surplus
Please read Blue Coyote's post. In the UK, and NZ almost certainly closely follows that system, the ANO (the "law") is not overly specific about every little rule for specific types / airfields. If it was, it would be enormous, and every time something small changed, then Government would need to be involved
Instead, airlines etc. have "Operations Manuals". These have guidance, and also clear limitations / rules. If you deliberately operate
outside these rules, then you have technically broken the law. The degree of negligence, safety implications and public interest would no doubt form part of a decision to prosecture rather than handle within the airline etc.
It would appear here there was a clear rule, specified for valid safety reasons, and that rule was clearly broken. I am not suggesting the crew should therefore be prosecuted, but equally, I cannot see why not? Breaking black and white rules in public transport operations is not really what 4 stripes is about
The CAA rule allowing takeoffs to twilight I would guess as with us here - a generic rule that applies equally to a C172. It would seem this airport/airline/type might have a visual (?) emergency turn procedure and return option, which requires decent vis and time prior twilight...
<<Queenstown, on New Zealand's South Island, required flights to operate under visual flight rules since the airport did not have approach and runway lighting.>>
Never heard that one before...??
I fly for "a large UK airline" out of Hounslow West
No Edge/CL/App lights and it's Day only. A certain UK outpost in the western Med essentially requires "VFR" rules to land/takeoff (even with runway lights).
NoD