Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

VistaJet (VJT868) Causing Chaos in SEA!

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

VistaJet (VJT868) Causing Chaos in SEA!

Old 10th Jul 2019, 14:43
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: N/A
Posts: 17
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kb...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.

Last edited by contour flyer; 10th Jul 2019 at 15:04.
contour flyer is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2019, 14:57
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,046
Thumbs down

Originally Posted by 172_driver View Post
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.
Out Of Trim is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2019, 15:16
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: N/A
Posts: 17
Also if the tower did not have their flight details from the ground controller, why allow the aircraft to depart.
contour flyer is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2019, 15:19
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,081
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
172_driver is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2019, 15:31
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,046
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!
Out Of Trim is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2019, 15:58
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Europe
Posts: 166
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 .
Intrance is online now  
Old 10th Jul 2019, 16:45
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,081
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
172_driver is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2019, 17:28
  #28 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Intrance View Post
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,

Last edited by ATC Watcher; 10th Jul 2019 at 18:00. Reason: typed too fast
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2019, 17:31
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,019
Originally Posted by Intrance View Post
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?
Attached Files
Airbubba is online now  
Old 10th Jul 2019, 17:33
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: same planet as yours
Posts: 242
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...

Last edited by DIBO; 10th Jul 2019 at 18:35. Reason: typos
DIBO is online now  
Old 11th Jul 2019, 02:26
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 827
Originally Posted by GlenQuagmire View Post


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.
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2019, 09:04
  #32 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 41
Posts: 2,587
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.

Last edited by FlightDetent; 12th Jul 2019 at 04:07.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2019, 13:57
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 55
Posts: 2
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
BluSdUp is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2019, 16:58
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: N/A
Posts: 17
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.
contour flyer is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2019, 17:35
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: london
Posts: 132
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.
GlenQuagmire is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2019, 20:49
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,081
200 KIAS is maximum within 4 nm/below 2500 ft of the primary class D airport, part 91.117
172_driver is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2019, 21:07
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Age: 55
Posts: 183
Originally Posted by 172_driver View Post
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.
421dog is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2019, 22:12
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 229
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.
clark y is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2019, 23:15
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Age: 55
Posts: 183
Originally Posted by clark y View Post
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...
421dog is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 00:46
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: london
Posts: 132
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!
GlenQuagmire is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.