Re runway analysis: It would indeed be interesting to know if the the potential can of worms that is Departing VFR expecting an IFR clearance issued airborne was opened unnecessarily, especially in light of the fact that VFR conditions with the option of remaining in the airport's airspace and flying a EO traffic pattern prevailed. Are there close-in obstacles that are impossible for a heavy Global to clear or visually maneuver around? Again, for T/O they were a VFR aircraft operating in VMC conditions. I know what the FAA says for both private vs commercial ops, but I don't know what Malta-based Vistajet Ops Specs' requirements are as far as runway analysis and adherence to EO procedures under those VMC/VFR clearance conditions are.
Regardless, the episode highlights that accepting/requesting a VFR departure planning the receipt of an IFR clearance once airborne should raise a red flag for everyone, but for for non-US operators in particular (even though with many small airports it routinely occurs daily when conditions are right). A VFR departure means the crew is responsible for remaining in VMC conditions/cloud separation and eyes-outside traffic avoidance. Away from the local tower controller, ATC's primary responsibility is to separate (already) IFR- (already) IFR traffic any VFR traffic they accept, and if they're saturated a VFR aircraft may experience a significant delay being accepted or acquiring their IFR clearance, in which case one must still maintain VFR. Tooling around VFR at low altitude at 200 kts in complicated airspace with multiple, busy airports and terrain considerations is no place to be without a solid Plan B.
Plan B considerations raises the question if this crew had VFR charts showing airspace associated with proximate airports available to them for reference had they experienced a delay waiting for their clearance after exiting the traffic pattern of their departure airport. Would they have known what to do/where they could safely go avoiding other airspace if during that delay they saw they couldn't maintain VMC conditions or terrain at their altitude became a factor? What if they had experienced lost comm? Familiarity with the surrounding airspace and terrain is essential to having a Plan B that can simultaneously steer clear of other airspace and keep eyes-outside to visually acquire and avoid other traffic, flying into IMC conditions, or taking a dirt nap. Not merely airspace violations, there are accidents involving VFR departing aircraft flying into hillsides after failing to maintain VMC conditions or to avoid other aircraft while experiencing a delay acquiring an expected IFR clearance (example: Beechjet, Rome Georgia).
Unfortunately for this crew it seems clear they didn't consider that accepting a VFR departure could include maneuvering instructions, in this case for proximate airspace and traffic, and even a heavy global can maneuver at a smaller radius of turn and fly a normal traffic pattern if one doesn't clean up once airborne. The miscommunication about intention to land is irrelevant in that respect; the tower controller could have asked them (or they may have needed) to maneuver for any number of reasons. Cleaning-up/speeding-up also reduces the time one has to visually acquire other traffic or obstacles which by regulation in VMC is a pilot's responsibility to see and avoid. There's nothing good about going fast while VFR down in Indian Country around cramped airspace. It's almost never a bad idea to take it slow until what's expected to happen actually happens as it lessens the chance of painting oneself into a corner wether it's time and space or performance regime. If the crew's focus was on climb gradient not runway length they may have used a lower T/O flap/slat setting more conducive to that consideration rather than remaining and maneuvering at a lower speed once airborne.
Rule of thumb for non-US operators who are faced with this "depart VFR to receive an IFR clearance" decision who might assume it will be treated in a similar manner as an IFR just because one is talking to a local tower controller should first ask themselves what they would do in the event of lost comm after takeoff before accepting. If one doesn't know exactly what they'd do and where they'd go with no comms without putting their own or other aircraft in other airspace at risk while maintaining VMC they shouldn't until they sort out how they would. Accepting a VFR departure (with no VFR flight plan) puts this responsibility onto the pilot because there's no onwards IFR clearance.
At the very least, at an airport like this one should know how to remain in and be able to maneuver around an airport's traffic pattern safely without running into anyone else's airspace.
Last edited by PukinDog; 15th Jul 2019 at 00:36.