![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Well Warren all I can say to you is bid a QA job and try to correct what you
perceive as a problem. If you choose not to then you are part of the problem. The phrase you choose to exploit was meant to say in a nice way that if you required remedial training it would be handled inhouse. All the user would need to know was the situation was resolved. If you think that's bureaucratic there's nothing I could say to you. There are a lot of people that "care". Based on your we-they response I'd say you are part of the problem Al "Warren Jones" wrote in message nk.net... "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 |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Allan9" wrote in message .. . Well Warren all I can say to you is bid a QA job and try to correct what you perceive as a problem. Hello AL? We don't have "QA bids" in most places because the traffic-dodging cowards that work in QA are all "permanent" staff. At my facility, I am of neither the correct gender or racial profile to be a QA "specialist" anyway. Just wondering, as a C90 QA demigod for four years, how much ATC currency did you have to maintain? Down here, no one in our QA office has worked air traffic in over fourteen years. If you choose not to then you are part of the problem. What problem? The "problem" that Potomac wouldn't work this aircraft contrary to SOP and LOA on a direct routing through busy terminal airspace? Or am I part of the overall "problem" that caused you to selflessly take a QA/staff/management bid? Very altruistic of you. I'm sure that like all the other strap hangers and feather merchants, you went ATC staff because you are one of the "good" people who "care", and not at all because you sucked as a controller and were facing 25 years in a career you couldn't handle. The phrase you choose to exploit was meant to say in a nice way that if you required remedial training it would be handled inhouse. Which phrase, said in a "nice" way, am I exploiting? You're the guy giving lip service to the user about the "situation being resolved." The simple truth is that in this instance of the aircraft being piloted by Mike, which started this thread, there is no QA issue. Not one. The ZDC controller failed to get Potomac Tracon to buy off on a route through busy terminal airspace. That's every day ATC. It a tactical issue. Michelle suggested to Mike that he call QA at Potomac because Potomac was somehow at fault for not accepting the route, aka "refusing" to handle the flight.. I pointed out to her what a waste of time this would be in this situation, to which she responded that her calls had resulted in discipline of a "rude" and just "plain wrong" controller. You and I both know that what Michelle posts is bunk. Her calls probably didn't make it out of the Potomac QA office. Remember the ADIZ? Potomac QA is likely buried in paperwork for incidents, OE's and OD's stemming from the mess around DC. I seriously doubt that they have any time at all to track down "rude" controllers and give them days off for bad (but safe and procedural) service. And by the way, if I required "remedial" training, where else would it be handled besides "inhouse"? Yall send your 70 Chicago controllers somewhere for remedial? C90 too small to self-train, or what? All the user would need to know was the situation was resolved. If you think that's bureaucratic there's nothing I could say to you. Indeed. There are a lot of people that "care". Based on your we-they response I'd say you are part of the problem Al What problem? Chip, ZTL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Flap handle activated Climb/Cruise switching | Andy Smielkiewicz | Soaring | 5 | March 14th 05 04:54 AM |
You Want Control? You Can't Handle Control! -- Was 140 dead | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | March 2nd 04 08:48 PM |
G103 Acro airbrake handle | Andy Durbin | Soaring | 12 | January 18th 04 11:51 PM |
How do you handle your EFB in the cockpit? | greg | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | November 17th 03 03:47 AM |
Need door handle for 1959 Cessna 175 | Paul Millner | Owning | 0 | July 4th 03 07:36 PM |