VistaJet (VJT868) Causing Chaos in SEA!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
It seems that the Ground controller did not coordinate properly with the Tower controller. So confusion all round.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Have a look at skyvector.com
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
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!
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 
.
. Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 17:00. Reason: typed too fast
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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...
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 17:35. Reason: typos
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.
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.
Only half a speed-brake
Indeed, not so fast blaming ATC solely... (approx. timestamps on the Liveatc track)
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 03:07.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: N/A
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: london
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: london
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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....
and it is 200kt, or “the minimum safe speed” under part D....