No. Just a highly-trained, veteran professional.
BTW, a railroad engineer (driver) is not strictly speaking one of the traditional professions. But these days?
charlie hebdo No. Just a highly-trained, veteran professional. BTW, a railroad engineer (driver) is not strictly speaking one of the traditional professions. But these days?
If you have nothing other than petulant remarks to offer why don't you just go away? You are embarrassing yourself.
[quote user="charlie hebdo"]
[quote user=243129]No. Just a highly-trained, veteran professional.[/quote]
BTW, a railroad engineer (driver) is not strictly speaking one of the traditional professions.[/quote]
It's in the sense normally expressed by the false dichotomy between 'professional' and 'amateur', but extended to competence and particularly what is meant by the phrase 'professional discipline' rather than whether one is paid to do something.
There is NO doubt that in this particular case, Joe was a professional railroader, and I think he was as good a one, in the sense he means, as he states. Most of his argument hinges on the applicability of that kind of 'professional' wisdom to assessing, perhaps well before formal hiring, candidates to do the jobs he did, to backstop HR in picking the right 'coachability' as well as characteristics brought to the hire, in developing ongoing generations of honestly 'professional' railroaders.
May I not-so-humbly suggest that the initial premise of this thread -- the contradiction in language in the NTSB report -- has not only been addressed, but it and multiple other horses have been thoroughly beaten past the point of death. I suggest that it is time to close this particular thread, whether or not anyone has a formal 'last word' on some of the diatribe.
OvermodMay I not-so-humbly suggest that the initial premise of this thread -- the contradiction in language in the NTSB report -- has not only been addressed, but it and multiple other horses have been thoroughly beaten past the point of death. I suggest that it is time to close this particular thread, whether or not anyone has a formal 'last word' on some of the diatribe.
1. "Professional" or not, no one is as perfect as Joe claims he was. What makes his assertions even more dubious are his labeling all other railroaders as unprofessional, "poorly trained, vetted and supervised" or mere desk jockeys.
2. He is incapable of admitting to error of any sort. I have dragged this thread on far too long, seeking (paraphrased) as the late Joseph N. Welch once did, "At long last, have you left no sense of decency [substitute humility]?"
Mea culpa.
charlie hebdo Overmod May I not-so-humbly suggest that the initial premise of this thread -- the contradiction in language in the NTSB report -- has not only been addressed, but it and multiple other horses have been thoroughly beaten past the point of death. I suggest that it is time to close this particular thread, whether or not anyone has a formal 'last word' on some of the diatribe. 1. "Professional" or not, no one is as perfect as Joe claims he was. What makes his assertions even more dubious are his labeling all other railroaders as unprofessional, "poorly trained, vetted and supervised" or mere desk jockeys. 2. He is incapable of admitting to error of any sort. I have dragged this thread on far too long, seeking (paraphrased) as the late Joseph N. Welch once did, "At long last, have you left no sense of decency [substitute humility]?" Mea culpa.
Overmod May I not-so-humbly suggest that the initial premise of this thread -- the contradiction in language in the NTSB report -- has not only been addressed, but it and multiple other horses have been thoroughly beaten past the point of death. I suggest that it is time to close this particular thread, whether or not anyone has a formal 'last word' on some of the diatribe.
Sayonara Chuck
Nobody's perfect. On the other hand, with us all being sinners in some more or less important respects, why bandy the issue about? What I think we should be doing is concentrating, in a thread with appropriate title, about the specifics of the accident itself, not the way the NTSB (mis)reported it. Now that we have the specific interview transcripts, we 'could' shift the discussion directly onto an analysis of what they contain (or import) and, in a wider sense, whether the NTSB either 'gets it' or is likely to generate any meaningful or even useful recommendations from the incident.
Personally, most of the "importance" opens and closes pretty quickly if the two conductors were, in fact, walking in the gauge of a known-active 125mph mainline with their backs to traffic, as the engineer of 66 (who witnessed the actual impact) testified. I'd pull on that snake's tail as far as I could to figure out how or why anyone, railroader or not, confining circumstances or not, could be in that place if they had even a shred of common sense, exhausted tired and disgruntled or not. And make my 'recommendations' starting from that.
In other news, this from Progressive Railroading this morning. Anything familiar about the language in the headline?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.