|
VistaJet (VJT868) Causing Chaos in SEA!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Ysab...ature=youtu.be These dangerous morons should never be allowed within 50’ of an aircraft! |
That’s embarrassing ! The FAA will surely have something to say |
Originally Posted by 787PIC
(Post 10514411)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Ysab...ature=youtu.be These dangerous morons should never be allowed within 50’ of an aircraft! |
I sure hope so!
|
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." |
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. |
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. |
"You're cleared to LGAV VFR outside controlled airspace. Goodbye, good luck"! ... is what he should have said!
|
https://de.flightaware.com/live/flig...741Z/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? |
Originally Posted by A320LGW
(Post 10514447)
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.
|
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. |
Originally Posted by Intrance
(Post 10514910)
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 . |
Originally Posted by Meester proach
(Post 10514961)
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 . |
Originally Posted by 787PIC
(Post 10514411)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Ysab...ature=youtu.be These dangerous morons should never be allowed within 50’ of an aircraft! |
Originally Posted by Officer Kite
(Post 10514966)
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 . |
Originally Posted by Meester proach
(Post 10514961)
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 . Seems like all parties involved could have done better here, as is usually the case. |
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… |
Originally Posted by Officer Kite
(Post 10514966)
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
|
The IFR pick-up aside, what we do know is they ballsed up the VFR pattern. Too close and too fast. |
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. |
Originally Posted by 172_driver
(Post 10515003)
The IFR pick-up aside, what we do know is they balsed up the VFR pattern. Too close and too fast. It seems that the Ground controller did not coordinate properly with the Tower controller. So confusion all round. :( |
Also if the tower did not have their flight details from the ground controller, why allow the aircraft to depart.
|
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 |
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 :). |
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 ;)
|
Originally Posted by Intrance
(Post 10515081)
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. 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, |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by Intrance
(Post 10515081)
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. |
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... |
Originally Posted by GlenQuagmire
(Post 10514973)
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. |
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. |
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, 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. |
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. |
200 KIAS is maximum within 4 nm/below 2500 ft of the primary class D airport, part 91.117 |
Originally Posted by 172_driver
(Post 10516245)
200 KIAS is maximum within 4 nm/below 2500 ft of the primary class D airport, part 91.117 |
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. |
Originally Posted by clark y
(Post 10516310)
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. |
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! |
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.... |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:54. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.