Rant about your training dept.

[archeebunker]

I'm curious to know what everyone thinks about their plants training dept and their ability to prepare operators.

It is usually fairly easy to get an ex navy guy trained up, and they usually have no problem with the clases for the most part....

But what about the college grads, or any other inexperienced new hires? How do you think your training dept does with respect to them?

I know this is rather vague, but I'm just wondering what people really think about their training departments.

[Fermi2]

I have yet to see where Navy People do any better than any other population in License Class.

If there's a problem with your training you should look at yourself and your department as you are the true owners of your training. To rant at fellow professionals who are doing their damndest to do their job does not speak well of YOU as a team member.

Do you blame RP when you get crapped up?

Mike

[archeebunker]

You shouldnt assume things.

I AM ex navy and havent had any problems. However, I dont envy those who dont have prior experience at all. Some of them have rough times with our training.

Additionally, I wasnt referring to license class...when it gets to be that time, management is fairly certain that you stand a good chance of passing...thats why they ask you to go to license class (over here anyway). Sorry I didnt clarify that I wasnt talking about license class. I am talking about initial training.

[Fermi2]

What did I assume son? I'm ex Navy, started as a NLO, and have held one RO and two SRO Licenses, I've been qualified as a Shift Manager at two different facilities and ave taught ILO and NLO Initial. There's absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between the ability of a person who has no Navy Experience and one who has Navy Expeience when it comes to the ability to get through an Initial training program.

You shouldn't use this as a mechanism to blast your training department, if you have issues with your training then do what you were hired to do and help change it.


Mike

[archeebunker]

You assumed that I was referring to the ability of an ex navy to get through licence class as opposed to the ability of a non experienced person to get through it. And I agree, there should be and likely isnt any difference at that point. Likely you'd have been working somewhere for a while before you'd get invited to go to license class.

Maybe it would have been better if I had just come out and said what I think of our training right off the bat, and maybe you'd have understood where I was coming from a little better.


My point is that I think our training dept is creating "test takers"...not operators. The lectures taught to new hires are the EXACT same lectures taught in requal training. I think thats a problem. For example, lets use a Condensate system lecture...you simply cannot throw a powerpoint presentation on the board, show the drawing for all of two minutes, and then 10 minutes into the lecture, find yourself discussing something like the trip setpoints of a sample pump. It doesnt work very well that way for someone with that level of experience, but its plausable that someone with previous experience would take to it pretty easily.

I'm not blaming the new hire with little or no experience...I'm blaming the training techniques. Of course I think a new hire has the same abilities as anyone else.....but you cannot deny that they might be coming in a little worse off than others.

BTW..you do come across as a little hostile. I'm not here to argue. I'd like to get other peoples opinions is all.

[Rad Sponge]

I am in the throws of NLO training right now (and actually on a study break for the Monday Quiz) and have the following observations:

1. Anyone with a pulse and motivation can pass the general fundementals. No one in my class of 20 failed the quizzes or final.

2. Our intructors will make whatever time is necessary for a student to succeed. All anyone has to do is ask.

3. The top performers in my class are all ex-Navy, but the spread between the highest average and the lowest is not that much.

[Nuclear Renaissance]

In the 6 years I've been interfacing with training depts. (3 of them), I've come to the opinion that they're only as good as the people the operations dept sends to them.

For instance, a plant brought in 10 no-previous-nuclear engineering grads for a non-licensed operator class, then started a second 10-person class running concurrently of ex-navy nukes. The overall performance of the no-previous class exceeded that of the ex-navy guys, both tangibly (failures & exam scores) and intangibly (seeing their methodology in the plant). In my mind, there shouldn't have been a delta between the two, but in the hiring process, the engineering hires were selected deliberately, whereas the ex-navy were brought in last minute based on whoever passed the POSS and accepted the offer. It gets back to finding people that not only meet minimum qualifications but also have the proper character to get a little past the "80% score pays 100%" mentality when necessary.

I've also seen license classes where the engineering instant SROs "get it" and score very well compared to ex-navy, and classes where an ex-navy-academy guy became the most colossal ISRO failure training has ever seen, just because someone in the hiring process apparently drank the guy's koolaid.

It's why I believe training should have a place in the Ops hiring panel, to provide a check-and-balance on the trainability of prospects, and to get a feel for who's coming to them down the line so that they have a fair chance of being adaptive and ready.

[number41]

First let me say that I didn't accept any of the (3) training positions offered to me, and here's why.  It was made crystal clear to me that the operators I would be training were the people who would determine if I kept my job.  Basically, the Training Managers that I interviewed with had the attitude that training was there to make the Op's people better and happy.  If I couldn't do those two things, as assessed by test scores and operator feedback, then I'd be taking a walk.  As a result I accepted and offer in Operations!   Anyway, I guess every plant is not the same, but the three jobs were with three different companies and they were fairly consistent in their view of training integration.  If you have a problem with your training program or if you have a suggestion that will make your plant better, I'd bet you a frosty beverage that your Training Manager would be interested to hear your ideas.  Good luck, whatever happens.

[Fermi2]

You assumed that I was referring to the ability of an ex navy to get through licence class as opposed to the ability of a non experienced person to get through it. And I agree, there should be and likely isnt any difference at that point. Likely you'd have been working somewhere for a while before you'd get invited to go to license class.

Maybe it would have been better if I had just come out and said what I think of our training right off the bat, and maybe you'd have understood where I was coming from a little better.


My point is that I think our training dept is creating "test takers"...not operators. The lectures taught to new hires are the EXACT same lectures taught in requal training. I think thats a problem. For example, lets use a Condensate system lecture...you simply cannot throw a powerpoint presentation on the board, show the drawing for all of two minutes, and then 10 minutes into the lecture, find yourself discussing something like the trip setpoints of a sample pump. It doesnt work very well that way for someone with that level of experience, but its plausable that someone with previous experience would take to it pretty easily.

I'm not blaming the new hire with little or no experience...I'm blaming the training techniques. Of course I think a new hire has the same abilities as anyone else.....but you cannot deny that they might be coming in a little worse off than others.

BTW..you do come across as a little hostile. I'm not here to argue. I'd like to get other peoples opinions is all.

Then why did you mention ex Navy guys. I have some advice, fill out feedback forms, go to your CRC Meetings, just don't post your whining on the internet asking people to "rant" about fellow teammates. It's unprofessional and immature.

Mike

[redline]

Nuclear classrom training is objective based, that's the way INPO likes it. So yes they are teaching you to pass a test, usually with a passing grade of 80%. But classroom training cant possibly prepare you for the real world by itself. So then you have the simulator and the OJT/TPE process with a much higher standards for passing. In the end over time you'll be ready...you'll turn valves for the rest of your career...or you'll be gone! Like BZ stated you're in charge of your training make the most of it.

[rlbinc]

Oh c'mon. Operators rant about Training?

Ops Training is best described as a cyclical process, not a linear process. Ideally, the best Operators become Instructors and help make better Operators as a result. In the best Training organizations I have seen - a Lead Training Instructor becomes indistinguishable in knowledge level and career path from a Shift Manager. We call it integration. Plants that traditionally don't integrate well tend to assign mentors in an attempt to accomodate this role. Since the assigned role is imposed by procedure rather than culture, it tends to be less effective and less rigorous.

Here's what you can do to help integrate your station, especially if your station assign mentors that don't seem to do much.
1) Assume a training role. More experienced Operators train new Operators.
2) Become active in the training process. Don't waste time complaining about a Lesson Plan inaccuracy, spend the three minutes to mark it up corrected and submit it for approval. Sort of like a procedure that isn't right.
3) Teach a topic as an Subject Matter Expert. We all have areas in which we are interested or have become expert. Training guys can't and don't know everything about the plant. Operators are the best source of information and make the best instructors.
4) Apply for a rotational or permanent Instructor position. Most units in the US are 5 to 6 SRO Instructors short. Ops expertise can keep the knowledge and experience where it belongs.

Read the book QBQ, The Question Behind the Question.

[McBride]

Do you blame RP when you get crapped up?

Uh...YEAHHHHH! Doesn't everyone?   

[number41]

Ideally, the best Operators become Instructors........

C'MON, not that junk again!! Let me guess, you work in training don't you?  Is your TM pushing you to come on here and advertise this crap?  Just kidding, but I would say that some really good operators make really bad instructors.  At least in my experience. 

By the way, is archeebunker even still subscribed to this site?  His screen name is all black and doesn't link to anything in the subject of this post.  BZ, you scared another one off!

[Fermi2]

Sorryyyyyyyyyyyyyy. I just hate public whining!

[cincinnatinuke]

What did I assume son?

Dang you are this guys dad too?  Cycotic penguin is going to flip when he sees he has a brother.

[McBride]

Uh...YEAHHHHH! Doesn't everyone?   

NO!!!!!

I had THAT wrong TOO?

DANG MY TRAINING DEPARTMENT!!!!!!!!