Merged: Pacific Blue infringement in NZQN?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Depends
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot's 'got some balls', court hears
JOHN EDENS IN QUEENSTOWN
Last updated 14:09 06/03/2012
An Airways manager and a Rescue Fire Service officer said "F**king hell I haven't seen this before" and "He's got some balls" as a Pacific Blue aircraft departed in poor weather and dwindling light, Queenstown District Court heard this morning.
A 54-year-old Papakura pilot, who has name suppression, has denied operating a Boeing 737 in a careless manner on June 22, 2010, a charge laid by the Civil Aviation Authority.
The Pacific Blue pilot appeared for the second day of a defended hearing before Judge Kevin Phillips, during which an audio recording of dialogue and a phone call between the air traffic control tower, the Rescue Fire Service and the flight crew was admitted as evidence.
During the recording, the Sydney-bound Pacific Blue flight crew asked to taxi on the runway in case wind abated during the takeoff window.
The aircraft departed at 5.25pm, one minute after flight crew requested a wind check.
About 30 seconds after departure, a phone conversation was recorded between Rescue Fire Service officer Nigel Henderson and Airways flight service specialist manager Daryl Palmer.
Mr Henderson asked "How big are his gonads?" and a few seconds later Mr Palmer said: "F**king hell I haven't seen this before."
Informed the aircraft was committed to the flight and would not be coming back to Queenstown, Mr Henderson added: "Anyway he's got some balls."
Queenstown-based air traffic controller Adam Sakareassen, a controller on the day of the takeoff, told the court a departure depended on a pilot's assessment of conditions.
Gusts of up to 36 knots were blowing and winds varied between southwest and southeasterly.
The aircraft was clearly visible and completed a normal departure, he said.
"At 5.24pm (the aircraft) requested takeoff clearance, we advised wind was gusty at both ends.
"I observed the aircraft take off, nothing unusual."
The authority allege the pilot should not have taken off after 5.14pm because rules stipulated departing aircraft needed at least 30 minutes before civil twilight cutoff at 5.45pm.
The defence case argues the pilot's actions were correct and any breach of requirements, if demonstrated, was below the level of carelessness.
The hearing continues.
JOHN EDENS IN QUEENSTOWN
Last updated 14:09 06/03/2012
An Airways manager and a Rescue Fire Service officer said "F**king hell I haven't seen this before" and "He's got some balls" as a Pacific Blue aircraft departed in poor weather and dwindling light, Queenstown District Court heard this morning.
A 54-year-old Papakura pilot, who has name suppression, has denied operating a Boeing 737 in a careless manner on June 22, 2010, a charge laid by the Civil Aviation Authority.
The Pacific Blue pilot appeared for the second day of a defended hearing before Judge Kevin Phillips, during which an audio recording of dialogue and a phone call between the air traffic control tower, the Rescue Fire Service and the flight crew was admitted as evidence.
During the recording, the Sydney-bound Pacific Blue flight crew asked to taxi on the runway in case wind abated during the takeoff window.
The aircraft departed at 5.25pm, one minute after flight crew requested a wind check.
About 30 seconds after departure, a phone conversation was recorded between Rescue Fire Service officer Nigel Henderson and Airways flight service specialist manager Daryl Palmer.
Mr Henderson asked "How big are his gonads?" and a few seconds later Mr Palmer said: "F**king hell I haven't seen this before."
Informed the aircraft was committed to the flight and would not be coming back to Queenstown, Mr Henderson added: "Anyway he's got some balls."
Queenstown-based air traffic controller Adam Sakareassen, a controller on the day of the takeoff, told the court a departure depended on a pilot's assessment of conditions.
Gusts of up to 36 knots were blowing and winds varied between southwest and southeasterly.
The aircraft was clearly visible and completed a normal departure, he said.
"At 5.24pm (the aircraft) requested takeoff clearance, we advised wind was gusty at both ends.
"I observed the aircraft take off, nothing unusual."
The authority allege the pilot should not have taken off after 5.14pm because rules stipulated departing aircraft needed at least 30 minutes before civil twilight cutoff at 5.45pm.
The defence case argues the pilot's actions were correct and any breach of requirements, if demonstrated, was below the level of carelessness.
The hearing continues.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Large Gonads
From the Radio NZ website:
Radio New Zealand : News : National : Controllers stunned pilot took off despite conditions
Air traffic controllers watched in disbelief as a Pacific Blue pilot took off from Queenstown in darkness, high crosswinds and low cloud cover, a court has been told.
The pilot, who has name suppression, has been charged with carelessly operating a Boeing 737 aircraft when he took off in 2010 after the minimum safe daylight hours. The flight had 70 passengers and crew on board and was bound for Sydney.
At the time of the incident on 22 June 2010, there were no runway lights at the airport or radar and pilots had to be clear of the airport 30 minutes before twilight. The Pacific Blue pilot operated on instrument flight rules. Runway lights have since been installed at the airport.
Audio recordings played to the Queestown District Court on Tuesday showed the pilot was concerned about crosswinds, cloud height and the level of light before he lined up the plane on the runway, but said he felt he could get it off the ground.
Air traffic controllers can be heard swearing and are astonished that the pilot decided to take off despite the conditions.
The controllers said the pilot must have "large gonads and balls" for attempting to leave the airport.
They use the f-word three times and rushed to the windows to make sure the jet reappeared from behind the mountains as it climbed out of Queenstown.
Conversations were also heard between controllers and an Air New Zealand pilot who said he would be returning to Christchurch as he could not land in Queenstown due to the conditions.
The defence denies that the circumstances encountered on the day constituted a breach of safety.
Radio New Zealand : News : National : Controllers stunned pilot took off despite conditions
Air traffic controllers watched in disbelief as a Pacific Blue pilot took off from Queenstown in darkness, high crosswinds and low cloud cover, a court has been told.
The pilot, who has name suppression, has been charged with carelessly operating a Boeing 737 aircraft when he took off in 2010 after the minimum safe daylight hours. The flight had 70 passengers and crew on board and was bound for Sydney.
At the time of the incident on 22 June 2010, there were no runway lights at the airport or radar and pilots had to be clear of the airport 30 minutes before twilight. The Pacific Blue pilot operated on instrument flight rules. Runway lights have since been installed at the airport.
Audio recordings played to the Queestown District Court on Tuesday showed the pilot was concerned about crosswinds, cloud height and the level of light before he lined up the plane on the runway, but said he felt he could get it off the ground.
Air traffic controllers can be heard swearing and are astonished that the pilot decided to take off despite the conditions.
The controllers said the pilot must have "large gonads and balls" for attempting to leave the airport.
They use the f-word three times and rushed to the windows to make sure the jet reappeared from behind the mountains as it climbed out of Queenstown.
Conversations were also heard between controllers and an Air New Zealand pilot who said he would be returning to Christchurch as he could not land in Queenstown due to the conditions.
The defence denies that the circumstances encountered on the day constituted a breach of safety.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Down Under
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Radio NZ journalists are miles off the truth on the gonads topic. (Stuff is significantly closer to what was presented in court). The gonads comment was made by a member of Rescue Fire. It was a conversation with other tower staff, not the controller.
The following is also a good read:
Pilot well qualified: defence | Otago Daily Times Online News : Otago, South Island, New Zealand & International News
The following is also a good read:
Pilot well qualified: defence | Otago Daily Times Online News : Otago, South Island, New Zealand & International News
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Down Under
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(FROM: Otago Daily Times)
Tue, 6 Mar 2012
News: Queenstown Lakes | QDC
The Pacific Blue pilot accused of carelessly operating an aircraft at Queenstown in 2010 was "probably the absolute top of the tree in terms of aircraft qualifications", his lawyer told Judge Kevin Phillips in the Queenstown District Court yesterday.
The 54-year-old Auckland pilot, who has name suppression, denies the charge.
On June 22, 2010, the flight carrying 65 passengers and six crew, including the captain and first officer, took off from the resort bound for Sydney.
The Civil Aviation Authority charged the pilot in April, alleging the plane took off in near darkness, potentially endangering the 71 people on board.
Yesterday, defence counsel Matthew Muir, of Auckland, said there was a "significant danger" in elevating an alleged breach of Pacific Blue's exposition (policy statement), to "criminality".
The flight was scheduled to depart at 4.30pm, but took off at 5.25pm, meeting the "basic daylight requirements" by taking off 20 minutes before the advised Evening Civil Twilight (ECT) time.
However, it was a potential breach of the company's exposition, so it had to be proven "there was such a failure and the pilot decided in a manner that was not reasonable and prudent" to take off.
Pacific Blue's exposition required take-offs to occur "at least 30 minutes prior to Evening Civil Twilight to allow for visual manoeuvring".
"The defendant will say given the range of exposition requirements, a breach of Pacific Blue's exposition at the time ... can't, in itself, be equated with carelessness."
He said the captain and first officer formed a departure plan "which did not involve a return to Queenstown", and the only visual manoeuvre required was between the airport and a reference point, which took about two minutes' flight time to reach.
"It had completed, we say, all the visual manoeuvres it was going to do that day ... still with 18 minutes running before Evening Civil Twilight."
Further, a "return to land scenario" would not only represent "very poor professional judgement", but it was prohibited in Pacific Blue's exposition, given there was an "alternate airport" available and suitable in terms of weather conditions.
Alternate airports had to be available; have a runway at least 45m wide; and be within one hour of flying time in clear air with one engine.
Queenstown's alternates were Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin and Invercargill.
Because Queenstown's runway was only 30m wide, it was not an alternate airport.
"We are saying that the pilot was faced with conflicting messages in the Pacific Blue exposition," Mr Muir said.
If an aircraft had established take-off minimums for Queenstown, but could not establish the landing minimums, an aircraft "may still go, provided you have an alternate".
On June 22, Christchurch airport was chosen as the preferred alternative.
Mr Muir said there were "very real issues" about the weather and the crew came to a decision with Christchurch available "they couldn't lawfully re-land at Queenstown in any event".
"He says 'I can't come back to Queenstown now that I've identified my departure alternative. I'm minded to go to Christchurch; all I've got to consider is my visual manoeuvre to get me [to the reference point]'.
"He makes the perfectly rational decision ... he's still got 18 minutes [before ECT] ... and that's an appropriate and sound decision to make."
Mr Muir said the aircraft weighed 59 tonnes, giving it a significant performance advantage.
"He can put that in his back pocket, knowing he can out-perform the minimum gradients because of his light weight."
While the weather updates were provided to pilots through an automated service, the pilot was not bound by the information, but took it into account along with his own knowledge.
"The defendant's case is that [for] these pilots who are trained into Queenstown, it is absolutely crucial to their training to understand ... and be able to make their own assessment [about the weather conditions].
"He brought to bear his own observations sitting out at the [end] of the runway for a significant period of time."
Mr Muir said the pilot taxied to the end of the runway and remained stationary using wind socks as reference points for the wind, because the cross-wind exceeded a 16-knot limitation.
Wind gusts were monitored for "quite an extended period" because while take-off minimums had been established, the cross-wind was too high.
Mr Muir referred to three "calls" to the pilot by the first officer after take-off - all of which he described as "unremarkable and good crew management".
"Singularly or cumulatively, the informant relies on those as proving the [defendant] was less than prudent.
"The defendant's view is it was unremarkable and good crew management."
The hearing continues today.
Tue, 6 Mar 2012
News: Queenstown Lakes | QDC
The Pacific Blue pilot accused of carelessly operating an aircraft at Queenstown in 2010 was "probably the absolute top of the tree in terms of aircraft qualifications", his lawyer told Judge Kevin Phillips in the Queenstown District Court yesterday.
The 54-year-old Auckland pilot, who has name suppression, denies the charge.
On June 22, 2010, the flight carrying 65 passengers and six crew, including the captain and first officer, took off from the resort bound for Sydney.
The Civil Aviation Authority charged the pilot in April, alleging the plane took off in near darkness, potentially endangering the 71 people on board.
Yesterday, defence counsel Matthew Muir, of Auckland, said there was a "significant danger" in elevating an alleged breach of Pacific Blue's exposition (policy statement), to "criminality".
The flight was scheduled to depart at 4.30pm, but took off at 5.25pm, meeting the "basic daylight requirements" by taking off 20 minutes before the advised Evening Civil Twilight (ECT) time.
However, it was a potential breach of the company's exposition, so it had to be proven "there was such a failure and the pilot decided in a manner that was not reasonable and prudent" to take off.
Pacific Blue's exposition required take-offs to occur "at least 30 minutes prior to Evening Civil Twilight to allow for visual manoeuvring".
"The defendant will say given the range of exposition requirements, a breach of Pacific Blue's exposition at the time ... can't, in itself, be equated with carelessness."
He said the captain and first officer formed a departure plan "which did not involve a return to Queenstown", and the only visual manoeuvre required was between the airport and a reference point, which took about two minutes' flight time to reach.
"It had completed, we say, all the visual manoeuvres it was going to do that day ... still with 18 minutes running before Evening Civil Twilight."
Further, a "return to land scenario" would not only represent "very poor professional judgement", but it was prohibited in Pacific Blue's exposition, given there was an "alternate airport" available and suitable in terms of weather conditions.
Alternate airports had to be available; have a runway at least 45m wide; and be within one hour of flying time in clear air with one engine.
Queenstown's alternates were Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin and Invercargill.
Because Queenstown's runway was only 30m wide, it was not an alternate airport.
"We are saying that the pilot was faced with conflicting messages in the Pacific Blue exposition," Mr Muir said.
If an aircraft had established take-off minimums for Queenstown, but could not establish the landing minimums, an aircraft "may still go, provided you have an alternate".
On June 22, Christchurch airport was chosen as the preferred alternative.
Mr Muir said there were "very real issues" about the weather and the crew came to a decision with Christchurch available "they couldn't lawfully re-land at Queenstown in any event".
"He says 'I can't come back to Queenstown now that I've identified my departure alternative. I'm minded to go to Christchurch; all I've got to consider is my visual manoeuvre to get me [to the reference point]'.
"He makes the perfectly rational decision ... he's still got 18 minutes [before ECT] ... and that's an appropriate and sound decision to make."
Mr Muir said the aircraft weighed 59 tonnes, giving it a significant performance advantage.
"He can put that in his back pocket, knowing he can out-perform the minimum gradients because of his light weight."
While the weather updates were provided to pilots through an automated service, the pilot was not bound by the information, but took it into account along with his own knowledge.
"The defendant's case is that [for] these pilots who are trained into Queenstown, it is absolutely crucial to their training to understand ... and be able to make their own assessment [about the weather conditions].
"He brought to bear his own observations sitting out at the [end] of the runway for a significant period of time."
Mr Muir said the pilot taxied to the end of the runway and remained stationary using wind socks as reference points for the wind, because the cross-wind exceeded a 16-knot limitation.
Wind gusts were monitored for "quite an extended period" because while take-off minimums had been established, the cross-wind was too high.
Mr Muir referred to three "calls" to the pilot by the first officer after take-off - all of which he described as "unremarkable and good crew management".
"Singularly or cumulatively, the informant relies on those as proving the [defendant] was less than prudent.
"The defendant's view is it was unremarkable and good crew management."
The hearing continues today.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a current Captain.....Ive always known that the Airways manager and the Rescue fire Service officer...have ...5 stripes...they are ultimately responsible for the flight
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a media beat-up of the highest order. The Captain clearly thought through a safe course of action, allowed for contingencies, and got the job done safely. This is something any reasonable aviator would have done in his place.
So many rules; such little thinking these days,
So many rules; such little thinking these days,
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Orient
Age: 67
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pacific Blue Pilot Had big Cojones.
Pilot's takeoff: 'how big are his gonads?'
5:30 AM Wednesday Mar 7, 2012
Expand
A Pacific Blue aircraft. Photo / Glenn Jeffrey
Thirty seconds after Pacific Blue flight 89 took off from Queenstown, a Fire Rescue Service member called the control tower asking: "How big are his gonads?".
The telephone conversation was played yesterday during a defended hearing in the Queenstown District Court for the pilot of the flight, a 54-year-old Auckland man who has name suppression.
He faces one charge, before Judge Kevin Phillips, of operating a plane carelessly at Queenstown on June 22, 2010. The charge was brought by the Civil Aviation Authority in April last year.
The recorded conversation, between Queenstown Fire Rescue's Nigel Henderson and Airways New Zealand flight service specialist Darryl Palmer, a pilot with 2900 flight hours, began with Mr Henderson saying "How big are his gonads?".
Mr Palmer then said: "****** hell, I haven't seen this before."
CAA counsel Fletcher Pilditch asked Mr Palmer what he meant by "I haven't seen this before". Mr Palmer said "possibly I hadn't seen a Bluebird [Pacific Blue aircraft] take off in those conditions maybe".
When asked by defence counsel Matthew Muir if he knew Mr Henderson socially and the conversation was a "bit of back chat", Mr Palmer replied: "correct".
Air Traffic Controller Adam Sakareassen, of Queenstown, said the flight landed at Queenstown Airport in "fine" weather, with the weather front arriving later, bringing "significant bad weather".
A scheduled Mount Cook service from Christchurch to Queenstown was turned back and a Queenstown -Christchurch Mount Cook service was cancelled, both because of the weather.
"The Pacific Blue crew decided to wait ... about an hour."
Any decision regarding the weather was the pilot's, he said.
At one point the crew advised it was happy with the cloud level, but there was a prevailing cross wind and reported the airline had a "maximum cross wind of 16 knots".
Moments before the plane took off the crew requested a wind check.
Mr Sakareassen said it was 17 knots gusting 28 knots and the wind speeds were "not steady". "At 5.24pm take off clearance was given, with wind gusts at both ends [of] 25 knots."
The aircraft taxied and there was "nothing unusual" about the take off, he said. "I was comfortable it would complete a normal departure."
In an email the next day Mr Sakareassen concluded it was "worthy noting that conditions were the best they had been in the last hour at the time Pacific Blue 89 departed".
Queenstown Airport's former operations manager, Daniel de Bono, told the court he had witnessed some "interesting departures ... however, I have never seen anything like Pacific Blue's flight 89 departure ... at that time of day, in low lighting conditions".
Mr de Bono, also a pilot, said he went into former Queenstown Airport chief executive Steve Sanderson's office and watched the flight take off.
"It seemed very unusual, we were surprised the aircraft took off and [were aware] that it was probably not going to be the end of this incident."
WHAT THEY SAID
Mr Henderson: "How big are his gonads?".
Mr Palmer: "****** hell, I haven't seen this before."
Mr Palmer: "I was just saying if he doesn't ... set heading ."
Mr Henderson: "Oh, he's screwed".
* Mr Palmer later said the pilot of the flight was "committed".
* "He'll be gone ... he won't be coming back".
* Mr Henderson said "he's got some balls".
- Otago Daily Times
5:30 AM Wednesday Mar 7, 2012
Expand
A Pacific Blue aircraft. Photo / Glenn Jeffrey
Thirty seconds after Pacific Blue flight 89 took off from Queenstown, a Fire Rescue Service member called the control tower asking: "How big are his gonads?".
The telephone conversation was played yesterday during a defended hearing in the Queenstown District Court for the pilot of the flight, a 54-year-old Auckland man who has name suppression.
He faces one charge, before Judge Kevin Phillips, of operating a plane carelessly at Queenstown on June 22, 2010. The charge was brought by the Civil Aviation Authority in April last year.
The recorded conversation, between Queenstown Fire Rescue's Nigel Henderson and Airways New Zealand flight service specialist Darryl Palmer, a pilot with 2900 flight hours, began with Mr Henderson saying "How big are his gonads?".
Mr Palmer then said: "****** hell, I haven't seen this before."
CAA counsel Fletcher Pilditch asked Mr Palmer what he meant by "I haven't seen this before". Mr Palmer said "possibly I hadn't seen a Bluebird [Pacific Blue aircraft] take off in those conditions maybe".
When asked by defence counsel Matthew Muir if he knew Mr Henderson socially and the conversation was a "bit of back chat", Mr Palmer replied: "correct".
Air Traffic Controller Adam Sakareassen, of Queenstown, said the flight landed at Queenstown Airport in "fine" weather, with the weather front arriving later, bringing "significant bad weather".
A scheduled Mount Cook service from Christchurch to Queenstown was turned back and a Queenstown -Christchurch Mount Cook service was cancelled, both because of the weather.
"The Pacific Blue crew decided to wait ... about an hour."
Any decision regarding the weather was the pilot's, he said.
At one point the crew advised it was happy with the cloud level, but there was a prevailing cross wind and reported the airline had a "maximum cross wind of 16 knots".
Moments before the plane took off the crew requested a wind check.
Mr Sakareassen said it was 17 knots gusting 28 knots and the wind speeds were "not steady". "At 5.24pm take off clearance was given, with wind gusts at both ends [of] 25 knots."
The aircraft taxied and there was "nothing unusual" about the take off, he said. "I was comfortable it would complete a normal departure."
In an email the next day Mr Sakareassen concluded it was "worthy noting that conditions were the best they had been in the last hour at the time Pacific Blue 89 departed".
Queenstown Airport's former operations manager, Daniel de Bono, told the court he had witnessed some "interesting departures ... however, I have never seen anything like Pacific Blue's flight 89 departure ... at that time of day, in low lighting conditions".
Mr de Bono, also a pilot, said he went into former Queenstown Airport chief executive Steve Sanderson's office and watched the flight take off.
"It seemed very unusual, we were surprised the aircraft took off and [were aware] that it was probably not going to be the end of this incident."
WHAT THEY SAID
Mr Henderson: "How big are his gonads?".
Mr Palmer: "****** hell, I haven't seen this before."
Mr Palmer: "I was just saying if he doesn't ... set heading ."
Mr Henderson: "Oh, he's screwed".
* Mr Palmer later said the pilot of the flight was "committed".
* "He'll be gone ... he won't be coming back".
* Mr Henderson said "he's got some balls".
- Otago Daily Times
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: a Galaxy far far away
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And in calling expert witness, Mrs Patty Smith, local Green grocer to the stand, she remarked, " I have never seen any worse example of CRM in my life". On that basis the pilot was committed and sentenced to 20 years hard labour. In other news, Dr Death was freed on a technical issue and never really killed 20 patients. Dr Death has resumed practice in an unknown location and will no doubt fix up his deficiencies in his next surgical sim session
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Smog Central
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight triggered warning in cockpit, court hears
JOHN EDENS IN QUEENSTOWN Last updated 14:42 12/03/2012
A departing Pacific Blue aircraft triggered a cockpit warning most pilots would not encounter in their entire careers, an expert witness told the Queenstown District Court today.
A 54-year-old pilot, of Papakura, appeared for the sixth day of a defended hearing before Judge Kevin Phillips.
The pilot, who has interim name suppression, has denied operating a Boeing 737 in a careless manner on June 22, 2010, a charge laid by the Civil Aviation Authority.
CAA alleges the pilot should not have taken off for Sydney after 5.14pm because Pacific Blue rules stipulated departing aircraft at Queenstown needed at least 30 minutes before civil twilight at 5.45pm.
The aircraft departed at 5.25pm.
Expert witness Colin Glasgow, a former commercial airline pilot, Air New Zealand chief pilot and CAA airline inspector, told the court Queenstown Airport was categorised 'x', the highest of a four-level system, because of the terrain, gusting winds, a narrow runway, the then lack of runway lights and no radar.
Pilots flying in and out of Queenstown were required to undergo specific training, including flying with an examiner.
The departure route was an approved flight path over the Frankton arm, around Deer Park Heights to a reference point between the hill and The Remarkables mountain range, after which the aircraft could engage instruments and climb into cloud.
Visual rules for the initial takeoff segment were designed to enable a pilot to deal with an emergency before the reference point, when there was no going back.
A minimum altitude was specified for the aircraft between Deer Park Heights and The Remarkables, to ensure aircraft could climb safely over the Southern Alps if an engine failed.
"As he was leaving when he did he would not be able to land the aircraft before light faded completely.
"He took away [the return to Queenstown] procedure if a malfunction occurred during this critical stage of flight.''
The aircraft descended slightly after takeoff, triggering an automatic "don't sink'' warning and "cut a corner'' flying around Slope Hill instead of directly overhead, the court was told.
As the craft turned around Deer Park Heights, it banked up to 30 degrees, when normal aircraft banking was typically 15 degrees.
This manoeuvre triggered an automatic cockpit "bank angle'' warning, a scenario that can lead to stalling.
"Pilots will fly an entire career and not hear this warning other than in a simulator.
"Being able to safely navigate terrain and avoid other aircraft depended on the ability to see through the visual segment, he was struggling to do that.''
The aircraft did not reach minimum altitude between Deer Park and The Remarkables, a manouevre designed to allow enough climbing performance to ascend to more than 9000 feet and clear the Southern Alps.
"Failure to reach altitude created a real risk that an engine failure after [the reference point between Deer Park and The Remarkables] meant he would not have achieved enough altitude to fly over The Alps.
"He only just managed to make 9000 feet with both engines.''
The hearing continues.
- © Fairfax NZ News
JOHN EDENS IN QUEENSTOWN Last updated 14:42 12/03/2012
A departing Pacific Blue aircraft triggered a cockpit warning most pilots would not encounter in their entire careers, an expert witness told the Queenstown District Court today.
A 54-year-old pilot, of Papakura, appeared for the sixth day of a defended hearing before Judge Kevin Phillips.
The pilot, who has interim name suppression, has denied operating a Boeing 737 in a careless manner on June 22, 2010, a charge laid by the Civil Aviation Authority.
CAA alleges the pilot should not have taken off for Sydney after 5.14pm because Pacific Blue rules stipulated departing aircraft at Queenstown needed at least 30 minutes before civil twilight at 5.45pm.
The aircraft departed at 5.25pm.
Expert witness Colin Glasgow, a former commercial airline pilot, Air New Zealand chief pilot and CAA airline inspector, told the court Queenstown Airport was categorised 'x', the highest of a four-level system, because of the terrain, gusting winds, a narrow runway, the then lack of runway lights and no radar.
Pilots flying in and out of Queenstown were required to undergo specific training, including flying with an examiner.
The departure route was an approved flight path over the Frankton arm, around Deer Park Heights to a reference point between the hill and The Remarkables mountain range, after which the aircraft could engage instruments and climb into cloud.
Visual rules for the initial takeoff segment were designed to enable a pilot to deal with an emergency before the reference point, when there was no going back.
A minimum altitude was specified for the aircraft between Deer Park Heights and The Remarkables, to ensure aircraft could climb safely over the Southern Alps if an engine failed.
"As he was leaving when he did he would not be able to land the aircraft before light faded completely.
"He took away [the return to Queenstown] procedure if a malfunction occurred during this critical stage of flight.''
The aircraft descended slightly after takeoff, triggering an automatic "don't sink'' warning and "cut a corner'' flying around Slope Hill instead of directly overhead, the court was told.
As the craft turned around Deer Park Heights, it banked up to 30 degrees, when normal aircraft banking was typically 15 degrees.
This manoeuvre triggered an automatic cockpit "bank angle'' warning, a scenario that can lead to stalling.
"Pilots will fly an entire career and not hear this warning other than in a simulator.
"Being able to safely navigate terrain and avoid other aircraft depended on the ability to see through the visual segment, he was struggling to do that.''
The aircraft did not reach minimum altitude between Deer Park and The Remarkables, a manouevre designed to allow enough climbing performance to ascend to more than 9000 feet and clear the Southern Alps.
"Failure to reach altitude created a real risk that an engine failure after [the reference point between Deer Park and The Remarkables] meant he would not have achieved enough altitude to fly over The Alps.
"He only just managed to make 9000 feet with both engines.''
The hearing continues.
- © Fairfax NZ News
As the craft turned around Deer Park Heights, it banked up to 30 degrees, when normal aircraft banking was typically 15 degrees.
This manoeuvre triggered an automatic cockpit "bank angle'' warning, a scenario that can lead to stalling.
[quotePilots will fly an entire career and not hear this warning other than in a simulator.][/quote]
Not this pilot, I only have a few thousand hours on the -800 but I have heard it....what an extraordinary career I must have.
The aircraft did not reach minimum altitude between Deer Park and The Remarkables, a manouevre designed to allow enough climbing performance to ascend to more than 9000 feet and clear the Southern Alps.
That said though, knowing what we know about Human Factors, does the company hold any responsibility for the violation? Did they put their Captain in a situation where the correct choice was so unattractive that more than a few of their staff would have done the same in that scenario?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Off track, again
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 AOB would only be required if the engine failed at a speed of less than V2+15, but normal 2 engine profile would see at least V2+20 and therefore up to 30 AOB is normal. As for never hearing the bank angle warning that is rubbish. It's easy to do, esp in the ZQN visual departure maneuver where so much attention is focussed outside the aircraft.
Have Pac Blue had their -800´s EGPWS modified so that the ¨bank angle¨callout is triggered earlier than standard? It triggers at 35 degrees in all the 737's I have flown.
This manoeuvre triggered an automatic cockpit "bank angle'' warning, a scenario that can lead to stalling.
According to FCOM Vol 1, I can have flaps 15 out, and I have a 1.3 g maneuver margin to stick shake, which equates to 45 degrees AOB and thats with the speed right back at V2....
and who knows the aircraft better than Boeing? Mr Colin Glasgow? (Mind you he is ex-Air NZ and they know everything about flying! Even more than the aircraft manufacturer!)
As the craft turned around Deer Park Heights, it banked up to 30 degrees, when normal aircraft banking was typically 15 degrees.
The aircraft descended slightly after takeoff, triggering an automatic "don't sink'' warning and "cut a corner'' flying around Slope Hill instead of directly overhead, the court was told.
What if you reach 9800 ft before SH? From what I've seen, the FMC drops out the R252 SH because you've met the 9800A ft requirement and tracks direct to the oceanic boundary point without overheading SH.
Maybe they were already above 9800 ft and hence why it seemed they 'cut the corner'. I know Mr Glasgow said they barely reached 9000ft, but where did they 'barely reach' 9000 ft? Before the overhead of SH or after SH?
You can be at 9000 ft, intercept the R252 from SH and still be safe from terrain, as long as you track outbound on R252 as the SID says. There is no minimum SH crossing altitude in the SID.
Last edited by Gate_15L; 12th Mar 2012 at 05:29.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an absolute waste of taxpayer's money. What do CAA think they are doing? At worst, this guy should get a slap on the hand from the Chief Pilot about not sticking to the company SoPs. So he got a "bank angle" warning...who hasn't? As for a "don't sink", that's a bit less common, but far from unheard of, especially when the situation calls for visual manouevering, and avoidance of cloud. I hope CAA come out of this looking as silly as they do at the moment.
The media and so-called experts are proving how out of touch they are with day to day aviation activities and procedures and the standard of reporting has been nothing short of abysmal.
At the end of this, I hope the skipper sues CAA for defamation, loss of earnings (not sure if he is suspended with or without pay), damage to his reputation and mental distress/anguish. Sure he has name suppression, but anyone can go to the Court and see who he is....and I'm sure many here know the guy.
There are many far worse incidents that have happened over the years that have gone "unpunished".....I'm sure we all know of at least one or two.
Just out of curiosity, are PB providing his lawyer, or have they left him hung out to dry?
The media and so-called experts are proving how out of touch they are with day to day aviation activities and procedures and the standard of reporting has been nothing short of abysmal.
At the end of this, I hope the skipper sues CAA for defamation, loss of earnings (not sure if he is suspended with or without pay), damage to his reputation and mental distress/anguish. Sure he has name suppression, but anyone can go to the Court and see who he is....and I'm sure many here know the guy.
There are many far worse incidents that have happened over the years that have gone "unpunished".....I'm sure we all know of at least one or two.
Just out of curiosity, are PB providing his lawyer, or have they left him hung out to dry?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: new zealand
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If CAA had a watertight case, why did it take two years to go to court?
Their expert witness obviously hasn't flown for a while?!? From what I have read, I suspect the penny will fall on the side of the Captain. It will be interesting to see how much the reparations afterwards will cost NZCAA. Like someone else posted, there have been as many serious occurences that end up as crew room chat and not courtroom drama. In this case we have heard from a harbour master on a jet ski and a mechanic outside having a durry...
Their expert witness obviously hasn't flown for a while?!? From what I have read, I suspect the penny will fall on the side of the Captain. It will be interesting to see how much the reparations afterwards will cost NZCAA. Like someone else posted, there have been as many serious occurences that end up as crew room chat and not courtroom drama. In this case we have heard from a harbour master on a jet ski and a mechanic outside having a durry...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with DC and Mr P above - this whole thing should have been kept in-house in the first place. The pilot is being represented by NZALPA. Let's hope that if anyone gets hung out to dry it is the CAA for pursuing this prosecution in the first place. Having seen the video taken by the passenger when it was online, and having regularly operated ZQN for a long time, I venture to say that people have seen far worse over the years, and it's never ended up in court at all. It sounds as if the crew were quite prudent in their analysis of the conditions and the appropriate actions to be taken in the event of abnormals occurring. The way that SOPS and manuals have to be written now one should really complete a law degree as part of the ATPL theory requirements it would seem.