PDA

View Full Version : VistaJet (VJT868) Causing Chaos in SEA!


787PIC
9th Jul 2019, 22:51
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_2YsabrDEug&feature=youtu.be

These dangerous morons should never be allowed within 50’ of an aircraft!

Meester proach
9th Jul 2019, 23:23
That’s embarrassing !
The FAA will surely have something to say

Chris2303
9th Jul 2019, 23:31
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_2YsabrDEug&feature=youtu.be

These dangerous morons should never be allowed within 50’ of an aircraft!

Frequency change 119.2 (thank god) says the controller

787PIC
9th Jul 2019, 23:31
I sure hope so!

Shot Nancy
9th Jul 2019, 23:45
So he launches for the circuit VFR, creates a traffic issue, then tries to change details for an intercontinental flight to Athens?
"Gutsy move Mav."

421dog
9th Jul 2019, 23:56
I call BS until I hear the initial CD call.

Way too many times I’ve been foisted off at a peripheral field when the local weather + 1-2 hrs flight was VFR and I had places to go but the overall picture was poor. In a pressurized piston or King Air, no biggie. Suspect with the interposed Atlantic Ocean, much the same.

Chap sounded like he was trying to make everyones lives easier.

srjumbo747
10th Jul 2019, 00:23
Every third word the English pilot says is errr. Dutchman next to him (best pilots in the world) and I wonder who’s in charge.

Joe le Taxi
10th Jul 2019, 00:58
"You're cleared to LGAV VFR outside controlled airspace. Goodbye, good luck"! ... is what he should have said!

AN2 Driver
10th Jul 2019, 08:50
https://de.flightaware.com/live/flight/VJT868/history/20190613/1741Z/KBFI/LGAV

Looks like at least two airprox events during this chaos.

Nothing yet in NTSB's sites or who is in charge of airprox investigations in the US? FAA only?

ATC Watcher
10th Jul 2019, 10:27
I've done this a few times, with good reason. Sometimes ATC get a bit of a power trip and think they own aviation and everything in it, so when I sense they are taking advantage and issuing punitive delays, well they ought to be taught a lesson.
Great post . You sure understand the system. Looking forward to get you on the frequency one day:E

Intrance
10th Jul 2019, 11:58
I don't have the time to listen to the ground/clearance delivery feeds in the hour or so before departure myself, but as one user commented on the Youtube video:

The facts are available by listening to the feed from Ground. An IFR clearance to Athens was given and flight plan filed. Vistajet 868 asked to depart via the opposite runway due to the aircraft being too heavy for the active runway (obstacles on departure flight path). Ground agreed this could be done only as a VFR departure. When transferred to the Tower frequency the ground controlled did not pass on the details to them correctly. Consequently, the Tower thought they intended to reland. The aircraft was then asked to manoeuvre in an area too small for it due to it’s heavy weight and minimum speed.

Sounds plausible.

Meester proach
10th Jul 2019, 12:36
I don't have the time to listen to the ground/clearance delivery feeds in the hour or so before departure myself, but as one user commented on the Youtube video:



Sounds plausible.


puts a slightly different spin on it, but I’d still be seeking more clarification before getting Airborn , I’d be defcon 4 when they say “ make it a four Mile right base “,
I find generally even experienced pilots are backwards in coming forwards, when they need to be a little more assertive to work out what’s going to happen .

Officer Kite
10th Jul 2019, 12:44
puts a slightly different spin on it, but I’d still be seeking more clarification before getting Airborn , I’d be defcon 4 when they say “ make it a four Mile right base “,
I find generally even experienced pilots are backwards in coming forwards, when they need to be a little more assertive to work out what’s going to happen .



Perhaps they were, the issue especially in the US is that controllers seem to be quite aggressive. Perhaps he felt he'd go along with what the controller was saying for the time being, cos no doubt if he'd turned around and said at that point that he needs no right base, the controller would either have dropped all his marbles and gone bezerk, or simple said 'i know and don't need you to remind me!'. You never quite know if you are on the same wavelength and questions appear to be unwelcome. This behavior is displayed in many videos of US ATC

GlenQuagmire
10th Jul 2019, 13:02
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_2YsabrDEug&feature=youtu.be

These dangerous morons should never be allowed within 50’ of an aircraft!

really? And you’re a 787 PIC? You have hung, drawn and quartered the crew without having a clue what was going on. They got airborne on a VFR plan having discussed their IFR plan on the ground and expected to pick that up airborne. The hesitant tone of the radio calls should have given the controller a massive clue that it was not clear to the crew that the instructions ATC were giving them didn’t make sense. This is much more a problem associated with coordination of ground and tower than something the pilots did. They could have been a bit more assertive (and it sounds like the captain took over comms briefly to try to sort it out) but I think that slaughtering the crew here is really poor. The Global is not a light twin once you have fuelled it with 45,000lbs of fuel and needs a bit of respect if you are slow.

Meester proach
10th Jul 2019, 13:15
Perhaps they were, the issue especially in the US is that controllers seem to be quite aggressive. Perhaps he felt he'd go along with what the controller was saying for the time being, cos no doubt if he'd turned around and said at that point that he needs no right base, the controller would either have dropped all his marbles and gone bezerk, or simple said 'i know and don't need you to remind me!'. You never quite know if you are on the same wavelength and questions appear to be unwelcome. This behavior is displayed in many videos of US ATC


thats the thing - these ATC weren’t aggressive compared with some quarters of the US. You ever listened to JFK.” Turn your strobes off !” They once shouted at me in NY. I’d just about got off the runway. The responsive was about as aggressive as I can be on that medium.

You have to be equally assertive. I’ve been told off by US ATC for various things I did t do, and I’ll argue the point. If it gets really arsey, I’ll ask for a supervisor .

Intrance
10th Jul 2019, 13:16
puts a slightly different spin on it, but I’d still be seeking more clarification before getting Airborn , I’d be defcon 4 when they say “ make it a four Mile right base “,
I find generally even experienced pilots are backwards in coming forwards, when they need to be a little more assertive to work out what’s going to happen .Yeah, I cross posted the Youtube comment to the thread in Bizjets subforum as well and added that I felt the Vista crew might not have been aware completely what consequences the VFR departure would have for them. I skipped through a ground freq. feed and did clearly hear Vista ask for 32L due performance but don't think I went back far enough to to hear the actual clearance discussion.

Seems like all parties involved could have done better here, as is usually the case.

Salto
10th Jul 2019, 13:18
This thread is a wonderful example of CRM in so many different ways. Thank you!

It should be saved and used for training and teaching…

West Coast
10th Jul 2019, 13:21
Perhaps they were, the issue especially in the US is that controllers seem to be quite aggressive. Perhaps he felt he'd go along with what the controller was saying for the time being, cos no doubt if he'd turned around and said at that point that he needs no right base, the controller would either have dropped all his marbles and gone bezerk, or simple said 'i know and don't need you to remind me!'. You never quite know if you are on the same wavelength and questions appear to be unwelcome. This behavior is displayed in many videos of US ATC

Heard of Google intelligentsia, now I guess there’s a Youtube equivalent.

172_driver
10th Jul 2019, 13:30
The IFR pick-up aside, what we do know is they ballsed up the VFR pattern. Too close and too fast.

contour flyer
10th Jul 2019, 13:43
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kbfi/KBFI-Del-Jun-13-2019-1800Z.mp3

The VFR departure request from 32L followed by an IFR pickup is agreed by the ground controller at 12:10 onwards. To join the NRVNA1 Sid - meaning a right pattern downwind would be expected. The base turn, not expected unless being vectored North to join the transition after the Sid directly ALPSE (almost due North).

Renton and Seattle Tacoma Airspace mean that is is not possible to fly a standard square pattern at KBFI without entering their airspace. Very heavy swept wing jets don’t fly tight circuits.

Out Of Trim
10th Jul 2019, 13:57
The IFR pick-up aside, what we do know is they balsed up the VFR pattern. Too close and too fast.

Except they didn't want to stay in the pattern! What they intended was an IFR departure on Rwy 32L due performance restrictions. This was not possible as Rwy 14 was in use. So had to go VFR initially. I can't understand why the Tower controller did not know the full details of departure destination!

It seems that the Ground controller did not coordinate properly with the Tower controller. So confusion all round. :(

contour flyer
10th Jul 2019, 14:16
Also if the tower did not have their flight details from the ground controller, why allow the aircraft to depart.

172_driver
10th Jul 2019, 14:19
Except they didn't want to stay in the pattern! What they intended was an IFR departure on Rwy 32L due performance restrictions. This was not possible as Rwy 14 was in use. So had to go VFR initially. I can't understand why the Tower controller did not know the full details of departure destination

So what were they looking at doing then? My guess is they had never flown VFR in the US before. Launching on right downwind departure at 220-230 kts seem to get you into a whole lot of trouble unless you have good local knowledge.

Have a look at skyvector.com

Out Of Trim
10th Jul 2019, 14:31
I think they were expecting ATC to coordinate a safe departure heading and level clear of controlled airspace and traffic whilst picking up their IFR clearance!

Intrance
10th Jul 2019, 14:58
So, mystery solved. Crew tried to coordinate a safe departure with ATC, seemed to have succeeded in this while on the ground, but ATC seems to have not communicated well between each other confusing the crap out of everyone in the end. Good job to those immediately hanging the pilots out to dry, would love to see you get the same reception when you appear to mess up :).

172_driver
10th Jul 2019, 15:45
Mystery solved yes, still a gutsy move if you're unfamiliar with the area. You are VFR until you are IFR and there isn't much maneuver area. You need an escape route. I wonder if they had prepared one? Did not seem like it. And yes, I am prepared to be the one slaughtered the day I screw up. Happens all the time in the airline business, takes place in the chief pilot's office ;)

ATC Watcher
10th Jul 2019, 16:28
So, mystery solved. Crew tried to coordinate a safe departure with ATC, seemed to have succeeded in this while on the ground, but ATC seems to have not communicated well between each other confusing the crap out of everyone in the end.

No quite , I am not 100% sure how Boeing field ATC is operated ( waiting to be corrected) , but if this was in n a European airport it would be like this : , it looks like a VFR departure / circuit was requested, the TWR controller would gets only basic info for a circuit .Who should tell him that it is in fact not a circuit but an oceanic VFR departure getting an IFR clearance afterwards if the crew is not mentioning it on first call ? The Approach is not located in the airport and they normally do not coordinate VFRs with ground control of the airports they provide APP above a certain ALT. , They would expect the crew filing the IFR flight plan to do this. Again ,it looks like a VFR circuit was requested and for the Tower controller a VFR pattern it is 1500ft max ,and that is what he gave the crew,
On first contact he clearly says maintain 1500ft VFR, and report downwind , acknowledged by the crew then later cleared base and again acknowledged, it was for me, and obviously for the TWR controller. never clear what the crew really wanted , probably to straight away contact APP and get IFR..
I would love to see the VFR plan ( if it exists) and who made it , and the IFR Flight plan requested , and if the TWR was on the recipients list of that Plan .

I guess good lessons have been learned here, and procedures will most probably be amended to prevent a recurrence,

Airbubba
10th Jul 2019, 16:31
So, mystery solved. Crew tried to coordinate a safe departure with ATC, seemed to have succeeded in this while on the ground, but ATC seems to have not communicated well between each other confusing the crap out of everyone in the end.

Listening to the tapes, it appears that the miscommunication was between the clearance delivery controller and the crew. The controller verified that VJT 868 wanted to 'do a pattern' and then depart IFR. Again he asks 'after the lap and the land' you will be departing to the south IFR?

DIBO
10th Jul 2019, 16:33
Indeed, not so fast blaming ATC solely... (approx. timestamps on the Liveatc track)
08:58 BFI GND: ... you want to do a VFR pattern and then depart IFR
09:05 VJ Dutch pilot: Affirm
​​​​​​09:10 GND tx. difficult to read due to strong background n/voices in the TWR; pilot requests 'say that again'
09:16 BFI GND:... once you do the lap and the land, you'll be departing south IFR, correct?
09:26 VJ Dutch pilot: Affirm

Both sides truggled to get a clear picture of the other side's intentions while still on the ground. Non std. phraseology "the lap and the land" should better have been avoided, and certainly not 'Affirmed' if not completely understood.
Once airborne, the level of confusion on both sides, grew rapidly...

Jet Jockey A4
11th Jul 2019, 01:26
really? And you’re a 787 PIC? You have hung, drawn and quartered the crew without having a clue what was going on. They got airborne on a VFR plan having discussed their IFR plan on the ground and expected to pick that up airborne. The hesitant tone of the radio calls should have given the controller a massive clue that it was not clear to the crew that the instructions ATC were giving them didn’t make sense. This is much more a problem associated with coordination of ground and tower than something the pilots did. They could have been a bit more assertive (and it sounds like the captain took over comms briefly to try to sort it out) but I think that slaughtering the crew here is really poor. The Global is not a light twin once you have fuelled it with 45,000lbs of fuel and needs a bit of respect if you are slow.

Seems like some sort of mis communication between ATC and the pilots that started the problems... in any case without knowing in which config the aircraft was in while manoeuvring under radar vectors, at the very least the pilots should have kept the slats out to give themselves a bigger manoeuvring envelop while operating at full up weight (I assume).

With the slats out at MTOW, you can easily do rate one turns at 200 knots on the Global, in fact you can do them in a clean configuration too.

FlightDetent
11th Jul 2019, 08:04
Indeed, not so fast blaming ATC solely... (approx. timestamps on the Liveatc track) Every error chain starts somewhere. Just culture, learning lessons and all that, using ICAO standard phraseologies when handling an international flight would go a long way ... applying exquisite judgement to avoid displays of exquisite skill.

Use of open English language, in its indefinite alternating forms, will be one day marked as an officially recognized threat. And I cry in despair; that chapter in PANS-ATM is what, 11 pages long? Pretty large font too.

It is a pet hate of mine. Subjectively there's a bit of sympathy for the crews (any) to whom R/T lies maybe in a third segment of cognitive priority segment. But ATS must know better.

BluSdUp
11th Jul 2019, 12:57
PIC.
Pilot in Command!
When I first listened to the RT I was convinced it was a C172 on a training flight, even if Vistajet did gave me a clue it was a bigger rigg!
If You are that clueless in a Global I think it is time for some retraining.
Sorry
I blame this on the Crew for not having a 100% confirmation on plan A and a solid plan B confirmed, before going airborne.
As a Captain You are required to have this under control. Blaming ATC in this case is not on.
Creating several near misses proves my point.
We all have been in tight spots, BUT, usually after airborne and nothing said or done on the ground would have prevented it.
Also , many times I have asked , on the ground for clarification, to standard departures OR amended clearances. OR have been asked the impossible and refused. Taken the delay!
Looking forward to a possible investigation.
Hatches sealed!
Periscope Down!
Set 150 meters!
Dive Dive Dive!
Regards
Cpt B

contour flyer
11th Jul 2019, 15:58
BluSdUp, were there several near misses? Because no one had or reported any TCAS RAs, no reports of any disruption at all at KSEA. Also have you listened to the Clearance delivery feed? Sounds like plan A was discussed and a clearance given. I don’t know that people have a plan b in such circumstances - when in a control zone it is normal to follow the controllers instructions. Normally they have an idea of what they want you to do. The problem appears to be that the tower did not know what had been agreed with delivery and that somewhere the plan got confused with a circuit to land instead of a departure. The alarm bells should have been ringing when the crew asked for 32L for performance reasons, meaning a landing was clearly not on the cards.

GlenQuagmire
11th Jul 2019, 16:35
You can fly around at 200kts clean after a MTOW departure in a global but it’s happier above 210. Personally I would leave the slats out and fly around at about 190 in the pattern and have the additional margin. Still confused by someone calling the crew morons when they had hardly any of the facts. Maybe a journalist trolling.

172_driver
11th Jul 2019, 19:49
200 KIAS is maximum within 4 nm/below 2500 ft of the primary class D airport, part 91.117

421dog
11th Jul 2019, 20:07
200 KIAS is maximum within 4 nm/below 2500 ft of the primary class D airport, part 91.117
yeah, but part D says you can fly as fast as you need to to be safe.

clark y
11th Jul 2019, 21:12
Firstly, I do not know the area and only have a basic understanding of US procedures.
It appears that the active runway was 14 at the time and the Vistajet wanted to takeoff against the traffic for “performance reasons”. Is there a problem with 14R? It seems long enough at 10,000’. As for obstacles, there is an ILS for 32L which would indicate that there is not too much to hit on the departure of 14R.

421dog
11th Jul 2019, 22:15
Firstly, I do not know the area and only have a basic understanding of US procedures.
It appears that the active runway was 14 at the time and the Vistajet wanted to takeoff against the traffic for “performance reasons”. Is there a problem with 14R? It seems long enough at 10,000’. As for obstacles, there is an ILS for 32L which would indicate that there is not too much to hit on the departure of 14R.

except that you are launching right into the bravo...

GlenQuagmire
11th Jul 2019, 23:46
Max 200 ..hence why I said I would personally have gone for slats out 190 kts.

What I find a bit difficult to understand is why pilots on here want to savage the crew when there is not enough information to conclude that they cocked up. The root cause of the confusion on both sides seems to be the tower controller not having the information that the Vista was originally filed IFR to Athens and that the VFR departure was only being done to facilitate that.

vista pilots work pretty hard - the guy saying “er” and “um” all the time was probably knackered!

421dog
12th Jul 2019, 00:07
I’m pretty sure this could have been a non-issue with few extra conjunctions and prepositions. The idea that a Global Express, fueled and laden, filed for a flight over 6000+ miles would be interested in a VFR touch and go as an “avant voyage” is laughable.


and it is 200kt, or “the minimum safe speed” under part D....

moosepileit
12th Jul 2019, 00:42
Inbound to KPHL (primary class B airspace) today behind an FAA "Flightcheck" King Air performing navaid checks. He gave approach his missed approach hold request. You could tell from approach's inflection and looking at TCAS or ADSB, it was NOT going to work, though he said he would coordinate.

Switch tower, hear Flightcheck on the go and getting treated like the subject at BFI. Having shot hundreds of instructional approaches at a busy class C airports (military, based there) I have long had a beef with ATC.

Cleared the approach means you are also cleared the missed. However, Tower effectively owns only the outer marker to the threshold, touched down and rolled out. Go missed, tower must coord, and if there is a change or new conflict, separation and pacing are too often too dramatic.

I know at a glance, if the info is displayed or I have an accurate mental model- what to expect and what will likely work. Why? I'm not awesime, I just prepare a cushion against the worst case, and am pleased and padded if any better occurs.

ATC is also weak coordinating opposite direction needs at airports near a dominating Class C or B aiespace airport. There are letters of agreements between control facilities yielding flow direction to the larger airport. That sounds to be the actual problem at BFI. Assume the worst answer to requests if you don't know the local agreements.

clark y
12th Jul 2019, 01:28
421dog, I don't know what you mean about launching straight into the bravo. Is that a terrain issue or CTA issue?

I'm trying to figure out why pilots stated "performance" as a reason to use a 32L. 14R appears suitable and aircraft were being sequenced onto 14L. Seems to me Vistajet may have been contrary to the flow. Someone earlier on this thread stated that ATC "ought to be taught a lesson". Same as when pilots say require instead of request. Also try to use a different runway for a shorter taxi out or in or simpler manoevering in the terminal area.

Wizofoz
12th Jul 2019, 01:44
I've done this a few times, with good reason. Sometimes ATC get a bit of a power trip and think they own aviation and everything in it, so when I sense they are taking advantage and issuing punitive delays, well they ought to be taught a lesson.

And did you cause two AIRPROX incidents when you did?

421dog
12th Jul 2019, 02:26
421dog, I don't know what you mean about launching straight into the bravo. Is that a terrain issue or CTA issue?

I'm trying to figure out why pilots stated "performance" as a reason to use a 32L. 14R appears suitable and aircraft were being sequenced onto 14L. Seems to me Vistajet may have been contrary to the flow. Someone earlier on this thread stated that ATC "ought to be taught a lesson". Same as when pilots say require instead of request. Also try to use a different runway for a shorter taxi out or in or simpler manoevering in the terminal area.

heading southeast, there is little room before the SEA class B extends to the ground.
Heading northwest, there’s a lot more leeway for a heavily laden aircraft that might not want to cause any more inconvenience than necessary.

Wasn’t there, just my two cents worth.

pattern_is_full
12th Jul 2019, 03:42
Firstly, I do not know the area and only have a basic understanding of US procedures.
It appears that the active runway was 14 at the time and the Vistajet wanted to takeoff against the traffic for “performance reasons”. Is there a problem with 14R? It seems long enough at 10,000’. As for obstacles, there is an ILS for 32L which would indicate that there is not too much to hit on the departure of 14R.










Basic point is that BFI underlies the approaches to SEA 16L/C/R at about 5nm (and thus also departures from SEA 34L/C/R).

If you check back to the original radar video, you can see the string of inbounds to SEA passing overhead southbound at ~2500 feet during the event. (And one TO at the point the VistaJet was making its wide turn to "final" - causing a CA conflict alert on the radar).

Not a great idea to be launching IFR departures from BFI 32L/R more or less head-on into the "string of pearls" lined up for SEA 16L/C/R without careful coordination.

I'm not privy to the local "rules" or agreement, but I'd guess they amount to, or include - that if SEA is running its traffic southbound, BFI must also use its southbound runways (e.g. 14R/L). And if SEA traffic is using the runways northbound, BFI must also use its north runways (32L/R). Just so that all the traffic is flowing the same way.

As to 14R departures, there is a ridge (Beacon Hill) about 100 feet high that parallels the runways to the east, but squeezes in towards the departure paths from 14L/R after it passes the airport (BFI is in a shallow valley).

You can check out the special TO minimums and Departure procedures here (page L38). Does look like 14R requires slightly higher climb gradients than 32L - and has a long list of obstructions: https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1907/NW1TO.PDF

Including "railway 50 feet (16m) from DER 14R."

Does seem to me that the pilot accepted/"affirmed" a clearance to fly the pattern and land. And had probably studied the charted information, but lack a wider situational awareness of just how tight and troublesome BFI could be, with Renton (a public airport but also another Boeing facility) to the east, and whatever other reasons (noise?) banned flying over the lake.

https://kenmorefbo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/KBFI-fly-quiet-VFR-procedures.pdf

View showing 13R (now 14R) and the ridge and a bit of the departure path.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/King_County_International_Airport.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/King_County_International_Airport.jpg)

punkalouver
12th Jul 2019, 03:56
I did a bunch of flying at Renton and BFI(Boeing Field) on layovers....there is a nice Mooney available at BFI if you are interested.

If you are not extremely familiar with the airspace around BFI, I would strongly suggest not flying around VFR. The Seattle class B airspace goes down to the ground a short distance to the south and starts at 1100 feet overhead the southern half of the airport with the SEA-TAC arrivals flying fairly low overhead. Even the VFR departure routes are complicated at first sight and there are lots of problems that someone in a fast aircraft can create in all directions if they don't know what they are doing. The airport is in a valley and one flies very close to the houses on the overlooking the airport when departing east or west.

You have to know what you are doing.

Atlantic Explorer
12th Jul 2019, 04:36
vista pilots work pretty hard - the guy saying “er” and “um” all the time was probably knackered!

No excuse! They were about to fly a Trans- America and Trans- Atlantic flight to Europe, they shouldn’t have been near an aircraft if they were knackered at that stage.

clark y
12th Jul 2019, 04:40
421dog and pattern is full, thanks for the info.

slatch
12th Jul 2019, 06:09
After 30 years ATC US and ATP pilot. They did not have any idea what they were doing. In air ifr pickup to Athens from BFI. Why stsy in the pattern? Head east or northeast stay under SEA airspace vfr. When clear start climb to 17,500 request clearance, not that it is typical. But get out of the way.

Out Of Trim
12th Jul 2019, 15:42
I believe the main cause of the confusion was the US English V UK English of the Captain and International Aviation English for the Dutch pilot. With the use of non standard phraseology. "Lap and Land" etc.

The Airfield also appears to have been performance limited for their intended TOW. I guess cheaper to operate from Boeing field rather than SEA though. Both the TWR and Ground Controllers should have been aware of filed destination ATH. Why they thought they would want to make a Circuit and Land before departing for an 11 hour flight I do not know.

SeenItAll
12th Jul 2019, 16:43
Just as a matter of interest, what was the Plan A that VJ intended to do? Clearly it was to take off on 32L under VFR. But then it seems that they were just hoping to immediately receive IFR clearance to a SID, which seems to have been a false hope -- for whatever reason. Given that receiving such a clearance is never assured, these guys needed to have a Plan B. What was it? Just to wander around very constrained VFR airspace at less than 200 KIAS at less 2000 feet? One hopes not.

413X3
12th Jul 2019, 17:06
I've done this a few times, with good reason. Sometimes ATC get a bit of a power trip and think they own aviation and everything in it, so when I sense they are taking advantage and issuing punitive delays, well they ought to be taught a lesson.

stay on vatsim. Troll

172_driver
12th Jul 2019, 20:21
Just as a matter of interest, what was the Plan A that VJ intended to do? Clearly it was to take off on 32L under VFR. But then it seems that they were just hoping to immediately receive IFR clearance to a SID, which seems to have been a false hope -- for whatever reason. Given that receiving such a clearance is never assured, these guys needed to have a Plan B. What was it? Just to wander around very constrained VFR airspace at less than 200 KIAS at less 2000 feet? One hopes not.

I tried to listen to the clearance delivery call (posted earlier by someone), quality was really bad, and I could only hear one side. They got the SID, routing, departure frequency and squawk. Instead of waiting for the release on ground they thought they could do the initial turn VFR and then hope, as you said, for an immediate IFR pick-up? Not realizing what they were getting themselves into. No plan B.

I don't recommend my friends to go flying in the US without a couple of familiarization flights. Not VFR. Not even in a C152.

413X3
13th Jul 2019, 09:50
I didn't, one must have their whits about them. Although with Spanish ATC it was the lesser danger!

You have nothing better to do in the summer break for your school to come here and play pretend

CaptainProp
13th Jul 2019, 12:45
As some posters have been touching already I think at the end of the day the crew, the captain, is responsible for and in charge of FLYING the aircraft, not ATC.

No matter how many mistakes ATC does, no matter how unhelpful they might be, and in this case perhaps communication between GND and TWR didn’t work and information was not handed over correctly - My first statement is still valid.
We still need to have a plan for how we are going to fly this once airborne, where we are going to go if there is a delay in getting IFR clearance etc etc. With VFR traffic around I always use higher flap settings for departure (if possible from a performance point of view) and I make sure we don’t clean up until we see exactly how things are going with that clearance in order to be able to keep speeds down while still around this often much slower traffic.

200+ IAS around the pattern with VFR traffic, with this size of aircraft, is just not safe.

CP

Zeffy
13th Jul 2019, 14:21
I'm curious as to the crew/operator performance planning.
Was the operator using a professional runway analysis service to determine maximum takeoff weight per AC 120-91 or equivalent?

misd-agin
13th Jul 2019, 14:31
200+ IAS around the pattern with VFR traffic, with this size of aircraft, is just not safe.

CP

How many VFR aircraft are typically in KSEA's visual traffic pattern? What size aircraft are they? I think the only significant U.S. airport that I've flown into that had aircraft in the VFR traffic pattern was at KSNA and their traffic pattern was on the south side of the airport away from airliner traffic.

obgraham
13th Jul 2019, 15:10
How many VFR aircraft are typically in KSEA's visual traffic pattern?.That's the point. This is BFI, not SEA. Lots of VFR traffic there, and is is a complicated airport for VFR due to terrain, and its close proximity to SEA Class B.

Two's in
13th Jul 2019, 17:17
Complex planning decisions and options usually work out better when performed in the Ops/planning room, not when operating VFR at 1500' under the Class B for 2 airfields 5 miles apart. From a recent AAIB report; "Plan continuation bias is an ‘unconscious cognitive bias to continue [the] original plan in spite of changing conditions".

CaptainProp
13th Jul 2019, 18:47
How many VFR aircraft are typically in KSEA's visual traffic pattern? What size aircraft are they? I think the only significant U.S. airport that I've flown into that had aircraft in the VFR traffic pattern was at KSNA and their traffic pattern was on the south side of the airport away from airliner traffic.

I was talking in general and if crew was unfamiliar with the area and airspace then I would suggest planning for other, slower, VFR traffic being present is the only way to plan.

Ever been to Scottsdale (KSDL? Massive corporate jet airport where there are several flight schools located at the airfield, several airspace / airport boundaries close by and Sky Harbour class B airspace above. Add to that a mix of military fast jets and Apache helicopters in and around that area and you have a perfect example of an airport where keeping speed down on arrival / departure is a VERY good idea. Burbank is another one, Palm Springs, White Plains just to name a few that I've personally been to where you will have VFR traffic around. Always assume they are there, especially if departing VFR to pick up IFR clearance in the air.

CP

Zeffy
13th Jul 2019, 19:33
...The Airfield also appears to have been performance limited for their intended TOW...

Even loaded for BFI-ATH, it's very doubtful that a performance engineering company would have provided a runway analysis (per AC 120-91 (https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC120-91.pdf) or equivalent) that limited the Bombardier Global 6000 to rwy 32L.

Unfortunately - and for many decades - a majority of the bizjet schoolhouses and training centers have been teaching takeoff performance planning incorrectly... often advocating the application of OEI climb data to (all-engines) SIDs, DVAs and ODPs. Those calculation methods are seriously flawed.

FAA reference: FAA InFO 18014 (https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2018/InFO18014.pdf)
Additional FAA resources: Flight Operations Group - Airport Obstacle Analysis & Aircraft Performance Planning (https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afx/afs/afs400/afs410/obstacle/)

So it's quite possible -- I'd even go as far as to say "likely" -- that this unfortunate incident began due to faulty performance assumptions/calculations.

With the aid of a professionally provided runway analysis, they could have simply departed from 14R with IFR clearance and been on their merry way.

richjb
13th Jul 2019, 22:07
Even loaded for BFI-ATH, it's very doubtful that a performance engineering company would have provided a runway analysis (per AC 120-91 (https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC120-91.pdf) or equivalent) that limited the Bombardier Global 6000 to rwy 32L.

Unfortunately - and for many decades - a majority of the bizjet schoolhouses and training centers have been teaching takeoff performance planning incorrectly... often advocating the application of OEI climb data to (all-engines) SIDs, DVAs and ODPs. Those calculation methods are seriously flawed.

FAA reference: FAA InFO 18014 (https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2018/InFO18014.pdf)
Additional FAA resources: Flight Operations Group - Airport Obstacle Analysis & Aircraft Performance Planning (https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afx/afs/afs400/afs410/obstacle/)

So it's quite possible -- I'd even go as far as to say "likely" -- that this unfortunate incident began due to faulty performance assumptions/calculations.

With the aid of a professionally provided runway analysis, they could have simply departed from 14R with IFR clearance and been on their merry way.

Thank you for posting reference to InFO 18014. As industry co-chair of the working group that assisted the FAA in drafting this InFO, we are heartened to see that it is getting more visibility. There should never be a case where OEI data is used to show compliance with an IFR climb gradient, whether it is based on TERPS or PANS-OPS criteria, or with regard to where in the world that procedure is published. The InFO is specifically targeted at this misinformation in the field and at the training centers on this subject. If all-engines-operating climb performance data is not available, the InFO provides clear guidance from FAA on what is expected of the crew to comply with an IFR climb gradient on an ODP, SID, DVA, or missed approach procedure.

Regardless of whether performance planning played a role in the event, thank you for raising awareness of this InFO. Just FYI, additional guidance on training and approval for use runway analysis products for part 135 operators will be coming from FAA soon.

Thanks,

Richard Boll
Wichita KS

ATC Watcher
14th Jul 2019, 19:19
And did you cause two AIRPROX incidents when you did?
I kept seeing this mentioned here, but what is the source ? I did not see any risk of collision in the radar data shown , not heard anything on the frequency either, and they were VFR , it is in fact up to them to separate themselves .
Or were the incidents occurring later after they were with APP on IFR ?

BizJetJock
14th Jul 2019, 21:11
Even loaded for BFI-ATH, it's very doubtful that a performance engineering company would have provided a runway analysis (per AC 120-91 (https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC120-91.pdf) or equivalent) that limited the Bombardier Global 6000 to rwy 32L.
Strange, I've just run it through APG using the current metar (2100z) and its obstacle limited off both runways, with 32L giving you 2000lbs more than 14R. So it's quite reasonable that to get to a "comfortable" fuel level they wanted 32.

Zeffy
14th Jul 2019, 21:20
Strange, I've just run it through APG using the current metar (2100z) and its obstacle limited off both runways, with 32L giving you 2000lbs more than 14R. So it's quite reasonable that to get to a "comfortable" fuel level they wanted 32.

Wow.

Thanks very much for running the analysis; appreciate the effort.

Never would have imagined that would be the situation for the GLEX.

richjb
14th Jul 2019, 22:26
Strange, I've just run it through APG using the current metar (2100z) and its obstacle limited off both runways, with 32L giving you 2000lbs more than 14R. So it's quite reasonable that to get to a "comfortable" fuel level they wanted 32.

Was that with a rolling takeoff or static takeoff? I had a friend run a flight plan and performance for the G550 and G650. Unless you get above 34C, these airplanes are structurally limited. Above that, you start getting obstacle limited on runway 14R.

Thanks,

Rich Boll

Airbubba
14th Jul 2019, 22:39
Was that with a rolling takeoff or static takeoff? I had a friend run a flight plan and performance for the G550 and G650. Unless you get above 34C, these airplanes are structurally limited. Above that, you start getting obstacle limited on runway 14R.

Just to clarify, VJT868 was 9H-VJN, a Bombardier Global 6000.

PukinDog
15th Jul 2019, 00:20
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.

GlenQuagmire
15th Jul 2019, 10:33
I have had a look with GURU now and the departure off 14 is limited by a 171 foot high obstacle 15761 feet from the runway head. It is not possible as a normal performance take off but my company allow a bleeds off departure (some dont) and that would allow a departure off 14. That said, the prevailing weather and temperature may not have allowed it - its pretty marginal. Someone in this thread said something about see and avoid - surely no company allows that kind of thing any more!

I am very surprised that the IFR clearance that was discussed on the ground wasn't passed to the controller because a simple teardrop after departure would have allowed the connection to the IFR plan. All of this confusion happened because there was no connection between the IFR plan and clearance and the VFR departure. I agree that the crew could have done better and I don’t think the controller did anything wrong other than allow a heavily laden jet to depart without having any idea what it was up to.

Lost comms, 7600 and go and hold somewhere out of the way to burn off fuel (useless bay would seem appropriate). There are three VHF radios, two HF radios, CPDLC and usually a satphone on a global. Plus a bagful of cellphones. Wouldn’t be out of contact for long.

People saying “er” a lot are processing information. It was very clear that those pilots were working out what was being asked of them. They had discussed their IFR on the ground and it was not unreasonable for them to expect that the tower controller would at least know their destination. I doubt I have ever taken off in a global and the tower not known where I was headed for.

anyway, I am headed west in a couple of days. Lets see what carnage I can cause!

aterpster
15th Jul 2019, 13:29
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.

The runway requirements and takeoff flight path provided the crew by its planning and performance department (or contracted third party) is weather independent. It must be complied with, without exception.

zondaracer
15th Jul 2019, 14:38
I’m confused as to why they stayed in the pattern/circuit. Had they just maintained VFR, proceeded on their way and picked up the clearance enroute with departure or center, it may have been less chaotic. That, or pickup the clearance on the ground but request a VMC climb/departure so that they can get the runway that they want. The VMC departure has to be requested and cannot be suggested by the controller.

hans brinker
15th Jul 2019, 15:00
I’m confused as to why they stayed in the pattern/circuit. Had they just maintained VFR, proceeded on their way and picked up the clearance enroute with departure or center, it may have been less chaotic. That, or pickup the clearance on the ground but request a VMC climb/departure so that they can get the runway that they want. The VMC departure has to be requested and cannot be suggested by the controller.

I think it would be difficult to proceed VFR departing KBFI without going into class B, and that requires a clearance.

zondaracer
17th Jul 2019, 06:29
I think it would be difficult to proceed VFR departing KBFI without going into class B, and that requires a clearance.
North, west, and east from KBFI at 1500 keeps you out of the Bravo and does not require a clearance.

pattern_is_full
17th Jul 2019, 16:16
Zondaracer - see posts #29-#30:

In discussion with clearance delivery, the pilot was asked "you want to do a VFR pattern? - a lap and land?" - the pilot replied "Affirm"

He accepted a clearance to remain in the pattern and land, and that is how the tower vectored him.

Maybe the pilot thought he was requesting a VMC departure as you suggest (which is how I'd have expected this to play out) - but that's not what the clearance controller heard, and on double-checking that the pilot was requesting a standard C172-style practice pattern, the pilot affirmed that. A classic "failure to communicate" in both directions in five brief - but critical - transmissions.

GlenQuagmire
17th Jul 2019, 16:54
Why would clearance delivery use a colloquial phrase like lap and land to a 45 tonne jet filed to go to Athens? What a stupid thing to say. One pilot was Dutch, one was English (by the sound of it). I am English and have never heard anyone say lap and land in my life. What they said affirm to was probably the circuit and ignored the stupid lap and land bit.
Why are any professional pilots on here implying they could see and avoid obstacles VFR. Commercially flown jets in EASA land can’t do that - can they in FAA land? It doesn’t matter because the aircraft has to follow its operators manual which won’t allow it.
At that weight the Global could only just be clean and it would be perilously close to the low speed threshold and not sensible to fly around VFR. That’s why I said earlier that it would be a good idea to stay slats out and 190ish to give a good manoeuvre margin and be as slow as possible.
I don’t know why they didn’t clear to the north pending a clearance into the class B and the airways - it’s what I would have done and I have on quite a few occasions in various places all over the world - but maybe the discussion with the ground controller gave them the impression that they would be able to stay in the VFR pattern and get their clearance. They sounded surprised to me when the controller expected them to be landing. When given headings by a controller, even suggested headings, most pilots just fly them rather than say “thanks for the suggestion but I think I will stick at 200 and clear the Bravo shelf and do my own thing”. That might be a better plan for the armchair pilot but sitting in the seat having discussed plan A you could be forgiven that the tower controller was executing Plan A.

There are faults on both sides but it’s definitely wrong that so many pilots on here are chucking all the stones at the crew. Next time I hear an American pilot fumbling their way through a deconfliction service around the Heathrow TMA I do hope they point them at Luton and say “sqwark 7000 frequency change enroute goodbye”.

Aren’t controllers there to coordinate and help make things work? Is anyone that has responded so far a controller or just blame happy pilots who never fly outside the continental US..

ATC Watcher
18th Jul 2019, 07:55
Why would clearance delivery use a colloquial phrase like lap and land to a 45 tonne jet filed to go to Athens? What a stupid thing to say.
[.....]
Aren’t controllers there to coordinate and help make things work? .
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. .

nolimitholdem
18th Jul 2019, 08:47
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...:rolleyes:

GlenQuagmire
18th Jul 2019, 08:52
I don’t think we are in disagreement about fault on both sides. This could have been avoided at many points along the way - I would include Vistajet Operations, both pilots, and all the ATC units. Any of them could have averted this situation. I maintain that it’s stupid to use colloquial phrases that are not clear to foreign registered aircraft with foreign pilots in it. If the language had been clear the pilot would not have said “affirm” as max land is 78,000lbs and they would have been 99,000 and they were going to Athens. Equally, the pilots should have checked that the tower were clear on what they were trying to do. And in the air they should have understood more clearly the airspace and environment they were working in.

America is one of the easiest countries to fly in. Your ATC is generally very switched on, your airspace structure is much clearer than most other countries I have flown in, and if you ask how to do things everyone is very helpful. But it could be better and working out what went wrong here will help. It’s not dissimilar to the shambles that went on with the EVA down in LA. Standard ATC works. Non standard might work. But it might not.

LuckyLeftie
12th Apr 2023, 15:06
as someone who has flown into bravo foxtrot, India, many times, I don’t understand what the issue was with respect to using 32. One for Wright is the same runaway.
The usual departure clearance for IFR is straight out for 5 miles to 5000 feet no doubt he could’ve gone VF are on 14 right, went out several miles and then turn northbound.

I think the Clarence to Athens met. He needed to fly over Canada, and he wanted to turn northbound as soon as possible with respect to fuel burn. This was a very interesting discussion, and I learned a lot from it having only previously seen the YouTube video ,

I guess the lesson for me is to never assume that the subsequent controller knows anything about with the previous controller said. I think if we all use that in our communications, everyone will be happy in the end. I even see that with respect to emergency declarations , I often find that the second controller might not be fully aware of the circumstances