Pacific Blue pilot charged with endangering safety

[Heliport]

Copied to restore.

[dwshimoda]

...Your postings are always designed to provoke a response.

Would you care to explain what was wrong with this flight, and elaborate on it?

[White Knight]

Ridiculous...........

...............that Queenstown wasn't lit:ugh::ugh::ugh: Bl00dy backward Kiwis:{

[J.O.]

...Your postings are always designed to provoke a response.

Would you care to explain what was wrong with this flight, and elaborate on it?

When you hate pilots, you don't need to explain yourself (apparently). :rolleyes:

[birrddog]

SM, at least we know where you get your informed opinion from :D

At the time of the incident, Julia McLean, formerly of Invercargill, a passenger on the plane at the time, described the take-off as "freaky".


In the article quoted:
"The investigation concluded that the airline's procedures and operating conditions were breached in this take off event in June 2010, and that safety was compromised as a result," says CAA director Steve Douglas.

The pilot was in command of Pacific Blue flight DJ89 on 22 June 2010 when the flight became delayed and departed Queenstown for Sydney approximately 18 minutes before twilight, the carrier says.

Queenstown, on New Zealand's South Island, required flights to operate under visual flight rules since the airport did not have approach and runway lighting.

Pacific Blue required its flights to takeoff no later than 30 minutes before twilight, ensuring adequate time for aircraft to make a safe return around the mountainous terrain in the event of a problem. That is more stringent than the CAA's rule requiring flights to take off before twilight.

The Queenstown air traffic control tower gave DJ89 takeoff clearance, a spokeswoman for ATC provider Airways New Zealand says. "The tower was able to give clearance as the flight was within civil evening twilight. It was operating within CAA limits." Electing to ignore internal company rules, however, "was ultimately the pilot's decision".

The CAA is not pressing charges against the flight's first officer or the airline.

[FoolsGold]

Apparently experienced observers such as the Harbor Master were concerned about the flights track with reference to an approaching cloudbank and to terrain. The two pilots were described in the media as "senior pilots" but no statement was made concerning their hours.

It appears the tower lawfully gave a takeoff clearance for VFR flight.

As a matter of curiosity, I'd like to know if anyone has data concerning the cost of prosecution and cost of mounting a defense in relation to the cost of installing runway lights?

[Capn Bloggs]

Odd that the CAA is happy for this captain to go to jail for up to 12 months when their own rules don't require the "30 minutes of daylight remaining" buffer. One would have thought that if the visual return-to-land issue is such a big deal, the CAA would mandate a buffer of some amount.

[S76Heavy]

Surely if the departure was lawful and the only regulations breached are company rules, it should have remained an internal matter?

Seems like someone needs to be seen taking public action. Any elections coming up?

[framer]

the issue of ultimate responsibility by the airline for the actions of its employees.
Personally I think there is an element of truth to that.
What infrastructure does Pac Blue have in place to support the Captains descision to return to the gate if he is not going to be able to comply with the 30 minute rule by 30 seconds?
Has the company planned for that inevitable scenario or is it just accepted that when it happens it will be a total cluster with inadequate representation on the ground, no preffered hotels organised , no transport to said hotels organised etc etc? If that is the case human nature will eventualy win over and the 30 seconds be ignored.
If the Captain had dumped those pax into that situation would the company have contacted him saying 'Good on you sir, well done on maintaining our standards by adhereing to our rules' or would operations have gone into a flat spin passing the companies problems onto him with questions like 'well what the hell are we going to do with all these pax tonight? Queenstown is full up and the bus companies can't help blah blah blah"
Ultimately a Captain will be above these pressures but that is in a perfect world. In todays environment with accountants reaching right into the flight deck and trying to fly the aircraft for you it is inevitable that not everyone will stick to their guns.

[MountainBear]

As it's being reported the whole situation seems bizarre.

The captain violated company procedure therefore he violated the law but the takeoff clearance was lawful because it followed the rules.

HUH?

That doesn't sound so much like an election coming up as it does the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing in NZ.

"I give you permission to take off but you'd be breaking the law if you did so..." is not the type of position that anyone should be put into.

[misd-agin]

The law is twilight. The company's rule is not within 30 minutes of twilight.

So the takeoff was 18 minutes from twilight, allowed by the law but not by company SOP/Ops specs, and the pilot is being charged for endangering safety?

What about everyone that takes off as late as twilight but who's SOP/Ops specs aren't more restrictive? Are they safer? :ugh:

[cosmo kramer]

What's the reason for the 30 mins for return?
Are there no takeoff alternates within 60 mins? :confused:

[Blue Coyote]

A grant of approval in Europe (Ops, 145, 147 etc) is based on the company procedures meeting the requirements of the appropriate Part-XXX.
If your company procedures are more stringent than the Part and are accepted, then when you step outside of your procedures you effectively invalidate your approval (as it was based on your procedures).
As your grant of approval from the national authority is based on EU law then it could be argued that you have broken the law.
Is this the sort of logic that has been applied here?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Queenstown, on New Zealand's South Island, required flights to operate under visual flight rules since the airport did not have approach and runway lighting.>>

Never heard that one before...??

[shafs64]

I have flown into NZQN and i know why they have that rule.

[surplus1]

It's strikes me as absurd that criminal charges are being brought against a pilot period, let alone for such nonsense.

If as stated, this pilot broke no civil air regulations but only violated a company procedure any disciplinary action involved should be exclusively between the pilot and the company. The CAA shouldn't even be involved and the prospect of a year in jail for the transgression of a company rule is rediculous, in my view.

Are you quite sure there is nothing more to this story than what has been published here?

[NigelOnDraft]

surplus

Please read Blue Coyote's post. In the UK, and NZ almost certainly closely follows that system, the ANO (the "law") is not overly specific about every little rule for specific types / airfields. If it was, it would be enormous, and every time something small changed, then Government would need to be involved :{

Instead, airlines etc. have "Operations Manuals". These have guidance, and also clear limitations / rules. If you deliberately operate outside these rules, then you have technically broken the law. The degree of negligence, safety implications and public interest would no doubt form part of a decision to prosecture rather than handle within the airline etc.

It would appear here there was a clear rule, specified for valid safety reasons, and that rule was clearly broken. I am not suggesting the crew should therefore be prosecuted, but equally, I cannot see why not? Breaking black and white rules in public transport operations is not really what 4 stripes is about :ugh:

The CAA rule allowing takeoffs to twilight I would guess as with us here - a generic rule that applies equally to a C172. It would seem this airport/airline/type might have a visual (?) emergency turn procedure and return option, which requires decent vis and time prior twilight...

<<Queenstown, on New Zealand's South Island, required flights to operate under visual flight rules since the airport did not have approach and runway lighting.>>

Never heard that one before...?? I fly for "a large UK airline" out of Hounslow West ;) No Edge/CL/App lights and it's Day only. A certain UK outpost in the western Med essentially requires "VFR" rules to land/takeoff (even with runway lights).

NoD

[FerrypilotDK]

Surely if the departure was lawful and the only regulations breached are company rules, it should have remained an internal matter?

Seems like someone needs to be seen taking public action. Any elections coming up?


You summed up my thinking, as I read the article. It seems that there are other issues with the flight, the "track" and the altitudes and attitudes used....could it be that these issues are difficult to prove and so the internal company rule is being used as the lever to get rid of a problem pilot???

[Morrisman1]

Queenstown sure as hell operates IFR, they have slope hill VOR/DME and RNP0.15 approaches for approved airlines. Not having lighting means that it cannot be used at night for either IFR or VFR operations

[Capn Bloggs]

I have flown into NZQN and i know why they have that rule.
How about sharing it with us? :confused:

[Phalanger]

queenstown airport - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=queenstown+airport&cp=12&safe=off&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1117&bih=855)

The airport in in extreme mountainous terrain without any straight in or out approaches (many times you're doing figure 8s in to find a clearing in the clouds).

AIP New Zealand (http://www.aip.net.nz/NavWalk.aspx?section=CHARTS&tree=Queenstown)

[cosmo kramer]

I still don't understand.. :confused:

Christchurch is less than 200nm away, with 2 ILSs and 3200 meter runway. Why not just use that as a takeoff alternate?

What's the reasoning behind this company rule with 30 min for an immediate return? If there is a problem after takeoff, then simply fly to the takeoff alternate.

[Phalanger]

I think the concern is more for an immediate return if the aircraft can not safely fly across the mountain region which is highly affected by weather.

[framer]

From the other thread running on it.

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.

[framer]

Hope that makes it clear why Christchurch isn't an option. The long and the short of it is that the hills are quite high and if you don't have the luxury of rnp curved paths you have to be able to reach a certain height ( depending on your current weight) in order to go IMC and still clear the hills if one engine gives up.

[MountainBear]

Framer: While that is interesting detail it's not what I am befuddled by. Even assuming that what he did was unwise, unprofessional, and a violation of company procedures none of that--by itself--raises to the level of criminal conduct.

I don't understand the theory upon which legal liability attaches to the pilot's behavior. If every pilot who did things which were unwise, unprofessional, and a violation of company procedures went to jail...society would have to build a lot more jails than we have now.

One doesn't have to condone his behavior to think that criminally charging him is over the top.

[cosmo kramer]

Thanks framer. That explains everything.

MountainBear, it would not be a detail then, but the main point. The point not being the time of takeoff, but that he took off without having the option of the company established contingency procedure.

One could argue if 18 mins would be enough to perform the figure 8 pattern and land. One would hope that it was assessed and discussed to both pilots agreement before departure. If so, it's an interesting discussion to what extent judgement of the pilots, will allow for superseding company procedures. What if they were 3 min too late or only 1 or 30 seconds?

Definitely a grey area. If they can prove that they had made an estimation on how many minutes it would take for the return, or it is obvious that 18 min is enough, I think most companies would have given a slap on the wrist and a pad on the back with the other hand.

If they gave it no consideration at all, maybe the allegations are not that wrong after all.

[surplus1]

NigelonDraft,

Thanks for your reply, which is appreciated and understood.

Before posting I had read BlueCoyote's post.

Let me begin by making clear that I have never been in or out of NZQN as pilot or passenger. I can't say I know the airport and I realize that it is located in mountainous terrain that requires special procedures.

Now that Phlanger has posted the New Zeland AIP for this airport, I have reviewed the 9 different published departure procedures and acknowledge their difficulties.

I further acknowledge that I know nothing of this incident other than what has been posted in this thread. There could very well be numerous extenuating circumstance of which I am unaware.

Notwhitstanding all of that, I do not think much differently than I did before. The pilot in question violated a company procedure. He did NOT violate the law.

1. Since the NZ authorities know enough about this airport to publish all of those detailed departure procedures it would appear that it was not too difficult for them to decide, as did the airline in question, that VFR departures made at twilight would not permit adequate margins of safety.

2. That being the case, I don't see it as difficult at all for them to include a specific pre-twilight limitation for departures specific to this airport. Nevertheless, they have failed to do so. I view that fact as negligence on the part of the authorities which, at the very least, is no less compromising of safety than the alleged actions of the pilot. Why then are they not being charged with criminal negligence?

3. If a difference of 12 minutes in the time of departure is great enough to require possibly putting this pilot in prison for a year, why is he the only one apparently held to this standard?

4. If the controller(s) knew that this departure (with less than a 30 minute window pre-twilight) was so risky as to "endanger the safety of flight", why did they authorize this aircraft to depart? At least on the surface, [B]it would appear that they knew the departure was within the limits proscribed by law. They may or may not have known that it was not within the limits proscribed by the particular airline.

Should this pilot have violated his company's procedures? Of course not! However, I still maintain that the violation of a company procedure does NOT constitute criminal negligence; particularly if it does not also violate the CAR.

From my perspective, errors in judgment or operational practice committed by airline pilots in the course of flight operations should never be subject to criminal prosecution. I realize that in many jurisdictions of the world they are but, in my country they are not.

I respectfully submit that if such is to be the case, I would long since have been imprisoned instead of retiring without so much as scratching any aluminium over a 40+ year career. I would venture a guess that their are precious few in this profession, or in this forum, who could not have been my cell mates.

Such laws continue to strike me as ludicrous where ever they exist and serve no purpose other than the political exculpation or satisfaction of so-called "authorities."

If the Company believes this violation of policy was so onerous, then let them dismiss their pilot. Prosecutorial action is totally unwarranted in my view. I would go so far as to call it retarded in the 21st Century.

[lowvaeater]

In many countries, the company manual (FOM) is approved by the aviation authority of the country, hence violating the FOM can be interpreted as violating the law. Where as, manual thats accepted means violation of which is an internal matter.

It is like if a company has MEL, we follow MEL instead of MMEL, if an item is required by MEL but not MMEL which has failed prior to departure, dispatch such an aircraft would be an illegal action.

[reubee]

Seems like someone needs to be seen taking public action. Any elections coming up?

Judges aren't elected in NZ


The relevant piece of law ...




44 Dangerous activity involving aircraft, aeronautical product, or aviation related service

(1) Every person commits an offence who—

(a) operates, maintains, or services; or


(b) does any other act in respect of—
any aircraft, aeronautical product, or aviation related service, in a manner which causes unnecessary danger to any other person or to any property.



(2) Every person commits an offence who—

(a) causes or permits any aircraft, aeronautical product, or aviation related service to be operated, maintained, or serviced; or


(b) causes or permits any other act to be done in respect of any aircraft, aeronautical product, or aviation related service,—
in a manner which causes unnecessary danger to any other person or to any property.



(3) Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section is liable,—

(a) in the case of an individual, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding $10,000; or


(b) in the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $100,000.
(4) The provisions of this section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any regulations or rules made under this Act



Civil Aviation Act 1990 No 98 (as at 01 January 2011), Public Act &ndash; New Zealand Legislation (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0098/latest/whole.html#DLM216907)

For those worried about a jail term, that isn't going to happen. Thats just there for when someone commits the offence multiple times or the fine is not deterrent enough.

Also it is not normally the task of the CAA to determine if guilty/not guilty. If there isn't any relevant case law to relate to and help determine if there should be a prosecution, the CAA's role is to prosecture and bring it before the courts.

What I do find interesting is that the captain was charged and the co-pilot wasn't.

[golfbananajam]

The artice that Jazz Hands linked to (see post 3) has a paragraph which states

The CAA says one of the charges against the pilot is unnecessary endangerment under section 44 of the Civil Aviation Act. If convicted, the offence carries a fine of up to NZ$10,000 ($7,930) or up to 12 months in jail, according to the CAA. It declines to specify the nature of the second charge.

Everyone so far seems to be running at the mouth about the first charge but perhaps it is the second which is actually going to cost the pilot.

In my opinion the only question about the first offence is "is contravening company operating procedures an offence under the quoted section of the act?" If the answer is YES then, sorry but ..... guilty (even if it makes no real sense). If the answer is NO then it'll be no contest and, I assume, won't even get to court.

As for why the pilot and not the copilot? Isn't the PIC the one who is responsible? Again an assumption but isn't the pilot (not necessarily the Captain) the PIC not the copilot (who may be the Captain).


I think I need a drink. This damned Mediterranean weather in UK at this time of year..................................

[S76Heavy]

What I do find interesting is that the captain was charged and the co-pilot wasn't.
How about the ATCo? He's just as liable according to: [quote](2) Every person commits an offence who—
(a) causes or permits any aircraft, aeronautical product, or aviation related service to be operated, maintained, or serviced; or
(b) causes or permits any other act to be done in respect of any aircraft, aeronautical product, or aviation related service,—
in a manner which causes unnecessary danger to any other person or to any property.

However I agree with Surplus1 about the responsibility of the authorities to set clear limits regarding the need for sufficient time to return under VFR.

[Piltdown Man]

If Ruebee has posted the complete contents of Section 44, the wazzocks in the NZCAA will have a hard job making that one stick as this is appears to be a company limitation. If they were going to roast him for operating outside outside his company's operation manuals - well that might be different... It would also be interesting to see what their performance manual has for this airfield. Does just it say "Miss the hills" or is there a specific N-1?

PM

[Charlie Murdoch]

So...let me get this right, the NZ CAA states that no regulation has been breached, but the pilot has breached internal company requirements, and is then alleged to have commited an act of endangerment?

Oh, I've got it now, does that mean that the NZ CAA are going to take themselves to court for negligence due to inherently unsafe legislation?

Yes...that's it, I'm sure there is more to follow.

[DaFly]

There is a big difference between flying around privately (which is covered by the law) and operating as a commercial operator. As, in this case, an airline you need to have a FOM in place which determines the way you are going to operate. The FOM is not a simple company regulation. It does get approved by the country's aviation authority and becomes the law. By not operating according to the FOM, one operates outside the legal regulations and ultimately outside the law.
This is due to the fact, that the FOM in general has to be at least as restrictive as the law, BUT in many operations certain concessions have been made in certain areas of operation, which are actually less restrictive, than the law. For example, a country's air law says, crew rest time has to be at least 12 h or as long as the preceding FDP and it can be reduced to a minimum of 10 h.
An operator needs crew to fly an evening flight to an outstation and leave the next morning. Under normal circumstances this operation would allow for 11 hours crew rest, but in case of a delay, this would mean, the morning flight would be delayed due to the crew's rest period and screw up the whole rotation for that aircraft during that day, leading to next evening flight being delayed and so on.
This operator approaches their DCA with an application for dispensation. This dispensation says, the crew's rest period can be reduced to 9 hours AT ACCOMMODATION under the provision, that the following day this crew will only fly back to it's home base (1 sector, about 3.5 -4 h FDP) and have a local night and may not be dispatched before 06:00 local time the next day.
In other words, the operator can get a dispensation from the air law's FDP regulation on the one hand side, but restricts himself in turn to be a lot more restrictive on FDP the next day.
If the operator would now make use of the first part of the dispensation and allow it's crew only 9 hours of rest, without allowing the FDP restrictions the next day, that crew would theoretically still operate within the air law's FDP regulations.
They will in the end however violate the air law and DCA will go after the crew members for that.

If one now looks at this departure aerodrome in question, one could say it is not safe to operate a B737 out of there, since due to lack of facilities no T/O alternate would be available in case of an eingine failure just after V1. The a/c might not be able to gain enough height to safely clear the mountains. In order to make provisions for this case, the operator has put the twilight minus 30 minutes rule into their FOM, which has been approved by the NZ CAA and has become part of the air law, which has been violated by that specific Captain.
The very same person might have been legal to fly the same a/c type out of the same airfield at 18 minutes before twilight, if he would have flown for a different operator, which might have put different restrictions into it's FOM, e.g. payload restrictions in order to achieve the minimum climb gradient required to clear the mountains in IMC / or at night.

[4dogs]

Folks,

Under Australian Aviation Law, pilots are compelled to comply with the operator's Operations Manual:

215 Operations manual
(1) An operator shall provide an operations manual for the use and
guidance of the operations personnel of the operator.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.

.........

(9) Each member of the operations personnel of an operator shall
comply with all instructions contained in the operations manual
in so far as they relate to his or her duties or activities.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.

(10) In this regulation, a reference to the operations personnel of an
operator shall be read as including a reference to a person
undergoing flight training with that operator.

(11) An offence against subregulation (1), (2), (3A), (5), (6), (7), (8)
or (9) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

(12) It is a defence to a prosecution under subregulation (3A) if the
defendant had a reasonable excuse.
Note A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in
subregulation (12) (see subsection 13.3 (3) of the Criminal Code).


Now you will note that the offence attracts a maximum fine of 25 penalty units or about $2700. The FO would be in the frame if he was acquiescent in the breach.

Normally, in the absence of a specific direction from the regulator requiring the 30 minute buffer on twilight, a charge of reckless endangerment would be tossed on first reading unless the Captain sought relief from the company, was refused and took off despite vehement objections from the FO, or something similar.

I don't know any details or any rumours but it does seem unusually heavy handed....guess we'll just have to wait for the details to emerge.

Stay Alive,

[MountainBear]

I have two responses to the additional comments.

First, if it is true that under NZ law the company's procedures take on the affect of law once they are approved by the CAA then by definition there is a conflict in the law. The law governing when ATC can give permission to take off and the law governing when a pilot had legal authority to take off are in direct conflict with one another. Therefore, it is the law which is unsafe, not the pilots behavior. You solve the conflict in the law by changing it; not by charging one party and not the other.

Second, if it is true that under NZ law the company's procedures take on the affect of law once they are approved by the CAA then by definition the company is a guilty as a pilot. There is nothing in the law as quoted on these forums that exempt the company from being found criminally liable. Who employed the pilot? The airline. Who supervised the pilot? The airline. Who is responsible for the pilots behavior. The airline. The pilot has no independent authority to order a take-off of the airline's airplanes outside of the scope of his employment with that airline. If he is guilty so must they be.

The more information that is posted in this thread the more obvious becomes that this is a hatchet job. The pilot pissed somebody in authority off somewhere in his/her career and that person now has found an excuse to screw him over.

A shameful case for NZ as a country.

[Tinstaafl]

Does the company not have a system in place for dispensations with additional restrictions?

[ZQA297/30]

Two aviation (union) aphorisms come to mind
No good deed ever goes unpunished.
If you play ball with the company, you end up with the bat up your chuff.

Dont know the nitty details of this incident, but from the sparse details, the Capt. decided to help out company/passengers by sticking his neck out.
It got chopped off.
Oh dear.

[ZQA297/30]

Agreed. Seen it backfire too many times. Best not to take chances.

[TDK mk2]

Good to see all the black and whiters here, specially those of you posting from the comfort of your (corporate) armchair. A fleet manager of mine once told me that the ops manual is written in black and white, but the world isn't black and white. He said he would like to see the principle of the SOP observed, if not the letter. Perhaps this pilot's judgement was that in the conditions he could return to the field visually within 26 minutes without jeopardising anyone's safety.

An example of blind adherance to the rules; a busy U.K. regional airport with the main runway being resurfaced. A notam is issued stating that a section of about 60 meters in the middle of the runway has not yet been grooved and therefore should be considered slippery when wet. Some bright spark (base captain I believe) from a well known U.K. based regional operator decides that the runway must be treated as slippery when wet is announced on the atis which precludes it's turboprop aircraft from landing on it with any more than a 5 knot crosswind. So all the other airlines (including B.A.) continue to land on it after rain whilst the other airline causes minor mayhem by insisting on landing and departing from the cross runway which has no approach aids. Were the rest of us risking our passengers and our own lives or were we just making a sensible interpretation of the rules.

Of course if you don't want pilots to think at all then just punish us for all infractions of the rules/SOPs/Air Navigation Orders and see where we end up.

[tpad]

I agree with your comments TDK Mk2.

While not wishing to initiate thread drift, I would like to see the debate move from " is he guilty or not ?" to the basic question of whether or not NZQN is suitable for the operation of high performance swept-wing jets.

A company I used to work for initiated RNP approaches and departures in order to avoid the scud-running in days of old. The methodology of the introduction, while found wanting in a number of areas was condoned and eventually approved by the regulator in equipment that could easily be argued to be totally unsuitable for the job.

IMHO NZQN is an accident waiting to happen in a Transport Category jet, and I would like to see informed debate from the pilots who conduct these ops, as to whether or not it is an appropriate jet destination.

Please put aside your company and commercial predudices ( " we have to do it because they do " ) and discuss the appropriate risk management strategies, taking into account weather, terrain, wind, traffic etc.

The Pac Blue flight in question is by no means the first serious incident to occur there, it is simply the one that made the media. For the record, while I don't condone what the PIC did, I can certainly understand the choices he was faced with. There but for the grace ...

[Microburst2002]

How is it called when you work strictly following the rules, with zero "flexibility"? Work to rule or something?

I think that this is what that airline pilots should do. No more "I'll write that on the techlog when we come back" and other things like that.

Rules are there to be followed, right?

If someone accuses them of undercover industrial action, all they have to say is: "Oh, no! We just don't want to go to jail, that's all"

[RegDep]

How is it called when you work strictly following the rules, with zero "flexibility"? Work to rule or something?

It's called "Italian (Railroad) Strike". No strike but all done by the book. Takes hours to get the train moving from the station, before all regulations have been followed and actions documented.

[MountainBear]

If someone accuses them of undercover industrial action, all they have to say is: "Oh, no! We just don't want to go to jail, that's all"

Exactly. The real issue here from a risk management point of view is not the need for a case study. The real issue is the much broader issue of what role does the criminal law play in airline safety.

My perspective is that criminal charges should only be filed in the most obvious and most egregious cases. Good judges don't necessarily think like good pilots. I don't think passengers want a lawyer on the flight deck; they want someone to fly the plane.

So the question in my mind has never been whether he's 'guilty' or not. The question in my mind has been whether or not his behavior, even if assumed to be wrong, rises to the level of criminal conduct. And if it does, I think that is chilling for decision making and undermines the large goal of getting people safely from A to B.

[Microburst2002]

The case with surgeons comes to my mind.

Sometimes, doctors kill patients. But, where is the line between a "criminaly negligent doctor" and a doctor who due to a "reasonably human error" killed a person or cut the wrong leg?

The one million dollar question, however, is:

In which cases my management doesn't care if I deviate from procedures and rules and in which ones they will send me to jail?

[Oakape]

In which cases my management doesn't care if I deviate from procedures and rules

The ones where it saves them money & you get away with it, ie. where no one in authority or the public reports it & embarrasses them.


and in which ones they will send me to jail?

The ones when you are caught & management is publicly embarrassed & does not support the pilot in question, coupled with an over zealous regulatory authority, goaded on by politicians, the competition and, to a lessor extent, vocal members of the public.

It is never wise to step outside the rules & procedures to help the company or fare paying public out. They never really appreciate it in the longer term & will drop you like a sack of hot potatoes when the mud starts flying.

It also leads to what is called 'normalised deviance' which is a whole other can of worms, that has been at least partially responsible for a number of accidents over the years.

[Piltdown Man]

Microburst2002 - I think Oakape and MountainBear have got it spot on. There is no need to be flexible with the rules. We should always "work to rule." We are not expected to do otherwise and furthermore, we may be unceremoniously slung from the company if we ignore them. We are paid to be anonymous and if possible work in the "black and white" bits of the rules. We earn our money when they are "grey," don't apply because of weather or malfunctions or would result in what we believe to be against our flight's interest with regards to safety. The important bit is whenever we bust the rules, we do so noisily and create lots and lots of lovely paperwork to justify ourselves.

Regarding technical faults, in the past I've left notes for the next crew regarding minor technical faults but I've now stopped. It doesn't do anyone any good. I now try to write up all faults (even the self clearing ones as 'for info.' items) and let the engineers fix/defer or ground, as appropriate.

PM

[Piltdown Man]

And another couple of questions for 737-800 drivers: What sort of N-1 climb gradient could you achieve with 140 SOB and say three hour's fuel and secondly, at what level would this drop below 3.3% net?

PM

[Daermon ATC]

Ok, sorry, but I couldn't resist the chance.... :E

So now all of the sudden "work-to-rule" is fine as you have seen that it's your neck that is endangered when rules are interpreted with some flexibility.

How about when it's the Atcos doing it? Shame on them, these lazy priviledged good for nothing!

For example next time you ask for a visual approach remember that there are two italian atcos in jail for granting it.

If there is infinite visibility and no cloud or wind forecast for the next ten years and I still refuse your visual approach and force you on the standard published procedure, it may have to do less with the weather and more with our legal environment. :=

(hmmmm... sorry for the thread drift but it was too good to let that one pass)

[Piltdown Man]

I've never expected ATC to break the rules either. In fact they are the guys who need some real protection from them. For example, how can an ATC guy/girl possibly be responsible for someone's visual approach? How can they be responsible for someone running off the side of a runway or an over-run? If they passed the correct information, it can't be their problem. But when forced to give "bum covering clearances," make sure you do so noisily so pressure can be brought to bear from more than one source.

PM

[Oakape]

For example next time you ask for a visual approach remember that there are two italian atcos in jail for granting it.

Exactly! And as incomprehensible as that level of stupidity & uninformed interference is, that is the way certain factions of both the industry & society seem to be taking us. And if they are intent on taking aviation in that direction, there is not a whole lot we can do about it, except do our best to survive until retirement without a major, life changing 'event'.

When I was younger I used to give a damn. Now I just keep my head down & at the end of each trip I head home to my life. 'Cause my life is 100% outside what I do for a living now. I used to love this business, now I just wish I had done a trade. :(

[Slasher]

The more information that is posted in this thread the more
obvious becomes that this is a hatchet job. The pilot pissed
somebody in authority off somewhere in his/her career and
that person now has found an excuse to screw him over.
Too bloody right. I've always remembered the words of a wise
old skipper when I was approaching command tng - "solidly
tinplate your arse and NEVER give the bastards a reason to
screw you."

After reading this thread and having heard so many horror
stories in the past of good blokes getting their balls caught
in the wringer, if its not SOP I ask for a dispensation. If it
isn't forthcoming I'm off to the pub.

My full commiserations to that poor 737 bugger.

Mr Mod - I know I've broken my own rule by making a post in R&N (and knowing the risks that entails), but if you
don't like my post for any reason could you just delete it without banning me please? There'll be no fuss my end.

Thank you.

[LeadSled]

Folks,

If you really want to see how to screw pilots over, have a look at the Australian CASA draft of the new Part 91, available on <www.casa.gov.au>.

A most amazing document, nothing to do with aviation safety, quite the contrary.

As a former head of legal at CASA said;"Aviation law is for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers".

Be aware that (amongst many other atrocities) that the emergency authority of the pilot in command has been removed, instead it will be reverse onus of proof to justify anything you did during an emergency ----- in complete contrast to ICAO, FAA and existing Australian rules.

Tootle pip!!

[MungoP]

in complete contrast to ICAO, FAA and existing Australian rules.

I wouldn't be too sure about including the FAA in that... A colleague of mine has been grounded for months now while the FAA prevaricate over his actions in declaring an emergency following a low-fuel light indication (spurious)...

[LeadSled]

MungoP,
Sorry to hear that, they must be taking a leaf out of the CASA book.

See:
§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.
The current (pale imitation) version of the above rule FAR 91.3(b) has been removed from new CASA draft Part 91. As I previously posted, the PIC will have to prove justifications for his or her actions after the event, and we all know about Monday morning quarterbacks.

Down here, aviationwise, a good working rule is: "No good deed ever goes unpunished".

International operators note, these rules apply to you in Australian national airspace, ie: inside the 12 mile limit.

Tootle pip!!

[framer]

Whats the 12 mile limit?
I thought BN FIR and ML FIR started hundreds of miles out.....does it not apply there?

[5coffee]

I've already posted this on another thread. But it might clarify some earlier discussion here.

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.

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 IFR departures.

Air traffic controllers have no authority to deny a clearance to an IFR flight based on weather conditions. (They can deny a VFR clearance).

[framer]

Thanks for that.
So am I right in saying that the cloud you talk of at 1000ft was in front of and to the right of them as they rolled, and that they levelled off below it, turned left at the golf course and resumed a normal climb visually to tollgate?

[onthesideline]

Yep 5coffee pretty much summed up the events surrounding this departure. All quite routine really and a non event.
A vexatious prosecution by NZCAA - I hope it costs them plenty in court cost and damages

[frozen man]

however the Acft still departed after the last time of departure allowed by the regulators approved company operations manual, so why all the debate:rolleyes:

[M609]

How about the ATCo

How the hell is an atco supposed to know the content of the customers operations manual? We will enter a slippery slope if atcos are supposed to police rules that are entirely the PICs responsebility to follow.

[onthesideline]

The Ops manual I believe has a 30min daylight cut off included 'to allow for visual manouevering in the event of an engine failure'. In this case the visual manouevering option was not needed as the flight was light enough to meet SID climb requirements OEI. The flight passed the SID set HDG point well before ECT.
This 30min cut off rule was originally written to cover turbo prop scenarios which lack OEI performance to climb out of the Queenstown Basin.

[framer]

In this case the visual manouevering option was not needed as the flight was light enough to meet SID climb requirements OEI.

I don't agree with that statement.
The visual maneuvering option is required because if they lost an engine say....just as they crossed the golf course and began their visual climb to Tollgate, they need the visual maneuvering option to either;
A) maneuver visually in order to reach the required height at Tollgate and therefore be capable of going IMC and maintaining the SID gradient, or,
B)maneuver visually in the figure 8 to return to land.

[onthesideline]

Take off from Queenstown is limited to 'day light' only. Once airborne the crew were flying a published departure procedure (SID) which required own terrain clearance the set heading point (TOLLGATE) after which continued flight IMC is allowed provided published climb gradients are achieved. In this case rumour has it the flight crew determined they could meet the minimum required SID gradient OEI, hence the decision to depart. Providing the flight crossed TOLLGATE before daylight ends they were quids in.

The CAA 30 minute rider reflects that Queenstown is a daylight operation only so should a return be necessary there will be time to recircuit before daylight ends.

In this case the plan was in the event of an engine failure at V1 to continue on the SID, climb out of the Queenstown Basin and depart for an alternate. It could be argued that climbing out of the Queenstown Basin is a much better option and more professional that circuiting amongst the mountains, regardless of the time of day.

To add to this I understand climbing out of the Queenstown basin is supported by Pac Blue ops managment and is the company preferred option.

[aterpster]

framer:

Whats the 12 mile limit?
I thought BN FIR and ML FIR started hundreds of miles out.....does it not apply there?

Where domestic ATC ends and the FIR begins is a separate matter from what constitutes international airspace.

[sytico]

That's very interesting....enough said

[7800 pilot]

Interesting that the CAA are taking any action when one of their own inspectors involved in the investigation has verbally supported the pilots actions. This is well known among a number of the Pac Blue pilots.

[7800 pilot]

Not too many inspectors would be comfortable standing up to the CAA management and putting principles ahead of job security. But perhaps they should shut up if they are not prepared to "put up".
Most of the inspectors are well thought of and I have no axe to grind in that respect.

[TDK mk2]

Saskatoon, commanders are authorised to "vary" SOPs in some circumstances, such as waiting for a rain shower to pass. It might have been legal for this commander to depart during that shower, and thereby satisfying the 30 min requirement but would that have been prudent? I would have thought that any reasonable flight ops manager would listen closely to the circumstances of the situation and make a judgement on whether the actions were reasonable, and it sounds like Pacific Blue did this - and found that they were reasonable. The ops manual may be written in black ink on white paper, but the world is not black and white.

[fdr]

44 Dangerous activity involving aircraft, aeronautical product, or aviation related service
(1) Every person commits an offence who—
(a) operates, maintains, or services; or
(b) does any other act in respect of—
any aircraft, aeronautical product, or aviation related service, in a manner which causes unnecessary danger to any other person or to any property.

(2) Every person commits an offence who—
(a) causes or permits any aircraft, aeronautical product, or aviation related service to be operated, maintained, or serviced; or
(b) causes or permits any other act to be done in respect of any aircraft, aeronautical product, or aviation related service,—
in a manner which causes unnecessary danger to any other person or to any property.


Every Person.... Permits..... thats a lot of people potentially outside of just the PIC.

"unnecessary danger" is going to be interesting to get the legal opinion of a departure without incident, given the definition of the term danger in common use, and also the fact that the NZ CAA deems that the potential risk is so low that their regulation on this matter were not breached.

Would the fact that the PIC feels compelled to his course of action by the company (if it is the case :O) negate "unnecessary" danger, or perceived passenger expectations?

The NZ CAA is not the only NAA that is acting in a manner that raises the question of the safety merit of retribution vs regulation.

[SilverSleuth]

So has the pilot been stood down?
Is the company supporting/defending him?
I heard it was checkie, is that correct?

[DRPAM007]

If the CAA approved company SOP says takeoff must be in daylight (30 minutes before twilight), then simply put this is violation of the AOC.
Why is there a discussion on whether or not this is violation?
The only way you can string out this debate is to investigate whether this violation was necessary for purposes of maintaining "safe operations" or was it just to placate the latent commercial pressure we deal with everyday you step into the flight deck?

[framer]

Saskatoon, commanders are authorised to "vary" SOPs in some circumstances, such as waiting for a rain shower to pass.
I would argue that they are only authorised to 'vary SOP's' if by doing so they increase the safety of the operation.

So the question then becomes "Did breaking this well known and easily understood SOP increase the safety of the flight?"

The ops manual may be written in black ink on white paper, but the world is not black and white.

It's fairly black and white on this one. Basically it's "Do not depart less than 30 mins prior to ECT due to the need for visual maneouvreing below MSA in the case of an engine failure on departure"

I find it hard to see how you can argue against that unless you start pointing the finger at management and undue pressures to get the job done. Personally, I think that is what needs to be done.

[TDK mk2]

Well my fleet manager once said to me "I would like to see the principle of the SOP obeyed if not the letter". If the principle of the 30 minute rule is to allow for 'visual maneouvreing below MSA in the case of an engine failure on departure', and it can be demonstrated that the commander did allow sufficient time for this then why would an authority prosecute for not observing an arbitary limit that took no account of the actual conditions?

[DRPAM007]

That'll require opening a can of worms leading to more complicated scenarios injected into the currently varied SOP. You'll need to involve safety inspectors, meteorological experts and a host of lawyers to determine that. May lead to global change of the definitions of "twilight", "VMC" and "safety". Thus, making everything as clear as mud!
Guess if the airline had already implemented RNP procedures, this incident and its associated negative publicity would have been averted.

[framer]

I'l preface this by saying that I don't think any criminal charges should have been taken against the PIC. It should have been tea & bikkies and a slap on the wrist but........

If the principle of the 30 minute rule is to allow for 'visual maneouvreing below MSA in the case of an engine failure on departure', and it can be demonstrated that the commander did allow sufficient time for this then why would an authority prosecute for not observing an arbitary limit that took no account of the actual conditions?

if you would be happy to be stuck in the Queenstown basin with 20 or so minutes until ECT below MSA with any kind of weather in the vicinity, and an engine thats just gone bang, then either you haven't operated into NZQN in a jet or you are willing to bet everything (on behalf of your passengers) that you won't have an engine failure.
The chances are incredibly small that an engine failure will ocurr before the required height, but the company have assesed the risk and decided it's not one they want to take and written that into the ops manual.
Over the decades it's become obvious that if airlines leave every judgement call up to the PIC they will get all sorts of results, if they set some boundries (30 mins) they can get better outcomes safety wise. If our ego's are such that we think we're above that in non-emergency situations then we really shouldn't be in the left seat. My opinion only.

[framer]

PS .
and it can be demonstrated that the commander did allow sufficient time for this
That would be an impossible task even ten minutes after the departure let alone in a court room.

[lederhosen]

Viewed from a distance the authorities in the antipodes seem to be sending a clear message that safety cannot be compromised. The Tiger grounding and prosecution of the Pacific Blue captain are clearly intended to encourage others to behave. 'Pour encourager les autres' as one might say in Toulouse.

We can all sympathise with the guy not wanting to get stuck overnight in Queenstown. Not a bad place to get stuck having said all that, particularly if you like Japanese people. But having landed there in the dim and distant past I can understand the reason for the SOP.