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.
At least once per year there are/were? B737s flying in the circuit at ESTL doing touch and goes for the university MPL program.
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.
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.
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.
A misunderstanding. That is all. Shouldn’t have happened but seems like a breakdown in comms between ground and tower and the pilots not realising what was going on.
That explains why he got that IFR clearance at the end? (as he had one ready already)
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.
loco wrote:
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.
Yes we were talking about different turns. The base turn and base to final turn would only have been appropriate if the pilot understood what he was doing. The original instruction from the tower was to “start that right turn now and keep your downwind inside the lake at 1500”. Inside the lake means anywhere over the lake.boundaries.Later when the pilot was not complying, the tower amended the instruction using an urgent tone to “make it a hard turn . pause. remain uh, west of the lake”. This IMHO was clearly for emphasis. Then the tower indicated “plan about a 4 mile base, I will call your base”. A 4 mile base puts the aircraft past the lake. The pilot responds “Extending 4 miles”. The jet ground speed varies between 190 Knots and 230 Knots, the latter even with a tail wind is a speed violation. From the radar return, the pilot did not fly a parallel downwind and crowded the turn to base almost on an extended final to KBFI and abeam KSEA, still at 220 knots GS. GS in the turn varied between 210 and 240 knots.The surface winds were 190 at 6 Knots. To me that is poor airmanship and at least a violation of 91.117 (Airspeed) as the direction in the turn was 180+ degrees and would have cancelled any wind effect. Note that airspeeds inside the Class B airspace, where the maximum permitted IAS is 250 Knots, but under the Class B is 200 Knots.
Canuck wrote:
This seems like a foreign pilot did not know the nuances of the US phraseology. The controller thought they were staying in the pattern and the pilot thought they were leaving.
I agree with this and the rest of your analysis.
