Originally Posted by
Bart
That's a load of bull. You were trying to characterize me as a lazy trainer. I called you on it, and now you come up with this BS explanation to justify yourself. And I'm calling you on that one, too.
For the record, I am constantly looking for ways to keep TSOs proficient beyond their initial training. It's a challenge, and I'm willing to look at different ways to follow through the initial training and periodic refresher training. There are a lot of dynamics involved; some of them beyond my control. I was merely acknowledging that before you decided to twist my words around.
I did not characterize you as a lazy trainer, and I do not think you are lazy. You are likely a very good trainer that cares significantly about the success of your trainees. What I was trying to determine, and I apologize that you took it as criticism of your specific abilities, was who is responsible, if anyone, for the failure of the trainees to get trained in the hopefully rare cases when the training does not "stick." If you could specifically show me where I said you were lazy or even inferred that you are, I would appreciate it. My discussion was simply a comparison of two different systems, the one I was subject to and the one you described. My discussion of your system never questioned either the ability or the conscientiousness of the trainers, it only sought to determine who was held ultimately responsible for the success of the training.
There were times when the people I was training just did not get it. In these cases, my supervisor would step in and first determine if I was training properly. If I was not, I was retrained. If I was, the trainee was given remedial training or released.
I also question if the system significantly allows for the unteachable to be appropriately reassigned or fired, but that is part of another discussion.
I do think that the system of training that is imposed upon you by your management imposes less direct responsibility on to you for the success of your trainees that the system that I was training in. That is not your fault nor something that you can do anything about. It is a part of the design of the system.
What we as the flying public see is a group of people that for the most part know what they are doing, but there are glaring inconsistencies that do not seem to go away. These are the type of inconsistencies that can only be eliminated by a well defined protocol that is competently trained.
The responsibility for whether the training is done properly can only fall in one of four areas:
- It is the responsibility of the trainer. (The system I trained under.)
- It is the responsibility of the trainee. (A system that I see often in industry that is generally a failure.)
- It is the responsibility of the direct supervisor. (This is the system that you seem to describe. It is a good system if the supervisors are held accountable.)
- It is the responsibility of no one. (An unthinkable system for safety systems, and usually only used in non-critical applications.)
If you are not directly held responsible for the success of your trainees, that is fine as long as someone is and everyone knows who it is. And by responsible, I mean that the responsible person faces repercussions for the failure of the training.