Ok now we know there’s at least one thing related to flying that is better in Europe 
than in US. When flying on “Z” plan I can always pickup IFR clearance in air if flying from non-towered airport and in the meantime I fly visually towards first IFR point in the plan. If flying from towered airport I’ll get it on the ground and will be directed to first IFR point the shortest way, traffic depending and shortening visual portion of flight as much as possible. Additionally on “I” plan, ATC sometimes checks your ability to accept visual departure if it will improve traffic flow; the opposite also works – you can ask visual departure and ATC will grant it if there’s no restrictive traffic. In both cases you’re either vectored or you get direct to some point in your plan, traffic and weather conditions depending.
Btw every controller in Croatia knows that airport with ICAO code starting with K is across the ocean.
NCYankee wrote:
Lake Washington’w west bank is 2.3 NM from the runway center line,
That’s not what I got. Pardon the Polish interface. Anyway, later the controller said “plan a four mile base”. I guess that was asking him do do a left turn from downwind for a longer base instead of overshooting. Correct?
A four mile base means a base leg that makes a four mile final after the base to final turn.
Peter wrote:
To re-state the obvious, there is something missing from the start of the video. I reckon the controller never even saw the flight plan.
I agree, why would he see it? Although it was filed, it was not activated.
The way “IFR” normally works (over here) is this:
So there is no possibility of ATC now knowing what your “plan” is.
Unless you cancel the FP and tell them you want to depart VFR. Then you get some version of this
It cannot be that different in the US otherwise IFR as we know it would not work. So I think there was some cockup, resulting in Tower not having their IFR FP and thinking they were doing a local burger run
I have sympathy for the pilot. He remained calm, which is hard when you perhaps cannot understand some ATC.
loco wrote:
That’s not what I got. Pardon the Polish interface. Anyway, later the controller said “plan a four mile base”. I guess that was asking him do do a left turn from downwind for a longer base instead of overshooting. Correct?
Your line is off the arrival end of the runway, not the departure end where the aircraft was asked to make the turn. On ForeFlight I measured it to be 2.3 NM and on google earth it was 2.23 NM. I used the perpendicular to the departure end of the runway as the aircraft departed on runway heading and would be reaching the turn point beyond the runway departure end.
I think the confusion was the terminology used of “right hand pattern” which implies the pilot wants to fly the circuit. The pilot intended to depart to the north with a right hand turnout, but used the wrong phraseology. The pilot also should not have been using 200 knots if he understood that he was going to maneuvering in the pattern. What I believe the pilot expected was a RH departure and the controller believed the pilot wanted to fly the circuit. We don’t hear the pilot making the original departure request, but in the departure instructions and the pilot read back, the phraseology used was “right hand pattern”. The winds were light and favoring runway 14 L/R, but the jet departed on runway 32L. Standard traffic pattern for a VFR departure is to climb runway heading to 400 AGL then depart on a left climbing turn to a 45 degree left of the runway heading. Any other form of departure should be agreed to by the controller and pilot.
As far as the departure a right hand pattern would be around the circuit with RH turns. The pilot seemed confused by this and over shot the final. The tower called the base leg turn and he told the pilot to expect a 4 NM base, which is common terminology in the US, but not precise as where is the 4 NM measured from and to. Most pilots use 4 NM from the airport center which is often displayed on the GPS/FMS. It was only after going around the circuit that the pilot indicated he was on a flight to Athens and wanted a north departure. The controller then stated in no uncertain terms that he would not issue an IFR clearance.
Once again, the communication indicated a VFR departure squawking 1200 and a request for a right hand pattern. At this point, the controller does not have any clue where the pilot is going as there is no active flight plan in the system and the pilot appears to have requested the circuit via the terminology used by both the controller and confirmed by the pilot. All this confusion could have been cleared up before departure by the pilot requesting a turn out to the north and a VFR clearance into the class B to climb above the B. Once talking to the Seattle departure controller and cleared into the B, he could have requested the IFR clearance.
It is a mistake to believe that departing VFR that the tower controller knows where you are going, he does not unless you tell him. That was not made clear until the aircraft was airborne and flown around the pattern and busting separation by overshooting the final.
Peter wrote:
The way “IFR” normally works (over here) is this:You file the FP
You call up Ground (or Tower) and ask for a startup clearance
You call Clearance Delivery (or Tower) for the departure clearance. They have your FP and have already worked out which way you need to depart taking into account current runway etc, and they will have worked out your onward routing at least as far as the current ATC sector
So there is no possibility of ATC now knowing what your “plan” is.Unless you cancel the FP and tell them you want to depart VFR. Then you get some version of this
It cannot be that different in the US otherwise IFR as we know it would not work. So I think there was some cockup, resulting in Tower not having their IFR FP and thinking they were doing a local burger run
I have sympathy for the pilot. He remained calm, which is hard when you perhaps cannot understand some ATC.
In the US, there isn’t a VFR departure on an IFR flight plan. It is VFR or IFR and the two do not connect, especially when only an IFR flightplan is filed. The steps for an IFR flight are: 1) If one files an IFR flight plan, 30 minutes before departure, the center sends the flight plan strip to the clearance delivery controller. In the old days, this was on a printed strip, but now at many locations, it is electronic. 2) When the pilot calls clearance delivery, they are provided the clearance and read it back including the altitude, route, any departure procedure, and the assigned squawk code and departure frequency. 3) The pilot then sets up the transponder and in the US sets it to on. After successful readback, the strip goes to ground control. 4) Then the pilot contacts ground control for taxi, IFR to Athens Greece. The ground controller gives the pilot taxi instructions to the departure runway. 5) Nearing the departure runway, the ground controller forwards the strip information to the tower. The strip does not usually contain the full route, but just the departure procedure and the initial enroute fix with the destination. The pilot contacts the tower and the tower issues the departure instructions and is eventually cleared for takeoff. Before a takeoff clearance is issued, the tower coordinates with the departure controller for a release. 6) The tower hands the aircraft over to the departure controller and is done with the departure.
For a strictly VFR departure, the pilot sets up the transponder and makes sure it is on. He then goes directly to ground control and requests taxi for takeoff, VFR. When the pilot gets to the runway, they contact the tower when ready to depart. So the IFR flight plan is still back at the clearance delivery station and is not active. The tower controller maintains contact with the VFR aircraft while still inside the Class D airspace. It is incumbent on the pilot to request any departure route other than the standard.
This is difficult to discuss on the Internet. I guess we’re talking about different turns. If you look at the pic below, I was talking about the turn that happens next. From downwind to final on 32L. Instruction was to stay west of the lake on the downwind and next they crossed the centerline and got into first conflict at Seatac. I believe the distance I measured is relevant.
NCYankee wrote:
The steps for an IFR flight are:
The confusion here may simply be one of terminology. To me, the “Tower” is an ATC unit, not a frequency. The three controllers you mention are all part of that ATC unit. So of course the tower had the flight plan even if the strip was still at the clearance delivery position.
The trouble appears to have been that he wanted to take off against the traffic flow landing on the 14s for performance reasons and probably faced a massive delay doing that. So someone had the idea of a VFR departure from the 32 runways without letting the tower controller know what was involved.
Still, I think all concerned acted quite irresponsibly. Having a heavy biz jet in a pattern against the traffic flow is also not quite the bees knees. He had arrivals on the 14 runways while this biz jet was flying around the airport airspace in the opposite direction. The biz jet crew obviously did not know what was expected of them, misunderstood the radio and so on, all that to save a few minutes on departure.
This appears to have caused at least one massive airprox and generally a disruption of traffic which should be investigated and the results published for others to learn from it. Personally I think that it was quite lucky that this did not end with an accident.
Maybe we are too restrictive in Europe but I do not think that any airport here would have let a jet like this depart VFR from anywhere where an IFR procedure is available. Certainly not in an airspace like this.
