Narrative:

We were on right base for runway 35R at 4000 ft when the flight attendant called to report a baby turning blue and experiencing convulsions. We declared a medical emergency with TRACON and requested landing on runway 35L. The controller hemmed and hawed and told us there was too much traffic already for that runway. We repeated: we declared an emergency and wanted runway 35L for landing. He said we could have runway 35L and turn 260 degrees, perpendicular to final, to avoid traffic. We were trying to slow down and configure and set up for the new approach since we were in and out of scattered clouds. By the time we were visual we were overshooting final for runway 35L. We increased our turn bank to stay out of conflicting traffic on the west side. We landed on runway 35L and taxied to our gate to meet the paramedics. I do not like that we did not get better help from TRACON with our medical emergency. We could have received a lot better vectors to final and we did not need hesitation on the controller's part on giving us the runway we asked for. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter relayed his belief that the dfw approach controller seemed to be hesitant, and slow to react to the emergency declaration. The controller didn't appear to understand the developing events. The reporter stated that the controller appeared to be 'untrained' to handle this type of situation. The reporter indicated that he had learned a lot from the experience and expressed hope that the controller had gained experience as well.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MEDICAL EMER F100 LNDG DFW EXPERIENCED POOR ATC HANDLING.

Narrative: WE WERE ON R BASE FOR RWY 35R AT 4000 FT WHEN THE FA CALLED TO RPT A BABY TURNING BLUE AND EXPERIENCING CONVULSIONS. WE DECLARED A MEDICAL EMER WITH TRACON AND REQUESTED LNDG ON RWY 35L. THE CTLR HEMMED AND HAWED AND TOLD US THERE WAS TOO MUCH TFC ALREADY FOR THAT RWY. WE REPEATED: WE DECLARED AN EMER AND WANTED RWY 35L FOR LNDG. HE SAID WE COULD HAVE RWY 35L AND TURN 260 DEGS, PERPENDICULAR TO FINAL, TO AVOID TFC. WE WERE TRYING TO SLOW DOWN AND CONFIGURE AND SET UP FOR THE NEW APCH SINCE WE WERE IN AND OUT OF SCATTERED CLOUDS. BY THE TIME WE WERE VISUAL WE WERE OVERSHOOTING FINAL FOR RWY 35L. WE INCREASED OUR TURN BANK TO STAY OUT OF CONFLICTING TFC ON THE W SIDE. WE LANDED ON RWY 35L AND TAXIED TO OUR GATE TO MEET THE PARAMEDICS. I DO NOT LIKE THAT WE DID NOT GET BETTER HELP FROM TRACON WITH OUR MEDICAL EMER. WE COULD HAVE RECEIVED A LOT BETTER VECTORS TO FINAL AND WE DID NOT NEED HESITATION ON THE CTLR'S PART ON GIVING US THE RWY WE ASKED FOR. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR RELAYED HIS BELIEF THAT THE DFW APCH CTLR SEEMED TO BE HESITANT, AND SLOW TO REACT TO THE EMER DECLARATION. THE CTLR DIDN'T APPEAR TO UNDERSTAND THE DEVELOPING EVENTS. THE RPTR STATED THAT THE CTLR APPEARED TO BE 'UNTRAINED' TO HANDLE THIS TYPE OF SIT. THE RPTR INDICATED THAT HE HAD LEARNED A LOT FROM THE EXPERIENCE AND EXPRESSED HOPE THAT THE CTLR HAD GAINED EXPERIENCE AS WELL.

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.