"Refusing to Handle You"

"Michelle P" wrote in message
link.net...
You would be mistaken. The QC dept. is not floor supervisors. The have to
look at it. I have made several calls to Potomac TRACON QC and I have seen
improvements in their services. I do the same for Leesburg FSS and I have
seen changes there as well. One controller got a few days off for being
rude and just plain wrong.
Michelle



If it makes you feel good, go ahead and call. You are wasting your time. I
assure you that a call to the QA office of a mac-daddy approach control like
Potomac, Southern Cal, Chicago, New York, Atlanta etc, whining about the
facility's refusal to work you en route through busy terminal airspace,
wouldn't make it out of the QA office. They'd pay you lip service, and then
they'd probably laugh about your temerity/stupidity after they hung up the
receiver. Little airplanes IFR en route don't have the magical power to fly
willy nilly through busy Tracons unless the pilot knows the magic word when
he is refused initial clearance. Also, if he uses the magic word, he'd
better be prepared to formally defend its use.

I can imagine that the controllers and flight service specialists in
Maryland and the Old Dominion tremble when they hear your voice on the
radio.

Chip, ZTL

Warren
I take exception to your statement.
The situation would have been researched and the user would have had the
situation explained to them right or wrong. Maybe that's what they would do
in your facility.
Al

"Warren Jones" wrote in message
link.net...

"Michelle P" wrote in message
link.net...
You would be mistaken. The QC dept. is not floor supervisors. The have to
look at it. I have made several calls to Potomac TRACON QC and I have
seen improvements in their services. I do the same for Leesburg FSS and I
have seen changes there as well. One controller got a few days off for
being rude and just plain wrong.
Michelle



If it makes you feel good, go ahead and call. You are wasting your time.
I assure you that a call to the QA office of a mac-daddy approach control
like Potomac, Southern Cal, Chicago, New York, Atlanta etc, whining about
the facility's refusal to work you en route through busy terminal
airspace, wouldn't make it out of the QA office. They'd pay you lip
service, and then they'd probably laugh about your temerity/stupidity
after they hung up the receiver. Little airplanes IFR en route don't have
the magical power to fly willy nilly through busy Tracons unless the pilot
knows the magic word when he is refused initial clearance. Also, if he
uses the magic word, he'd better be prepared to formally defend its use.

I can imagine that the controllers and flight service specialists in
Maryland and the Old Dominion tremble when they hear your voice on the
radio.

Chip, ZTL

"Allan9" wrote in message
. ..
Warren
I take exception to your statement.
The situation would have been researched and the user would have had the
situation explained to them right or wrong. Maybe that's what they would
do in your facility.
Al

Except away. What ATC facility QA department are you affiliated with?
Quality Assurance at a busy terminal or en route facility is largely
concerned with the technicalities of aircraft separation, air space
separation and incidents/accidents. For a non-incident/accident, all you
are actually going to get is lip service, believe it or not.

Chip, ZTL

Four years AMQA ORD/C90
Al

"Warren Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Allan9" wrote in message
. ..
Warren
I take exception to your statement.
The situation would have been researched and the user would have had the
situation explained to them right or wrong. Maybe that's what they would
do in your facility.
Al

Except away. What ATC facility QA department are you affiliated with?
Quality Assurance at a busy terminal or en route facility is largely
concerned with the technicalities of aircraft separation, air space
separation and incidents/accidents. For a non-incident/accident, all you
are actually going to get is lip service, believe it or not.

Chip, ZTL

"Allan9" wrote in message
...
Four years AMQA ORD/C90
Al

"Warren Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Allan9" wrote in message
. ..
Warren
I take exception to your statement.
The situation would have been researched and the user would have had the
situation explained to them right or wrong. Maybe that's what they
would do in your facility.
Al

Except away. What ATC facility QA department are you affiliated with?
Quality Assurance at a busy terminal or en route facility is largely
concerned with the technicalities of aircraft separation, air space
separation and incidents/accidents. For a non-incident/accident, all you
are actually going to get is lip service, believe it or not.


And in the situation of Potomac Tracon controller refusing the routing on
this aircraft, as AMQA at Potomac you would have done what internally? You
said "the user would have had the situation explained to them, rightly or
wrong". That's lip service. That's exactly what I would expect QA to do at
my facility. Soothe the pilot with "we're looking into this." But as far
as somehow finding a QA issue in the case cited, refusing the route isn't a
QA issue. It's a tactical issue and the controller is the tactician.

Chip, ZTL

Maybe that's the manner your QA operates. We did tell the user we would
investigate and would ask them if they wanted us to get back to them with
what we found. If they did we did. Internal people actions were handled in
house. All the user needed to know was the situation was resolved.
Al

"Warren Jones" wrote in message
k.net...

"Allan9" wrote in message
...
Four years AMQA ORD/C90
Al

"Warren Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Allan9" wrote in message
. ..
Warren
I take exception to your statement.
The situation would have been researched and the user would have had
the situation explained to them right or wrong. Maybe that's what they
would do in your facility.
Al

Except away. What ATC facility QA department are you affiliated with?
Quality Assurance at a busy terminal or en route facility is largely
concerned with the technicalities of aircraft separation, air space
separation and incidents/accidents. For a non-incident/accident, all
you are actually going to get is lip service, believe it or not.


And in the situation of Potomac Tracon controller refusing the routing on
this aircraft, as AMQA at Potomac you would have done what internally?
You said "the user would have had the situation explained to them, rightly
or wrong". That's lip service. That's exactly what I would expect QA to
do at my facility. Soothe the pilot with "we're looking into this." But
as far as somehow finding a QA issue in the case cited, refusing the route
isn't a QA issue. It's a tactical issue and the controller is the
tactician.

Chip, ZTL

"Allan9" wrote in message
. ..
Maybe that's the manner your QA operates. We did tell the user we would
investigate and would ask them if they wanted us to get back to them with
what we found. If they did we did. Internal people actions were handled
in house. All the user needed to know was the situation was resolved.
Al


"All the user needed to know was the situation was resolved."

That's a typical FAA bureaucratic QA management answer. You gave the user
lip service. Sounds like your QA is the same as everyone else's.

Chip, ZTL