PDA

View Full Version : Merged: Pacific Blue infringement in NZQN?


Samba Anaconda
26th Jul 2010, 20:21
Probe into Pacific Blue flight

NZPA July 27, 2010, 7:15 am

http://l.yimg.com/fv/xp/nzpa/20100727/05/247953325.jpg?x=292&sig=ew2upUNCY5f8KoRaYvCYmw-- (http://l.yimg.com/fv/xp/nzpa/20100727/05/247953325.jpg) NZPA © Enlarge photo (http://l.yimg.com/fv/xp/nzpa/20100727/05/247953325.jpg)




#lightbox_press{border:none;}.y_pxTag {display: none;}

Related Links



: Shock as mid-air collision kills two near Feilding (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/7651141/shock-as-mid-air-collision-kills-two/)





The Civil Aviation Authority is investigating after the lives of 140 passengers and crew were reportedly put at risk when a Pacific Blue pilot allegedly ignored visual flight rules and took off in darkness from Queenstown airport.
Witnesses of the June 22 flight said the Boeing 737 flew dangerously low to avoid low fog and an incoming front, Radio New Zealand reported toay.
One witness said the plane did not climb as it should have, but flew at under 1000 feet (300 metres) as it negotiated its way out of the mountains in thick cloud.
A Pacific Blue spokesman said the flight took off outside daylight hours and the company would cooperate with the investigation.




Probe into Pacific Blue flight - Yahoo!Xtra News (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/7651222/probe-into-pacific-blue-flight/)

akerosid
26th Jul 2010, 20:30
Reported in NZ Herald:

'Dangerous' Queenstown takeoff investigated by CAA | NATIONAL News (http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/dangerous-queenstown-takeoff-investigated-3674414)

mattyj
26th Jul 2010, 20:45
Didn't take long to make it onto pprune! Once apon a time that sort of thing was commonplace in QN, now there is no tolerance for anything left of centre..probably a good thing really. Popeye Lucas would be turning in his grave

belowMDA
27th Jul 2010, 00:04
I see the crew have been stood down. The company if they were going to do it should have done it the next day not a couple of months after the fact!

I wonder when Jet Star's little approach shenanigans will become public. If true then that's scary.

Sqwark2000
27th Jul 2010, 00:43
I see the crew have been stood down. The company if they were going to do it should have done it the next day not a couple of months after the fact!


The crew were stood down immediately upon arrival at destination I believe. ZQN ATC had a fit when the a/c departed so PB were aware asap that the incident occured.

This was not quickly reported at all..... this incident occured nearly 4 weeks ago, I personally knew of it about a week after it happened thru crewroom scuttlebutt.

S2K

belowMDA
27th Jul 2010, 01:03
Fine, the same crewroom scuttlebut that informed me of this incident also told me that a Jetstar flight advised ATC they were going to fly the VOR approach and then proceded on down the RNP approach. Which I think is just a little unusual.

hkrascal
27th Jul 2010, 01:10
titan uranus you seem to want to shut this thread down with your admonishments. I wonder why?

framer
27th Jul 2010, 01:20
I didn't even know Pac Blue flew in there. How long have they been doing that?
I wonder if the pilots recieve the same level of training as the Air NZ and Qantas pilots do, ie a 'Queenstown Ground school' and specific 'Queenstown Simulator Training' ? They probably do , can anyone confirm the extent of special training they get?
Taking off after the 30 mins to ECT limit smacks of commercial pressure to me (I'm not saying thats an excuse).

jtr
27th Jul 2010, 01:53
ZQN ATC had a fit when the a/c departed so PB were aware asap that the incident occured.

Huh? "Cleared for take off runway 05.... and boy are you in trouble!"

How did ATC bring themselves to let them Taxi or T/O?

Fine, the same crewroom scuttlebut that informed me of this incident also told me that a Jetstar flight advised ATC they were going to fly the VOR approach and then proceded on down the RNP approach. Which I think is just a little unusual.

I think you will find
a) It was an RNP approach that then switched to circling in the basin
b) It was a non revenue validation flight

ZQN Tower are pretty damn good, there to help, and given the diversity of approaches, trials, operators and departures coupled with WX do a fanbloodytastic job I think.

Cpt Link Hog
27th Jul 2010, 02:40
"smacks of commercial pressure to me" at Pac Blue realy ummm?

The CEO MP put out news letter saying he "expects" all crew including pilots even if you are on duty travel to help clean the A/C on turn arounds.
No coffie stops in the morning this may affect OTP...
:*

Googe OTP and pacific Blue they are always banging on about it,looks like they didn't make OTP that day "Just a "few" minuts past ect", according to their spokesman" :oh:

They now have a fuel saving commitie made up of pilots and managment we all know the type; which has cut fuel to the bone min gas everywere not even an allounce for a standard IF app if you want more gas you must have a reason...

Crikey Blog...

One of the biggest risks to airline safety today is pilots who think like accountants or shareholders rather than as professional pilots. Pacific Blue needs to do more than ‘co-operate’ after being caught breaking the regulations in a serious and material manner. It needs to audit its safety standards, and refine and enforce a safety culture that prevents pilots from endangering not only jet loads of people, but its reputation and brand value.

Cypher
27th Jul 2010, 05:45
if you want more gas you must have a reason...


And no questions are asked if you want to take more gas... no CP on the phone, no one from OPS calling you to try and take less gas, only a reason for statistical reasons on the Flight Plan.


which has cut fuel to the bone min gas everywere not even an
allounce for a standard IF app

You must be a journalist.... to be able to make up bs like that....

Sqwark2000
27th Jul 2010, 07:27
Huh? "Cleared for take off runway 05.... and boy are you in trouble!"

How did ATC bring themselves to let them Taxi or T/O?


Maybe ATC were off watch because ECT had occured..... and the PB crew elected to use unattended procedures.... :=

How I heard it was that ATC were still in the tower (probably off watch packing their lunch boxes into their bags) when the a/c took off.

A crew from my company were in the taxi heading to the hotel (they had missed the cutoff to depart due weather) when they observed the a/c heading towards Rat Point.

S2K

remoak
27th Jul 2010, 07:45
IF app if you want more gas you must have a reason...

Why would you NOT have a reason for taking extra gas...??? If you take extra just for the hell of it, you deserve a severe bollocking! :rolleyes::ugh::ugh:

Water Wings
27th Jul 2010, 08:09
Keeping an open mind, I decided to look up some things for myself.

According to Airways, ECT on the 22nd of June was 1744 local. The media reports put the departure time at 1725ish. Outside of the ECT -30 limit yes, but still daylight. Is the 30 minute limit regulatory or self imposed?

The AIP Supplement puts ATC on duty until 1800. If I can remember correctly, a tower closing off greater than 20? minutes early requires a NOTAM to be put out advising of the early close (sure a Controller will correct me if wrong). The Poindexter in me also found this gem in the AIP.
NZQN AD 2 - 31.1 makes mention that ATC must be in attendance for CAT B and C arrivals and departures. Considering the above I would be surprised to find the tower was off watch.

If they have broken the rules I'm sure it will come out in the wash and appropriate action will need to be taken however, as anyone in any industry dealing with reports from the public knows, eye witnesses are well known for being extremely unreliable especially when time has elapsed from the event.

conflict alert
27th Jul 2010, 08:21
If I can remember correctly, a tower closing off greater than 20? minutes early requires a NOTAM to be put out advising of the early close

any ATC service is 30mins without notice .... more than this requires a NOTAM

ATC don't generally knock off 30mins prior to NOTAMed hours of service if there are still sked flights coming or going.

exqfnappy4it
27th Jul 2010, 12:11
Below MDA, why don't you just concentrate on operating your own aircraft safely and leave safety regulation to CAANZ. I have personally observed a certain kiwi operator doing split arse turns on to the reciprical runway following a MAP in ZQN....and no, we didn't call CAANZ to report it..:=

belowMDA
27th Jul 2010, 21:01
Well, why would you call CAA over that? And I don't need to call CAA over anything, they're already there watching!

mattyj
27th Jul 2010, 21:29
I used to fly bugsmashers out of QN and I'm trying to see what was wrong here other than the 10 minute late departure..
When the eyewitness says the aircraft flew low out to a low cloud base before circling behind calvin heights..that sounds like a typical Bowen RNAV departure with a cloud base of 300' and 3.7km vis. It IS for approved operators only..is that not PB?

kmagyoyo
27th Jul 2010, 23:53
Journalism at its best on TV3 last night. I didn't know a normal 737 departure out of ZQN involved climbing to 10,000' in a matter of seconds :ugh:

framer
28th Jul 2010, 01:20
I wonder if the pilots recieve the same level of training as the Air NZ and Qantas pilots do, ie a 'Queenstown Ground school' and specific 'Queenstown Simulator Training' ? They probably do , can anyone confirm the extent of special training they get?
Anyone?
I ask because my feeling is that cost cutting over the last decade or so is eating into our safety standards (as an industry) and I would be interested to know if this is the case here. Running sims and ground schools for a specific airport is expensive business and I imagine it would be tempting for a low cost airline to skimp a bit on this. If they haven't skimped on this then I doubt they are going to be making much money in Qtown with AirNZ, Jetstar and Qantas all serving it already.
If they have provided less than the other airlines provide to their crews then I feel for the crew involved and the company is reaping what they have sown.
Framer

Cypher
28th Jul 2010, 02:36
Yes.. on both.. specific ground and Computer based training course and a course of simulator training, just like all the other part 121 jet operators that fly in and out of ZQN. As well as final check to line to operate into that port with a flight examiner..

framer
28th Jul 2010, 05:09
Thanks for that Cypher. Its good to hear that is the case.

assymetric
28th Jul 2010, 06:10
a normal 737 departure out of ZQN involved climbing to 10,000' in a matter of seconds

After checking the technical log of the aircraft involved in the incident, I can confirm that the Afterburners on the CFM56 engines on this aircraft were both unserviceable on the day and the aircraft was operating under an MEL.

Assy

Jober.as.a.Sudge
28th Jul 2010, 06:21
Gawd, how I hope someone (media) bites on that one assymetric!!! :ok:

sleemanj
28th Jul 2010, 06:32
Sounds like Campbell Live are going the whole hog on it tonight, sim re-enactment and account from thought-I-was-going-to-die passenger on this flight. Flight of DEAAAAAAAAATH.

bowing
28th Jul 2010, 06:52
good s&%# to watch:}

sleemanj
28th Jul 2010, 08:22
Here's John Campbell's piece...

Relive the infamous Pacific Blue flight out of Queenstown - Campbell Live - Video - 3 News (http://www.3news.co.nz/Relive-the-infamous-Pacific-Blue-flight-out-of-Queenstown/tabid/367/articleID/167854/Default.aspx)

big buddah
28th Jul 2010, 08:34
Oh my god that's some of the worst reporting I have ever seen? I only watched the first minute or so?

That sim guy must extremely pissed off with himself when he watches that? He's not typed on the A/c, not trained in Queenstown and has no idea about much!!

The reporter, very disappointing no research what so ever TV3 you sure made cocks of yourselves over that!!

Capn Bloggs
28th Jul 2010, 08:51
Watch what you say on the PA. :ouch:

The Hill
28th Jul 2010, 08:56
piss poor journalism TV3! :ugh:

Artificial Horizon
28th Jul 2010, 09:03
What a load of CRAP:ugh:

nomorecatering
28th Jul 2010, 09:09
Is there a link that anyone can post for the departure and arrival procedure.

big buddah
28th Jul 2010, 09:10
Love the comment "Visibility was reported at 32km, is that enough?", Sim idiot "It's enough on a normal day to go flying but you need a bit more than that to get out of Queenstown, we can't even see the end of Lake Wakatipu"

What the F..k!
What an idiot!

If I was PB I'd being suing TV3 for the embarrassment! and the aero club sim guy!

Capn Bloggs
28th Jul 2010, 09:27
Links to approaches and departures here:

VATNZ - VATSIM New Zealand - Queenstown (http://www.vatnz.net/cms/index.php?option=com_vatnzairspace&Itemid=52&task=ap&icao=nzqn)

What departure were they doing?

Sqwark2000
28th Jul 2010, 10:48
leave a comment on the story page at tv3news.co.nz (http://www.3news.co.nz/campbelllive)

Horrible journalism....

scon
28th Jul 2010, 11:07
According to the reporter the sim guy "is a trained pilot", whats the bet not on the 73? Wonder if that 'interesting' takeoff was requested by tv3 to exaggerate the 'im going to die' story :ugh:

Water Wings
28th Jul 2010, 11:31
A google search revealed a 'Liam Brown' that holds a PPL passed in 03.

http://www.northshoreaeroclub.co.nz/aeroclub/images/stories/files/ppl_achievements_to2007.pdf (page 6).

Must have taken him years. I mean having to wait weeks on end to get a day with 32kms vis to go flying must have been a killer:}

PBN
28th Jul 2010, 12:01
This is guna be a shit storm Campbell old boy, I hope you and your station are well covered..................................................... ............................:ugh::ugh:

slamer.
28th Jul 2010, 19:37
What sort of departure ... the "Home sick angel 1 dep"

Accel to the Bricks along the lake...... then stand it on the tail in thrust until above terrain.

Have to agree, terrible reporting. wouldnt blame the young bloke in the sim though, looks like he was set up to me.

framer
29th Jul 2010, 04:34
Just for info for those unfamiliar with the non-rnp jet depatures out of NZQN;
The visual segment of the departure is to a different height each time depending on the weight of the a/c and the resulting ROC that could be achieved single engine.
From memory it's normally about 5600ft for a domestic departure. If an engine fails subsequent to this height you can continue the departure and go IMC and get the required terrain clearance. If you lose one prior to this height you have to remain visual and return to land via the 'figure of 8' pattern. That is why you have the 30 mins prior to ECT requirment, you have to have time to do that maneuvring visually in the basin and get on the ground again. That is also why the met conditions have to have certain viz for the entire basin, not just where a normal departure would track.
This is for none-rnp departures, for all I know the crew were conducting an RNP departure and none of this applies to them. Can anyone say if PB are conducting RNP proceedures?

slice
29th Jul 2010, 05:03
No RNP for PacificBlue. The Company Port briefing essentially details the info above

snakeslugger
29th Jul 2010, 05:05
It is work in progress but as it stands PB do not have RNP approval for ZQN operations.

Cypher
29th Jul 2010, 17:12
If I was PB I'd being suing TV3 for the embarrassment! and the aero club sim guy!

Well I suppose thats one novel way of removing any chance of an airline ever hiring you in NZ....

Konev
31st Jul 2010, 11:08
the plane took off on runway 23 and travelled down frankton arm at about 2200 AMSL. (1100 above lake)

they followed the standard departure route at this altitude till they crossed back over land near jacks point, jardines.

upon getting there they most likely picked up the VOR and buried the throttles.

i watched it and certainly considered it unusual but they remained in VFR till they had a fair bit of altitude. i saw them last with plenty of altitude overhead the tollgate reporting point.


it does not help matter when the media talks to someone who plants his ass on a jetski all day and has no involvement in the local aviation industry other than in a company trying to start a float operation.

macbe327
1st Aug 2010, 05:52
a Jetstar flight advised ATC they were going to fly the VOR approach and then proceded on down the RNP approach

Not true

How did ATC bring themselves to let them Taxi or T/O?
ATC was on watch but do not make the go or no go decision with reference to weather. Weather information is given and it is up to the pilot to decide whether or not the required minima exists.

There is no requirement in the AIP for flights to be airborne 30min prior to ECT.

macbe327
1st Aug 2010, 06:35
ZQN Tower are pretty damn good, there to help, and given the diversity of approaches, trials, operators and departures coupled with WX do a fanbloodytastic job I think.
and glad you enjoy the service

Jober.as.a.Sudge
1st Aug 2010, 08:30
...someone who plants his ass on a jetski all day...

Concur. That bloke's been a pain in the regions collective arse since the 1st day he was appointed. He doesn't like letting too much time pass before he sees his name in the paper again either.

When I was there, the guys and gals in QN tower/flight-service (yup, including MF) were to an individual superb. Especially when the chips were down.

This whole thing stinks to me of a media beat-up, with the charge led by the... incomparable (yeah, that's the word I was searching for :rolleyes: ) John Campbell.

NoseGear
1st Aug 2010, 22:21
So incensed was I with Campbell Lives pathetic "I thought I was gonna die" media beat up reporting, I wrote into TV3 explaining that passengers and PPLs make singularly bad and unreliable witnesses. I did receive a response from a lady by the name of Pip, she told me they had tried to find a Professional Pilot and someone from PacBlue to comment, but had found no one.....clearly they didn't look very hard:hmm:

I'm not entirely familiar with this particular departure, however, it does appear to be fairly standard with regard to the visual segment, despite the Aussies "waiting for the Captain to tell us we were going to ditch" comment:rolleyes::ugh: And this gem, "I could see the lights in the houses":rolleyes: Absolute garbage from start to finish. :yuk:

As for Campbells pained facial expressions during the re-telling of what was a departure in mountainous terrain in turbulence, it was farcical and he should review the tape....its nothing short of embarrasing:mad::=

airsquare
15th Aug 2010, 05:46
But you've missed the most pressing problem, there are no runway lead-in lights, you can't takeoff like that! :eek:

c100driver
14th Apr 2011, 09:16
The Civil Aviation Authority has charged the pilot of a Pacific Blue passenger jet for allegedly compromising safety by taking off from Queenstown Airport last year after the deadline for departures.

It was reported at the time Flight DJ89 departed Queenstown for Sydney on June 22 in darkness, potentially endangering the 140 passengers and crew aboard.

CAA said today that two charges had been laid under the Civil Aviation Act following an extensive investigation into the departure of the B737-800 aircraft from Queenstown, in conditions of poor light and visibility.

"The investigation concluded that the airline's procedures and operating conditions were breached in this take off...and that safety was compromised as a result."

Director of Civil Aviation Steve Douglas said that the airline had not been charged.

"I am satisfied that Pacific Blue had the appropriate procedures in place for operations conducted at Queenstown," he said.

The matter was now sub judice and the CAA would not comment on the case until it was heard in the Queenstown District Court.

Queenstown is surrounded by mountainous terrain and has no radar or runway lights.

CAA spokesman Bill Sommer said after the incident that airlines operating out of Queenstown must depart no later than 30 minutes before twilight as a precaution.

"If anything does happen they've got sufficient time to return to the airfield and land."

NZPA

Capn Bloggs
14th Apr 2011, 13:45
Queenstown is surrounded by mountainous terrain and has no radar or runway lights.

CAA spokesman Bill Sommer said after the incident that airlines operating out of Queenstown must depart no later than 30 minutes before twilight as a precaution.

"If anything does happen they've got sufficient time to return to the airfield and land."

Is it a requirement in NZ to be able to return to the airfield of departure in the event of a problem? Or is there no EDTO Takeoff Adequate within range?

big buddah
14th Apr 2011, 14:01
30 before ECT take off out of NZQN,
Interesting as this is not a rule.

haughtney1
14th Apr 2011, 17:15
So on the basis of an extensive investigation....media intrigue...and no legal requirements (apart from rigourous company ops procedures) criminal? charges have been laid under the CAA act?
What about a takeoff alternate? What about a S/E procedure that allows a climb to MSA? what about a bit more info pertaining to Pac Blue's operation? and how those reg's are supposidly used as a basis for enforcement action? (or am I missing the point?)

bowing
14th Apr 2011, 19:09
no need to worry arent PB pulling out of zqn soon anyway...

framer
14th Apr 2011, 22:11
Is it a requirement in NZ to be able to return to the airfield of departure in the event of a problem?
No but it's a requirement that you can land somewhere.
When departing Queenstown non rnp you always have a plan A and a plan B (like most flights I guess) . What this guy did was compromise his PLan B.
eg Plan A, you climb to around about 5500ft VMC, at this stage, if you have two engines you have enough height to be able to lose one, go IMC, and still get out of the valley without hitting a hill. Plan B, get to 5400ft VMC, realise you can't make 5500ft without going IMC, descend and return into a visual figure of 8 pattern at the feild, and land. Part of plan B involves having enough daylight left to be able to depart, realise you can''t meet the requirements of the departure, go into the figure of 8 in order to align with the strip, and then conduct a visual landing. The 30 minutes is to allow you enough time to do that if Plan A doesn't work, and every now and then, Plan A doesn't work. Hope that helps explain it.

PammyAnderson
14th Apr 2011, 22:45
Is this pilot still working at PB? Is it true he is a Checkie? Have the company supported him and handled it well?

big buddah
14th Apr 2011, 22:53
I understand Farmer but what's the CAA's proof? A couple of scared pax who had never been to Qn before?

The only hard evidence is the breaking of the Op's manuals 30 min ECT deadline.
Trying to put a mess like this in front of judge will be hard work for CAA but with pressure on them they had to come up with something.

Capn Bloggs
14th Apr 2011, 23:10
Plan B, get to 5400ft VMC, realise you can't make 5500ft without going IMC, descend and return into a visual figure of 8 pattern at the feild
Fair enough, but surely the tower can tell you the cloudbase so you know you are going to be able to do the SID visual segment? I can't imagine an RPT jet operation zooming up to the base of the cloud, having a look and then figure-of-eighting back down because they were going to go IMC on the Visual Segment. Bit of a hick operation if that's the case.

As for performance/engine failure, it would seem to me that a non-RNP departure is no different to an RNP departure. Engine failure at 1000ft IMC on the RNP and then make 500ft/nm all the way up to 9800ft? I'd like to see that.

waren9
15th Apr 2011, 00:08
...but what's the CAA's proof?...The only hard evidence is the breaking of the Op's manuals 30 min ECT deadline.



How much more do they need? Thems the rules.


As for performance/engine failure, it would seem to me that a non-RNP departure is no different to an RNP departure


Its quite a bit different. An escape path that can have curved legs wherever you want, guided by GPS instead of straight lines to/from a navaid, dead reckoning, arcs and timed turns. Who said the RNP T/O minima is 1000'?


I can't imagine an RPT jet operation zooming up to the base of the cloud, having a look and then figure-of-eighting back down because they were going to go IMC on the Visual Segment


Yep, its true.

Capn Bloggs
15th Apr 2011, 00:20
Its quite a bit different. An escape path that can have curved legs wherever you want, guided by GPS instead of straight lines to/from a navaid, dead reckoning, arcs and timed turns.
How you navigate to avoid the hills is immaterial, provided you can.

Who said the RNP T/O minima is 1000'?
Nobody.

waren9
15th Apr 2011, 00:27
Then whats your point?

RNP allows lower minimas, and more accurate tracking. Otherwise why do it?

In other words


How you navigate to avoid the hills is immaterial


is not immaterial at all. Technology moves to facilitate the commercial imperitive. Otherwise we'd all still be following ADF needdles wouldn't we?

Capn Bloggs
15th Apr 2011, 00:31
My point was it doesn't matter what sort of departure you are doing, you still need the performance to make the required gradient.

If when doing the Non-RNP departure you must have the "visual return to land" option, why then are RNP departures allowed with engine failures at potentially very very low altitude in IMC, with a higher gradient requirement than a Non-RNP departure? The RTOW penalty must be pretty severe, although I suppose it's mostly fairly chilly there?

waren9
15th Apr 2011, 00:43
The decision to go or return is actually quite high.

Again, with RNP departures you can design in any lateral path ie as many track miles as you want, at any gradient you want at MCT to achieve MSA, allowing a better payload bearing in mind ZQN is relatively high and short and often has low QNH's.

Hunter S Thompson
15th Apr 2011, 00:55
Framer that 5500' must have been on the 200, the 800 can meet the performance req from below 3000' at Tollgate.

CAA does not have a 30 mins prior to ECT departure requirement for ZQN and at least one jet operator in NZ does not have that that requirement in their manuals.

Capn Bloggs
15th Apr 2011, 01:03
with RNP departures you can design in any lateral path ie as many track miles as you want, at any gradient you want at MCT to achieve MSA, allowing a better payload
So can the 737 or A320 make 500ft/nm from say 320ft (20ft above the cloudbase limit for an RNP dep) to 9800ft on one engine?

c100driver
15th Apr 2011, 03:26
By using RNP (AR) departure procedure B737 and A320 can have an EF after V1 (still on the runway) and meet all the performance requirements by using the engine out SID to MSA

distracted cockroach
15th Apr 2011, 03:37
"Is this pilot still working at PB? Is it true he is a Checkie? Have the company supported him and handled it well? "

Good questions Pammy A. Yet another reason to justify the ALPA fees (I have no idea if this guy is a member or not)
I, for one, wouldn't want to be relying on the support of "the company", or having to retain a lawyer out of my own pocket.
One would have to assume the pilot is on "limited duties" or possibly even suspended awaiting the results of the charge.
Lesson to all...be careful out there. Your career may be on the line wth every decision.

Capn Bloggs
15th Apr 2011, 06:11
By using RNP (AR) departure procedure B737 and A320 can have an EF after V1 (still on the runway) and meet all the performance requirements by using the engine out SID to MSA
Given that, and the fact that the normal departure requires less gradient, I don't see what the big deal is with departing and not being able to get back, providing the weather is OK up to the limit on the SID.

Being criminally charged by the CAA for not complying with your company ops manual seems a bit harsh.

framer
15th Apr 2011, 06:22
Fair enough, but surely the tower can tell you the cloudbase so you know you are going to be able to do the SID visual segment?
Nah they can't.
For a start they don't know what weight you are at and therefore where your visual segment ends, it's a different height on every departure.
Secondly, they have the same mark one eyeball as you so there is little point. Reports from a/c are not suitable as the cloud may be at 1000ft in one part of the basin and at 6000ft in another.
thirdly, the cloud moves quickly, it hugs the hills where you are climbing out and can change in minutes, snow storms or rain moves down the arms of the lake very quickly. It's not a normal environment when compared to most jet rpt airports.

framer
15th Apr 2011, 06:30
How you navigate to avoid the hills is immaterial, provided you can.


Thats the difference right there. In an RNP departure you can navigate with enough track miles to outclimb terrain. On a VOR based departure you can't unless you make the specified height for the weight you are at because your only navigation options are to A) navigate visually or B) fly a straight line back to the VOR and there is a hill in the way from many points on the departure and even if you are above deer park when you cross the VOR you have to turn north and track a radial which requires a certain climb gradiant that you won't have unless you made good in the visual segment.

Capn Bloggs
15th Apr 2011, 06:36
Thanks Framer. Throw the bugger in jail!! :} :)

Chinstrap
27th Apr 2011, 06:01
All blown out of proportion I am told.

On Guard
27th Apr 2011, 20:58
I understand it was a Visual Dep or the ability to visually climb to S/E set hdg alt was available.

Tutaewera
30th Apr 2011, 09:54
"Below MDA". Can you elaborate on JQ's Queenstown approach "shenagans"?
I heard a rumour some months ago about that. Any details?

27/09
1st May 2011, 00:08
It would seem to me of another case of the regulator making sure that it is being seen to be doing it's job. How many times have they done this and ended up with egg on their face?

Wasn't there case a while back where the judge called the CAA legal team into his chambers and suggested that in the light of new evidence that their case was probably unsustainable and did they wish to continue proceedings? Apparently they did continue and lost.

Will be inteteresting to see how this case goes.

5coffee
17th Jun 2011, 02:51
Wow, this place could be the world’s greatest rumour mill. Here are some actual facts about the evening for those interested...

Flight DJ89 flew the Bowen 3 departure. It is a VOR/DME based departure. It has a visual segment which is about a 250 degree left turn until the initial departure fix known as Tollgate. An aircraft must reach 3800ft by Tollgate. The pilot must maintain own terrain clearance until Tollgate. From this point terrain clearance is provided by the departure procedure.

Lower performing aircraft will generally have a higher altitude requirement for the initial departure fix. For some aircraft operators this is weight dependant. Other operators use one altitude that will always work. In the case of Jetstar A320s this altitude was 4000ft.

If an aircraft is unable to depart they will generally attempt an alternate departure or manoeuver visually to land. The tracking to return to the runway is undefined, but a lower figure-8 circuit will generally be used if it suits. (Not all departures follow the figure-8 pattern, but the Bowen3 does). There is no requirement to return to land in the event of an engine failure if the aircraft is able to reach set heading.

On this particular evening the pilot was very confident he could reach the set heading altitude. He was observed easily reaching this altitude by Tollgate. At this point he was still visual.

Contrary to statements in the media, the aircraft was never operating under the Visual Flight Rules. It was at all times an IFR flight. The tower was on watch until the published time of 0600.

ECT at Queenstown on the evening was 0544z. This is based on Aerodrome specific charts rather than the area charts published in the AIP. (AD specific charts are on the Airways IFIS website).

Pacific Blue has a company requirement to depart Queenstown 30 prior to ECT. It is not an aerodrome requirement. Business jets and local operators often operate until ECT.

The aircraft was airborne at approximately 0525z. 20min before ECT. The pilot was actually ready for departure earlier but waited for a lull in the wind.

Previously a significant front of weather had passed through the field. This was the reason the flight was delayed. By the time of the departure there was only light rain. As is very common at Queenstown a low band of cloud had built up around the frankton arm/township area, around 1000ft agl.

The controllers reported that this layer was more extensive, however the tower’s view of the departure area is obscured by Deer Park. The pilot stated that cloud in the area had dissipated and was suitable for departure. He was only now concerned with the crosswind. The pilot’s assessment of the cloud proved more accurate.

When the aircraft departed it levelled out under the layer of cloud in the Frankton Arm. (It did not descend as reported). Reaching Kelvin Heights golf course the aircraft resumed climbing and followed the published visual segment to Tollgate where it was still visual.


The reports made to the CAA were made by the general public. Neither the control tower nor Pacific Blue filed an incident report.

To answer some other questions....

For those discussing it earlier, the RNP departure has a procedure where if a certain height is not reached by Tollgate, the pilot will execute an engine out procedure and track south towards Invercargill. As such terrain clearance is always provided on the RNP departure.

Pacific Blue does not fly RNP procedures at Queenstown. They are the only remaining jet operator not RNP certified. As such the general public is not used to seeing jets operating at lower levels, flying the visual segments of these departures.

c100driver
17th Jun 2011, 05:08
5coffee said

Wow, this place could be the world’s greatest rumour mill.

Well it is not called the Professional Pilots Truth and Facts Network is it!

5coffee
17th Jun 2011, 05:24
No it's not. That would ruin all the fun...

slamer.
5th Mar 2012, 19:08
Accused Pacific Blue pilot 'is highly qualified, not careless'

5:30 AM Tuesday Mar 6, 2012


http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201210/SCCZEN_A_071009NZHGPJAIR6_220x147.JPG (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10790073#)

(http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10790073#)

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 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.
"We are saying that the pilot was faced with conflicting messages in the Pacific Blue exposition," Mr Muir said. The hearing continues.

big buddah
5th Mar 2012, 22:34
This is a very significant court case. In basic terms there has been no CAA rules broken. Some very extreme and outrages media reporting which has lead to this court case.

If the CAA wins this case, any pilot can be criminally liable for any breach of their company operations manual.

Out there
6th Mar 2012, 00:57
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.

Sqwark2000
6th Mar 2012, 05:24
From the Radio NZ website:
Radio New Zealand : News : National : Controllers stunned pilot took off despite conditions (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/100234/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.

5coffee
6th Mar 2012, 05:40
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 (http://www.odt.co.nz/news/queenstown-lakes/200229/pilot-well-qualified-defence)

5coffee
6th Mar 2012, 05:48
(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.

5coffee
6th Mar 2012, 05:49
Radio NZ is wrong. Those comments were not made by the controller.

SilverSleuth
6th Mar 2012, 14:25
So has Pacific Blue been supporting this pilot?? Is he still working there ??

pakeha-boy
6th Mar 2012, 15:10
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

FlareArmed
6th Mar 2012, 16:33
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,

bakutteh
6th Mar 2012, 20:17
Pilot's takeoff: 'how big are his gonads?'


5:30 AM Wednesday Mar 7, 2012
http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201210/PacificBlue_220x147.jpg
Expand
(http://www.pprune.org/#)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

teresa green
6th Mar 2012, 23:59
Obviously they think he is lucky to be still attached to them. Interesting to see what else comes out.:hmm:

Tarq57
7th Mar 2012, 00:02
Oh dear. And so it begins. Trial by media.:ugh:

Is this the best the prosecution has got?

bigbrother
7th Mar 2012, 00:10
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

notaplanegeek
12th Mar 2012, 02:01
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

framer
12th Mar 2012, 02:21
As the craft turned around Deer Park Heights, it banked up to 30 degrees, when normal aircraft banking was typically 15 degrees.
Since when has normal aircraft banking been 15 degrees?
This manoeuvre triggered an automatic cockpit "bank angle'' warning, a scenario that can lead to stalling.
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.




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.
Probably should have stayed visual and returned to land then, that is what the visual segment is for after all.
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?

aerostatic
12th Mar 2012, 03:59
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.

framer
12th Mar 2012, 04:25
Exactly.......... how is the judge to know what is true and what is rubbish though? I guess he just has to believe what he's told by the lawyers.

Gate_15L
12th Mar 2012, 05:10
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.

Nope, they're standard. Goes off at 35 degrees, 40 and 45 degrees... they haven't been modded at all..

This manoeuvre triggered an automatic cockpit "bank angle'' warning, a scenario that can lead to stalling.

Hmmm at Flaps 15/25 for departure...? at 180 KIAS... Don't think so...

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.


30 degrees AoB is a normal maneuver for this aircraft. It's in no danger of stalling at this AoB under a constant altitude turn.

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.

From memory, SH is coded as a fly-by waypoint in the FMC, not flyover. Yes this does not absolve the aircrew, but an interesting point none the less. From memory the AIP says go overhead SH, but the Jepps have it shown as fly by in the BWN 3 departure. And once you reach 9800 ft, you head straight for the oceanic boundary anyway.
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.

distracted cockroach
12th Mar 2012, 12:12
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?

Mr Proachpoint
12th Mar 2012, 14:00
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...

GoDirect
12th Mar 2012, 20:42
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.

slamer.
12th Mar 2012, 20:54
'Don't sink, don't sink' - jet's dire cockpit warning

5:30 AM Tuesday Mar 13, 2012

http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201211/SCCZEN_A_160908NZHSRIWAKATIPU01_220x147.jpg

The Pacific Blue pilot is accused of breaching safety rules by taking off too late from Queenstown's airport.

An automatic cockpit alarm blared "don't sink, don't sink" as a Pacific Blue flight was leaving Queenstown, warning the crew of imminent danger.
And an experienced pilot said so many safety rules were broken that the aircraft and its 71 passengers were placed at "undue risk".
The Auckland pilot of the Queenstown-Sydney flight is accused by the Civil Aviation Authority of operating a plane carelessly by leaving the airport in fading light.
The 54-year-old, who has name suppression, denies the charge.
An Air New Zealand pilot of 39 years, Colin Glasgow, told the Queenstown District Court yesterday that the pilot received warnings no pilot should ever hear.
"Pilots will fly their entire career and not hear these warnings," said Mr Glasgow, a prosecution witness.
The now-retired pilot believed "a number of elements" were breached in the June 2010 flight, and these placed the aircraft at undue risk.

The pilot's intention to place the plane on an automatic pilot system would not have worked because the plane was not in stable condition.
"Queenstown is known for severe turbulence. The existence of cross winds cannot have been a surprise for the defendant."
Shortly after the plane took off, the first officer warned the pilot about his speed.
As well, the automatic "don't sink, don't sink" cockpit warning was triggered as the pilot descended slightly to avoid clouds blocking visibility.
The Civil Aviation Authority alleges the pilot left the airport at 5.25pm, breaching the airline's rule that flights could leave no later than 30 minutes before the evening civil twilight (ECT) time of 5.45pm.
"The point is the defendant was aware he was to depart 30 minutes before ECT ... the defendant took off within ECT," Mr Glasgow said. "This in itself was unsafe."
The decision to leave at 5.25pm "effectively took away the procedure that would save them" [the plane occupants] if an engine failure had occurred.
One flight had been cancelled because of the conditions before the Pacific Blue aircraft took off.
"While aviation will always involve risk, pilots will endeavour to minimise risk, even if it means holding a flight," Mr Glasgow said.
The first part of any flying procedure out of Queenstown required the pilot to to be able to fly visually before instrument flight rules (IFR) were implemented.
The late take-off would have affected the pilot's visibility before the plane reached the point when IFR could begin.
"The first part of the procedure must be flown where the pilot can see."
He said it was "probable" the plane had flown within a cloud barrier - a required distance of 2km vertical and 500m horizontal.
"In my opinion, there are a number of elements breached at this flight that placed the aircraft at undue risk."
He added: "If the defendant managed to avoid cloud this was sheer luck."
In his opinion, the pilot had committed a "highly unusual and dangerous operation" in which he exceeded a speed limit of 330km/h as well as cutting a corner at Slopehill.
"Aviation safety is reliant on rules. They are not guides or pointers, but protocol and procedures to be followed by the letter," he said.
"Strict compliance with rules is the best way to ensure the safety of the plane and its passengers.
"The pilot is not free to choose what alternate route to take."
Queenstown airport was one of the most technically difficult for pilots to fly in and out of because of surrounding mountains, valleys and the narrow runway.
Pilots using the airport were required to undergo training on the "restrictions and controls" of a category X airport - the highest of a four-level system.
"It is an airport that commands respect and discipline to ensure safety."
The court earlier heard a conversation between a Fire Rescue Service member and Airways New Zealand who couldn't believe what they were seeing when the flight left Queenstown airport.
Thirty seconds after the flight took off, a conversation between Queenstown Fire Rescue's Nigel Henderson and Airways New Zealand flight service specialist Darryl Palmer, began with
Mr Henderson saying "How big are his (the pilot) gonads?". Mr Palmer then said: "F****** hell, I haven't seen this before."

THE CASE
* On June 22, 2010, Pacific Blue Flight 89 left Queenstown Airport, flying 71 passengers to Sydney.
* The 54-year-old Auckland pilot is charged with operating a plane carelessly.
* The aircraft allegedly took off at 5.25pm, breaching an airline rule not to leave less than 30 minutes before the evening civil twilight in the town.
* Shortly after take-off, an automatic warning sounded from the cockpit - "don't sink, don't sink".
* Pilot allegedly exceeded a speed limit of 330km/h.

GoDirect
12th Mar 2012, 21:20
With a strong southwesterly crosswind the aircraft probably gave the "don't sink" warning in the Frankton Arm area shortly after getting airborne in an area of downflow on the leeside of the peninsula. Most operators when possible drift slightly north across to the Frankton Road side to then ride the updraught (cloud permitting) on the northern side of the arm after getting airborne, thereby getting out of the area of sink as soon as possible. Being a regular operator the pilot probably did this, and the "don't sink" would probably have been a brief transient while drifting across I would think. But having not been there at the time, we don't really know.

Gate_15L
12th Mar 2012, 22:47
The company is paying for the defence lawyer, NOT ALPA.
ALPA are giving support though.

Shredder6
13th Mar 2012, 03:04
.....the defendant took off within ECT," Mr Glasgow said. "This in itself was unsafe."
The decision to leave at 5.25pm "effectively took away the procedure that would save them" [the plane occupants] if an engine failure had occurred.

What a load of crap! :ugh:

Would the conditions and situation be any different if he'd gone at ECT -31 minutes?

I wonder how many of their 'expert' witnesses have operated a 7378 into NZQN.

Split Flap
13th Mar 2012, 04:58
"Pilots will fly their entire career and not hear these warnings,"

Really? I'm only part way through my career and I've heard them a few times.

Fruet Mich
13th Mar 2012, 05:04
I think old Colin Glasgow has spent to long at altitude and the poor old bugger is starting to lose it! The only time you would use 15deg is at altitude. As for 30deg, that is available on the heading bug to select at any time! Hilarious!

Probably in Colin's day you would hardly ever here a "bank angle" or "don't sink" because they didn't have EGPWS in the cockpits of the aircraft he flew!

Quite a common things these days, just write a report.

He probably got a "don't sink" because he was acting as a pilot and manipulated the aircraft in order to stay "clear of cloud, in sight of ground or water" as any pilot would do flying an aircraft in VMC into Queentown.

Maybe CAA could go back over their files and pull a few on Mount Cook!! Jesus, they'll have a ball with the media there!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't ECT 30min before darkness? Which would make his departure 50 minutes before darkness? I know that ECT is the cut off but in an emergency, such as a return to land, aren't all bets off? I'm sure if it was an unfortunate day, and the chap was to suffer an engine failure on a 27K engined B737-800 with 60 odd POB, she would climb like a raped goat, even on one engine!

I'm thinking Mr Glasgow might lose a bit of credibility amongst his peers on this one.

Loving the media reports though, hilarious! Scary stuff!

prospector
13th Mar 2012, 05:24
I'm thinking Mr Glasgow might lose a bit of credibility amongst his peers on this one.

Well he was on 747's for a long long time, both as a FO and many years in command.

And with his current or ex employer, even on contract, he must try to make a case for them.

Must be very difficult when the only offence would appear to be maybe bending SOP's to get all the punters home, and the aircraft to where it was supposed to be.

Should have had the case before Justice Mahon, he did not think much of company SOP's. and the need to comply with them.

Gate_15L
14th Mar 2012, 02:38
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. :ugh:

framer
14th Mar 2012, 13:30
Most operators when possible drift slightly north across to the Frankton Road side to then ride the updraught (cloud permitting) on the northern side of the arm after getting airborne, thereby getting out of the area of sink as soon as possible.
Maybe in your ATR GD but not in a 738 with 60 POB.
There is no ¨drifting¨anywhere on that departure in a 738, you maintain track until it's time to turn and then you turn. Gaining lift from an updraught certainly doesn't help, most of the time you're in V/S in order to reduce your rate of climb, so I don't think thats a valid scenario.

kangaroota
15th Mar 2012, 00:09
"Maybe CAA could go back over their files and pull a few on Mount Cook"
Got some good stories you'd like to share with us Fruet?

notaplanegeek
15th Mar 2012, 05:16
The saga continues;

Pacific Blue takeoff 'recipe' for catastrophe
JOHN EDENS IN QUEENSTOWN Last updated 15:51 15/03/2012

A midwinter Pacific Blue takeoff from Queenstown was a recipe for a potentially catastrophic accident, a senior Civil Aviation Authority manager says.

A 54-year-old Auckland pilot has appeared for the ninth day of a defended hearing before Judge Kevin Phillips on charges of operating a Boeing 737 in a careless manner.

The pilot, who has interim name suppression, has denied the charge, laid by the Civil Aviation Authority.

The CAA alleges the pilot should not have taken off for Sydney after 5.14pm on June 22, 2010, 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.

CAA general manager of airlines Mark Hughes described the applicable civil aviation rules pertaining to the PB89 takeoff from Queenstown.

He told the court the captain and the first officer declined to be interviewed by the authority and it appeared the pilot-in-command had not reported the incident of his own volition.

The aircraft departed in excess of a company 16-knot crosswind minimum on a narrow runway with a lack of visual cues, he said.

"'Any significant wind change could have resulted in a catastrophic runway excursion.''

Examples of runway excursions included a veer-off in December 2008, when a Boeing 735-500 left the runway before takeoff from Denver International Airport in the US.

He said the Pacific Blue aircraft was able to climb with two engines from the main ascent reference point, a waypoint between Deer Park Heights and The Remarkables.

''Due to good performance of all engines it could climb, if that performance was compromised by engine failure the aircraft would likely not have been able.

''The consequences of this could have been catastrophic.

''The defendant's decision to depart created a high-risk situation if the aircraft suffered an engine failure.

''Absence of accident should not be viewed as acceptable safety performance.

''(It was) a recipe for an accident.''

The aircraft flew low over the Frankton Arm to maintain visual navigation below the cloud ceiling, around Kelvin Heights and Deer Park Heights to an altitude 600 feet below the required waypoint minimum, the court was told.

Lawyer Matthew Muir told the court the defence case said altitude at the waypoint was higher.

Hughes said risk factors included the aircraft's descent after takeoff, which triggered a ''don't sink'' alarm, the first officer calling ''speed'', the increase in acceleration and thrust, a steep bank angle, which triggered a second cockpit alarm, and continuous turbulence.

Such factors could contribute to spatial disorientation, the ''surprise'' element and loss of control in flight, he said.

''A pilot is not allowed to second guess the reported weather."

''(There was) considerable increased risk for all on board.''

The hearing continues.

- © Fairfax NZ News

prospector
15th Mar 2012, 08:25
The aircraft departed in excess of a company 16-knot crosswind minimum on a narrow runway with a lack of visual cues, he said.

Ah I see it all, the PIC was waiting for the x-wind to go above the x-wind minimum

reubee
15th Mar 2012, 08:30
Interesting little fact that came out today ...

Pilot accused of unsafe take-off declined to talk to CAA - National - NZ Herald News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10792276)

"There was no evidence of pressure to depart the flight."

He said the flight did have competitors from the television reality show The Amazing Race on board, but this should not have been a factor to the breach in departure time.

... not having seen the episode, looked for it on you-tube, sure enough there some in-flight footage of the take-off [EDIT: Removed the you-tube link, as the pilot has name suppression, you might be able to identify him from the PA announcements, but a good detective should be able to find it] Look around the 2:30 mark and in particular the view out the window at the 3:12 mark.

I don't know whose side of the case it helps, but you'd think they'd try and get all the footage from the Amazing Race camera crew they could.

pakeha-boy
15th Mar 2012, 15:48
This whole situation is pathetic......pilots take off in conditions that are never perfect....and anybody who has "time" under their belts knows this...this whole situation is another example of those who govern the rules,have in their infinite wisdom decided to put someone on the chopping block......20/20...hindsight.... is such a wonderful thing.......

Gate 15L.......I think the "clutching of straws" is an understatement........

JPJP
15th Mar 2012, 19:37
Regarding the use, or lack of Engine anti ice (TAI in the 73); What was the temp/dew point spread prior to takeoff ? Our books require TAI to be used with a spread of 3 degrees or less, and a temp of 10 degrees or less. I believe it's also a Boeing book requirement. Could this be their angle ?

The expert witnesses sound like alarmist muppets and the trial has the feel of a kangaroo court. :suspect:

Oakape
16th Mar 2012, 04:37
Regarding the use, or lack of Engine anti ice (TAI in the 73); What was the temp/dew point spread prior to takeoff ? Our books require TAI to be used with a spread of 3 degrees or less, and a temp of 10 degrees or less. I believe it's also a Boeing book requirement. Could this be their angle ?



I got the impression that Glasgow was talking about anti-icing prior to departure, using anti-icing fluid. Not using the aircraft equipment. Wing anti-ice is specifically mentioned.

Has anyone actually anti-iced in NZ? I know that de-icing is a relatively regular occurance in winter, but I am not aware if anti-icing is done in Queenstown & if so, what fluid type they have. Regardless, from what I can tell from the various reports, the conditions didn't warrant anti-icing the aircraft anyway, so it it very misleading, to say the least, to be even discussing the issue.

It looks like this guy is trying to impress & sway the court with a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo. Stuff that they will not understand & they will therefore not be able to distinguish fact from fiction. If it sounds impressive enough & he delivers it in a confident way, using his stated experience & title as a expert witness to give his comments an air of authority, then the non-aviation people such as the judge & the press will take what is being claimed, as fact. And the press reports seem to indicate that this is working.

Roaring Forties
16th Mar 2012, 19:58
FISH BOWL Syndrome

If Mr I am God ex Air NZ/CAA etc etc etc thinks death would have resulted from taking off with less than 30min to ECT, then I suggest he look at Ops from the airports in southern former Yugoslavia - namely Skopje, Orun, Pristina in Macedonia and Kosovo. On close examination, one of these airports requires the following EFP - at 2.0D left turn estb R050 at 5D R turn max 177kts return to VOR (on airfield) enter hold and climb to MSA at FL100. This is approved at night AND in icing conditions. SO WHATS SO DIFFICULT ABOUT Queenstown departing at last light.?
:(

Split Flap
16th Mar 2012, 20:35
he was surprised wing anti-ice was not applied before departure

I would be surprised if it was applied before depature as well, since there is no anti-ice available. Only Type 1 de-ice. Which if if I quote directly from the manual... "is not intended for, and does not provide, protection during flight"

Of course the "expert" would have know that...

ozbiggles
17th Mar 2012, 01:24
Roaring forties
They probably have rules and regulations at Queenstown to prevent CFIT and icing type accidents occurring.
Much like the CFIT and icing accidents that have occurred at Skopje airport.
That took about 30 secs to find that information on the net.
About the same time to shred cred.

distracted cockroach
17th Mar 2012, 04:00
Just another thought here....devil's advocate and all that. Isn't ECT based on position of the sun etc on a clear evening? Surely it could be a lot darker in overcast conditions at the same time? I'm guessing that although they were still before ECT, with the low overcast it would have appeared to be quite dark...certainly much darker than on a clear evening.
Just haven't heard that mentioned before...that could be why it appeared to be so dark to "in-expert" witnesses.
Or maybe the darkness just wasn't a factor.
Still smells of a jack-up to me. CAA continuing with their glowing record of success in prosecutions!

reubee
19th Mar 2012, 08:53
With regards to the cameras from the Amazing Race filming the take-off, I was surprised that hadn't received more prominence. A little bit of research, apparently the cameraman was in the witness box early on in proceedings.


Also in court today, video footage recorded in the cabin before and during take-off by cameramen for reality TV show The Amazing Race Asia shows passengers boarding in torrential rain and high winds. The airport’s windsock can be seen indicating extremely gusty conditions and rain is shown lashing the cockpit windows.

The maximum thrust take-off is shown with the plane levelling off over the Frankton Arm and flying low above houses in Frankton and Kelvin Heights. It then banks to the left, but not as low as witnesses on the ground have described in court. It does not show the aircraft being flown erratically and the passengers seemed calm.

Freelance cameraman Simon Christie, who filmed part of the footage on board, gave evidence via Skype from Adelaide.

While waiting about 45 minutes on board to take off, Pacific Blue crew informed passengers about delays caused by the bad weather, he says.

“None of the first [messages from the crew] were of any particular concern. We were told Queenstown Airport didn’t have (runway) lights, so there would be a cut-off point when we could fly out of Queenstown,” Christie says.

“The worst one before taking off was of most concern, was the pilot or co-pilot saying something along the lines of ‘We are going to give it a go’.”
‘Feared for passengers’ – flight witness - Queenstown News (http://www.scene.co.nz/feared-for-passengers--flight-witness/297743a1.page)

notaplanegeek
19th Mar 2012, 23:00
Earlier today Skyline Gondola operator and eyewitness Malcolm Officer was grilled under cross-examination by defence lawyer Matthew Muir.

Officer, a prosecution witness, says he saw low-lying cloud that covered Deer Park Heights and maintained his certainty despite being shown CCTV footage from Queenstown Airport that indicated the hill was in full view at the time of take-off.

Officer says he saw the aircraft disappearing into cloud as it turned above Deer Park Heights.

Muir suggested Officer’s observations could be wrong after he was presented with official data that conflicted with his accounts.

Pilots must maintain visual clearance between leaving the airport and arriving at an altitude point between The Remarkables mountain range and Deer Park Heights.

Interesting...

Sand dune Sam
20th Mar 2012, 00:25
Anybody with "time" in their log books also knows that you have to tin plate your back side in this job as well..not being familiar with this operation, on the surface it looks like a straight out rule was broken...why was that rule broken?....been flying for 27 years, done plenty of take off in less than ideal conditions in many parts of the world, but every time I have done so I have applied common sense, a regard for the rules and a liberal dose of tin plating of the back side in case something does go wrong..

Having "time" in the log book is no excuse for ignorance..anybody with "time" in their logbook should recognise that...:ugh::ugh::=:=

pakeha-boy
22nd Mar 2012, 03:05
sand dune sam........your post is obviously directed at me ,so I shall respond....I too agree with your sentiment ,and yr reasoning.....my point was to emphasize,that there is sometimes a very fine line between legality and infringement when sitting at the end of the runway.......and to suggest that I would encourage anyone to "give it a go" and "see what happens" is ludicrist !!!......I have personal experience at this airport in those conditions(many years ago) and this is not the first time this has been a point of contention............you,being a pilot with 27 yrs tells me otherwise.....like yourself,I spend a lot of time in different countries,different airports etc etc,not to bore you or others........we are always being confronted with "a situations"...and yes ...as you stated ,one must make credible and proper decisions,....but this situation smacks of making "an example" of a crew,where the CAA,The Airline,and any body else that has a gripe.....can hang the Captain................Im all in favour of following the rules,my F/O,s reckon Im anal on that...its what protects us..the SOP,s..u wont find a greater advocate......tin plateing oneself(your term) only goes so far,,...we are paid to do a job,and makes decisions.....and make decisions that are safe,and by the rules.....that we agree.....I have been there,....and I in no way advocate,compromising safety r SOP,s......I do not believe this Captain did.....but then again we will find out

Sand dune Sam
23rd Mar 2012, 03:52
PB I agree mate.. Wasn't having a dig at you... It seems to me that it's an overreaction on the part of the regulator and other vested interests.. I was just making the point we have to tin plate our bums these days that's all..:ok:

pakeha-boy
23rd Mar 2012, 04:54
Its seems that this issue has to be dragged through the public domain....they do have a right to know,but to what extent.......I find it troubling that this could not have been dealt with,within the walls of those people that really understand these issues and can do something about it,in a professional environment, rather than turning it into a circus.

If,in fact, an infringement did occur,it could have all been handled internally.....The Aviation authorities,The Company and the Flight Crew....The Crew gets taken off line,there is an investigation...no wrong doing ,..back on line....If they are guilty of wrong doing....Then,retraining,line check,a sign off,a bulletin company wide to the rest of the pilot group and back on line...............even if the crew did violate Regs,SOP,s......this is such a piss poor violation,I dont believe it merits the exposure its getting.....I dont buy the "what if".........we deal with the the "what if" every day .....by flying to the SOP,s complying with the regs.....and all this done,internally with no fuss

As flight crew ,we are held to a high standard,I have no issues with that.....but to drag this crew through the public spotlight is ridiculous

notaplanegeek
15th Apr 2012, 12:16
Any updates on this?

romansandal
17th Apr 2012, 23:41
Only that the proceedings have finished and the judge may take up to 6 months to publish his report and final verdict.

GoDirect
7th Jul 2012, 06:19
Latest update here from yesterday:

Pacific Blue pilot trial | Pilot confident takeoff... | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/7230352/Pilot-confident-takeoff-was-safe-hearing-told)

GoDirect
7th Jul 2012, 06:30
An additional report here:

Radio New Zealand : News : National : Co-pilot had safety fears about Queenstown flights (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/110057/co-pilot-had-safety-fears-about-queenstown-flights)

PLovett
7th Jul 2012, 07:09
GoDirect,

Your mere posting of the link is misleading as it suggests the FO had fears about the flight. When you actually read the link, however, it discloses that the FO felt the company had not adequately trained him for flights into Queenstown but that he had no doubts about the safety of the flight in question.

Something very different.

mattyj
7th Jul 2012, 07:11
Doesn't this whole thing make you tired and depressed..imagine going through the painfully slow NZ court process for a whole bunch of opinion and hearsay!

Just goes to show, there's no place for independent thought in the cockpit these days..if you suspect anything taxi back to the terminal!

By the way, why is the crossing height at toll gate so low..on two engines you could cross it at 12 grand with 60 pax on board?

GoDirect
7th Jul 2012, 07:31
For PLovett:

My posting of the link has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with respect to what the F/O felt about the flight - it is public information as reported from the ongoing case. For what it's worth, I think this whole thing is crazy and both the crew involved have my empathy as a fellow pilot. Posting a link that is in the public domain already (yesterday) is merely updating this thread that has remained dormant for several months, and is in no way reflective of anybody involved in this ridiculous process - of which we see way too much of in aviation. Chill out.

c100driver
8th Jul 2012, 06:57
The information on the extent of an overcast cloud layer was patently wrong, he said.

Referring to a reduction in thrust, the co-pilot calling "speed" and the triggering of a "don't sink" alarm, the pilot said he did not consider the takeoff and departure as anything other than normal.

The "don't sink" alarm was expected given a reduction in altitude, analogous to the reversing alarm on a car.


Must be a strange form of normal departure were the FO starts calling speed (because your too slow?) and the EGPWS starts calling "don't sink" because you are descending on takeoff.

haughtney1
8th Jul 2012, 08:36
Must be a strange form of normal departure were the FO starts calling speed (because your too slow?) and the EGPWS starts calling "don't sink" because you are descending on takeoff.

C100, I'd be a little careful reading too much into the calls made...the speed call may have been made with reference to the commanded speed, but may or may not have had any safety implication, with respect to the EGPWS alert, there are plenty of terrain constrained airports around that will give you the exact same warning...again with no implicit safety concerns.
The point being, we have no terms of reference nor access to the company briefing material, lastly and most importantly the F/O from what I have read, felt that there was no major issue here.

c100driver
8th Jul 2012, 09:16
Agreed however, you could hardly call either of these "normal"!

Uncommon - yes, occasionally- possible! but not normal!

The Question that should be asked is why in hell are PacBlue not RNP AR certified? The other three jet operators that operate into NZQN are!

haughtney1
8th Jul 2012, 10:56
C100, just to give you a real world example, I used to fly a bizjet in and out of a few even more terrain constrained airports, the two that spring to mind are Sion and Lugano, and both have special procedures that are similar to Queenstown in the respect that you require specific authorization and minima to depart and arrive over and above what you would consider as standard.
In both instances, I would include in my brief if appropriate things like "we may get a EGPWS "dont sink or terrain" on this departure, if we are VMC and are clear we will consider it spurious or a nuisance warning" etc etc.
So you are right, they certainly aren't normal, but are they an indication of something unsafe happening? without the CVR, the content/context of the departure brief/plan its very hard to say.
In respect of speed, again it could be very easy to construe that as unsafe cause hes going too slow..rather than a call to help keep the PF situationally aware.
Regarding RNP-AR certification....cost maybe? you'd have to ask PB I guess.
As always the devil is in the detail.....

framer
11th Jul 2012, 06:50
From todays local paper.

Capt Julian was of the view the 16-knot wet-runway crosswind limit set by Pacific Blue was an expectation of pilots; it was a guide and had little to do with the safety of the flight in question.

Is that correct?
I was under the impression that the NZCAA assessed a company's manual suite and then that manual suite is what the pilot is required by law to operate to. Otherwise, what is the point in having the manuals? We could all just operate according to the NZAIP.

I am not of the opinion that this should have ended up in a public court but now that it has it might set some president regarding SOP´s in NZ.

Also,the paper said that this is the third trial Julian has been an expert witness in. Does anyone know what the other two were? How does that come about? Do some pilots proffer their services as experts? do they step forward always pushing one way ie against CAA

mattyj
11th Jul 2012, 21:48
Probably ALPAs go to guy and sympathetic member?

mangatete
11th Jul 2012, 23:32
The crossing ht. at tollgate is a minimum height, not maximum height, to insure that from that point onwards the aircraft will be able to continue with engine failure and clear the high terrain ahead. The restriction on how high the aircraft can cross tollgate is CLOUD BASE as the departure is a visual departure until reaching tollgate.

The "don't sink" aural call out occurs if the aircraft begins to descend after takeoff, before it has climbed above 700ft agl. Cloud must have been shelving down on takeoff path to below 700ft agl. Requiring the pilot to descend prior to reaching 700ft agl.

If the minimum height at TOLLGATE could not be attained due to low could, the aircraft would be required to fly a visual maneuver in the valley and return to land.

RNP-AR approvals can take over two years for the regulators to approve, in the meantime operators are left with a, less than ideal, departure from Queenstown.

mattyj
15th Jul 2012, 01:51
..and if you take a fairly liberal view of the "built up area" rule then you could fly at 500' level all the way round Deer Park before climbing flat out to 3300' and be totally legal so the part of the case involving disturbed members of the public and low flying could've been tossed out in the first 5 minutes.

pakeha-boy
15th Jul 2012, 02:35
mattyj quote..."Probably ALPAs go to guy and sympathetic member?"

.....mostly likely mattyj,and a better choice than most......but for me,the experience and input from this part of the "opera",is better than the "armchair" pilots and "wannabe" aviators trying to hang this crew......after reading what the flying Capt has said,I would have done the same thing........or like you previously stated,...dont make command decisions,...taxi back to the gate

c100driver
15th Jul 2012, 04:54
I would have thought that taxi back to the gate would have been the command decision that maybe could have been made!

Plan continuation bias is one of the more difficult HF tendencies to recognize.

BGQ
15th Jul 2012, 15:19
Mangatete just for the sake of accuracy the "Don't Sink Don't Sink" warning can be triggered without sinking. A reduction in climb rate towards zero will do it on some occasions. It is not that unusual to get it in a low altitude level off.

Pakeha Boy and MattyJ Captain Juian is the NZALPA Technical Director and a previous Regional Vice President of IFALPA. I am aware that he testified at the Palmerston North Dash 8 case... not sure about the other one.

There are some concerning issues being raised in evidence presented by CAA.

Mark Hughes said that pilots cannot override reported weather from ATC. That is incorrectinmy view. Every company I have worked for has encouraged pilots to use their own judgement of visibility etc from the takeoff point. It is a completely different perspective to that of ATC.

BGQ
15th Jul 2012, 15:43
C100 Driver you are right about Plan Continuation Bias and you do present a viable option in taxiing back to the terminal.

However a properly considered risk assessment of the takeoff was another option. Your employer and the passengers require you to depart only if you have done that.

Clearly this crew did not just taxi out and go without making that risk assessment. That's what the four stripes are for.

The argument is all about others second guessing that decision without all of the available information. None of the witnesses can really compare what they think those conditions were to the conditions assessed by the crew. They would have had to have been on the flight deck with them or in very close proximity to it with the same level of experience and some qualifications to go along with it. All CAA's witnesses don't cut it in my opinion. They either were there and not qualified or qualified and not there.

If this guy gets convicted it will be a travesty.

pakeha-boy
15th Jul 2012, 15:59
BGQ......thanks for input....so this bloke is obviously a reliable"expert" witness...not my words...theirs,but I have no doubts about his ability

C100 also makes a point....I believe his point on "command" decisions which I didnt state,...being that,...it was rather obvious the Capt had this choice.....

I would also agree ,that a conviction would be a travesty

haughtney1
15th Jul 2012, 16:19
I would also agree ,that a conviction would be a travesty

Based on what I've read in the press and spoken to guys who operate and out of NZQN regularly, I have to agree.

slackie
15th Jul 2012, 21:34
Mark Hughes said that pilots cannot override reported weather from ATC. That is incorrectinmy view. Every company I have worked for has encouraged pilots to use their own judgement of visibility etc from the takeoff point. It is a completely different perspective to that of ATC.

Couldn't agree more... we sit in our towers in elevated positions, usually half way down the runway and outside the obstacle clearance fan and do our best to report overall conditions using instruments that maybe measuring conditions in yet another different location, but we don't have an accurate picture of what it is actually like on the ground, at the threshold. The Crew are "Johnny on the spot" and usually have a much clearer picture of what the actual conditions are, and being at the pointy end (and usually the first on the scene at an accident!) have a significantly higher vested interest in getting it right.

pakeha-boy
16th Jul 2012, 00:39
slackie mate...actually quite refreshing to hear that....most of us have been in positions ,whether it be in the take-off or landing mode ....and had differences of opinion on "reported weather" versus "actual weather'.......civil twiligt etc is hard to dispute.......Ive had issues requesting visual approaches after civil twilight times,and been dinied and having to do a full app,s....no worries...good practice...co-operate graduate......Ive always had issues leaving the "gate"....officialy now dispatched...and being confined by civil twilight times for "SIDS" ....and complying with company/CAA/FAA/ rules regarding those ops....either 91/135/121....and supplemental.....personally...this CAPT was doing"his job"

framer
16th Jul 2012, 12:46
I don´t think he should be tried in a criminal hearing at all, but now that he is I think regardless of the weather at the time he is going to find it hard to justify taking off after ´30 mins prior to ECT´.
Even if the weather was CAVOK and nil wind.....how do you justify it given that the reason the rule is there, is to allow you enough time to get around the circuit and land before it's too dark. There are dozens of reasons why a return would be preferable to a divert to NZCH, thats why they are not the only airline to have that rule. He would have to argue that it was safer to use his command powers to break the rule than to return to the gate and put everyone in a hotel. I can´t imagine that argument being successful.
Does anyone know why this ended up in court instead of being dealt with through some retraining?
My GP made a dubious judgement call last year, everything worked out well though, I suffered no harm.....why isn´t he in court?

Daylight Robbery
17th Jul 2012, 11:22
Mark Hughes said that pilots cannot override reported weather from ATC. That is incorrectinmy view. Every company I have worked for has encouraged pilots to use their own judgement of visibility etc from the takeoff point. It is a completely different perspective to that of ATC.

Also, remember as PIC you are a qualified met observer. Perhaps, and I obviously wasn't there, they may have been better to state their plan to ATC to maintain LL til a certain point (past the cloud) and climb. Not like ATC had a lot of other departures!