[Rev.Vassago]

Originally Posted by BIG JEEP on 44's

Please post where it says in the regulations that a ...licensed...cdl holder...must have...a trainer sitting in the jump seat for their full time on duty driving...IT DOESN'T .

I never stated that a licensed CDL holder must have a trainer sitting next to them while driving. But if the trainer was training the driver, then he could not have been doing it from the sleeper berth:

§395.2 Definitions

Question 8: If a "driver trainer" occasionally drives a CMV, thereby becoming a "driver" (regardless of whether he/she is paid for driving), must the driver record all nondriving (training) time as on- duty (not driving)?

Guidance: Yes.

Since time spent in a sleeper berth is logged on line 2, the trainer could not have been logging it properly if he was training the driver, as On Duty time is logged in the cab of the CMV, not the sleeper. Therefore the trainer was either not training the driver, was incorrectly logging his activities. You decide.

[TomB985]

Originally Posted by Orangetxguy

***SIGH*** :roll::roll:

Go to this link, http://www.classadrivers.com/forum/n...t-night-2.html , scroll down to where I posted the pertainent 49CFR.

Read the entire CFR regulation...it is posted there. If you doubt that what I posted is real....GOGGLE 49 CFR, go to the government website, the search driver training regulations.

Since Mr. Fay was not only a "Entry Level" driver, but also an "Entry Level" driver, operating an LCV, both sub paragraphs of the regulation apply.

***SIGH*** :hellno:

Definition of LCV:

23 C.F.R. § 658.5


Longer combination vehicle (LCV). As used in this part, longer combination vehicle means any combination of a truck tractor and two or more trailers or semitrailers which operates on the Interstate System at a gross vehicle weight greater than 80,000 pounds.

Certainly not applicable to nearly all OTR companies today...this does NOT fit the definition of LCV.:eek2:

There is NO legal requirement that I've ever seen regarding training for regular OTR carriers...if anyone knows of any, please post...:eek2:

[Orangetxguy]

Originally Posted by jd112488

why not let the poor guy rest in peace. someone died. MAYBE someone could have prevented that. we will never know. maybe the real punishment here is that the TRAINER will have to live the rest of his live wondering the same thing. i THINK that big d's argument is just that..he wonders if it could have been prevented. he questioned some of the larger companies training techniques, that is all..and he is angry that someone died that maybe should have lived. lets move on to a roaring debate on local vs otr.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: Brownie points for Jed for being right.
THAT has been my point. :lol2::lol2::lol2::lol2:

dobry4u understands now why I hold the stance that I do. JED understood all along what Big D's stance was about....as did I.


issedoff:issedoff: A man died whom shouldn't have.

[Orangetxguy]

Originally Posted by TomB985

***SIGH*** :hellno:

Definition of LCV:



Certainly not applicable to nearly all OTR companies today...this does NOT fit the definition of LCV.:eek2:

There is NO legal requirement that I've ever seen regarding training for regular OTR carriers...if anyone knows of any, please post...:eek2:

OK...let me see here. There is no legal requirement for training. That means that all these trucking companies that train drivers, do so out of the kindness of their hearts. They spend money just to spend money....millions of dollars a year for some of these companies.

Naaaaaaa...I don't hardly think so. Not to many copmanies do anything out of the goodness of their heart.



WAIT! Now you will tell me that they train for tax deductions.

I would then tell you that you are wrong. Companies do not waste money for tax purposes.

If there was not a legal requirement to provide training, NO COMPANY would train.

Now...go to that page ----> http://www.classadrivers.com/forum/n...t-night-2.html , READ the red portion of the CFR. THE RED PORTION is the CFR sub paragraph which covers NEW ENTRANTS into the driving workforce. The black portion is the sub paragraph which covers LCV training. Two separate sub paragraphs.

Tom, What do Highway regulations....23CFR, have to do with the Driver and Carrier portion of the regulations, in 49CFR? You do understand that 49CFR covers all modes of transportation don't you? Land, Water, and Air transportation modes?
When they start hauling freight in Space...there will be regulations written into 49CFR to cover it.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cf...i?title=200423

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...r/23cfr1.1.htm

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 23, Volume 1]
[Revised as of April 1, 2001]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 23CFR1.1]

[Page 7]

TITLE 23--HIGHWAYS

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PART 1--GENERAL--Table of Contents

Sec. 1.1 Purpose.

The purpose of the regulations in this part is to implement and
carry out the provisions of Federal law relating to the administration
of Federal aid for highways.

Maybe Swift is into receiving Federal Aid for road building?


Since your in a "transportation" link mode...here is a everything in general link.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/legislat.html

:zzz::zzz::zzz::zzz: You have bored me with your mantra. I almost posted a summary of my training qualifications. :block::block::block::block:

[TomB985]

Oh, come on, Stan...I never once said I knew everything...I even stated that if anyone knows anything that I DON'T about this, regarding legal requirements to train, to post them.

Since Mr. Fay was not only a "Entry Level" driver, but also an "Entry Level" driver, operating an LCV, both sub paragraphs of the regulation apply.

There, you said he was operating an LCV. I posted that he was NOT. NOW you are saying that it's irrelivent?

The only part of the regs you posted that had ANYTHING to do with on the job training was the part that covered LCVs...and nothing else. The other parts you posted said that the employers had to train drivers on:

Entry-level driver training must include instruction addressing the
following four areas:
(a) Driver qualification requirements. The Federal rules on medical
certification, medical examination procedures, general qualifications,
responsibilities, and disqualifications based on various offenses,
orders, and loss of driving privileges (part 391, subparts B and E of
this subchapter).
(b) Hours of service of drivers. The limitations on driving hours,
the requirement to be off-duty for certain periods of time, record of
duty status preparation, and exceptions (part 395 of this subchapter).
Fatigue countermeasures as a means to avoid crashes.
(c) Driver wellness. Basic health maintenance including diet and
exercise. The importance of avoiding excessive use of alcohol.
(d) Whistleblower protection. The right of an employee to question
the safety practices of an employer without the employee's risk of
losing a job or being subject to reprisals simply for stating a safety
concern (29 CFR part 1978).

NONE of these have anything to do with what we're talking about here!

I believe carriers train because it's common knowledge that if you stick a brand new CDL holder in a truck, and tell him to go after it...you have yourself a recipe for disaster. Disasters in this industry cost companies MILLIONS of dollars....and they can't afford too many of those...

Now, I'll repeat myself again. I do NOT know every word of every regulation. I, however, DO have basic reasoning abilities to comprehend and understand the vast majority of what I read. What was posted has NOTHING to do with OJT, with the exception of LONGER combination vehicles, which we're not discussing here. Please, if you read something I didn't in the regs...I wanna see it!

The whole reason I'm posting here is because I want to get to the bottom of this. I realize you've been doing this for 6 years longer than I've even been alive...and I respect that. All I'm asking is for you to SHOW me, that's all

[Orangetxguy]

Originally Posted by TomB985

Oh, come on, Stan...I never once said I knew everything...I even stated that if anyone knows anything that I DON'T about this, regarding legal requirements to train, to post them.




There, you said he was operating an LCV. I posted that he was NOT. NOW you are saying that it's irrelivent?

The only part of the regs you posted that had ANYTHING to do with on the job training was the part that covered LCVs...and nothing else. The other parts you posted said that the employers had to train drivers on:


NONE of these have anything to do with what we're talking about here!

I believe carriers train because it's common knowledge that if you stick a brand new CDL holder in a truck, and tell him to go after it...you have yourself a recipe for disaster. Disasters in this industry cost companies MILLIONS of dollars....and they can't afford too many of those...

Now, I'll repeat myself again. I do NOT know every word of every regulation. I, however, DO have basic reasoning abilities to comprehend and understand the vast majority of what I read. What was posted has NOTHING to do with OJT, with the exception of LONGER combination vehicles, which we're not discussing here. Please, if you read something I didn't in the regs...I wanna see it!

The whole reason I'm posting here is because I want to get to the bottom of this. I realize you've been doing this for 6 years longer than I've even been alive...and I respect that. All I'm asking is for you to SHOW me, that's all

Thats just it Tom...if you go back through some of the posted links about the accident, one picture clearly shows that the trailer is / was a three axle trailer. All three axles were on the center barrier and quite visible. A three axle trailer and a three axle truck are legally capable of 96,000 GVW in WA, OR, ID, MT NV, UT and WY. The man was indeed driving an LCV. A three axle truck pulling a trailer with a spread axle, which has a 10 foot two inch spread, is legally capable of hauling 86,000 GVW in those same states...thus is legally an LCV.

Since he was a new driver, with only 3 weeks under his belt before his death, driving an LCV or not,....His training was lacking.

I maintain that any driver, working for any company, that dies in the first weeks of training, due to an accident such as the one Mr. Fay was involved in, had insufficient training and should not have been alone while in control of the unit.

I'm done now...before I get banned.

[cdswans]

Stan . .

You and I both know that the "entry level" training to which you refer is accomplished in orientation.

I was in Sumner a few weeks ago and shagged two local loads, both on 4 axle trailers. I have no LCV certification. Swift would not have sent ME the loads . . just like hazmat, if I didn't have the appropriate certification. That requirement came along after I got off the dedicated fleet. Prior to that, I regularly pulled Rocky mountain doubles (LCV's) with no certification.

I posted the link to the video which, as I said "apparently shows . . " it was a 3 axle. Don't forget, the story also said an axle had broken. The picture could just as easily have been the left wheels of the forward tandem.

I have no dispute with your contention that this Driver, in all likelyhood, had not been sufficiently trained. The accident speaks for itself. At the same time, I cannot agree that the whereabouts of the trainer has any demonstrable influence. As I said before, one nanosecond of over applied brake and the game was up . . the trainer can't make the student take it back.

[Orangetxguy]

Originally Posted by cdswans

Stan . .

You and I both know that the "entry level" training to which you refer is accomplished in orientation.

I was in Sumner a few weeks ago and shagged two local loads, both on 4 axle trailers. I have no LCV certification. Swift would not have sent ME the loads . . just like hazmat, if I didn't have the appropriate certification. That requirement came along after I got off the dedicated fleet. Prior to that, I regularly pulled Rocky mountain doubles (LCV's) with no certification.

I posted the link to the video which, as I said "apparently shows . . " it was a 3 axle. Don't forget, the story also said an axle had broken. The picture could just as easily have been the left wheels of the forward tandem.

I have no dispute with your contention that this Driver, in all likelyhood, had not been sufficiently trained. The accident speaks for itself. At the same time, I cannot agree that the whereabouts of the trainer has any demonstrable influence. As I said before, one nanosecond of over applied brake and the game was up . . the trainer can't make the student take it back.

CD....A good trainer..would not have allowed a student driver to get into a situation which became deadly. That is why being in the seat makes the difference. You can not correct what you cannot see.

I would not have a lot to say if Mr. Fay were a 6 month driver. Or...a driver whom moved from another fleet. I would not expect much to be said if it had been me killed in such a manner...at this point in my career. I have a problem with a man taking a job that is "new" to him and getting killed three weeks into it. Had he been killed on the production line at Boeing, with 3 weeks experience, would I feel the same way? If I heard about it...yeah...I would. BUT...If he had died on the production line at Boeing...OR.... Todd Shipyards for that matter...all different types of orginizations would investigate (OSHA).

With Mr. Fay's death, only WSP and Swift :hellno::hellno::hellno: are investigating. Luckily the WSP is not easily swayed by Corporations.

That third set of wheels in the pic is a third axle...not a broken axle.

[TomB985]

Well, Part of the "LCV" thing states it has to have "two or more trailers", which this didn't...

But that's irrelivent. You're right about the biggest point here, which was that the "trainer" should have been doing his job, and it's a real shame the way this ended up. One has to wonder how many such "accidents" like this happen each year. Despite this, you STILL see companies, who shall remain nameless, who insist on running new drivers like teams...really makes me sick.

At the end of the day, all I can take from this is that I was very fortunate to have two really great trainers when I was in training. I just wish more new drivers had that opportunity...:roll:

I'm sorry if I seemed like I was trying to pick a fight with you. I just was looking to see if there was some "legal-ese" about this that i was unaware.

[Kevin0915]

I wonder if anybody even read the particulars of this accident. Or do you just LOOOOVE Swift bashing? I really could care less. But most of you, all you see is "stupid ignorant SWIFT driver crashes truck". You forget that a human life was lost. Guess what, in case you didnt know, we are all human. Have a little PROFESSIONAL respect. We were all that 'new' once in our careers.

The driver, yes he was in his 4th or 5th week of training, was at the wheel, and yes, the trainer was in the sleeper. Was it the trainer's fault for being in the sleeper that the truck wrecked? No. Could it have been prevented, had the trainer told the newbie driver, "...look, if you get sleepy, pull over..." or, "...drive at whatever speed you feel safe..". Sure. The trainer had over a year experience. The question is, how do you know how the trainer was running the truck? You all assume you 'know', you all want to make it look as bad as it possibly can, just because it was Swift. Fact is you don't know. The mentor might have been comfortable with the drivers ability to control. Had to have some level of comfort if he was in the sleeper. You think if you were in the trainer's position, and you DIDN'T feel 100% comfortable, that you'd trust your life and your truck to some 'stranger'?? come on. grow a pair.

Now i will agree, that there are some mentors, and not just with swift either, who want a student on the truck just to use him as a 2nd log book, or so s/he can get the truck running team as soon as possible. AND THAT IS BAD. Those 42-days are there to TRAIN, not to squeeze as much money out of the student as you can.

can anyone tell me, did the student-driver fall asleep or hydroplane?

I know the option is available, that after 6 months, I can become a trainer. But after 6 months, i would not feel comfortable teaching someone the job that i'm fairly new at myself. But what nobody here will admit, is that not only after 6 months of 1st seat driving, AND no preventable accidents, AND no log violations, your record has to be almost perfect to be offered a training position. Not to mention you have to take time out of your week to take a day long class on being a mentor, and what is expected of you.

Next time you see a 18 wheeler, dont first look for the name on the side of the truck, just remember you BOTH are doing the same job. You BOTH have the same basic license, you BOTH are 'contractors', and you BOTH are professional............act like it.