Narrative:

The above noted aircraft was en route to hou. Having filed a lifeguard call sign he was requesting lifeguard priority. In accordance with the FAA 7110.65 paragraph 2-1-4; the aircraft was cleared direct to hou in order to expedite his arrival. The houston ARTCC controller advised that the aircraft must be reclred via the TEXXN3 arrival and sequenced with the other hou arrs. This was not for safety related issues or a traffic issue; but merely because the air traffic manager at houston ARTCC had put out a blanket directive that states no lifeguard aircraft will be allowed to fly direct to the destination airport in the houston terminal area unless he declares an emergency. In 25 yrs of controling airplanes; I have never heard of anything so ridiculous. This airplane was turned out and delayed to be sequenced behind other aircraft because of one manager's policy. Who knows what kind of harm; damage; or worse yet; even a death; could occur because this aircraft was late. A pilot should not be forced to declare an emergency to obtain the expeditious handling that we are required and more than willing to provide. Every controller I know works extremely hard to expedite lifeguard aircraft. There are many times when it would be easier to turn out the lifeguard and let everyone else fly along; but we do not do that. There is a reason that a lifeguard priority is requested and I simply think; 'how would I want that aircraft handled if a member of my family were on it or waiting for a vital organ to be delivered?' I really think that this policy should be looked into before an unnecessary delay causes undue harm to a patient. This matter was also brought to the attention of the manager of airspace and procedures at my facility; ft worth ARTCC. Mr Y stated that clearing the aircraft direct to his destination was not a good idea and should be avoided.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZFW CTLR VOICED CONCERN REGARDING MGMNT'S DECISIONS ON THE HANDLING OF LIFEGUARD ACFT ROUTINGS.

Narrative: THE ABOVE NOTED ACFT WAS ENRTE TO HOU. HAVING FILED A LIFEGUARD CALL SIGN HE WAS REQUESTING LIFEGUARD PRIORITY. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FAA 7110.65 PARAGRAPH 2-1-4; THE ACFT WAS CLRED DIRECT TO HOU IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE HIS ARR. THE HOUSTON ARTCC CTLR ADVISED THAT THE ACFT MUST BE RECLRED VIA THE TEXXN3 ARR AND SEQUENCED WITH THE OTHER HOU ARRS. THIS WAS NOT FOR SAFETY RELATED ISSUES OR A TFC ISSUE; BUT MERELY BECAUSE THE AIR TFC MGR AT HOUSTON ARTCC HAD PUT OUT A BLANKET DIRECTIVE THAT STATES NO LIFEGUARD ACFT WILL BE ALLOWED TO FLY DIRECT TO THE DEST ARPT IN THE HOUSTON TERMINAL AREA UNLESS HE DECLARES AN EMER. IN 25 YRS OF CTLING AIRPLANES; I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF ANYTHING SO RIDICULOUS. THIS AIRPLANE WAS TURNED OUT AND DELAYED TO BE SEQUENCED BEHIND OTHER ACFT BECAUSE OF ONE MGR'S POLICY. WHO KNOWS WHAT KIND OF HARM; DAMAGE; OR WORSE YET; EVEN A DEATH; COULD OCCUR BECAUSE THIS ACFT WAS LATE. A PLT SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO DECLARE AN EMER TO OBTAIN THE EXPEDITIOUS HANDLING THAT WE ARE REQUIRED AND MORE THAN WILLING TO PROVIDE. EVERY CTLR I KNOW WORKS EXTREMELY HARD TO EXPEDITE LIFEGUARD ACFT. THERE ARE MANY TIMES WHEN IT WOULD BE EASIER TO TURN OUT THE LIFEGUARD AND LET EVERYONE ELSE FLY ALONG; BUT WE DO NOT DO THAT. THERE IS A REASON THAT A LIFEGUARD PRIORITY IS REQUESTED AND I SIMPLY THINK; 'HOW WOULD I WANT THAT ACFT HANDLED IF A MEMBER OF MY FAMILY WERE ON IT OR WAITING FOR A VITAL ORGAN TO BE DELIVERED?' I REALLY THINK THAT THIS POLICY SHOULD BE LOOKED INTO BEFORE AN UNNECESSARY DELAY CAUSES UNDUE HARM TO A PATIENT. THIS MATTER WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE ATTN OF THE MGR OF AIRSPACE AND PROCS AT MY FACILITY; FT WORTH ARTCC. MR Y STATED THAT CLRING THE ACFT DIRECT TO HIS DEST WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA AND SHOULD BE AVOIDED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.