AdamFrisch wrote:
The aircraft was then asked to manoeuvre in an area too small for it due to it’s heavy weight and minimum speed.
This and also changing instructions (inside lake to west of lake, 4 mile final to 1 mile final). Reminds me of the Cirrus girl. Just because ATC sounds professional doesn’t mean they’re doing a good job.
AdamFrisch wrote:
Clarification from YouTube exonerates pilot. Good to remind oneself not to jump to conclusions (and I say this to myself mainly):
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.
If this is correct then it supports (my) conclusion that it was mainly ATC mistake.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The trouble there is that VFR patterns are hardly designed for heavy jets but for small GA normally,
I thought that “standard” patterns were removed ages ago (20+ years ago at least) from larger fields, but maybe not everywhere. Slow planes fly at 1000 ft AGL, fast jets at 1500 AGL. From time to time I can see a 737 flying a pattern at ENVA. Probably due to a go around when landing visually.
At least once per year there are/were? B737s flying in the circuit at ESTL doing touch and goes for the university MPL program.
LeSving wrote:
From time to time I can see a 737 flying a pattern at ENVA. Probably due to a go around when landing visually.
Or completing line training.
