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