Narrative:

Air carrier X, an MD80, FL330 en route from pdx to dfw advised he had a medical emergency (a passenger with a known history of heart problems was experiencing a heart attack). Air carrier X requested to divert and land at slc. I issued him a right turn direct slc and a descent to 17000 ft. I then told my supervisor what was happening and that the aircraft requested medical assistance be standing by at slc. My supervisor then told tmu (flow control) of the situation. Flow called slc approach and was told by approach control to 'send the aircraft over ffu.' ffu VORTAC is the normal point on the STAR by which aircraft enter the slc valley, but in this case it would mean a detour of almost 75 mi for air carrier X. While flow was discussing things I called the approach sector directly and coordinated direct slc descending to 17000 ft. The controller agreed, then told me to turn air carrier X to heading 230 degrees (from a 270 degree direct slc). He said it was for terrain so he would be able to get the aircraft down. Now the rest of the story: slc approach routinely accepts aircraft direct slc descending to 17000 ft during slow periods. The high terrain is at its peak 20 mi east of slc airport. In the last yr slc approach has repeatedly refused lifeguard flts direct slc. Even flts that are extremely critical instead of routing them through arrival gates mi away, resulting in unwarranted delays. As I said the high terrain is not a factor. This is an attitude adopted by approach just to satisfy someone's ego, and it will result in an unnecessary and unwanted death. For me to route air carrier X over ffu would have required at least 2 turns of 90 degrees or more to line up on final in addition to the mileage delay already mentioned. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated that the problem still exists at slc. They generally will not allow emergency aircraft to proceed direct to the airport unless it is non busy time periods. Reporter said that they have no problem getting direct airport for these flts during the slow hours, but difficult to do at other times. He also speculated that the problem might be with the traffic management flow controller refusing direct routings due to disruption of arrival traffic. Reporter stated that his facility supervisory personnel are aware of this problem.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CTR CTLR WORKING AN MD80 WITH A PAX EMER THAT HAS REQUESTED A DIVERT TO SLC IS GIVEN A ROUTING THAT IS 75 MI FURTHER AWAY THAN A DIRECT COURSE. THE CTLR THEN COORDINATED DIRECTLY WITH A CTLR AT SLC AND RECEIVED AN EXPEDITIOUS ROUTING.

Narrative: ACR X, AN MD80, FL330 ENRTE FROM PDX TO DFW ADVISED HE HAD A MEDICAL EMER (A PAX WITH A KNOWN HISTORY OF HEART PROBS WAS EXPERIENCING A HEART ATTACK). ACR X REQUESTED TO DIVERT AND LAND AT SLC. I ISSUED HIM A R TURN DIRECT SLC AND A DSCNT TO 17000 FT. I THEN TOLD MY SUPVR WHAT WAS HAPPENING AND THAT THE ACFT REQUESTED MEDICAL ASSISTANCE BE STANDING BY AT SLC. MY SUPVR THEN TOLD TMU (FLOW CTL) OF THE SIT. FLOW CALLED SLC APCH AND WAS TOLD BY APCH CTL TO 'SEND THE ACFT OVER FFU.' FFU VORTAC IS THE NORMAL POINT ON THE STAR BY WHICH ACFT ENTER THE SLC VALLEY, BUT IN THIS CASE IT WOULD MEAN A DETOUR OF ALMOST 75 MI FOR ACR X. WHILE FLOW WAS DISCUSSING THINGS I CALLED THE APCH SECTOR DIRECTLY AND COORDINATED DIRECT SLC DSNDING TO 17000 FT. THE CTLR AGREED, THEN TOLD ME TO TURN ACR X TO HDG 230 DEGS (FROM A 270 DEG DIRECT SLC). HE SAID IT WAS FOR TERRAIN SO HE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET THE ACFT DOWN. NOW THE REST OF THE STORY: SLC APCH ROUTINELY ACCEPTS ACFT DIRECT SLC DSNDING TO 17000 FT DURING SLOW PERIODS. THE HIGH TERRAIN IS AT ITS PEAK 20 MI E OF SLC ARPT. IN THE LAST YR SLC APCH HAS REPEATEDLY REFUSED LIFEGUARD FLTS DIRECT SLC. EVEN FLTS THAT ARE EXTREMELY CRITICAL INSTEAD OF ROUTING THEM THROUGH ARR GATES MI AWAY, RESULTING IN UNWARRANTED DELAYS. AS I SAID THE HIGH TERRAIN IS NOT A FACTOR. THIS IS AN ATTITUDE ADOPTED BY APCH JUST TO SATISFY SOMEONE'S EGO, AND IT WILL RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY AND UNWANTED DEATH. FOR ME TO RTE ACR X OVER FFU WOULD HAVE REQUIRED AT LEAST 2 TURNS OF 90 DEGS OR MORE TO LINE UP ON FINAL IN ADDITION TO THE MILEAGE DELAY ALREADY MENTIONED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THAT THE PROB STILL EXISTS AT SLC. THEY GENERALLY WILL NOT ALLOW EMER ACFT TO PROCEED DIRECT TO THE ARPT UNLESS IT IS NON BUSY TIME PERIODS. RPTR SAID THAT THEY HAVE NO PROB GETTING DIRECT ARPT FOR THESE FLTS DURING THE SLOW HRS, BUT DIFFICULT TO DO AT OTHER TIMES. HE ALSO SPECULATED THAT THE PROB MIGHT BE WITH THE TFC MGMNT FLOW CTLR REFUSING DIRECT ROUTINGS DUE TO DISRUPTION OF ARR TFC. RPTR STATED THAT HIS FACILITY SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL ARE AWARE OF THIS PROB.

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.