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 12th Jul 2019, 00:07
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Age: 55
Posts: 183
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....
421dog is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 00:42
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 8
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.

Last edited by moosepileit; 12th Jul 2019 at 02:23.
moosepileit is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 01:28
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 227
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.
clark y is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 01:44
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,276
Originally Posted by A320LGW View Post
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?

Wizofoz is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 02:26
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Age: 55
Posts: 183
Originally Posted by clark y View Post
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.
421dog is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 03:42
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 961
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.






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/up...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

Last edited by pattern_is_full; 14th Jul 2019 at 02:09.
pattern_is_full is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 03:56
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 716
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.
punkalouver is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 04:36
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by GlenQuagmire View Post


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.
Atlantic Explorer is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 04:40
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 227
421dog and pattern is full, thanks for the info.
clark y is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 06:09
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Age: 60
Posts: 172
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.
slatch is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 15:42
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,045
Arrow

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.
Out Of Trim is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 16:43
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 462
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.
SeenItAll is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 17:06
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 101
Originally Posted by A320LGW View Post
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
413X3 is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2019, 20:21
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,078
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.
172_driver is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2019, 02:55
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: everywhere
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by Wizofoz View Post
And did you cause two AIRPROX incidents when you did?
I didn't, one must have their whits about them. Although with Spanish ATC it was the lesser danger!
A320LGW is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2019, 09:50
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 101
Originally Posted by A320LGW View Post
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
413X3 is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2019, 12:45
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,609
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
CaptainProp is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2019, 14:21
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 391
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?
Zeffy is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2019, 14:31
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,052
Originally Posted by CaptainProp View Post


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.
misd-agin is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2019, 15:10
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 591
Originally Posted by misd-agin View Post
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.
obgraham is online now  

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.