Originally Posted by
Bart
That's not what I said. At the end of our instruction, I can verify that every student met standards because we document it. We can recall the specific lesson plan, date and time of instruction, instructor's name, type of evaluation, evaluator's name and any identified weaknesses, what was done to remediate that weakness, who conducted the remediation, how it was evaluated, and the results of the re-evaluation.
What I said, if you care to read for comprehension since it's been discussed in several posts, is that there is a limit from an instructor standpoint. Once the TSOs hit the floor, there's little the instructor can do until the next time the student appears in class for refresher training or remediation training. The rest of the time, it's the floor supervisors who have the real handle on the situation.
The key, as I commented earlier, is a team approach between the classroom instructors and floor supervisors. We have some initiatives along those lines at my airport, but it's a slow process. I'm optimistic.
Anytime you use quotes, you should be held accountable. The best method is to actually quote the post rather than attempting to paraphrase it. Shouldn't be too hard to do.
You are right, I should not have attributed words to you that you did not say even in paraphrase. That was not clear. I was attempting to establish a type of training/follow up by sarcastic title. More accurately I should have said:
The
Oh, Well, the I Tried but They Did It Wrong Anyway, So It Is Not My Fault training program may someday get someone killed. That is, if the job is really as important and integral to air travel safety as we are led to believe.
Beyond that, do you suffer any repercussions when your trainees fail? You seem to say that once you are done, it is the supervisor's failure. In the days that I did my training the supervisor was responsible for the personnel aspect of the job and its training. Tasks such as getting to work on time, clocking in and out, interaction among coworkers, and such were trained by the supervisor and under their control. Technical aspects of the job were taught by the technical trainers who took responsibility for its completeness and effectiveness. If the trainee failed to perform the task correctly, it was at least partly my fault. (As clarification, in our system, the supervisor was both my supervisor and the supervisor of the trainee. He or she took responsibility of how I was trained, including my ability to train other workers.)
If we brought in outside trainers, and this is critical as it may more be your role, we had to sit in on the training and know what the training the trainee was getting from the outside source. If the outside source was correct, we would okay the training and take personal responsibility for it. If the training was incorrect the outside trainer was called out on the spot and told that the techniques were not acceptable. This was because I was responsible for even bad training by outside sources if I allowed them to continue.
So, it may not be you that is responsible for the training, it may be the supervisor. Therefore the question is whether they are are held mutually responsible with the line worker for failures of the line workers for training failures of even outside suppliers such as yourself. If not, then the system I suggested earlier is in place, a system in which failures have no one ultimately responsible to the point that no serious repercussions occur for both the trainee
and the trainer when there is a failure.
A system in which only the trainee is responsible for his or her own training may not be an acceptable system in terms of ultimate effectiveness, particularly when they seem to be held only marginally responsible for their failures.