Merged: Pacific Blue infringement in NZQN?
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Don't sink, don't sink' - jet's dire cockpit warning
5:30 AM Tuesday Mar 13, 2012
The Pacific Blue pilot is accused of breaching safety rules by taking off too late from Queenstown's airport.
An automatic cockpit alarm blared "don't sink, don't sink" as a Pacific Blue flight was leaving Queenstown, warning the crew of imminent danger.
And an experienced pilot said so many safety rules were broken that the aircraft and its 71 passengers were placed at "undue risk".
The Auckland pilot of the Queenstown-Sydney flight is accused by the Civil Aviation Authority of operating a plane carelessly by leaving the airport in fading light.
The 54-year-old, who has name suppression, denies the charge.
An Air New Zealand pilot of 39 years, Colin Glasgow, told the Queenstown District Court yesterday that the pilot received warnings no pilot should ever hear.
"Pilots will fly their entire career and not hear these warnings," said Mr Glasgow, a prosecution witness.
The now-retired pilot believed "a number of elements" were breached in the June 2010 flight, and these placed the aircraft at undue risk.
The pilot's intention to place the plane on an automatic pilot system would not have worked because the plane was not in stable condition.
"Queenstown is known for severe turbulence. The existence of cross winds cannot have been a surprise for the defendant."
Shortly after the plane took off, the first officer warned the pilot about his speed.
As well, the automatic "don't sink, don't sink" cockpit warning was triggered as the pilot descended slightly to avoid clouds blocking visibility.
The Civil Aviation Authority alleges the pilot left the airport at 5.25pm, breaching the airline's rule that flights could leave no later than 30 minutes before the evening civil twilight (ECT) time of 5.45pm.
"The point is the defendant was aware he was to depart 30 minutes before ECT ... the defendant took off within ECT," Mr Glasgow said. "This in itself was unsafe."
The decision to leave at 5.25pm "effectively took away the procedure that would save them" [the plane occupants] if an engine failure had occurred.
One flight had been cancelled because of the conditions before the Pacific Blue aircraft took off.
"While aviation will always involve risk, pilots will endeavour to minimise risk, even if it means holding a flight," Mr Glasgow said.
The first part of any flying procedure out of Queenstown required the pilot to to be able to fly visually before instrument flight rules (IFR) were implemented.
The late take-off would have affected the pilot's visibility before the plane reached the point when IFR could begin.
"The first part of the procedure must be flown where the pilot can see."
He said it was "probable" the plane had flown within a cloud barrier - a required distance of 2km vertical and 500m horizontal.
"In my opinion, there are a number of elements breached at this flight that placed the aircraft at undue risk."
He added: "If the defendant managed to avoid cloud this was sheer luck."
In his opinion, the pilot had committed a "highly unusual and dangerous operation" in which he exceeded a speed limit of 330km/h as well as cutting a corner at Slopehill.
"Aviation safety is reliant on rules. They are not guides or pointers, but protocol and procedures to be followed by the letter," he said.
"Strict compliance with rules is the best way to ensure the safety of the plane and its passengers.
"The pilot is not free to choose what alternate route to take."
Queenstown airport was one of the most technically difficult for pilots to fly in and out of because of surrounding mountains, valleys and the narrow runway.
Pilots using the airport were required to undergo training on the "restrictions and controls" of a category X airport - the highest of a four-level system.
"It is an airport that commands respect and discipline to ensure safety."
The court earlier heard a conversation between a Fire Rescue Service member and Airways New Zealand who couldn't believe what they were seeing when the flight left Queenstown airport.
Thirty seconds after the flight took off, a conversation between Queenstown Fire Rescue's Nigel Henderson and Airways New Zealand flight service specialist Darryl Palmer, began with
Mr Henderson saying "How big are his (the pilot) gonads?". Mr Palmer then said: "F****** hell, I haven't seen this before."
THE CASE
* On June 22, 2010, Pacific Blue Flight 89 left Queenstown Airport, flying 71 passengers to Sydney.
* The 54-year-old Auckland pilot is charged with operating a plane carelessly.
* The aircraft allegedly took off at 5.25pm, breaching an airline rule not to leave less than 30 minutes before the evening civil twilight in the town.
* Shortly after take-off, an automatic warning sounded from the cockpit - "don't sink, don't sink".
* Pilot allegedly exceeded a speed limit of 330km/h.
5:30 AM Tuesday Mar 13, 2012
The Pacific Blue pilot is accused of breaching safety rules by taking off too late from Queenstown's airport.
An automatic cockpit alarm blared "don't sink, don't sink" as a Pacific Blue flight was leaving Queenstown, warning the crew of imminent danger.
And an experienced pilot said so many safety rules were broken that the aircraft and its 71 passengers were placed at "undue risk".
The Auckland pilot of the Queenstown-Sydney flight is accused by the Civil Aviation Authority of operating a plane carelessly by leaving the airport in fading light.
The 54-year-old, who has name suppression, denies the charge.
An Air New Zealand pilot of 39 years, Colin Glasgow, told the Queenstown District Court yesterday that the pilot received warnings no pilot should ever hear.
"Pilots will fly their entire career and not hear these warnings," said Mr Glasgow, a prosecution witness.
The now-retired pilot believed "a number of elements" were breached in the June 2010 flight, and these placed the aircraft at undue risk.
The pilot's intention to place the plane on an automatic pilot system would not have worked because the plane was not in stable condition.
"Queenstown is known for severe turbulence. The existence of cross winds cannot have been a surprise for the defendant."
Shortly after the plane took off, the first officer warned the pilot about his speed.
As well, the automatic "don't sink, don't sink" cockpit warning was triggered as the pilot descended slightly to avoid clouds blocking visibility.
The Civil Aviation Authority alleges the pilot left the airport at 5.25pm, breaching the airline's rule that flights could leave no later than 30 minutes before the evening civil twilight (ECT) time of 5.45pm.
"The point is the defendant was aware he was to depart 30 minutes before ECT ... the defendant took off within ECT," Mr Glasgow said. "This in itself was unsafe."
The decision to leave at 5.25pm "effectively took away the procedure that would save them" [the plane occupants] if an engine failure had occurred.
One flight had been cancelled because of the conditions before the Pacific Blue aircraft took off.
"While aviation will always involve risk, pilots will endeavour to minimise risk, even if it means holding a flight," Mr Glasgow said.
The first part of any flying procedure out of Queenstown required the pilot to to be able to fly visually before instrument flight rules (IFR) were implemented.
The late take-off would have affected the pilot's visibility before the plane reached the point when IFR could begin.
"The first part of the procedure must be flown where the pilot can see."
He said it was "probable" the plane had flown within a cloud barrier - a required distance of 2km vertical and 500m horizontal.
"In my opinion, there are a number of elements breached at this flight that placed the aircraft at undue risk."
He added: "If the defendant managed to avoid cloud this was sheer luck."
In his opinion, the pilot had committed a "highly unusual and dangerous operation" in which he exceeded a speed limit of 330km/h as well as cutting a corner at Slopehill.
"Aviation safety is reliant on rules. They are not guides or pointers, but protocol and procedures to be followed by the letter," he said.
"Strict compliance with rules is the best way to ensure the safety of the plane and its passengers.
"The pilot is not free to choose what alternate route to take."
Queenstown airport was one of the most technically difficult for pilots to fly in and out of because of surrounding mountains, valleys and the narrow runway.
Pilots using the airport were required to undergo training on the "restrictions and controls" of a category X airport - the highest of a four-level system.
"It is an airport that commands respect and discipline to ensure safety."
The court earlier heard a conversation between a Fire Rescue Service member and Airways New Zealand who couldn't believe what they were seeing when the flight left Queenstown airport.
Thirty seconds after the flight took off, a conversation between Queenstown Fire Rescue's Nigel Henderson and Airways New Zealand flight service specialist Darryl Palmer, began with
Mr Henderson saying "How big are his (the pilot) gonads?". Mr Palmer then said: "F****** hell, I haven't seen this before."
THE CASE
* On June 22, 2010, Pacific Blue Flight 89 left Queenstown Airport, flying 71 passengers to Sydney.
* The 54-year-old Auckland pilot is charged with operating a plane carelessly.
* The aircraft allegedly took off at 5.25pm, breaching an airline rule not to leave less than 30 minutes before the evening civil twilight in the town.
* Shortly after take-off, an automatic warning sounded from the cockpit - "don't sink, don't sink".
* Pilot allegedly exceeded a speed limit of 330km/h.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With a strong southwesterly crosswind the aircraft probably gave the "don't sink" warning in the Frankton Arm area shortly after getting airborne in an area of downflow on the leeside of the peninsula. Most operators when possible drift slightly north across to the Frankton Road side to then ride the updraught (cloud permitting) on the northern side of the arm after getting airborne, thereby getting out of the area of sink as soon as possible. Being a regular operator the pilot probably did this, and the "don't sink" would probably have been a brief transient while drifting across I would think. But having not been there at the time, we don't really know.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: wide left base 16"
Age: 53
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....the defendant took off within ECT," Mr Glasgow said. "This in itself was unsafe."
The decision to leave at 5.25pm "effectively took away the procedure that would save them" [the plane occupants] if an engine failure had occurred.
The decision to leave at 5.25pm "effectively took away the procedure that would save them" [the plane occupants] if an engine failure had occurred.
Would the conditions and situation be any different if he'd gone at ECT -31 minutes?
I wonder how many of their 'expert' witnesses have operated a 7378 into NZQN.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Za farzer land
Age: 53
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think old Colin Glasgow has spent to long at altitude and the poor old bugger is starting to lose it! The only time you would use 15deg is at altitude. As for 30deg, that is available on the heading bug to select at any time! Hilarious!
Probably in Colin's day you would hardly ever here a "bank angle" or "don't sink" because they didn't have EGPWS in the cockpits of the aircraft he flew!
Quite a common things these days, just write a report.
He probably got a "don't sink" because he was acting as a pilot and manipulated the aircraft in order to stay "clear of cloud, in sight of ground or water" as any pilot would do flying an aircraft in VMC into Queentown.
Maybe CAA could go back over their files and pull a few on Mount Cook!! Jesus, they'll have a ball with the media there!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't ECT 30min before darkness? Which would make his departure 50 minutes before darkness? I know that ECT is the cut off but in an emergency, such as a return to land, aren't all bets off? I'm sure if it was an unfortunate day, and the chap was to suffer an engine failure on a 27K engined B737-800 with 60 odd POB, she would climb like a raped goat, even on one engine!
I'm thinking Mr Glasgow might lose a bit of credibility amongst his peers on this one.
Loving the media reports though, hilarious! Scary stuff!
Probably in Colin's day you would hardly ever here a "bank angle" or "don't sink" because they didn't have EGPWS in the cockpits of the aircraft he flew!
Quite a common things these days, just write a report.
He probably got a "don't sink" because he was acting as a pilot and manipulated the aircraft in order to stay "clear of cloud, in sight of ground or water" as any pilot would do flying an aircraft in VMC into Queentown.
Maybe CAA could go back over their files and pull a few on Mount Cook!! Jesus, they'll have a ball with the media there!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't ECT 30min before darkness? Which would make his departure 50 minutes before darkness? I know that ECT is the cut off but in an emergency, such as a return to land, aren't all bets off? I'm sure if it was an unfortunate day, and the chap was to suffer an engine failure on a 27K engined B737-800 with 60 odd POB, she would climb like a raped goat, even on one engine!
I'm thinking Mr Glasgow might lose a bit of credibility amongst his peers on this one.
Loving the media reports though, hilarious! Scary stuff!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm thinking Mr Glasgow might lose a bit of credibility amongst his peers on this one.
And with his current or ex employer, even on contract, he must try to make a case for them.
Must be very difficult when the only offence would appear to be maybe bending SOP's to get all the punters home, and the aircraft to where it was supposed to be.
Should have had the case before Justice Mahon, he did not think much of company SOP's. and the need to comply with them.
The decision by a Pacific Blue pilot not to take precautions for ice build-up on an air craft in cold conditions was dangerous, an expert witness and pilot has told the Queenstown District Court.
An Auckland pilot, 54, who has interim name suppression, has denied operating a Boeing 737-800 in a careless manner on June 22, 2010, a charge laid by the Civil Aviation Authority.
CAA allege the pilot should not have taken off for Sydney after 5.14pm because Pacific Blue rules stipulated departing aircraft at Queenstown needed at least 30 minutes before civil twilight at 5.45pm.
The aircraft departed at 5.25pm.
Today is the eighth day of the defending hearing before Judge Kevin Phillips.
Expert witness Colin Glasgow, a former commercial airline pilot, Air New Zealand chief pilot and CAA airline inspector with 22,500 flying hours, said because of the rain, visible moisture, recent snow, thick cloud and a cold front in the area at the time off the takeoff he was surprised wing anti-ice was not applied before departure.
In the same situation Glasgow said he would have applied anti-ice. If a pilot did not use anti-ice in that situation he was unsure when they would, he said.
Defence lawyer Matthew Muir said two experienced pilots would give evidence stating they did not think anti-ice was not needed at the time.
Glasgow said not preparing for ice was "very unreasonable" and said he was surprised at their stance.
The case continues.
____________________________________________________________ _____
Does anyone else think that the CAA are clutching at any and all straws in this case?
If the aircraft was completely visible for the entire departure from the airport, then they wouldn't have entered what Boeing define as icing conditions. (10 C TAT, 1 SM visibility, visible moisture)
I don't if the reporting is just crap, or Mr Colin Glasgow just doesn't know, but there are two little switches on the overhead panel marked Wing Anti-Ice and Engine Anti ice on the B737 NG.
An Auckland pilot, 54, who has interim name suppression, has denied operating a Boeing 737-800 in a careless manner on June 22, 2010, a charge laid by the Civil Aviation Authority.
CAA allege the pilot should not have taken off for Sydney after 5.14pm because Pacific Blue rules stipulated departing aircraft at Queenstown needed at least 30 minutes before civil twilight at 5.45pm.
The aircraft departed at 5.25pm.
Today is the eighth day of the defending hearing before Judge Kevin Phillips.
Expert witness Colin Glasgow, a former commercial airline pilot, Air New Zealand chief pilot and CAA airline inspector with 22,500 flying hours, said because of the rain, visible moisture, recent snow, thick cloud and a cold front in the area at the time off the takeoff he was surprised wing anti-ice was not applied before departure.
In the same situation Glasgow said he would have applied anti-ice. If a pilot did not use anti-ice in that situation he was unsure when they would, he said.
Defence lawyer Matthew Muir said two experienced pilots would give evidence stating they did not think anti-ice was not needed at the time.
Glasgow said not preparing for ice was "very unreasonable" and said he was surprised at their stance.
The case continues.
____________________________________________________________ _____
Does anyone else think that the CAA are clutching at any and all straws in this case?
If the aircraft was completely visible for the entire departure from the airport, then they wouldn't have entered what Boeing define as icing conditions. (10 C TAT, 1 SM visibility, visible moisture)
I don't if the reporting is just crap, or Mr Colin Glasgow just doesn't know, but there are two little switches on the overhead panel marked Wing Anti-Ice and Engine Anti ice on the B737 NG.
Most operators when possible drift slightly north across to the Frankton Road side to then ride the updraught (cloud permitting) on the northern side of the arm after getting airborne, thereby getting out of the area of sink as soon as possible.
There is no ¨drifting¨anywhere on that departure in a 738, you maintain track until it's time to turn and then you turn. Gaining lift from an updraught certainly doesn't help, most of the time you're in V/S in order to reduce your rate of climb, so I don't think thats a valid scenario.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Smog Central
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The saga continues;
Pacific Blue takeoff 'recipe' for catastrophe
JOHN EDENS IN QUEENSTOWN Last updated 15:51 15/03/2012
A midwinter Pacific Blue takeoff from Queenstown was a recipe for a potentially catastrophic accident, a senior Civil Aviation Authority manager says.
A 54-year-old Auckland pilot has appeared for the ninth day of a defended hearing before Judge Kevin Phillips on charges of operating a Boeing 737 in a careless manner.
The pilot, who has interim name suppression, has denied the charge, laid by the Civil Aviation Authority.
The CAA alleges the pilot should not have taken off for Sydney after 5.14pm on June 22, 2010, because Pacific Blue rules stipulated departing aircraft at Queenstown needed at least 30 minutes before civil twilight at 5.45pm.
The aircraft departed at 5.25pm.
CAA general manager of airlines Mark Hughes described the applicable civil aviation rules pertaining to the PB89 takeoff from Queenstown.
He told the court the captain and the first officer declined to be interviewed by the authority and it appeared the pilot-in-command had not reported the incident of his own volition.
The aircraft departed in excess of a company 16-knot crosswind minimum on a narrow runway with a lack of visual cues, he said.
"'Any significant wind change could have resulted in a catastrophic runway excursion.''
Examples of runway excursions included a veer-off in December 2008, when a Boeing 735-500 left the runway before takeoff from Denver International Airport in the US.
He said the Pacific Blue aircraft was able to climb with two engines from the main ascent reference point, a waypoint between Deer Park Heights and The Remarkables.
''Due to good performance of all engines it could climb, if that performance was compromised by engine failure the aircraft would likely not have been able.
''The consequences of this could have been catastrophic.
''The defendant's decision to depart created a high-risk situation if the aircraft suffered an engine failure.
''Absence of accident should not be viewed as acceptable safety performance.
''(It was) a recipe for an accident.''
The aircraft flew low over the Frankton Arm to maintain visual navigation below the cloud ceiling, around Kelvin Heights and Deer Park Heights to an altitude 600 feet below the required waypoint minimum, the court was told.
Lawyer Matthew Muir told the court the defence case said altitude at the waypoint was higher.
Hughes said risk factors included the aircraft's descent after takeoff, which triggered a ''don't sink'' alarm, the first officer calling ''speed'', the increase in acceleration and thrust, a steep bank angle, which triggered a second cockpit alarm, and continuous turbulence.
Such factors could contribute to spatial disorientation, the ''surprise'' element and loss of control in flight, he said.
''A pilot is not allowed to second guess the reported weather."
''(There was) considerable increased risk for all on board.''
The hearing continues.
- © Fairfax NZ News
Pacific Blue takeoff 'recipe' for catastrophe
JOHN EDENS IN QUEENSTOWN Last updated 15:51 15/03/2012
A midwinter Pacific Blue takeoff from Queenstown was a recipe for a potentially catastrophic accident, a senior Civil Aviation Authority manager says.
A 54-year-old Auckland pilot has appeared for the ninth day of a defended hearing before Judge Kevin Phillips on charges of operating a Boeing 737 in a careless manner.
The pilot, who has interim name suppression, has denied the charge, laid by the Civil Aviation Authority.
The CAA alleges the pilot should not have taken off for Sydney after 5.14pm on June 22, 2010, because Pacific Blue rules stipulated departing aircraft at Queenstown needed at least 30 minutes before civil twilight at 5.45pm.
The aircraft departed at 5.25pm.
CAA general manager of airlines Mark Hughes described the applicable civil aviation rules pertaining to the PB89 takeoff from Queenstown.
He told the court the captain and the first officer declined to be interviewed by the authority and it appeared the pilot-in-command had not reported the incident of his own volition.
The aircraft departed in excess of a company 16-knot crosswind minimum on a narrow runway with a lack of visual cues, he said.
"'Any significant wind change could have resulted in a catastrophic runway excursion.''
Examples of runway excursions included a veer-off in December 2008, when a Boeing 735-500 left the runway before takeoff from Denver International Airport in the US.
He said the Pacific Blue aircraft was able to climb with two engines from the main ascent reference point, a waypoint between Deer Park Heights and The Remarkables.
''Due to good performance of all engines it could climb, if that performance was compromised by engine failure the aircraft would likely not have been able.
''The consequences of this could have been catastrophic.
''The defendant's decision to depart created a high-risk situation if the aircraft suffered an engine failure.
''Absence of accident should not be viewed as acceptable safety performance.
''(It was) a recipe for an accident.''
The aircraft flew low over the Frankton Arm to maintain visual navigation below the cloud ceiling, around Kelvin Heights and Deer Park Heights to an altitude 600 feet below the required waypoint minimum, the court was told.
Lawyer Matthew Muir told the court the defence case said altitude at the waypoint was higher.
Hughes said risk factors included the aircraft's descent after takeoff, which triggered a ''don't sink'' alarm, the first officer calling ''speed'', the increase in acceleration and thrust, a steep bank angle, which triggered a second cockpit alarm, and continuous turbulence.
Such factors could contribute to spatial disorientation, the ''surprise'' element and loss of control in flight, he said.
''A pilot is not allowed to second guess the reported weather."
''(There was) considerable increased risk for all on board.''
The hearing continues.
- © Fairfax NZ News
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Auckland
Age: 52
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting little fact that came out today ...
Pilot accused of unsafe take-off declined to talk to CAA - National - NZ Herald News
... not having seen the episode, looked for it on you-tube, sure enough there some in-flight footage of the take-off [EDIT: Removed the you-tube link, as the pilot has name suppression, you might be able to identify him from the PA announcements, but a good detective should be able to find it] Look around the 2:30 mark and in particular the view out the window at the 3:12 mark.
I don't know whose side of the case it helps, but you'd think they'd try and get all the footage from the Amazing Race camera crew they could.
Pilot accused of unsafe take-off declined to talk to CAA - National - NZ Herald News
"There was no evidence of pressure to depart the flight."
He said the flight did have competitors from the television reality show The Amazing Race on board, but this should not have been a factor to the breach in departure time.
He said the flight did have competitors from the television reality show The Amazing Race on board, but this should not have been a factor to the breach in departure time.
I don't know whose side of the case it helps, but you'd think they'd try and get all the footage from the Amazing Race camera crew they could.
Last edited by reubee; 15th Mar 2012 at 08:48.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole situation is pathetic......pilots take off in conditions that are never perfect....and anybody who has "time" under their belts knows this...this whole situation is another example of those who govern the rules,have in their infinite wisdom decided to put someone on the chopping block......20/20...hindsight.... is such a wonderful thing.......
Gate 15L.......I think the "clutching of straws" is an understatement........
Gate 15L.......I think the "clutching of straws" is an understatement........
Last edited by pakeha-boy; 15th Mar 2012 at 19:11. Reason: spelling
Regarding the use, or lack of Engine anti ice (TAI in the 73); What was the temp/dew point spread prior to takeoff ? Our books require TAI to be used with a spread of 3 degrees or less, and a temp of 10 degrees or less. I believe it's also a Boeing book requirement. Could this be their angle ?
The expert witnesses sound like alarmist muppets and the trial has the feel of a kangaroo court.
The expert witnesses sound like alarmist muppets and the trial has the feel of a kangaroo court.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the use, or lack of Engine anti ice (TAI in the 73); What was the temp/dew point spread prior to takeoff ? Our books require TAI to be used with a spread of 3 degrees or less, and a temp of 10 degrees or less. I believe it's also a Boeing book requirement. Could this be their angle ?
Has anyone actually anti-iced in NZ? I know that de-icing is a relatively regular occurance in winter, but I am not aware if anti-icing is done in Queenstown & if so, what fluid type they have. Regardless, from what I can tell from the various reports, the conditions didn't warrant anti-icing the aircraft anyway, so it it very misleading, to say the least, to be even discussing the issue.
It looks like this guy is trying to impress & sway the court with a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo. Stuff that they will not understand & they will therefore not be able to distinguish fact from fiction. If it sounds impressive enough & he delivers it in a confident way, using his stated experience & title as a expert witness to give his comments an air of authority, then the non-aviation people such as the judge & the press will take what is being claimed, as fact. And the press reports seem to indicate that this is working.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Antartica
Age: 44
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NZ is SSSSSSOOOOOOOOO Demanding to fly in
FISH BOWL Syndrome
If Mr I am God ex Air NZ/CAA etc etc etc thinks death would have resulted from taking off with less than 30min to ECT, then I suggest he look at Ops from the airports in southern former Yugoslavia - namely Skopje, Orun, Pristina in Macedonia and Kosovo. On close examination, one of these airports requires the following EFP - at 2.0D left turn estb R050 at 5D R turn max 177kts return to VOR (on airfield) enter hold and climb to MSA at FL100. This is approved at night AND in icing conditions. SO WHATS SO DIFFICULT ABOUT Queenstown departing at last light.?
If Mr I am God ex Air NZ/CAA etc etc etc thinks death would have resulted from taking off with less than 30min to ECT, then I suggest he look at Ops from the airports in southern former Yugoslavia - namely Skopje, Orun, Pristina in Macedonia and Kosovo. On close examination, one of these airports requires the following EFP - at 2.0D left turn estb R050 at 5D R turn max 177kts return to VOR (on airfield) enter hold and climb to MSA at FL100. This is approved at night AND in icing conditions. SO WHATS SO DIFFICULT ABOUT Queenstown departing at last light.?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Dog Box
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
he was surprised wing anti-ice was not applied before departure
Of course the "expert" would have know that...
Roaring forties
They probably have rules and regulations at Queenstown to prevent CFIT and icing type accidents occurring.
Much like the CFIT and icing accidents that have occurred at Skopje airport.
That took about 30 secs to find that information on the net.
About the same time to shred cred.
They probably have rules and regulations at Queenstown to prevent CFIT and icing type accidents occurring.
Much like the CFIT and icing accidents that have occurred at Skopje airport.
That took about 30 secs to find that information on the net.
About the same time to shred cred.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just another thought here....devil's advocate and all that. Isn't ECT based on position of the sun etc on a clear evening? Surely it could be a lot darker in overcast conditions at the same time? I'm guessing that although they were still before ECT, with the low overcast it would have appeared to be quite dark...certainly much darker than on a clear evening.
Just haven't heard that mentioned before...that could be why it appeared to be so dark to "in-expert" witnesses.
Or maybe the darkness just wasn't a factor.
Still smells of a jack-up to me. CAA continuing with their glowing record of success in prosecutions!
Just haven't heard that mentioned before...that could be why it appeared to be so dark to "in-expert" witnesses.
Or maybe the darkness just wasn't a factor.
Still smells of a jack-up to me. CAA continuing with their glowing record of success in prosecutions!