Reporter claims approach control supervisor would not give approval for priority handling of a lifeg...

Attributes
ACN	385887
Time
Date	199711
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : slc
State Reference	UT
Altitude	msl bound lower : 41000 msl bound upper : 41000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Dusk
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zlc tracon : slc tower : npa
Operator	common carrier : air taxi
Make Model Name	Learjet 35
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 135
Flight Phase	descent other
Route In Use	arrival other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : radar
Qualification	controller : radar
Experience	controller non radar : 7 controller radar : 6
ASRS Report	385887
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	other personnel other
Qualification	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other other : unspecified
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other
Situations
ATC Facility	procedure or policy : unspecified

Narrative:

Recently, slc approach has required lifeguard flts destined slc to be routed through arrival gates. There is no arrival gate into slc approach from the east. Therefore, lifeguard flts from east of slc are delayed several mins. They require the aircraft to go through gates whether they have any traffic or not, and even when the airport is VFR. The example: the aircraft was an LR35 ict direct slc. When the aircraft was over che, I called flow control to appreq him direct slc with approach. A few mins later, flow calls back and said approach wants the aircraft over spane, for the full arrival. That would delay the aircraft approximately 14 mins. With a life potentially on the line, we left the aircraft direct slc, and called the controller at slc approach. The controller approved the aircraft direct and took the handoff. The airport was VFR and the lifeguard landed with no problems and did not inconvenience to any other aircraft. The supervisor at approach called and complained because he was the one that disapproved the first appreq, and he didn't like us double-coordinating. The entire issue was that we hurt his ego. I have talked to several lifeguard pilots, and they all consider themselves to be medical emergencys. Why is approach worried about their egos when we are dealing with peoples' lives? What are our priorities? Supposedly, the regional office and national FAA office are supporting approach on the lifeguard issue. The 7110.65 says to give lifeguards 'priority' handling, but approach is above that. Our first priority is safety of aircraft, second is expediting emergencys and lifeguards. Why aren't we helping save these lives?

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR CLAIMS APCH CTL SUPVR WOULD NOT GIVE APPROVAL FOR PRIORITY HANDLING OF A LIFEGUARD ACFT. THE ACFT SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED PRIORITY HANDLING AFTER THE APCH CTLR APPROVED A DIRECT RTE TO THE ARPT.

Narrative: RECENTLY, SLC APCH HAS REQUIRED LIFEGUARD FLTS DESTINED SLC TO BE ROUTED THROUGH ARR GATES. THERE IS NO ARR GATE INTO SLC APCH FROM THE E. THEREFORE, LIFEGUARD FLTS FROM E OF SLC ARE DELAYED SEVERAL MINS. THEY REQUIRE THE ACFT TO GO THROUGH GATES WHETHER THEY HAVE ANY TFC OR NOT, AND EVEN WHEN THE ARPT IS VFR. THE EXAMPLE: THE ACFT WAS AN LR35 ICT DIRECT SLC. WHEN THE ACFT WAS OVER CHE, I CALLED FLOW CTL TO APPREQ HIM DIRECT SLC WITH APCH. A FEW MINS LATER, FLOW CALLS BACK AND SAID APCH WANTS THE ACFT OVER SPANE, FOR THE FULL ARR. THAT WOULD DELAY THE ACFT APPROX 14 MINS. WITH A LIFE POTENTIALLY ON THE LINE, WE LEFT THE ACFT DIRECT SLC, AND CALLED THE CTLR AT SLC APCH. THE CTLR APPROVED THE ACFT DIRECT AND TOOK THE HDOF. THE ARPT WAS VFR AND THE LIFEGUARD LANDED WITH NO PROBS AND DID NOT INCONVENIENCE TO ANY OTHER ACFT. THE SUPVR AT APCH CALLED AND COMPLAINED BECAUSE HE WAS THE ONE THAT DISAPPROVED THE FIRST APPREQ, AND HE DIDN'T LIKE US DOUBLE-COORDINATING. THE ENTIRE ISSUE WAS THAT WE HURT HIS EGO. I HAVE TALKED TO SEVERAL LIFEGUARD PLTS, AND THEY ALL CONSIDER THEMSELVES TO BE MEDICAL EMERS. WHY IS APCH WORRIED ABOUT THEIR EGOS WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH PEOPLES' LIVES? WHAT ARE OUR PRIORITIES? SUPPOSEDLY, THE REGIONAL OFFICE AND NATIONAL FAA OFFICE ARE SUPPORTING APCH ON THE LIFEGUARD ISSUE. THE 7110.65 SAYS TO GIVE LIFEGUARDS 'PRIORITY' HANDLING, BUT APCH IS ABOVE THAT. OUR FIRST PRIORITY IS SAFETY OF ACFT, SECOND IS EXPEDITING EMERS AND LIFEGUARDS. WHY AREN'T WE HELPING SAVE THESE LIVES?

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.

Reporter claims approach control supervisor would not give approval for priority handling of a lifeguard aircraft. The aircraft subsequently received priority handling after the approach controller approved a direct route to the airport.