Merged: Pacific Blue infringement in NZQN?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Auckland
Age: 52
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regards to the cameras from the Amazing Race filming the take-off, I was surprised that hadn't received more prominence. A little bit of research, apparently the cameraman was in the witness box early on in proceedings.
‘Feared for passengers’ – flight witness - Queenstown News
Also in court today, video footage recorded in the cabin before and during take-off by cameramen for reality TV show The Amazing Race Asia shows passengers boarding in torrential rain and high winds. The airport’s windsock can be seen indicating extremely gusty conditions and rain is shown lashing the cockpit windows.
The maximum thrust take-off is shown with the plane levelling off over the Frankton Arm and flying low above houses in Frankton and Kelvin Heights. It then banks to the left, but not as low as witnesses on the ground have described in court. It does not show the aircraft being flown erratically and the passengers seemed calm.
Freelance cameraman Simon Christie, who filmed part of the footage on board, gave evidence via Skype from Adelaide.
While waiting about 45 minutes on board to take off, Pacific Blue crew informed passengers about delays caused by the bad weather, he says.
“None of the first [messages from the crew] were of any particular concern. We were told Queenstown Airport didn’t have (runway) lights, so there would be a cut-off point when we could fly out of Queenstown,” Christie says.
“The worst one before taking off was of most concern, was the pilot or co-pilot saying something along the lines of ‘We are going to give it a go’.”
The maximum thrust take-off is shown with the plane levelling off over the Frankton Arm and flying low above houses in Frankton and Kelvin Heights. It then banks to the left, but not as low as witnesses on the ground have described in court. It does not show the aircraft being flown erratically and the passengers seemed calm.
Freelance cameraman Simon Christie, who filmed part of the footage on board, gave evidence via Skype from Adelaide.
While waiting about 45 minutes on board to take off, Pacific Blue crew informed passengers about delays caused by the bad weather, he says.
“None of the first [messages from the crew] were of any particular concern. We were told Queenstown Airport didn’t have (runway) lights, so there would be a cut-off point when we could fly out of Queenstown,” Christie says.
“The worst one before taking off was of most concern, was the pilot or co-pilot saying something along the lines of ‘We are going to give it a go’.”
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Smog Central
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Earlier today Skyline Gondola operator and eyewitness Malcolm Officer was grilled under cross-examination by defence lawyer Matthew Muir.
Officer, a prosecution witness, says he saw low-lying cloud that covered Deer Park Heights and maintained his certainty despite being shown CCTV footage from Queenstown Airport that indicated the hill was in full view at the time of take-off.
Officer says he saw the aircraft disappearing into cloud as it turned above Deer Park Heights.
Muir suggested Officer’s observations could be wrong after he was presented with official data that conflicted with his accounts.
Pilots must maintain visual clearance between leaving the airport and arriving at an altitude point between The Remarkables mountain range and Deer Park Heights.
Officer, a prosecution witness, says he saw low-lying cloud that covered Deer Park Heights and maintained his certainty despite being shown CCTV footage from Queenstown Airport that indicated the hill was in full view at the time of take-off.
Officer says he saw the aircraft disappearing into cloud as it turned above Deer Park Heights.
Muir suggested Officer’s observations could be wrong after he was presented with official data that conflicted with his accounts.
Pilots must maintain visual clearance between leaving the airport and arriving at an altitude point between The Remarkables mountain range and Deer Park Heights.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Casablanca
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anybody with "time" in their log books also knows that you have to tin plate your back side in this job as well..not being familiar with this operation, on the surface it looks like a straight out rule was broken...why was that rule broken?....been flying for 27 years, done plenty of take off in less than ideal conditions in many parts of the world, but every time I have done so I have applied common sense, a regard for the rules and a liberal dose of tin plating of the back side in case something does go wrong..
Having "time" in the log book is no excuse for ignorance..anybody with "time" in their logbook should recognise that...
Having "time" in the log book is no excuse for ignorance..anybody with "time" in their logbook should recognise that...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sand dune sam........your post is obviously directed at me ,so I shall respond....I too agree with your sentiment ,and yr reasoning.....my point was to emphasize,that there is sometimes a very fine line between legality and infringement when sitting at the end of the runway.......and to suggest that I would encourage anyone to "give it a go" and "see what happens" is ludicrist !!!......I have personal experience at this airport in those conditions(many years ago) and this is not the first time this has been a point of contention............you,being a pilot with 27 yrs tells me otherwise.....like yourself,I spend a lot of time in different countries,different airports etc etc,not to bore you or others........we are always being confronted with "a situations"...and yes ...as you stated ,one must make credible and proper decisions,....but this situation smacks of making "an example" of a crew,where the CAA,The Airline,and any body else that has a gripe.....can hang the Captain................Im all in favour of following the rules,my F/O,s reckon Im anal on that...its what protects us..the SOP,s..u wont find a greater advocate......tin plateing oneself(your term) only goes so far,,...we are paid to do a job,and makes decisions.....and make decisions that are safe,and by the rules.....that we agree.....I have been there,....and I in no way advocate,compromising safety r SOP,s......I do not believe this Captain did.....but then again we will find out
Last edited by pakeha-boy; 22nd Mar 2012 at 22:04.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Casablanca
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PB I agree mate.. Wasn't having a dig at you... It seems to me that it's an overreaction on the part of the regulator and other vested interests.. I was just making the point we have to tin plate our bums these days that's all..
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its seems that this issue has to be dragged through the public domain....they do have a right to know,but to what extent.......I find it troubling that this could not have been dealt with,within the walls of those people that really understand these issues and can do something about it,in a professional environment, rather than turning it into a circus.
If,in fact, an infringement did occur,it could have all been handled internally.....The Aviation authorities,The Company and the Flight Crew....The Crew gets taken off line,there is an investigation...no wrong doing ,..back on line....If they are guilty of wrong doing....Then,retraining,line check,a sign off,a bulletin company wide to the rest of the pilot group and back on line...............even if the crew did violate Regs,SOP,s......this is such a piss poor violation,I dont believe it merits the exposure its getting.....I dont buy the "what if".........we deal with the the "what if" every day .....by flying to the SOP,s complying with the regs.....and all this done,internally with no fuss
As flight crew ,we are held to a high standard,I have no issues with that.....but to drag this crew through the public spotlight is ridiculous
If,in fact, an infringement did occur,it could have all been handled internally.....The Aviation authorities,The Company and the Flight Crew....The Crew gets taken off line,there is an investigation...no wrong doing ,..back on line....If they are guilty of wrong doing....Then,retraining,line check,a sign off,a bulletin company wide to the rest of the pilot group and back on line...............even if the crew did violate Regs,SOP,s......this is such a piss poor violation,I dont believe it merits the exposure its getting.....I dont buy the "what if".........we deal with the the "what if" every day .....by flying to the SOP,s complying with the regs.....and all this done,internally with no fuss
As flight crew ,we are held to a high standard,I have no issues with that.....but to drag this crew through the public spotlight is ridiculous
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest update here from yesterday:
Pacific Blue pilot trial | Pilot confident takeoff... | Stuff.co.nz
Pacific Blue pilot trial | Pilot confident takeoff... | Stuff.co.nz
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An additional report here:
Radio New Zealand : News : National : Co-pilot had safety fears about Queenstown flights
Radio New Zealand : News : National : Co-pilot had safety fears about Queenstown flights
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GoDirect,
Your mere posting of the link is misleading as it suggests the FO had fears about the flight. When you actually read the link, however, it discloses that the FO felt the company had not adequately trained him for flights into Queenstown but that he had no doubts about the safety of the flight in question.
Something very different.
Your mere posting of the link is misleading as it suggests the FO had fears about the flight. When you actually read the link, however, it discloses that the FO felt the company had not adequately trained him for flights into Queenstown but that he had no doubts about the safety of the flight in question.
Something very different.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't this whole thing make you tired and depressed..imagine going through the painfully slow NZ court process for a whole bunch of opinion and hearsay!
Just goes to show, there's no place for independent thought in the cockpit these days..if you suspect anything taxi back to the terminal!
By the way, why is the crossing height at toll gate so low..on two engines you could cross it at 12 grand with 60 pax on board?
Just goes to show, there's no place for independent thought in the cockpit these days..if you suspect anything taxi back to the terminal!
By the way, why is the crossing height at toll gate so low..on two engines you could cross it at 12 grand with 60 pax on board?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For PLovett:
My posting of the link has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with respect to what the F/O felt about the flight - it is public information as reported from the ongoing case. For what it's worth, I think this whole thing is crazy and both the crew involved have my empathy as a fellow pilot. Posting a link that is in the public domain already (yesterday) is merely updating this thread that has remained dormant for several months, and is in no way reflective of anybody involved in this ridiculous process - of which we see way too much of in aviation. Chill out.
My posting of the link has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with respect to what the F/O felt about the flight - it is public information as reported from the ongoing case. For what it's worth, I think this whole thing is crazy and both the crew involved have my empathy as a fellow pilot. Posting a link that is in the public domain already (yesterday) is merely updating this thread that has remained dormant for several months, and is in no way reflective of anybody involved in this ridiculous process - of which we see way too much of in aviation. Chill out.
The information on the extent of an overcast cloud layer was patently wrong, he said.
Referring to a reduction in thrust, the co-pilot calling "speed" and the triggering of a "don't sink" alarm, the pilot said he did not consider the takeoff and departure as anything other than normal.
The "don't sink" alarm was expected given a reduction in altitude, analogous to the reversing alarm on a car.
Referring to a reduction in thrust, the co-pilot calling "speed" and the triggering of a "don't sink" alarm, the pilot said he did not consider the takeoff and departure as anything other than normal.
The "don't sink" alarm was expected given a reduction in altitude, analogous to the reversing alarm on a car.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Must be a strange form of normal departure were the FO starts calling speed (because your too slow?) and the EGPWS starts calling "don't sink" because you are descending on takeoff.
The point being, we have no terms of reference nor access to the company briefing material, lastly and most importantly the F/O from what I have read, felt that there was no major issue here.
Last edited by haughtney1; 8th Jul 2012 at 08:37.
Agreed however, you could hardly call either of these "normal"!
Uncommon - yes, occasionally- possible! but not normal!
The Question that should be asked is why in hell are PacBlue not RNP AR certified? The other three jet operators that operate into NZQN are!
Uncommon - yes, occasionally- possible! but not normal!
The Question that should be asked is why in hell are PacBlue not RNP AR certified? The other three jet operators that operate into NZQN are!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
C100, just to give you a real world example, I used to fly a bizjet in and out of a few even more terrain constrained airports, the two that spring to mind are Sion and Lugano, and both have special procedures that are similar to Queenstown in the respect that you require specific authorization and minima to depart and arrive over and above what you would consider as standard.
In both instances, I would include in my brief if appropriate things like "we may get a EGPWS "dont sink or terrain" on this departure, if we are VMC and are clear we will consider it spurious or a nuisance warning" etc etc.
So you are right, they certainly aren't normal, but are they an indication of something unsafe happening? without the CVR, the content/context of the departure brief/plan its very hard to say.
In respect of speed, again it could be very easy to construe that as unsafe cause hes going too slow..rather than a call to help keep the PF situationally aware.
Regarding RNP-AR certification....cost maybe? you'd have to ask PB I guess.
As always the devil is in the detail.....
In both instances, I would include in my brief if appropriate things like "we may get a EGPWS "dont sink or terrain" on this departure, if we are VMC and are clear we will consider it spurious or a nuisance warning" etc etc.
So you are right, they certainly aren't normal, but are they an indication of something unsafe happening? without the CVR, the content/context of the departure brief/plan its very hard to say.
In respect of speed, again it could be very easy to construe that as unsafe cause hes going too slow..rather than a call to help keep the PF situationally aware.
Regarding RNP-AR certification....cost maybe? you'd have to ask PB I guess.
As always the devil is in the detail.....
Last edited by haughtney1; 8th Jul 2012 at 10:59.
From todays local paper.
Is that correct?
I was under the impression that the NZCAA assessed a company's manual suite and then that manual suite is what the pilot is required by law to operate to. Otherwise, what is the point in having the manuals? We could all just operate according to the NZAIP.
I am not of the opinion that this should have ended up in a public court but now that it has it might set some president regarding SOP´s in NZ.
Also,the paper said that this is the third trial Julian has been an expert witness in. Does anyone know what the other two were? How does that come about? Do some pilots proffer their services as experts? do they step forward always pushing one way ie against CAA
Capt Julian was of the view the 16-knot wet-runway crosswind limit set by Pacific Blue was an expectation of pilots; it was a guide and had little to do with the safety of the flight in question.
I was under the impression that the NZCAA assessed a company's manual suite and then that manual suite is what the pilot is required by law to operate to. Otherwise, what is the point in having the manuals? We could all just operate according to the NZAIP.
I am not of the opinion that this should have ended up in a public court but now that it has it might set some president regarding SOP´s in NZ.
Also,the paper said that this is the third trial Julian has been an expert witness in. Does anyone know what the other two were? How does that come about? Do some pilots proffer their services as experts? do they step forward always pushing one way ie against CAA
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crossing ht at TOLLGATE
The crossing ht. at tollgate is a minimum height, not maximum height, to insure that from that point onwards the aircraft will be able to continue with engine failure and clear the high terrain ahead. The restriction on how high the aircraft can cross tollgate is CLOUD BASE as the departure is a visual departure until reaching tollgate.
The "don't sink" aural call out occurs if the aircraft begins to descend after takeoff, before it has climbed above 700ft agl. Cloud must have been shelving down on takeoff path to below 700ft agl. Requiring the pilot to descend prior to reaching 700ft agl.
If the minimum height at TOLLGATE could not be attained due to low could, the aircraft would be required to fly a visual maneuver in the valley and return to land.
RNP-AR approvals can take over two years for the regulators to approve, in the meantime operators are left with a, less than ideal, departure from Queenstown.
The "don't sink" aural call out occurs if the aircraft begins to descend after takeoff, before it has climbed above 700ft agl. Cloud must have been shelving down on takeoff path to below 700ft agl. Requiring the pilot to descend prior to reaching 700ft agl.
If the minimum height at TOLLGATE could not be attained due to low could, the aircraft would be required to fly a visual maneuver in the valley and return to land.
RNP-AR approvals can take over two years for the regulators to approve, in the meantime operators are left with a, less than ideal, departure from Queenstown.