VistaJet (VJT868) Causing Chaos in SEA!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Performance planning errors?
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
Additional FAA resources: Flight Operations Group - Airport Obstacle Analysis & Aircraft Performance Planning
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.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Wichita Kansas USA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even loaded for BFI-ATH, it's very doubtful that a performance engineering company would have provided a runway analysis (per AC 120-91 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
Additional FAA resources: Flight Operations Group - Airport Obstacle Analysis & Aircraft Performance Planning
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.
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
Additional FAA resources: Flight Operations Group - Airport Obstacle Analysis & Aircraft Performance Planning
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.
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
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
Or were the incidents occurring later after they were with APP on IFR ?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even loaded for BFI-ATH, it's very doubtful that a performance engineering company would have provided a runway analysis (per AC 120-91 or equivalent) that limited the Bombardier Global 6000 to rwy 32L.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks very much for running the analysis; appreciate the effort.
Never would have imagined that would be the situation for the GLEX.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Wichita Kansas USA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks,
Rich Boll
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
Last edited by PukinDog; 15th Jul 2019 at 00:36.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: london
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mare Nostrum
Age: 41
Posts: 1,427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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’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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mare Nostrum
Age: 41
Posts: 1,427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: london
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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..
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. .
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. .
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...
Join Date: May 2009
Location: london
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: US
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
