Originally Posted by
ATC Watcher
Before using words like "stupid," look at which plan was filed with AIS first. The first one in sequence was a VFR one. and the one receiving it at the at ARO is not ATC . When a controller sees the plan ( clearance delivery,, i.e. Ground) he asks ( not say ) what the pilot really wants to do , if the pilot replies "Affirm" that is what will the tower controller will get on his departure strip. And that is what he gave the crew. So from the ATC side , yes they helped to make it work according the requests made.
Unusual? , maybe but remember Boeing field is full of test flights ,. such lap and land flights are not that unusual.
With hindsight , yes , could definitively have done better on both sides, but only with hindsight. Give everyone a break , nobody got hurt and lessons were surely learned. From both sides. .
While I see your point that ATC believing a VFR circuit was what the crew wanted is defensible, I have to agree that using the phrase "lap and land" is stupid. Not everyone speaks fluent hillbilly. I believe that's the intent behind standardized comms, hmm? That's assuming of course that communication is considered a factor in this incident...
