PDA

View Full Version : Pacific Blue Queenstown incident


Oakape
8th Mar 2013, 01:38
The judge has handed down his decision in the PB Queenstown case.

Pacific Blue pilot found guilty
March 8, 2013, New Zealand


A pilot has been found guilty of careless operation of a passenger jet, following a takeoff incident in Queenstown in 2010.

Fairfax Media reports the decision was handed down in a written judgement on the charge that the 54-year-old pilot, who still has name suppression, operated a Pacific Blue Boeing 737 in a careless manner.

The June 22, 2010 incident saw the plane take off from Queenstown to Sydney at 5.25pm. The Civil Aviation Authority said the pilot shouldn't have taken off after 5.14pm, due to rules that departing aircraft need at least 30 minutes before the civil twilight cut-off of 5.45pm.

During a trial, the defence said the pilot's actions were correct and any breach of requirements was "below the level of carelessness".

However, Judge Kevin Phillips' ruling today said safety margins at that time were "seriously impacted".

"I am satisfied that no reasonable and prudent pilot ... would have commenced the takeoff roll," the judge said.

"I am satisfied the defendant was careless in his manner of operating the aircraft. The defendant ignored the mandatory requirements and, in their place, used his planning and self designed contingency."

Ejector
8th Mar 2013, 01:42
Gezz, how many times have the rules been broken in GA. Ouch.

ramble on
8th Mar 2013, 04:54
Its my bet that the real kicker for this chap will be that due to commercial pressures it won't be long before night operations occur at QN.

For the corporate jets fitted with HUDs and EVS (infra red vision systems) it's not much different night or day already.

skol
8th Mar 2013, 05:27
This guy had the "can-do" attitude and is going to pay the price, the same as the RNZAF is going to hang a guy for the "can-do" attitude.

Ken Borough
8th Mar 2013, 08:12
Why is this pilot's name suppressed? He's been found guilty of an offence by a judicial officer. Few others found guilty are not so lucky.

headwires
8th Mar 2013, 09:25
I think Sledge Hammer sums up the courts decision best: "I've seen better decisions made by ouija boards":ugh:

Ken Borough
8th Mar 2013, 11:04
Gate_15L

I'm neither a wannabe nor an anorak. And I know nothing about Microsoft Flight Sim 2000. What a shame you weren't taught correct spelling and grammar?

Pray, tell me why this guilty person's name should be suppressed? If he turned out to be a hero, you'd be shouting his name from the top of a building.

deadhead
8th Mar 2013, 11:18
Well people, Ken did ask a fair question, even as his supporting argument indicates the opposite. The answer is that the defendant hasn't been sentenced yet. His interim name suppression is set to be lifted at his next court appearance on March 26th, so Ken can slake his thirst at the trough of voyeuristic schadenfreude then. Knock yourself out :ok:

Ken Borough
8th Mar 2013, 11:54
Thanks DH but I'm still puzzled. Where I live, as soon as a defendant appears in court on trial, he or she is invariably named. The same generally applies to a bail hearing. Sentencing at a date subsequent to that on which a verdict has been handed down does not necessarily mean anonymity for the guilty party. What is different in this instance?

BTW, I couldn't give a FF about the identity of the person concerned. It just goes to show that some are more equal before the law than others!

ad-astra
8th Mar 2013, 12:54
Ken take it up with the Judge. Its his train set!

On Track
8th Mar 2013, 19:29
Ken, name suppression is quite common in NZ courts, at least in the early stages of proceedings. Don't ask me why.

Servo
8th Mar 2013, 21:44
Did the company support him?

Ken Borough
8th Mar 2013, 23:18
Thank you On Track, that's all I needed to know. The "red-necks" would go crazy were that the practice in my country.

nike
9th Mar 2013, 00:16
It's a small country. Forget 6 degrees, try 2 degrees....

prospector
9th Mar 2013, 04:02
"I am satisfied the defendant was careless in his manner of operating the aircraft

And from what aeronautical experience does this "satisfaction" spring?

Does not a lawyer or a doctor have to appear before a panel of their peers to adjudicate whether they have acted in an imprudent way?

It brings to mind "Rules are for the blind obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"

Surely it would be up to experienced aviation people, his peers, to judge whether these reported actions could be classed as "careless", not a judge who perhaps has absolutely no knowledge of things aeronautical.

.

skol
9th Mar 2013, 04:53
The moral of the story is, don't break the rules, and don't subscribe to the 'can-do' attitude, because if you make a mess of it your employer will be the last one to thank you for completing the mission.

Your contract will spell it out.

haughtney1
9th Mar 2013, 06:47
The moral is, operate to the most conservative set of applicable regulations and beware a regulator with a point to prove.

27/09
9th Mar 2013, 08:22
Did the company support him?

I don't know, but I think he was/is still employed by them, so, if that is the case, it would indicate some level of support.

And from what aeronautical experience does this "satisfaction" spring? Precisely

I wouldn't be surprised to see an appeal lodged along with further name suppression.

always inverted
9th Mar 2013, 20:30
Yes the company has been supporting him...

Servo
9th Mar 2013, 23:23
That is great to hear. Not a nice position to be in.

I agree with the comments "against" the judge. But you have to consider that to them it is black and white.

Most crew have a can do attitude which is born from GA days to get the job done. We often need to think outside the square.

Good luck.

The Cassidy Kid
10th Mar 2013, 07:01
So how do we feel about FDR information, presumably being provided in good faith for safety purposes/FOQA, being used in a criminal prosecution by the regulator?

I'd be very happy to stand corrected here if I've got the wrong end of the stick btw.

Oriana
10th Mar 2013, 07:10
I am not casting aspersions here, but even in a Just Culture framework, if you knowing violate rules or regulations - you're on your own.

BTW, where wasthe FO in all of this? Did the FO disagree or advocate against departing?

Genuine question.

neville_nobody
10th Mar 2013, 13:18
Here is the original http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/422267-merged-pacific-blue-infringement-nzqn.html

Alot of eye witness testimony from non pilots miles from the aircraft. I would be interested in reading a transcript of the case or judges verdict if anyone has a link.

prospector
10th Mar 2013, 20:23
Latest news article

Pilot clearly at fault, says judge - National - NZ Herald News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10870449)

Kharon
10th Mar 2013, 20:45
Normally, would avoid this sort of debate however, feel a need for 2 bob's worth. The judgement only ever had one way to go – the 'law' says XX minutes before EOD. The 'law' is not required to consider that it was operationally safe i.e. suitable alternate, performance, adequate visibility etc. or any of the operationally sound reasons which the PIC probably did consider before using 'command discretion' and decided that it was operationally safe to take off.

This is one of the major problems with "prescriptive" rules and the system. Was it operationally sound – yes. Was the black letter law broken – yes. Wriggle room=zero. I feel for the guy, I really do; but this is a good example of what you face in a tribunal or court.

This type of thing undermines command prerogative; but removing the restriction can then be exploited by 'ruthless' operators. Rocks and hard places – especially where the thing is built into an operations manual; the operator wants the service done but then blames the driver when it all turns to Pooh. I hope the company is going to find a way around the issue and reinstate a honest, hard working bloke as soon as possible.

That's it $00.20 – back to my knitting.

Yousef Breckenheimer
12th Mar 2013, 21:25
This should have been dealt with not by the courts, but by a professional disciplinary tribunal similar to what lawyers and doctors etc etc have. The subject matter is too technical for the judge to firmly grasp.

Offcut
12th Mar 2013, 21:38
Let me start by saying that I don't think this should have ever gone to court. It is a worrying precedent and will be a negative for self reporting and flight safety.

However......
I don't see the grey area. There is a curfew. Everyone knows the rules down there. They aren't new. It is black and white. After xx:xx, you cannot take off. Park the jet and go to the hotel. All the other factors in this incident could be argued but this one is indefensible. Does it deserve a court case? Probably not. Just culture should apply. Did he knowingly break the rule? If so, why?

As for "command prerogative/authority", call it what you will. It is largely a myth. The only time a PiC can intentionally ignore the law is if following it would be the more dangerous situation. You cannot use the so called "command authority" to ignore the law, just because you judge it to be safe, or in the company interest, or you want to get home or whatever.

When I got my first job I was told the following to aid in decision making:

1)Is it safe?
2)Is it legal?
3)Is it in the companies interest?

If you can satisfy ALL THREE, then go for it.

Sand dune Sam
12th Mar 2013, 23:39
Off cuts probably put the most sensible post on here..:D.

skol
14th Mar 2013, 01:15
Yes, this shouldn't have got to court, you're dealing with a collection of faceless, humourless, civil servants - CAA - the matter could have been addressed in a far better manner.

I lost my medical a while back; after providing all the proof I needed to CAA that I was as fit as any man my age on the planet, it still took months top get it back. These are not easy people to deal with, they probably have an axe to grind and this case decided to make an example of the individual involved. I've been told there are lots of drivers out there with medical problems, but they don't declare them. Who would?

This is the kind of victimisation that makes pilots decide not to tell CAA some of the incidents that really could facilitate safety in the air.

He's got my utmost sympathy- don't break the rules-go to the pub.

neville_nobody
14th Mar 2013, 06:43
I believe there was some disagreement over what defines 'departure'. The PIC and possibly the ops manual means off chocks whilst CAA says it is airborne.

haughtney1
14th Mar 2013, 07:31
I believe there was some disagreement over what defines 'departure'. The PIC and possibly the ops manual means off chocks whilst CAA says it is airborne.


Which if true NN, goes back to a comment I made on a previous related thread, who approves the company manuals? specifically in relation to points of law?
The answer is for a NZ registered operator..the CAA.
If there was/is a variation between the local rules and the company manuals, that oversight in documentation is supposed to be caught by the regulator and then imposed on the operator in accordance with what is promulgated.

Oakape
14th Mar 2013, 07:49
I was led to believe that the 30 minute requirement was only in the PB ops manual not a CAA requirement, in that the CAA only required departure before ECT.

Is this not the case?

Or is the CAA picking & choosing between sections of the PB ops manual & their requirements/interpretations & making the story up as they go along?

always inverted
18th Mar 2013, 02:56
Pb manuals are approved by CAA, therefore, what ever is in them becomes law over CAA reqs if caa's happen to be less restrictive.

PLovett
18th Mar 2013, 03:56
Pb manuals are approved by CAA, therefore, what ever is in them becomes law over CAA reqs if caa's happen to be less restrictive.

Are you sure about that?

I have no knowledge of NZ law but I would be very surprised if there was anything in the NZ Act or Regulations that incorporated a company's ops manual into the legislation. Just think for a minute about what you are saying.

That the Pb ops manual is more restrictive than the CAA legislation and therefore a breach of the ops manual by a Pb pilot can be prosecuted in a criminal court, whereas, another pilot employed by a different company who takes off after the Pb pilot but before the CAA restriction (hypothetical case for example purposes only) could not be similarly prosecuted.

I don't think so.

pcx
18th Mar 2013, 04:24
Actually that could happen in Australia also.
Have a look at CAR 1988 Reg. 215 (9).
This requires compliance with the operations manual.
This is an offence of strict liability with a penalty of 25 penalty units.
You could be prosecuted for failure to comply with your ops manual.

always inverted
18th Mar 2013, 05:56
Yep, I know my job... Plovett :ugh:
And that's what happened here isn't it... Might not want to assume when you don't know...

So in your cloudy logic, if I did a approach to company minima, which was higher than the actual minima, then went to the lower minima, and got in, you think that is okay do you... Glad I don't fly with you.:ugh:

always inverted
18th Mar 2013, 06:00
Plovett, this should never have gone to the courts. Should have been handled in house, but a few other "external factors" were at play which may have affected this being handled in house.

Offcut
18th Mar 2013, 06:15
I'm not a lawyer, but.......

My way of thinking is that your company manuals form part of the exposition. They explain how the company is going to comply with the law. In other words, to ignore them means you are now making up your own method of complying with the law as you go along. Therefore, your chance of now breaching the law is rather high. In any case, to my knowledge, the daylight restriction in Queenstown is the same for all operators as it is the only acceptable method of complying with the law. This may well change with RNP AR ops, but has not yet.

always inverted
18th Mar 2013, 07:05
CAA may have a blanket time for ZQN but each operator will either have that time in their manuals or something more restrictive, but you can apply for an exemption to operate less than the CAA level, as does mt cook...
Just because an operator may have rnp ar ops approval, still doesn't negate the daylight req.

27/09
18th Mar 2013, 09:28
this should never have gone to the courts. Should have been handled in house, but a few other "external factors" were at play which may have affected this being handled in house.

Oh do you mean some armchair experts with big egos, one with a nautical background that has aeronautical aspirations?

Oakape
18th Mar 2013, 10:02
So, are you guys saying that whatever is the most restrictive between the regs & the operators manual, is law?

In this case, the 30 mins before ECT in the PB ops manual was the most restrictive, so that is the law? And the departure time taken as airborne time by the CAA is the most restrictive (assuming that the post above, about the PB ops manual saying departure is off chocks, is accurate), so that is the law?

If that is the case, why would the CAA approve a manual that states off chocks time is departure time, leading to possible confusion & error? It affects much more than just this circumstance, e.g. flight & duty times, engineering inspections based on flight times, etc.

And if this is the case, wouldn't the difference have given the defence another angle for their case?

SilverSleuth
18th Mar 2013, 10:29
So is the captain involved still working for PB? Has the Company supported him then and still now?

RadioSaigon
18th Mar 2013, 12:31
...armchair experts with big egos, one with a nautical background that has aeronautical aspirations?

hmmm... of a surname that implies an absolute absence of colour, light even? If so, I can't help but marvel that he is still allowed to be involved in anything remotely regulatory.

27/09
19th Mar 2013, 08:08
So is the captain involved still working for PB? Has the Company supported him then and still now?

From page one of this thread

Yes the company has been supporting him...

27/09
19th Mar 2013, 08:23
hmmm... of a surname that implies an absolute absence of colour, light even? If so, I can't help but marvel that he is still allowed to be involved in anything remotely regulatory.

That sounds like the guy. Looks like he's made a name of himself here, Queenstown harbourmaster cited in 'near-miss' | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2591212/Harbourmaster-cited-in-Kawarau-river-boating-near-miss)

On Track
25th Mar 2013, 19:25
Sentencing happens today. Will be interesting to see how the case proceeds from here.

FlareArmed
26th Mar 2013, 03:45
The sentence was simply a $5100 fine. No reduction of licence privileges. The CAA made a motherhood statement about it sending a message about rules etc. I read somewhere that it cost the CAA about $1m to prosecute.

always inverted
26th Mar 2013, 03:59
Again, I stand by my earlier comment, it should never have gone to court. The government seriously needs to do an inquiry into this and WHY CAA took this to trial for a $5000 fine and nothing else. What an absolute waste of time, money and everything else... They could have used that money to cover the bullshit charges we have to pay before we go sit a medical just so those in the ivory towers can walk outside and sip a latte in the terraces... :mad::mad::mad::ugh:
Glad it's over, unless he is to appeal the decision.

Hopefully those involved can go back to doing what they do best...

skol
26th Mar 2013, 06:06
Don't be in "go-mode", as some enthusiasts call it.

LeadSled
26th Mar 2013, 07:09
Folks,
Of course, if this was Australia, CASA would now proceed against the pilot with administrative action.
Shades of the disgraceful treatment of two QF domestic pilots years ago, now, in Tasmania.
Tootle pip!!

On Track
26th Mar 2013, 07:13
There was a bit more to it than just a fine.

www.odt.co.nz/queenstown-lakes/250844/pacific-blue-pilot-sentenced

Gate_15L
26th Mar 2013, 08:36
I do not accept the argument that this event should not of ended up in court. This is exactly where a safety breach should end up - after all who are we protecting here - I hope it's the traveling public. -Prospector

I disagree.

As has been pointed out before in this thread, when there is a medical case, it is heard by a panel of Doctors. When the Bar is involved, a panel of Lawyers. This Judge has no aviation background nor experience of flying in and out of Queenstown, nor the CAA's star witness Colin Glasgow (He spent the last 30 years drinking coffee at FL300 in his B747-200) nor Mr Black the Harbour master. The arrogance of the witnesses is astounding.

I agree, any wilful breech needs to handled accordingly. Supposedly a "Just Culture" which anyone involved in NZ aviation knows is a nice byword that cannot be achieved under current CAA regulations and law.

However as has been said before, this non-compliance could have been handled in-house with internal company sanctions with the same result, lower costs and greater educational deterrent value.

The only educational value I get out of this is never trust the NZ CAA.

reubee
26th Mar 2013, 08:41
Probably OK to post this now...

The Amazing Race Asia Season 4 Episode-7 04/11/10 Part 3/4 - YouTube

... from about 2:15 in.

prospector
26th Mar 2013, 08:46
I do not accept the argument that this event should not of ended up in court. This is exactly where a safety breach should end up - after all who are we protecting here - I hope it's the traveling public.

If this is/was a safety breach, affecting the travelling public, and it ends in Court and a conviction, and no one was hurt, in fact everyone on the flight, and the aircraft, ended up where they were supposed to be, then what are your thoughts on all the people that were responsible for the collapse of the CCT building with the loss of 115 lives? all caused by gross negligence of the so called professionals involved in the design and build and apparently no one is responsible enough for any charges to be laid? Different ball game admittedly but surely shows the stupidity of some of the so called regulations that are supposed to ensure the safety of the public.

always inverted
26th Mar 2013, 08:56
Spending probably in excess of $1m on a case just to get a conviction with a related fine of $5100...Really...seriously...
What a waste of money, and who really won? The lawyers...
What is Stu going to teach him that he doesn't already know. Why is the retraining going to take 17 months?

Cpt Link Hog
26th Mar 2013, 10:28
This made world wide headlines news! NZ tourism is worth billions employs
Thousands of people. This had the potential to affect Queenstown and the Nz tourist market as a safe place to vist and yes John key being the minister for tourism,sure he was not impressed sum Egg from Pac bro/virgin Austrila Nz pty ltd or what ever they call it F;$king it up not to mention damage to the Virgin brand itself .


If there was any dought I Can't understand why he didn't just park up and go for beers in Q town?

Offcut
26th Mar 2013, 19:15
Geez, just watched the video for the first time. That's pretty dark! After three years and a lot of wasted money and stress we have ended up with a result that should probably been imposed by PacBlue to start with (minus the fine). Ie, a rap over the knuckles and a bit of retraining. If there is one positive to come out of this it is to remind all of us that we answer to a higher authority than the chief pilot. No, not Allah, but the even more scary CAA.

thermostat
26th Mar 2013, 20:22
Can someone throw some light on the reason for the 30 min restriction. I don't live in NZ so I don't get it. He departed 10 mins later than he should have, so how his that a serious, dangerous, reckless action? Did anyone get hurt? Just curious.

neville_nobody
26th Mar 2013, 21:27
Geez, just watched the video for the first time. That's pretty dark!

Bollocks! You could clearly see the hill and remember that was being filmed from inside a lit cabin, so from the cockpit it was probably even clearer.

There's nothing in that video that I would consider to be evidence of 'dangerous'.

I would like to know how the cross examination went with the so called 'expert witnesses' there would be much to challenge after looking at the video.

Can anyone find a transcript of the court case?

Interesting words from the judge.

Surely this wasn't about EFATO escape procedures as per the Otago Daily suggests....

The judge who sentenced a Pacific Blue pilot for his careless Queenstown take-off has concerns about industry pressure to keep aircraft ''off the ground''.

Auckland-based captain Roderick Gunn was yesterday fined $5100 for carelessly operating a Sydney-bound aircraft on June 22, 2010, in dark conditions and outside the airline's and Civil Aviation Authority flight rules.

The 55-year-old married father-of-two is still allowed to fly but must undertake extensive training before he renews his licence, which expired during his two-and-a-half-year stand-down following the incident.

Gunn must not operate as pilot-in-command on flights in and out of Queenstown - regarded as a ''category X'' aerodrome with the highest degree of difficulty - for 12 months. During sentencing in the Queenstown District Court, Judge Kevin Phillips said he held concerns about pilots feeling the urgency to keep aircraft moving.

''In my view, there appears to be some degree of either peer pressure or operator pressure to personnel, and I find that alarming that a person as experienced as you has come to need to get this aircraft off the ground, out of Queenstown, in these circumstances,'' he said.

''If there is the prevalent view among senior pilots that `the job has got to be done' then that has to be, in my view, denounced.''

Gunn's good character from his exemplary 30-year commercial flying career ''is now gone forever'' after a wilful disregard for the strict aviation rules, Judge Phillips said. Gunn took off from Queenstown with 64 passengers and six crew at 5.25pm, 11 minutes after the rules stipulated it was safe to do so at that time of year.

That, compounded by low cloud and high crosswinds, meant that a prudent and reasonable pilot would have left the plane grounded. During Gunn's lengthy trial last year, the prosecution case centred on the idea that if there was an engine failure during or immediately after take-off, the plane would not have been able to make it safely out of the mountainous basin and to another airport.

A transcript of an interview with Gunn following the incident showed he regarded flying on that day as ''just another day in the office''. Judge Phillips found that to be an aggravating comment.

''It was denouncing of your duties and denouncing of yourself.

''You seemed to ignore the fact that you had to maintain visibility - not only with the lake and the ground below - but also the mountainous terrain that you had to fly around.

''Somehow, you as pilot-in-command could make your own rules.''

Outside court, Gunn declined to comment, being contractually bound to not say anything. Defence counsel Matthew Muir said: ''I think that Mr Gunn will be delighted that the judge has given him another chance in his career.''

CAA director of civil aviation Graeme Harris welcomed the sentencing.

''Airlines in New Zealand are among the safest in the world and the vast majority of airline pilots are highly professional and focused on the safety of their passengers.

''While we prefer to work with airlines and pilots that share a common interest in safety, there is a threshold beyond which those involved in aviation must be held accountable for their actions.'

The pilot guilty of operating a commercial jet aircraft carelessly in Queenstown has been told his actions were arrogant and "increased the risk of tragedy occurring".

Auckland-based Roderick Gunn, 55, has escaped disqualification from flying but has been fined $5100 plus court costs during his sentence in Queenstown District Court today.

He must undertake extensive retraining, to be overseen by Air New Zealand captain and expert witness in the case Stu Julian. He is also barred from being a pilot-in-command of a flight in and out of Queenstown for 12 months.

Gunn, a pilot with more than 30 years' commercial flying experience, is the Pacific Blue captain who flew out of Queenstown Airport in dark, wintry conditions in his Sydney-bound Boeing 737-800 on June 22, 2010. He was found guilty two weeks ago by Judge Kevin Phillips. Interim name suppression was lifted at the conclusion of his sentence.

Gunn has been stood-down from flying since the incident.

During sentencing, Judge Kevin Phillips told Gunn that despite his exemplary career, he showed a "wilful disregard" for the aviation rules he was bound by.

"There was an arrogance in that your experience and abilities would overcome rules of law," Judge Phillips says.

"Your actions increased the risk on your crew and increased the risk of tragedy occurring in the Queenstown area. Any accident could have been catastrophic."

Lawyer for the Civil Aviation Authority, Fletcher Pilditch, argued prior to sentencing that Gunn should have been disqualified because that would denounce and deter any future incidents by pilots.

He also said Gunn failed to show any remorse or contrition for his offending.

Gunn's lawyer Matthew Muir argued that Gunn's conviction alone was a significant-enough deterrent for others in the aviation industry.

He also reasoned that Gunn has already been barred from flying for two-and-a-half years and would take a further 17 months to get a new licence. Gunn's employment contract also included an option for dismissal if he was disqualified.

Judge Phillips' guilty verdict follows a lengthy trial of Gunn last year.

Gunn took off from Queenstown with 64 passengers at 5.25pm, 11 minutes after the rules stipulated it was safe to do so at that time of year. That, compounded by low cloud and high cross-winds, meant that a prudent and reasonable pilot would have left the plane grounded, Judge Phillips found.

The prosecution case centred on the idea that if there was an engine failure during or immediately after take-off, the plane wouldn't have been able to make it safely out of the mountainous basin and on to another airport.

clack100
26th Mar 2013, 23:52
So...

When do the CAA commence proceedings against those passengers using portable electronic devices during takeoff - namely video cameras?

Tarq57
27th Mar 2013, 00:52
[edit] post deleted.

27/09
27th Mar 2013, 00:56
Surely this wasn't about EFATO escape procedures as per the Otago Daily suggests....

Yep as I understand it the 30 minutes thing is all to do with being able to maintain terrain clearance visually or IMC and return after an engine failure and land prior to ECT.

In this case I think the Captain had nominated a departure alternate and knew he could meet the required gradients single engine. The first part of the departure has to be completed VFR to a certain point then the rest IMC if conditions dictate.

always inverted
27th Mar 2013, 02:08
Captain link hog, you come across like a complete dick, probably never been into queenstown. Your comment helps no one except you and your ego... As far as I am aware it has never been PAC Bro as you call it so dont degrade a good company and place to work with some half-cocked idea of what my or may not have been damaged...
I'm guessing that you work at nsn... Got your blinkers on and all...
Everyone can do the perfect job looking back on it.

always inverted
27th Mar 2013, 02:12
Funny thing is, you can be legal with viz, time prior to ect, but at the same time on two consecutive days, it will be completely different with cloud Vs clear, let alone snow showers in the vicinity... Or whatever...
It always looks worse from down the back looking sideways to the flight path.

neville_nobody
27th Mar 2013, 02:20
It always looks worse from down the back looking sideways to the flight path.

Exactly and the determination of VMC is from the front of the aircraft whether you are clear of cloud etc.....not some clown on the other side of the aerodrome or in row 30.

I've departed in severe CAVOK whilst the control tower was shrouded in fog. Things like that will be deemed to risky in the future if this sort of trend continues.

The Judges statement has dire consequences on decision making in aviation unfortunately. Aviation Law is so bad that you couldn't take off half the time due to their being some conflicting law you could break.

Where to from here?

Offcut
27th Mar 2013, 03:27
"The Judges statement has dire consequences on decision making in aviation unfortunately. Aviation Law is so bad that you couldn't take off half the time due to their being some conflicting law you could break."

Such as? I certainly try not to break the law every time I take off. I've said it before, but this is below the threshold of a conviction for me, but still pretty untidy. We cannot expect no repercussions from our decisions. He knew the cut-off time, knew he was after it, and took off anyway. Whether you think the law is an ass or not, you need to follow it. Want it changed, lobby your MP, don't start a revolution from the front seat of a 737.

always inverted
27th Mar 2013, 03:33
Yep, you pretty much won't take off now. I guess there is not really much space left for judgement now. I can just imagine sitting on the gate at ZQN and saying, well, we have 40 min before dark, we are ready for pushback, now have we broken any rules, lets just check them all just to be sure... Oh shit, now it's to late and we must overnight. Lets wait till a cavok day to depart just in case a row30ite with their video running makes a comment that could sink me...

Capt. On Heat
27th Mar 2013, 03:35
The Law eh Offcut?
Could you please reference me the law for 30 mins before ECT?

Offcut
27th Mar 2013, 03:47
Ahh, the same old debate. The company exposition mandates it. CAA has approved the exposition as the way that the airline will comply with the law, ergo, the pilot must follow the manual. I am not a lawyer, but a bunch of lawyers and a judge in Queenstown have agreed that this is the case. If not, what other inconvenient items in your company manuals can you decide to ignore?

Capt. On Heat
27th Mar 2013, 04:39
I'm not saying to ignore company manuals Offy, they are a guiding document. But crews in every airline every day brief out of STANDARD Operating Procedures to more effectively (or be actually able to) deal with situations, weather etc they face, they may be very minor or more involved. Every manual I have ever seen has some kind of a paragraph covering the crews responsibilty to do this. That's why they are SOPs and not laws. Citing the opinions of lawyers and a judge with limited aviation knowledge as cornerstones of operational prudence for the entire industry does nothing for your case. I sadly admit however that your view is the one pilots may well need to consider in the future-and that is a threat.

Many things in aviation are not black and white, the shades of grey are negotiated by experience, common sense and creating a plan. I have many times been surprised at ZQN how much better the conditions are from the air than on the ground.

If you cannot see how the Judge's decision will have an adverse effect to some extent on flight safety, you must have missed the CRM/TEM/Decision Making revolution.

Good luck with your admittance to the bar exam, being Pilot In Command is not always so clear cut.

Yousef Breckenheimer
27th Mar 2013, 04:40
This is utter horse shite. PB guy...get a GOOD lawyer and APPEAL your criminal conviction. FFS

neville_nobody
27th Mar 2013, 05:04
We cannot expect no repercussions from our decisions. He knew the cut-off time, knew he was after it, and took off anyway. Whether you think the law is an ass or not, you need to follow it.


I guess it would depend how you define departed and the Judge seems to believe that a departure alternate is irrelevant......how, I don't know.

Is departed off blocks/rotate/out of the circuit/or established outbound on the radial outside of 5 NM?

Herein lies the problem. You now have a pile of books that you can be prosecuted by which one is right?

Ornis
27th Mar 2013, 05:12
Pilot competent: witness testimony | Otago Daily Times Online News : Otago, South Island, New Zealand & International News (http://www.odt.co.nz/news/queenstown-lakes/216600/pilot-competent-witness-testimony)

Captain Stuart Julian, who has more than 13,000 hours' flying experience, told the Queenstown District Court yesterday that despite confusion among the crew, weather conditions and cockpit warnings, the pilot passed a test used by air-pilot examiners - "Would I put my daughter on that flight? " - a measure he said was used to assess whether a pilot was competent.

Prosecution lawyer Fletcher Pilditch, at the end of his cross-examination of Capt Julian, asked whether he would "still put your daughter on that flight".

"Yes, I would," Capt Julian replied.


Pacific Blue pilot sentenced | Otago Daily Times Online News : Otago, South Island, New Zealand & International News (http://www.odt.co.nz/news/queenstown-lakes/250844/pacific-blue-pilot-sentenced)

He must undertake extensive retraining, to be overseen by Air New Zealand captain and expert witness in the case Stu Julian.

"There was an arrogance in that your experience and abilities would overcome rules of law," Judge [Kevin] Phillips says.


So Judge Phillips doesn't like Roderick Gunn. He likes Stuart Julian, but he didn't believe him, at least not enough to cross CAA on a technicality.


Judge Michael Behrens QC understands technicalities:

Drink-driving case against lawyer dismissed - National - NZ Herald News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10853635)

keithatl
27th Mar 2013, 06:32
This guy had the "can-do" attitude and is going to pay the price, the same as the RNZAF is going to hang a guy for the "can-do" attitude.

I was given the following advice years ago when I became a newly minted Captain...

"Don't turn can-do into doo-doo."

Cpt Link Hog
27th Mar 2013, 10:01
Check this, love the bit were Cpt Hot Rod smiling after coping a massive 5k
Fine! Probably not that happy he has to go back to work for after been stood down on full pay but I see the NZ ALPA guy was ther to give him a pat on the back for a job well done

Convicted pilot still able to fly in NZ - Story - NZ News - 3 News (http://www.3news.co.nz/Fine-retraining-for-Pacific-Blue-pilot/tabid/423/articleID/291817/Default.aspx)

Inverted, don't mean to dis your company I'll leve Q town to the experts
And good luck with your negotions must suck been the last pilot group in NZ to be on indervidual contracts getting less than half your parent company pays their pilot group on same Aircraft & routes mind you pay peanuts get arr this?


Party-prone aviator loses bid to overturn sacking - National - NZ Herald News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10873860)

Gate_15L
27th Mar 2013, 10:01
This guy had the "can-do" attitude and is going to pay the price, the same as the RNZAF is going to hang a guy for the "can-do" attitude.

Maybe someone should tell the all-knowing and perfect (in the eyes of Judge Phillips) Air New Zealand about the dangers of the "Can-do" attitude.

This off the Air New Zealand recruitment website:

Your answers suggest you're ready for the challenges that we will throw at you and that 'Can Do' means the same to you as it does to us. We need people like you - solutions focused with the attitude to help others without being asked. We think you would thrive in our environment as your answers suggest you will be willing to think on your feet and tackle just about anything that comes your way. We feel the fact that tasks and objectives are not always clear and straightforward will not concern you and the fact that our industry demands that no two days are the same will keep you challenged. The pace and pressure here means adapting to challenges with working hours and shift patterns often changing to meet business needs. Our people need to have unlimited enthusiasm for customers and are often put in pressurised situations, sometimes with limited resources. We feel that you have the can do attitude suited to our business.


Can Do!
Get stuck in and make it happen

Is about having a solutions focus when problems arise. A can-do, not a make-do attitude.
https://careers.airnz.co.nz/about-us/our-vision-and-principles/our-values

Gate_15L
27th Mar 2013, 10:10
Capt Link Hog..
1/Firstly learn to f#ck!ng spell.

2/ sure he was not impressed sum Egg from Pac bro/virgin Austrila Nz pty ltd or what ever they call it F;$king it up not to mention damage to the Virgin brand itself .

Just like the eggs at Link that managed to cook how many engines now?

3/And good luck with your negotions must suck been the last pilot group in NZ to be on indervidual contracts getting less than half your parent company pays their pilot group on same Aircraft & routes mind you pay peanuts get arr this?

They're still getting paid more than you... pi!!ock...

always inverted
28th Mar 2013, 04:41
And why would it suck to be on an individual contract in nz, and actually not half the AUSTALIAN company. Last time I checked we were in nz. Yeah, the f/o's at vanz im sure are pissed, most doing about 30-50 hrs/mth on mid 90k really sucks, oh and the 9 given but in reality 12-14 days off per 28 would suggest that it aint that bad.
Party boy was a knob... No real loss to the company there, yep the air nsn boys that blew what, 7 engines in the dash...well done. Thee is a difference between a screw up- re cooking engine and taking off with cargo doors not locked and making a decision like was the case with ZQN, whether it was the right one or not...

always inverted
28th Mar 2013, 04:42
Slight drift of the thread there boys... Back on track...:hmm:

monkou
30th Mar 2013, 00:53
This has been a typically pathetic saga of the Airways Corp chest beating with CAA in tow to show they do exist & will keep us all safe from the perils of independant thought & decision makers of the real world. The justice ministry have come along for the ride - a junket for them in fact. And Rod has been stood down on full pay for how long has this taken? How productive and to be eventually fined what around $5,000. What a circus! How much has this debacle cost the NZ tax payer - anyone like to state a figure here? One man against who - the sick sleazy pathetic government departments of New Zealand. I would have thought an incident report would have been sufficient with some internal discussions but no you government departments are so damned out of control you just have to make a bloody circus of it all. I have no respect for CAA Airways Corp or the Ministry of Justice over this - you make me want to puke. The only arrogance I have seen in all of this has come from the judge (wanted to be a pilot but failed obviously).There, I said it and gosh I feel so much better. As for you rule quoters and paper shufflers - why not join the dickheads in the govt departments as it would appear their jobs are ideally suited to your personalities. Oh! I am feeling better all the time, such a load of my hairy chest. Good luck Rod and don't worry about your lack of currency. Push the stick forward the houses get bigger & vice versa. I suspect you've been the sim trg capt for the past yr or so. You look good in that suit and tie, very smart. Need to work on reclaiming that fine back plus interest. Cheers.

Tarq57
30th Mar 2013, 06:30
Monkou,
what involvement did Airways have regarding your above vent?

monkou
30th Mar 2013, 19:34
"ZQN ATC had a fit when the a/c departed" - Sqwark2000.
One would assume they (ATC) provided CAA with the ammunition to take it to court or is any man in the streets interpretation of aviation events now sufficient. Why not - we have judges ignoring expert witnesses. One has to question why ATC would not have made the radio coms comment that the airport was now closed to operations. We all know the time pressures and general chaos that can exist in trying to maintain time tables but this crucifixion of the Captain is akin to the police & judiciary prosecuting the drug users and forgetting about the drug suppliers. How convenient -easy pickings like police and motor vehicles. The easy way out is the way of governments and their barking dogs - CAA, Airways, Ministry of Justice/judges because it gives them a bone.

Offcut
30th Mar 2013, 21:06
But the airport wasn't closed. It's up to the crew to decide whether the conditions meet the limits for their operation, not ATC. As an example, and I'm not saying QT has a curfew as such, but in WLG, ATC will clear you for takeoff or landing during the curfew. It is up to the pilot to ensure he does not break the rules. I wouldn't be too quick to blame ATC for allowing them to take-off. I'm not sure they even have the right to deny you take-off clearance unless the airport is actually closed. In my experience, NZ ATC are one of the least malicious around.

Tarq57
30th Mar 2013, 21:07
monkou, ATC are not a regulatory body. If they (we) become aware of an incident -any incident - a report is required by law.

Failure to do this results in dismissal.


"ZQN ATC had a fit" is, indeed, a classic reporting of the facts. :ugh:

framer
30th Mar 2013, 21:25
from the perils of independant thought & decision makers of the real world
Your argument doesn't stack up. To be clear, I don't think this should have gone to court either but...... Someone made a decision that a Pacific Blue aircraft wouldn't take off with less than 30 mins until ECT so that the aircraft could use that 30mins to visually circuit and land if an engine was lost. They sat around a table and decided that to mitigate the risks of high terrain in Queenstown they would put that rule in place. That is a real world decision on running an airline. The Captain was aware of it. Do you suggest that all company SOP's go out the window and it's left solely to the Captain to decide where and when he/ she flys? Or just some of the SOP's be adhered to? Maybe the top ten most restrictive SOP's should be adhered to and it's up to the Captain whether they follow the others?
This should have been dealt with differently but your rant about " real world decision makers" is rubbish. The company made decisions about the risk it wanted it's aircraft and passengers exposed to.....is that not a legitimate decision?

monkou
30th Mar 2013, 23:21
Yes Framer I am suggesting SOPS & OPS be thrown out the window but I doubt there is one big enough on anything commercially built. What have they ever contributed other than the demise of millions of trees. We have the AIP and Approach Charts, the Captain has a medical & a ATPL and has studied Air Transport Aviation Law. All this other stuff in ring binders is garbage designed by people who should be in politics/bureaucracy - preferably somewhere else but not here. The buck stops with the Captain's/Crew's decision based upon their experience and situation/conditions on the day. I am sick & tired of shiny bums dictating how to fly when they can't. We don't need all this other garbage which keeps the non contributing sector in a job riding the coat tails of productive people. How we ever allowed all this BS to creep in is beyond me. Must have happened while we were out flying - you know carrying the passengers who pay the money who pay for the fuel and engineers and repayments to the bank and all that stuff the industry of parasites has never seen let alone lost sight of. The paper shuffling brigade have never and never will add anything to flight safety, if anything they make the job harder by there constant amendments to the ring binder - just how much space do you think the average human has in their hard drive for this crap. The job is only complicated because of the fine print the paper shufflers constantly vomit. Don't we see it all the time - the paper shufflers have had a dream on the weekend and come monday none of us is any longer qualified or experienced enough to continue doing what we've been doing for the past 30 plus years - better go and do a course on this or that - it's policy, in the ops manual,SOPs -give me a break. This industry is the worse for the paper - just wish they made it out of tissue so it could be used before I flush.:)

Ollie Onion
30th Mar 2013, 23:29
Have to disagree, he new the rule with regard to the 30 minute before ECT and he knowingly broke it. SIMPLE!! It shouldn't have gone to court, should have been an internal investigation and remedy.

But at the end of the day it is 'THEIR TRAIN SET'. As long as 'they' buy the aircraft, market the routes, sell the tickets and more importantly, put my salary in my bank account on time every month, I am quite happy to abide by 'their' rules.

I am still perplexed by this particular situation, I am always looking for an 'excuse' to get off the aircraft and go to the pub, in Queenstown I would be very adverse to going anywhere when I can justify not going!!

monkou
30th Mar 2013, 23:34
Hi Tarq57 OK point taken apologies offered but I just think there should have been a better way of dealing with this other than CAA taking the Captain to court. Perhaps then Airways bears no blame in this other than reporting the facts but really I think this has gotten so far out of hand to be more of a detriment to the industry in the public eye than ever there was likely to be from a safety aspect. We all want to get home safely when we leave the ground. How did it get to this from comments from people on the ground! I think CAA should keep themselves busy prosecuting pilots posthumously and leave the live ones alone that way they'd be communicating with people of similar thought processes - just a thought.:)

monkou
30th Mar 2013, 23:50
Now Ollie Onion I think you should make your roster public knowledge by advertising it in all major newspapers and on line.The people demand to know when you will be in and out of Queenstown so they know not to book that flight. They want the 'Can Do' attitude who's gonna get them to Sydney not the minute past Pumpkin Hour attitude that sends operators broke and people back to their hotels. Oh there's a thought - you don't by chance have a commercial interest in accomodation in Queenstown do you? Oh how this could yet yield more dirty linen. There must be something in the SOPs about a 'conflict of interest' surel:)y - let me check with Ops.

Tarq57
31st Mar 2013, 00:18
Hi Tarq57 OK point taken apologies offered but I just think there should have been a better way of dealing with this other than CAA taking the Captain to court.
I don't disagree with that.

monkou
31st Mar 2013, 01:05
:mad:Oh yeah while I am at Capt Link Hog- you sound similarly like one of those S4brains I met there at Link once - Oh what an experience it was to lucheon with you all - totally unforgetable. There wasn't anything you didn't or couldn't know. In fact your ars3s were so smart you knew everything b4 it happened. I'm sure you could use the soft tissue too. Suggest you go back to the pig trough and when you have something of value to add don't call me - just jump I'll be there to catch you not. If your'e with the link I think then your organisation is a disgrace having experienced its SOPs and Ops personally and how would you have done it out of Queenstown - probably not taken off from Nelson is my pick.

Ollie Onion
31st Mar 2013, 01:15
Really, my passengers want a Captain in charge who is willing to break the rules to get them to their destination. I believe in my human factors training this was called 'get-there-itis' and I am sure it was discouraged. A can do attitude in my book is to explore ALL options available to you within the rules to find a solution to a problem. Blatantly ignoring rules set out in your ops manual is not a 'can do' attitude but more an example of negligence of your duty. What rules are 'important' enough to observe??

Say your medical expires today and you are delayed meaning that if you take off you will land 1 minute past midnight with an expired medical, would you bend this rule?

Your DA for an approach is 250 ft, cloud being reported as overcast at 200 ft, at the DA you are not visual, do you demonstrate your can do attitude and push on a bit further so not to disappoint you passengers?

Your Op's manual says a minimum of 5 cabin crew required for a flight where as the legislation says 4 is the minimum. One of your crew doesn't report for work, do you load the passengers and go anyway?

Kharon
31st Mar 2013, 02:02
Boys, may I ask a couple of questions. 1) It's very difficult to tell from the 'video', but I got the impression that the take off was pretty much 'on sched' but was there was a delay due to excess cross-wind?. 2) Was the 'departure' time defined i.e. off blocks, or, wheels up or, 1500 ft, etc. or was it loosely worded e.g. departure will be no later than ELCT – 30 minutes ??......

Only not so idle curiosity at this stage.

prospector
31st Mar 2013, 02:03
Your Op's manual says a minimum of 5 cabin crew required for a flight where as the legislation says 4 is the minimum. One of your crew doesn't report for work, do you load the passengers and go anyway?

Your pax load is less than 50%, are you allowed to make a judgement call and load and go? It would appear, after this case at Queenstown has played itself out, the answer would be no. The man in the Court House knows best.

neville_nobody
31st Mar 2013, 11:19
Blatantly ignoring rules set out in your ops manual is not a 'can do' attitude but more an example of negligence of your duty.

Problem for people like Ollie is that due to the ridiculous number of procedures and rules now in aviation nothing is blatant. The fact that this become a saga goes to show it is not blatant beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The second problem is that the company may not hold the same interpretation to rules that you do, what then and who is right?

Was the 'departure' time defined i.e. off blocks, or, wheels up or, 1500 ft, etc. or was it loosely worded e.g. departure will be no later than ELCT – 30 minutes ??.....

Yes the issue of departure was debated but until we can find a transcript it will be hard to know what came of it.

I believe the pilot said off blocks was the departure whilst the CAA disagreed.

nike
31st Mar 2013, 18:49
The modern journalist loves the PPRuNe cut 'n' paste......


Pacific Blue Pilot Roderick Gunn's Case A Legal... | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8492828/Gunn-case-first-for-passenger-aircraft)

canterbury crusader
31st Mar 2013, 23:05
Pacific Blue Pilot Roderick Gunn's Case A Legal... | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8492828/Gunn-case-first-for-passenger-aircraft)

Now your all aviation commentators. Doesn't it give you a warm fuzzy feeling. Lazy reporting John Edens.

always inverted
31st Mar 2013, 23:17
Prospector... The simple answer to what you answered would be, if it is in your manual to operate with a reduced compliment of crew, then yes, you may go, if not, then no...
Wow, quotes from here will be taken as gospel now on...:ugh: if it makes the paper then it must be true...:D:D
Departure time is taken as time of takeoff... Dispatched wrt a maint issue and the associated MEL relief may be time of pushback or once the engineer has disconnected... May be different between operators.

clack100
31st Mar 2013, 23:35
As per my earlier post..

How about asking the CAA what they intend doing about the passengers videoing the departure. It's illegal! They were using an electronic device at a stage of flight where this is not permitted. Yet the CAA have seen fit to ignore this and use the footage as evidence...

Oakape
1st Apr 2013, 00:21
I always thought that illegally obtained evidence was not admissible in a court of law.

Gate_15L
1st Apr 2013, 00:27
In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.

Well PPrune does warn you..
John Edens, you are a plagiarist. Just like sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, you are the lowest form of journalism, if what you write could be even called that.

Next time at least cite the URL of the site you took comment from.

The video evidence is a very good point and I wonder now if there is a technicality there as Oakape alludes to, that there is legal precedent for illegally gathered evidence to be considered inadmissible in the court of law...

You'd think surely the Q.C would have thought of that right?!

Not to mention the way NZ loves to use safety recording devices such as flight data and voice recordings to pursue criminal proceedings.. thats a beauty too...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

always inverted
1st Apr 2013, 01:43
It was the first prosecution and CAA look to have thrown everything at it, even overlooking something like the video footage, they would be clutching at straws with it anyway cause it doesnt show much, but they needed all the help they could, guess the judge felt sorry for them.:oh:
Hope the judgement is going to be appealed, and a review of the cost justification of the case...:ugh:

reubee
1st Apr 2013, 02:49
With regards the use of video cameras, what makes you think it is illegal. According to Use of Electronics Onboard the Flight | Virgin Australia (http://www.virginaustralia.com/nz/en/experience/on-board-the-flight/use-of-electronics/) "Video and still cameras" ... "may be used at anytime onboard the aircraft". In any case, as the recordings were for a commercial TV program, I am sure that if it wasn't allowed, there would be exemptions whereby if the proper paperwork was filled in it would be permitted.

I just wonder what impact those competitors being onboard had on the Go decision that was made. What is the impact on the production company if 2/3 of the competitors are in Sydney and the other 1/3 are a day late arriving? How would Pacific Blue have liked it if the resulting episode when it screened showed their flight not going?

(for those wondering what was being filmed, read through here ‘Feared for passengers’ – flight witness - Queenstown News (http://www.scene.co.nz/feared-id-be-pulling-passengers-out-of-lake--flight-witness/297743a1.page))

always inverted
1st Apr 2013, 03:43
But they wouldn't be told much apart from it was to too late to depart due to not having lights on the runway. Wouldn't be the pilots fault the x wind was too high also, can't change the weather. Don't think the crew would have given a toss who was on board and very much doubt that would have had ANY bearing on the decision to go or not...

clack100
1st Apr 2013, 08:07
Fair point Reubee. I'm only going on other carriers I've seen whereby "all" electronic devices must be switched off. VB may have a different policy.

27/09
1st Apr 2013, 10:28
‘Feared for passengers’ – flight witness - Queenstown News (http://www.scene.co.nz/feared-id-be-pulling-passengers-out-of-lake--flight-witness/297743a1.page)

Alan Kirker? An unusual surname, which is also shared by someone who works for or used to work for CAA.

waren9
1st Apr 2013, 13:47
i think theres a distinction betw evidence being obtained illegally and that coming coming into existance through illegal activity.

if that were not the case the cops would never have any admisible evidence at all for any crime

7478ti
1st Apr 2013, 18:24
Sounds like he needed to have RNP. Apparently just one more case where ops beyond air carriers also now need RNP, for safe as well as reliable 24/7/365 operations, especially as at locations like this.

waren9
1st Apr 2013, 22:26
rnp has not made zqn h24

minimum_wage
1st Apr 2013, 22:26
Have RNP now. But it was departure time in question as well as conditions so RNP would have been irrelevant.

mickjoebill
1st Apr 2013, 23:55
Geez, just watched the video for the first time. That's pretty dark!

Without an examination and test of the camera it is not possible to use the shot of the take off as evidence in regard to the absolute level of light outside.
The quality of light is certain, ie it is flat and not sunny.

I trust someone told the judge this?


Remember that in the reality series genre, scenes are edited out of context for maximum dramatic effect.
Images are also graded (manipulated) in post to suit the mood, so the night shot may have been graded to look darker to match the dialogue.
In this case the dialouge of a passenger who at the time of the take off was extremely anxious. His interview would have probably been coached by producers some time after the event and probably recorded after the scene was edited! So he may have been coached to say pithy comments to match the edited piece.

I trust the judge viewed the rushes (raw footage) and was not misinformed by this dramatised version that showed events out of context?


Was there any interaction between flight crew and producers?
The pilots announcements were very handy to "set the scene", just asking.


Mickjoebill

7478ti
2nd Apr 2013, 03:31
It will.

Further, with RNP + GBAS,... it will eventually even be Cat III...

framer
2nd Apr 2013, 05:41
Eventually, but they might need to put in some approach lights before anyone does a catIII approach.

JPJP
2nd Apr 2013, 18:43
Tom Imrich
Another need for RNP !!!
Sounds like he needed to have RNP. Apparently just one more case where ops beyond air carriers also now need RNP, for safe as well as reliable 24/7/365 operations, especially as at locations like this.




Tom Imrich

90% of your total posts contain a reference to the lack of RNP. You've blamed 4 separate accidents/incidents and one court case on the lack of RNP. It's a little odd.

Explanation ?

always inverted
2nd Apr 2013, 19:37
Nzqn has rnp approaches now... I can't see an ILS down there any time there are big hills in the way, rnp-ar approaches get you down to a couple of hundred feet anyway so why would you bother. Would not have eliminated this issue anyway.

always inverted
2nd Apr 2013, 19:39
JPJP, maybe he/she has just herd about rnp so that is he answer for everything until he next buzz word comes along...:oh:

Ornis
2nd Apr 2013, 20:00
These two links are the best a recreational pilot can offer you about NZQN.


Required navigation performance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Required_navigation_performance)


Queenstown Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenstown_Airport)

waren9
3rd Apr 2013, 10:57
good one tom. funny stuff.

anyway, are the apron lights up yet?

woodja51
15th Apr 2013, 02:53
Without knowing all the ops manual rules etc... what is the limitation on the daylight takeoff.. is it so that the aircraft can return in VMC or is it so that the departure can be conducted in VMC due obstacle etc?? I would think that regardless of the wx etc that an engine failure at V1 would require the aircraft to follow an EOP to achieve LSALT regardless of WX/LIGHT etc?

If so, and an immediate return required this could happen at anytime... for example the case of a takeoff in LOW VIS such that an immediate return to the departure airport is not possible, most operators ( and it varies ) have a takeoff alternate nominated within , typically one hour or so... ( and given this would have been an ETOPS flight to SYD , the aircraft would have been ETOPS signed out I expect?

Thus, in terms of risk/safety etc I dont see what the pilot( and I should say crew as it was a crew decision) has done particularly heinously?

If he had a V1 fail, would he have not followed the EOP and diverted to Wellington or Christhchurch or similar??

If anything I have asked seems silly or I dont understand the situation please enlighten me.. apart from a breach of a rule... which could be the same as any random rule.. like not wearing hat or dayglo vest in a walkaround... it seems rather harsh punishment to me... glad I am not a KIWI pilot as this had probably tarnished the no blame, systems approach we are supposed to be enlightened about???

WJA

Capt. On Heat
15th Apr 2013, 04:16
Essentially due to the terrain Woodja, pilots need to visually position onto a SID.
There may be some newer fancy RNAV departures but in general the SIDs have minimum altitudes, different for different weights, that the aircraft must achieve before going IMC-a visual segment to position onto an IFR SID. From these minimum altitudes the engine out performance allows the aircraft to continue climb and terrain clearance on the SID.
If an engine failure occurs (or even two engine an aircraft will encounter IMC) before this minimum altitude the aircraft will need to remain VMC and return to ZQN. Without airport lightning and surrounding terrain lighting, the need to have time (daylight) to do this is obvious. Hence operators stipulate a time prior to ECT that an aircraft needs to depart to allow time for this eventuality. For some this requirement changed/became more restrictive in the aftermath of this incident.

woodja51
15th Apr 2013, 11:07
great thanks, so I take it that the takeoff
minima for QT is essentially VFR only, and
day ( ie night VFR is out to reach the IMC Sid
start point?
my question still holds about a return to
QT.. that is if you departed at ect- 30 , and
lost a donk , are you legal to return , as you are now flying
at night.. from the fact you can't takeoff after ect-30 now defined as night?
..so is an RTB illegal in that case and diversion more desirable/ required ?
I guess my point is , if the captain departed late, but still in day vmc to get to
the IMC section of the SID, with the intention
of NOT returning to QT with a failure should it occur, had he
met the intention of the rule , that is ability to recover
the jet to a suitable airport ( not QT) if required?
ie did he consider an 'equivalent' level of safety in the decision process. ?
i have only been into QT once many years ago in a C130
and it was 8/8ths blue so we just flew up Milford sound at 250' and up into the strip... so not really what this chap was up against WX wise ..
I still think legal action a tad OTT but maybe I am out of touch with all aspects of the event. ta

always inverted
16th Apr 2013, 04:20
I guess with the rnp ar ops into ZQN they may need to review the 30 min issue because when they depart under ar , it does not provide a mechanism to come back to ZQN. Well not easily anyway, you either continues with the Sid if the failure is after the branch point, or you continue via the engine out Sid which takes you to invercargill if the failure is before... So in essence, why would you need the 30 min req. if you can launch on some ugly rnp.18/.30 minima day knowing that if you have a failure at v1 you will still continue via the engine out Sid to invercargill and make a decision once above terrain whether to go there or somewhere moe suitable. All you would need then is the required vis to depart by day.
Will be better once phase 2 is complete too...;)

Ollie Onion
16th Apr 2013, 05:24
The ECT - 30 minutes is not intended to redefine 'night'. It is there because as an IFR departure the initial part of the SID requires visual manoeuvring to achieve terrain clearance. If you lose an engine during this phase then in some cases your ONLY option is a return to ZQN, as you may not be able the achieve terrain clearance on one engine.

The 30 minutes is intended to provide you with sufficient time to position and land back whilst still remaining in daylight. No doubt there is a nice buffer built in, but it is there in the op's manual as a hard limit.

Where this Captain came unstuck is he applied the logic that he was confident that given the conditions and aircraft weight he could continue the instrument departure on one engine and would not need to return to ZQN and therefore the - 30 wouldn't apply.

As stated above with RNP departures you will be above the MSA before you can return anyway so most would divert. Probably makes the - 30 a bit redundant.

glekichi
29th Apr 2013, 12:26
Prosecuting pilot cost $180,000 plus
Prosecuting pilot cost $180,000 plus | Otago Daily Times Online News : Otago, South Island, New Zealand & International News (http://shar.es/lon78)

mattyj
30th Apr 2013, 00:47
Well thank goodness they put our medical application fees up 3000% otherwise the midwinter xmas party at Logan brown would have to be cancelled!!

always inverted
1st May 2013, 14:59
:D:mad::mad::mad:

Well done, what a complete waste of money... I bet they spent more like 300k with all the extras they were to scared to include in that amount...:ugh:

custardchucker
2nd May 2013, 00:59
Thanks Leroy. I mean Leon. I mean ZQN expert:ok: