VOLKER LANDWEHR 243129 Precisely. "You can act out types of dangerous situations and failures" but you cannot simulate fear,rising panic and the 'pucker factor'. I never thought that fear is a good learning factor nor does it help to make the right decisions in critical situations. As Zugmann said, the simulator training helps to learn how to handle a critical situation in a safe environment. Does it happen on the road he already knows how to react and isn't led by fear. BTW here is what I mean with simulator, the Deutsche Bahn ICE simulator: https://www.zdf.de/assets/teletext-dpa-image-10348~1920x1080?cb=1513524387134 243129 A veteran operations employee can assess a candidate's mettle by a period of observation in real time circumstances. I really doubt it. What real time observations will you make with a newby? You have interviews and tests, but you can be sure the canditates come prepared. And than you need a lot psychology and some tricks to look behind a facade. Your merits as locomotive engineer wouldn't help much.Regards, Volker
243129 Precisely. "You can act out types of dangerous situations and failures" but you cannot simulate fear,rising panic and the 'pucker factor'.
I never thought that fear is a good learning factor nor does it help to make the right decisions in critical situations. As Zugmann said, the simulator training helps to learn how to handle a critical situation in a safe environment. Does it happen on the road he already knows how to react and isn't led by fear.
BTW here is what I mean with simulator, the Deutsche Bahn ICE simulator: https://www.zdf.de/assets/teletext-dpa-image-10348~1920x1080?cb=1513524387134
243129 A veteran operations employee can assess a candidate's mettle by a period of observation in real time circumstances.
I really doubt it. What real time observations will you make with a newby? You have interviews and tests, but you can be sure the canditates come prepared. And than you need a lot psychology and some tricks to look behind a facade. Your merits as locomotive engineer wouldn't help much.Regards, Volker
Fear is to be overcome and that can only be done/observed in a real time situation.
My merits as a locomotive engineer will not help? Would you enlist the help of a proctologist for having your teeth cleaned?
zugmann 243129 Thank you for confirming my observation of you. You're welcome. Thank you for showing us you're stuck on the New Haven in 1970.
243129 Thank you for confirming my observation of you.
You're welcome. Thank you for showing us you're stuck on the New Haven in 1970.
You are quite bothersome. Come back when you grow up. In the meantime you will be ignored.
243129Precisely. "You can act out types of dangerous situations and failures" but you cannot simulate fear,rising panic and the 'pucker factor'.
243129A veteran operations employee can assess a candidate's mettle by a period of observation in real time circumstances.
243129Thank you for confirming my observation of you.
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
zugmann 243129 Simulators are merely an aid, A very expensive and in my opinion unecessary. Spoken like a true Luddite.
243129 Simulators are merely an aid, A very expensive and in my opinion unecessary.
Simulators are merely an aid, A very expensive and in my opinion unecessary.
Spoken like a true Luddite.
Thank you for confirming my observation of you.
zugmann 243129 You who admit to no railroad operations experience expounding on the lack of education in operations employees. Veteran operations employees who have worked 'in the trenches' can better assess a trainee's acumen than a Dr.Phil like flunkie with a sheepskin from an Ivy League school. You attack Charlie for no experince in railroad ops, yet what experience do you have in evaluation or hiring of employees? Just because you ran a train does not make you a good judge of character or skill. And we know you never had a role as RFE or trainer (where you'd be involved in those aspects). But continue on with your pettiness and name calling.
243129 You who admit to no railroad operations experience expounding on the lack of education in operations employees. Veteran operations employees who have worked 'in the trenches' can better assess a trainee's acumen than a Dr.Phil like flunkie with a sheepskin from an Ivy League school.
You attack Charlie for no experince in railroad ops, yet what experience do you have in evaluation or hiring of employees? Just because you ran a train does not make you a good judge of character or skill. And we know you never had a role as RFE or trainer (where you'd be involved in those aspects).
But continue on with your pettiness and name calling.
Attack? That is your spin. I was stating a fact.
I think my experience 'running a train' makes me a very good judge of skill and character.
Pettiness and namecalling is your forte. Your history here and your Trump-like statements confirm that fact.
243129You who admit to no railroad operations experience expounding on the lack of education in operations employees. Veteran operations employees who have worked 'in the trenches' can better assess a trainee's acumen than a Dr.Phil like flunkie with a sheepskin from an Ivy League school.
You attack Charlie for no experince in railroad ops, yet what experience do you have in evaluation or hiring of employees? Just because you ran a train does not make you a good judge of character or skill. And we know you never had a role as RFE or in HR (where you'd be involved in those aspects).
Simulators, when used properly, can allow trainees to deal with issues that can't normally be recreated in normal OJT. That way when and if those situations pop up in real life, there is some experience in handling them, so hopefully there is minimal fear. I know - it's a bit new fangled for some of the more veteran RRers, but technology is not to be scared of.
I'm sure that why airlines and other rail systems (Japan Rail for example) make use of them.
charlie hebdo 243129 VOLKER LANDWEHR 243129 Simulators are of little use other than familiarizing one with benign circumstances. How one reacts under pressure can only be determined under real time circmstances. I think you underestimate simulator training. In a good simulator with motion system you can act out types of dangerous situations and failures which you can't try on the road or might never encounter.Regards, Volker Precisely. "You can act out types of dangerous situations and failures" but you cannot simulate fear,rising panic and the 'pucker factor'. You are ensconced in a machine and do not fear for your, your crew and the traveling public's safety. A veteran operations employee can assess a candidate's mettle by a period of observation in real time circumstances. You overestimate the ability of a veteran operations employee to assess an already-employed candidate's "mettle" in the area of character traits for two reasons. One, the possibility of favoritism or prejudice may exist and improperly influence the veteran's opinion. Two, operations employees lack the education and training to evaluate crucial characteristics such as judgement, impulsiveness, vigilance, self-control or conscientiousness.
243129 VOLKER LANDWEHR 243129 Simulators are of little use other than familiarizing one with benign circumstances. How one reacts under pressure can only be determined under real time circmstances. I think you underestimate simulator training. In a good simulator with motion system you can act out types of dangerous situations and failures which you can't try on the road or might never encounter.Regards, Volker Precisely. "You can act out types of dangerous situations and failures" but you cannot simulate fear,rising panic and the 'pucker factor'. You are ensconced in a machine and do not fear for your, your crew and the traveling public's safety. A veteran operations employee can assess a candidate's mettle by a period of observation in real time circumstances.
VOLKER LANDWEHR 243129 Simulators are of little use other than familiarizing one with benign circumstances. How one reacts under pressure can only be determined under real time circmstances. I think you underestimate simulator training. In a good simulator with motion system you can act out types of dangerous situations and failures which you can't try on the road or might never encounter.Regards, Volker
243129 Simulators are of little use other than familiarizing one with benign circumstances. How one reacts under pressure can only be determined under real time circmstances.
I think you underestimate simulator training. In a good simulator with motion system you can act out types of dangerous situations and failures which you can't try on the road or might never encounter.Regards, Volker
Precisely. "You can act out types of dangerous situations and failures" but you cannot simulate fear,rising panic and the 'pucker factor'. You are ensconced in a machine and do not fear for your, your crew and the traveling public's safety. A veteran operations employee can assess a candidate's mettle by a period of observation in real time circumstances.
You overestimate the ability of a veteran operations employee to assess an already-employed candidate's "mettle" in the area of character traits for two reasons. One, the possibility of favoritism or prejudice may exist and improperly influence the veteran's opinion. Two, operations employees lack the education and training to evaluate crucial characteristics such as judgement, impulsiveness, vigilance, self-control or conscientiousness.
Favoritism and prejudice? A true railroad professional would be above such pettiness.
"operations employees lack the education and training to evaluate crucial characteristics such as judgement, impulsiveness, vigilance, self-control or conscientiousness."
That is pure B.S.
You who admit to no railroad operations experience expounding on the lack of education in operations employees. Veteran operations employees who have worked 'in the trenches' can better assess a trainee's acumen than a Dr.Phil like flunkie with a sheepskin from an Ivy League school.
BaltACD Simulators can be nearly as accurate as real life or as toy like as the manufacturer desires.
Simulators can be nearly as accurate as real life or as toy like as the manufacturer desires.
So how would they simulate fear and rising panic? In a simulator you do not fear for your safety.
Overmod Although not a fan of Chairman Mao I do agree with his statement that "All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience". Nothing but nothing beats real time training. Simulators might be fine for airline pilots but they are little more than an extravagance 243129 Simulators are of little use other than familiarizing one with benign circumstances. How one reacts under pressure can only be determined under real time circumstances. That's not at all the 'first best use' of simulators -- either in aerospace contexts, or in what I've seen of how railroads used the technology in its relative infancy. (Which is not to say that many railroads or quasi-public entities actually do use the technology reasonably.) It is incomprehensible to me that anyone would be checked out on any modern aircraft type, let alone one with high performance or a demanding envelope, without a great deal of simulator time where random combinations of failures are thrown at pilots to see how they will perform. This actually made it into science fiction as the 'Kobayashi Maru' type of situation, where there is NO way you're supposed to save the day, and the actual 'test' is to see how you deal with that... ideally, effectively. Practical railroad scenarios will not usually, perhaps never, encounter that level of induction of failures -- and there is another issue, inherent in all this discussion, whether the "testees" have the right professional discipline and attitude not to 'game' the testing, or blow it off as Bene Gesserit HR stupidity, instead of taking it to heart as the analogue of what they would have received from a proper engineer 'mentor' under the fireman-to-engineer professional development that certain unions supported and provided back in the day. The problem that keeps rumbling in the background of the 501 accident, to me, is that the guy had something like 5 years running experience, if I remember correctly over the very area that had been 'improved' by WSDOT. I am concerned that all too many 'in-house employees' might already reflect the slipshod characteristics that we're wanting to "test" for (and eliminate scrupulously to the greatest extent we can, in the earliest stages of recruiting or training). You can't use most management people to do it, for what I think are obvious reasons; I almost tremble to think of the effect of using typical whiz-kid "employee testing" people to set the testing up, let alone administer it in any reasonable way. So where do you find the 'cadre' that knows and can inspire the right attitude, and then give them adequate time and resources to achieve the attitude reliably as a Marines-like default response under fire, and keep from being snowed under by all the various distorting forces in the Amtrak political noosphere. This is accomplished by observation from veteran operations employees.
Although not a fan of Chairman Mao I do agree with his statement that "All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience".
Nothing but nothing beats real time training. Simulators might be fine for airline pilots but they are little more than an extravagance
243129 Simulators are of little use other than familiarizing one with benign circumstances. How one reacts under pressure can only be determined under real time circumstances.
That's not at all the 'first best use' of simulators -- either in aerospace contexts, or in what I've seen of how railroads used the technology in its relative infancy. (Which is not to say that many railroads or quasi-public entities actually do use the technology reasonably.)
It is incomprehensible to me that anyone would be checked out on any modern aircraft type, let alone one with high performance or a demanding envelope, without a great deal of simulator time where random combinations of failures are thrown at pilots to see how they will perform. This actually made it into science fiction as the 'Kobayashi Maru' type of situation, where there is NO way you're supposed to save the day, and the actual 'test' is to see how you deal with that... ideally, effectively. Practical railroad scenarios will not usually, perhaps never, encounter that level of induction of failures -- and there is another issue, inherent in all this discussion, whether the "testees" have the right professional discipline and attitude not to 'game' the testing, or blow it off as Bene Gesserit HR stupidity, instead of taking it to heart as the analogue of what they would have received from a proper engineer 'mentor' under the fireman-to-engineer professional development that certain unions supported and provided back in the day.
The problem that keeps rumbling in the background of the 501 accident, to me, is that the guy had something like 5 years running experience, if I remember correctly over the very area that had been 'improved' by WSDOT. I am concerned that all too many 'in-house employees' might already reflect the slipshod characteristics that we're wanting to "test" for (and eliminate scrupulously to the greatest extent we can, in the earliest stages of recruiting or training). You can't use most management people to do it, for what I think are obvious reasons; I almost tremble to think of the effect of using typical whiz-kid "employee testing" people to set the testing up, let alone administer it in any reasonable way. So where do you find the 'cadre' that knows and can inspire the right attitude, and then give them adequate time and resources to achieve the attitude reliably as a Marines-like default response under fire, and keep from being snowed under by all the various distorting forces in the Amtrak political noosphere.
This is accomplished by observation from veteran operations employees.
[/quote]
Your last sentence says it all.
Although not a fan of Chairman Mao I do agree with his statement in the dogma "On Practice".. All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience.
As I wrote in my piece 'The Making of Engineers and Conductors' on Fred Frailey's blog. Nothing beats real time on the job training. Simulators cannot simulate fear in a candidate, they only fear they might have is failure not bodily harm. The rules can be taught in a classroom but the implementation of them is best taught in the 'field' in real time situations.
The 501 disaster is a classic case of the unknowing teaching the unknowing and the gross incompetence displayed by Road Foreman Beatson and Training Supervisor Hines.
Simulators can be nearly as accurate as real life or as toy like as the manufacturer desires. Show me the money.
Some professional racing drivers use 'high' level simulators to learn tracks that they have never previously competed at - so as to be able to 'hit the track running' in their real race cars. It saves time and wear and tear on the real cars.
In the consumer range there is Iracing.com https://www.iracing.com/ There are a number of leagues where competitors race each other on the Internet supplied communication medium.
If the manufacture of the simulator puts in all the movement servos and sound cues that happen in real life and perform accurate geographical measurments and displays of the surroundings; a simulator can be nearly REAL. If not it will be akin to the Microsoft Train game and thus a toy.
How a organization goes about utilizing simulators and grading users results on the simulators is a entire topic of discussion by itself.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
243129Simulators are of little use other than familiarizing one with benign circumstances. How one reacts under pressure can only be determined under real time circumstances.
This is accomplished by observation from veteran operations employees.[/quote]
243129Simulators are of little use other than familiarizing one with benign circumstances. How one reacts under pressure can only be determined under real time circmstances.
Euclid charlie hebdo Many jobs require some process beyond screening by a panel of potential cronies: FBI, CIA, some police forces, etc. Putting it in the hands of the panel judging candidates who have already worked for the railroad could lead to favoritism. Peer ratings are not the best way to examine character/personality issues. That is part of my point. So how should the screening be done? What issues of character would it be looking for? How would the screening find those issues? If this could all be turned into a blueprint, that would be something tangible that might be presented to the concerned parties.
charlie hebdo Many jobs require some process beyond screening by a panel of potential cronies: FBI, CIA, some police forces, etc. Putting it in the hands of the panel judging candidates who have already worked for the railroad could lead to favoritism. Peer ratings are not the best way to examine character/personality issues.
Many jobs require some process beyond screening by a panel of potential cronies: FBI, CIA, some police forces, etc. Putting it in the hands of the panel judging candidates who have already worked for the railroad could lead to favoritism. Peer ratings are not the best way to examine character/personality issues.
That is part of my point. So how should the screening be done? What issues of character would it be looking for? How would the screening find those issues?
If this could all be turned into a blueprint, that would be something tangible that might be presented to the concerned parties.
If you choose employees from 'in house' you already have insight in to their work habits and a leg up on their psyche. Simulators are of little use other than familiarizing one with benign circumstances. How one reacts under pressure can only be determined under real time circmstances. This is accomplished by observation from veteran operations employees.
BaltACD 243129 BaltACD 243129 BaltACD 243129 That is unfortunate, that rule could have saved two lives. How much single track DARK non-signalled territory have you operated on? Approximately 200 miles of branch lines. CSX and the other Class 1's have thousands of miles of non-signalled DARK territory that are operated on daily basis. And your point is? Thousands of employees perform their duties properly day in and day out.
243129 BaltACD 243129 BaltACD 243129 That is unfortunate, that rule could have saved two lives. How much single track DARK non-signalled territory have you operated on? Approximately 200 miles of branch lines. CSX and the other Class 1's have thousands of miles of non-signalled DARK territory that are operated on daily basis. And your point is?
BaltACD 243129 BaltACD 243129 That is unfortunate, that rule could have saved two lives. How much single track DARK non-signalled territory have you operated on? Approximately 200 miles of branch lines. CSX and the other Class 1's have thousands of miles of non-signalled DARK territory that are operated on daily basis.
243129 BaltACD 243129 That is unfortunate, that rule could have saved two lives. How much single track DARK non-signalled territory have you operated on? Approximately 200 miles of branch lines.
243129 That is unfortunate, that rule could have saved two lives. How much single track DARK non-signalled territory have you operated on?
243129 That is unfortunate, that rule could have saved two lives.
How much single track DARK non-signalled territory have you operated on?
Approximately 200 miles of branch lines.
CSX and the other Class 1's have thousands of miles of non-signalled DARK territory that are operated on daily basis.
And your point is?
Thousands of employees perform their duties properly day in and day out.
That is what they are supposed to do and paid to do.
I still do not understand what your point is.
Euclid That is part of my point. So how should the screening be done? What issues of character would it be looking for? How would the screening find those issues? If this could all be turned into a blueprint, that would be something tangible that might be presented to the concerned parties.
And what happens if a "protected class" has a small representation of the proper character traits?
Ed
Euclid 243129 charlie hebdo I read it. Vague. Are you trusting senior engineers to make a determination about the candidates' character traits? There always problems with peers making those judgments, especially when they lack the training. Who better to assess a candidate's character traits and acumen for the position of locomotive engineer than a seasoned locomotive engineer. I believe these character traits are critical to the job and should be determined upon hiring. I also believe that Amtrak is lacking this part of the screening. Seasoned locomotive engineers may be able to provide that type of screening due to their experience. But, I believe what is first and foremost needed is a definition of the essential character traits that are being sought as well as those that would disqualify a job applicant from being hired. Ultimately this definition would need to be developed into a technical process used to screen job applicants. I agree that a panel of seasoned locomotive engineers would provide multiple evaluations similar to a jury at a trial, but technical template would also be helpful similar to the way the law guides a jury at a trial. Have you given thought to developing this technical template that would define and determine character traits of newly hired locomotive engineers?
243129 charlie hebdo I read it. Vague. Are you trusting senior engineers to make a determination about the candidates' character traits? There always problems with peers making those judgments, especially when they lack the training. Who better to assess a candidate's character traits and acumen for the position of locomotive engineer than a seasoned locomotive engineer.
charlie hebdo I read it. Vague. Are you trusting senior engineers to make a determination about the candidates' character traits? There always problems with peers making those judgments, especially when they lack the training.
I read it. Vague. Are you trusting senior engineers to make a determination about the candidates' character traits? There always problems with peers making those judgments, especially when they lack the training.
Who better to assess a candidate's character traits and acumen for the position of locomotive engineer than a seasoned locomotive engineer.
I believe these character traits are critical to the job and should be determined upon hiring. I also believe that Amtrak is lacking this part of the screening. Seasoned locomotive engineers may be able to provide that type of screening due to their experience. But, I believe what is first and foremost needed is a definition of the essential character traits that are being sought as well as those that would disqualify a job applicant from being hired.
Ultimately this definition would need to be developed into a technical process used to screen job applicants. I agree that a panel of seasoned locomotive engineers would provide multiple evaluations similar to a jury at a trial, but technical template would also be helpful similar to the way the law guides a jury at a trial. Have you given thought to developing this technical template that would define and determine character traits of newly hired locomotive engineers?
Hiring engineer candidates from within the system gives insight as to their work habits, character traits and acumen for the position. That has been stated in the link below with options for unsuitable candidates to return to their former or more suitable position.
http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2015/08/11/the-making-of-engineers-and-conductors.aspx
BaltACD 243129 That is unfortunate, that rule could have saved two lives. How much single track DARK non-signalled territory have you operated on?
243129That is unfortunate, that rule could have saved two lives.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.