Narrative:

The problem is that we are being told to send lifeguard aircraft, mainly jets, into stl and mci via the stars instead of direct to their destination airport, which would constitute priority handling, which is required by the 7110.65. The 7110.65 states that priority handling shall be given to all air carrier/air taxi flts with a lifeguard call sign, without exception. It does not state that we shall or that we have a right to ask the pilot of a lifeguard flight if he really needs priority. The book says that usage of the lifeguard call sign is sufficient. For yrs upon end, priority handling has meant that an aircraft received clearance direct to his destination (past practice!). Now, all of a sudden, I am supposed to question a pilot as to his/her lifeguard status? I think not! Where am I given authority/authorized to usurp the pilot of his priority as a lifeguard, or even question his lifeguard status? As an ATC controller, and not a lifeguard policeman, my job is to provide a safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of aircraft as per the 7110.65, not to blatantly violate it. Any attorney would have a field day in court with any controller who, due to the whim of a bureaucrat, was forced to delay a lifeguard by putting him on a STAR, resulting in death of a human being or crippling of a human being. I do not appreciate being put in such a position, and recommend that, effective immediately, this order be rescinded and that an addition to the 7110.65 be made, stating that lifeguard priority means direct destination, no questions asked. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated he was unaware of who or what facility initiated the new procedure other than it came out of the regional office. Reporter indicated that he heard it had had been the approach control facility as some people felt air carrier X was abusing the priority handling procedure. It was alleged to the reporter that this was as a result of what seemed an inordinate amount of lifeguard flts. Reporter indicated that he learned that air carrier X has a contract with a company to carry body parts, etc, which requires use of the lifeguard call sign for priority handling.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CTLR RPTS NEW ATC DIRECTIVE TO SEND LIFEGUARD FLTS INTO STL AND MCI ARPTS VIA THE STARS RATHER THAN DIRECT DEST ARPT.

Narrative: THE PROB IS THAT WE ARE BEING TOLD TO SEND LIFEGUARD ACFT, MAINLY JETS, INTO STL AND MCI VIA THE STARS INSTEAD OF DIRECT TO THEIR DEST ARPT, WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE PRIORITY HANDLING, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE 7110.65. THE 7110.65 STATES THAT PRIORITY HANDLING SHALL BE GIVEN TO ALL ACR/AIR TAXI FLTS WITH A LIFEGUARD CALL SIGN, WITHOUT EXCEPTION. IT DOES NOT STATE THAT WE SHALL OR THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO ASK THE PLT OF A LIFEGUARD FLT IF HE REALLY NEEDS PRIORITY. THE BOOK SAYS THAT USAGE OF THE LIFEGUARD CALL SIGN IS SUFFICIENT. FOR YRS UPON END, PRIORITY HANDLING HAS MEANT THAT AN ACFT RECEIVED CLRNC DIRECT TO HIS DEST (PAST PRACTICE!). NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN, I AM SUPPOSED TO QUESTION A PLT AS TO HIS/HER LIFEGUARD STATUS? I THINK NOT! WHERE AM I GIVEN AUTH TO USURP THE PLT OF HIS PRIORITY AS A LIFEGUARD, OR EVEN QUESTION HIS LIFEGUARD STATUS? AS AN ATC CTLR, AND NOT A LIFEGUARD POLICEMAN, MY JOB IS TO PROVIDE A SAFE, ORDERLY, AND EXPEDITIOUS FLOW OF ACFT AS PER THE 7110.65, NOT TO BLATANTLY VIOLATE IT. ANY ATTORNEY WOULD HAVE A FIELD DAY IN COURT WITH ANY CTLR WHO, DUE TO THE WHIM OF A BUREAUCRAT, WAS FORCED TO DELAY A LIFEGUARD BY PUTTING HIM ON A STAR, RESULTING IN DEATH OF A HUMAN BEING OR CRIPPLING OF A HUMAN BEING. I DO NOT APPRECIATE BEING PUT IN SUCH A POS, AND RECOMMEND THAT, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THIS ORDER BE RESCINDED AND THAT AN ADDITION TO THE 7110.65 BE MADE, STATING THAT LIFEGUARD PRIORITY MEANS DIRECT DEST, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED HE WAS UNAWARE OF WHO OR WHAT FACILITY INITIATED THE NEW PROC OTHER THAN IT CAME OUT OF THE REGIONAL OFFICE. RPTR INDICATED THAT HE HEARD IT HAD HAD BEEN THE APCH CTL FACILITY AS SOME PEOPLE FELT ACR X WAS ABUSING THE PRIORITY HANDLING PROC. IT WAS ALLEGED TO THE RPTR THAT THIS WAS AS A RESULT OF WHAT SEEMED AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF LIFEGUARD FLTS. RPTR INDICATED THAT HE LEARNED THAT ACR X HAS A CONTRACT WITH A COMPANY TO CARRY BODY PARTS, ETC, WHICH REQUIRES USE OF THE LIFEGUARD CALL SIGN FOR PRIORITY HANDLING.

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.