEC? Are you trained in evaluating the cognitive abilities in learning?
charlie hebdoI 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.
Indeed you have. A little on-line research brings up the MMPI-A (for adolescents, but they are likely similar) which was the only one that listed any specific characteristics. Seems easy enough - an hour or two answering multi-guess questions which results in conclusions for:
Anxiety
Obsessiveness
Health Concerns
Alienation
Bizarre Mentation
Anger
Cynicism
Conduct Problems
Low Self-Esteem
Low Aspirations
Social Discomfort
Family Problems
School Problems
Negative Treatment Indicators
And there are validity scales:
"Cannot Say" (Questions not answered)
Lie
Infrequency (Client "faking bad")
Defensiveness
Variable Response Inconsistency (Answering similar/opposite question pairs inconsistently)
True Response Inconsistency (Answering questions all true/all false)
Superlative Self-Presentation ("appearing excessively good")
Psychopathology
Infrequent Somatic Response
An overly simplified review, to be sure.
Now that we've tested, someone has to figure out what the right mix is for becoming an engineer. Who makes that call? Is there a pass/fail?
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...
243129Someone who possesses the acumen to be a locomotive engineer.
Still trying to figure out exactly what that is. Can you give us an example of a question or two you would ask the candidate?
243129Common sense.
Same question.
I missed a question you asked earlier - for my fire department, it comes down to how willing the individual is to put in the time and effort to be a part of the organization.
We also have a variety of things an individual can do, ranging from administrative to interior firefighter. and beyond (command, hazmat, etc). It's not all hauling hose and chopping down doors.
We have a committee that meets with applicants. They go over requirements, expectations, etc, and check references. The committee is made up of long-time members and relatively new members. This being a volunteer-based organization, sometimes the prospective members just can't commit the time.
Applicants also have to pass a simple background check through the Sheriff's office.
With good references and a positive interview, their name gets submitted to the floor. If someone there knows something the committee doesn't it will usually come out then.
If they want to get into interior firefighting, they must pass a physical as well as all the coursework involved.
Most career FD's have a physical agility test as part of their application process.
jeffhergert 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? 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
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.
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?
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
From what I remember about the "old head CNW and Milwaukee guys is that blood alcohol content had alot to do with being in "the club".
The retirees plan ws usually to buy a tavern so all of the old rails could talk about the old days and get drunk and mean (often to me). They did know how to get the job done though, I learned alot.
tree68Still trying to figure out exactly what that is. Can you give us an example of a question or two you would ask the candidate?
Preferably candidates would be hired from within so there would be a 'history' to refer to. Pressure situations created to gauge reaction. Questions would take the form of 'what if'?
tree68Same question.
Same answer.
tree68 charlie hebdo 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. Indeed you have. A little on-line research brings up the MMPI-A (for adolescents, but they are likely similar) which was the only one that listed any specific characteristics. Seems easy enough - an hour or two answering multi-guess questions which results in conclusions for: Anxiety Obsessiveness Health Concerns Alienation Bizarre Mentation Anger Cynicism Conduct Problems Low Self-Esteem Low Aspirations Social Discomfort Family Problems School Problems Negative Treatment Indicators And there are validity scales: "Cannot Say" (Questions not answered) Lie Infrequency (Client "faking bad") Defensiveness Variable Response Inconsistency (Answering similar/opposite question pairs inconsistently) True Response Inconsistency (Answering questions all true/all false) Superlative Self-Presentation ("appearing excessively good") Psychopathology Infrequent Somatic Response An overly simplified review, to be sure. Now that we've tested, someone has to figure out what the right mix is for becoming an engineer. Who makes that call? Is there a pass/fail?
charlie hebdo 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.
1. The MMPI-A is dated, really. As I said, but apparently you didn't pay attention, I said the MMPI-2-RF or MMMP-3.
2. To know what to look for requires a lot more training and experience as well as a doctorate and getting and maintaining a license. That's obviously a lot more than looking at a Wiki article.
3. Professional ethics does not permit sharing much information about specifics. Suffice it to say those would be determined by cooperative planning with experienced operating personnel (engineers) and some clerk from management.
1. The MMPI-A is dated, really. As I said, but apparently you didn't pay attention, I said the MMPI-2-RF or MMPI-3.
4. There are clinical psychologists who primarily consult on these matters. There are normative comparison groups for law enforcement officers and other jobs, but not engineers. I screened out undesirable/unqualified folks in some positions at Fermi Lab years ago but this would probably best be handled by a team from U of Minnesota.
charlie hebdo1. The MMPI-A is dated, really. As I said, but apparently you didn't pay attention, I said the MMPI-2-RF or MMPI-3.
And the article actually said as much about the -A. The others you cited were also mentioned in the article, but didn't have a list like the -A did. I brought that simplified list (it also gave short descriptions of each factor) over as an example of what such a test would be looking for.
Clearly this is not a test that could be taken "off the shelf" and used tomorrow. Determining which factors are felt to be of importance would likely be the first step, followed by actual testing and comparing the results with real-world operations world to validate the assumptions.
I suspect that the experienced engineers would need a thorough education into the factors that are tested so they can assign importance to those factors.
One might wonder how many successful, experienced engineers might have a problem "passing" such a test.
Thanks for your input.
Transportation business KNOWS it will need 500 engineers in the next two years. Vetting of the applicants to the feeder system to generate the engineers in two years time gives you 100 acceptable individuals. You still will need 500 in two years. What do you do? The continuation of your business depends upon having the positions staffed!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Transportation business KNOWS it will need 500 engineers in the next two years. Vetting of the applicants to the feeder system to generate the engineers in two years time gives you 100 acceptable individuals. You still will need 500 in two years. What do you do? The continuation of your business depends upon having the positions staffed!
Hire everyone who applies, and then have the weed weasels run around 24/7 trying to fire all of them
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70Dude BaltACD Transportation business KNOWS it will need 500 engineers in the next two years. Vetting of the applicants to the feeder system to generate the engineers in two years time gives you 100 acceptable individuals. You still will need 500 in two years. What do you do? The continuation of your business depends upon having the positions staffed! Hire everyone who applies, and then have the weed weasels run around 24/7 trying to fire all of them
The question is for the Master Vetter.
I already know how existing businesses will proceed.
You mean the traditional method.
If vetting takes out 400 of 500 candidates, and you need 500 candidates, you need to start with 2,500 candiates instead of 500.
What makes you think that vetting 500 will leave you with only 100? I would expect that vetting 500 would leave 450 at the very least.
jeffhergert SD70Dude Hire everyone who applies, and then have the weed weasels run around 24/7 trying to fire all of them You mean the traditional method.
SD70Dude Hire everyone who applies, and then have the weed weasels run around 24/7 trying to fire all of them
I think what he means is you take your 500 candidates, carefully vet them and train them, then hire the 470-odd who didn't pass muster quickly.
Then have the weed weasels run around 24/7 equal-opportunity firing all of them.
Euclid: this presupposes you can attract a cohort of 2500 prospective employees of appropriate 'right stuff' who are also willing to suffer the increasingly strange and onerous conditions associated with railroad service. My guess is that after the "500" or so, you're increasingly getting people who either fail tests for one or more of the traits (and I suspect this will be found to include, say, lower propensity to acquire sleep apnea, etc. in conditions of chronic irremediated stress) or lack the correct approach to 'coachability' to learn the right lessons as they train and then work.
Euclid BaltACD Transportation business KNOWS it will need 500 engineers in the next two years. Vetting of the applicants to the feeder system to generate the engineers in two years time gives you 100 acceptable individuals. You still will need 500 in two years. What do you do? The continuation of your business depends upon having the positions staffed! If vetting takes out 400 of 500 candidates, and you need 500 candidates, you need to start with 2,500 candiates instead of 500. What makes you think that vetting 500 will leave you with only 100? I would expect that vetting 500 would leave 450 at the very least.
You are not the Master Vetter!
The Master Vetter would have interviewed thousands to get his 100 acceptable candidates and still be 400 short of the requirements.
Overmod Euclid: this presupposes you can attract a cohort of 2500 prospective employees of appropriate 'right stuff' who are also willing to suffer the increasingly strange and onerous conditions associated with railroad service. My guess is that after the "500" or so, you're increasingly getting people who either fail tests for one or more of the traits (and I suspect this will be found to include, say, lower propensity to acquire sleep apnea, etc. in conditions of chronic irremediated stress) or lack the correct approach to 'coachability' to learn the right lessons as they train and then work.
No, I am saying that I think the reasons why this can't work are being exaggerated by those who don't want solutions to problems. Having the "right stuff" does not need to require some sort of super hero status as might be implied by the general perception of the term. We are merely talking about vetting to eliminate people with certain personality traits that would be hard or impossible to correct by training. For instance, an inability to take full responsibility for their actions as required, would be something to look for. Maybe current screening would catch that, but I doubt that such screening exists.
As I remember the numbers from those attending the hiring sessions to those actually offered a job, and then to make it through the probationary period, 100 out of 500 is on the optimistic side.
Of course that was when they had large numbers applying. Since those days, when they do have openings they have trouble getting people to apply. That's partly why they offered hiring bonuses a while back. That and to put them on the spot so if they got furloughed, they had to come back when recalled.
I suspect management may already be eyeing a solution: robot trains. Nothing can go wrong.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of CovingtonI suspect management may already be eyeing a solution: robot trains. Nothing can go wrong...
You misspelled the operative word. As in the original, it should be 'worng'...
(And perhaps repeated, as in the posters, as the carnage begins to happen?)
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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
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.
BaltACDAnd you KNOW he wasn't vetted properly how?
Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
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?
Asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum
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.
243129Asinus 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.
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
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.