The decision by a Pacific Blue pilot not to take precautions for ice build-up on an air craft in cold conditions was dangerous, an expert witness and pilot has told the Queenstown District Court.
An Auckland pilot, 54, who has interim name suppression, has denied operating a Boeing 737-800 in a careless manner on June 22, 2010, a charge laid by the Civil Aviation Authority.
CAA allege 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.
Today is the eighth day of the defending hearing before Judge Kevin Phillips.
Expert witness Colin Glasgow, a former commercial airline pilot, Air New Zealand chief pilot and CAA airline inspector with 22,500 flying hours, said because of the rain, visible moisture, recent snow, thick cloud and a cold front in the area at the time off the takeoff he was surprised wing anti-ice was not applied before departure.
In the same situation Glasgow said he would have applied anti-ice. If a pilot did not use anti-ice in that situation he was unsure when they would, he said.
Defence lawyer Matthew Muir said two experienced pilots would give evidence stating they did not think anti-ice was not needed at the time.
Glasgow said not preparing for ice was "very unreasonable" and said he was surprised at their stance.
The case continues.
____________________________________________________________ _____
Does anyone else think that the CAA are clutching at any and all straws in this case?
If the aircraft was completely visible for the entire departure from the airport, then they wouldn't have entered what Boeing define as icing conditions. (10 C TAT, 1 SM visibility, visible moisture)
I don't if the reporting is just crap, or Mr Colin Glasgow just doesn't know, but there are two little switches on the overhead panel marked Wing Anti-Ice and Engine Anti ice on the B737 NG.
