Merged: Pacific Blue infringement in NZQN?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Daghdaghistan
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I was PB I'd being suing TV3 for the embarrassment! and the aero club sim guy!
the plane took off on runway 23 and travelled down frankton arm at about 2200 AMSL. (1100 above lake)
they followed the standard departure route at this altitude till they crossed back over land near jacks point, jardines.
upon getting there they most likely picked up the VOR and buried the throttles.
i watched it and certainly considered it unusual but they remained in VFR till they had a fair bit of altitude. i saw them last with plenty of altitude overhead the tollgate reporting point.
it does not help matter when the media talks to someone who plants his ass on a jetski all day and has no involvement in the local aviation industry other than in a company trying to start a float operation.
they followed the standard departure route at this altitude till they crossed back over land near jacks point, jardines.
upon getting there they most likely picked up the VOR and buried the throttles.
i watched it and certainly considered it unusual but they remained in VFR till they had a fair bit of altitude. i saw them last with plenty of altitude overhead the tollgate reporting point.
it does not help matter when the media talks to someone who plants his ass on a jetski all day and has no involvement in the local aviation industry other than in a company trying to start a float operation.
facts
a Jetstar flight advised ATC they were going to fly the VOR approach and then proceded on down the RNP approach
How did ATC bring themselves to let them Taxi or T/O?
There is no requirement in the AIP for flights to be airborne 30min prior to ECT.
ZQN Tower are pretty damn good, there to help, and given the diversity of approaches, trials, operators and departures coupled with WX do a fanbloodytastic job I think.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: away...
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Konev
...someone who plants his ass on a jetski all day...
When I was there, the guys and gals in QN tower/flight-service (yup, including MF) were to an individual superb. Especially when the chips were down.
This whole thing stinks to me of a media beat-up, with the charge led by the... incomparable (yeah, that's the word I was searching for
) John Campbell.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: All over the show like a madwomans crap
Posts: 494
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So incensed was I with Campbell Lives pathetic "I thought I was gonna die" media beat up reporting, I wrote into TV3 explaining that passengers and PPLs make singularly bad and unreliable witnesses. I did receive a response from a lady by the name of Pip, she told me they had tried to find a Professional Pilot and someone from PacBlue to comment, but had found no one.....clearly they didn't look very hard
I'm not entirely familiar with this particular departure, however, it does appear to be fairly standard with regard to the visual segment, despite the Aussies "waiting for the Captain to tell us we were going to ditch" comment
And this gem, "I could see the lights in the houses" Absolute garbage from start to finish. 
As for Campbells pained facial expressions during the re-telling of what was a departure in mountainous terrain in turbulence, it was farcical and he should review the tape....its nothing short of embarrasing
I'm not entirely familiar with this particular departure, however, it does appear to be fairly standard with regard to the visual segment, despite the Aussies "waiting for the Captain to tell us we were going to ditch" comment
And this gem, "I could see the lights in the houses" Absolute garbage from start to finish. As for Campbells pained facial expressions during the re-telling of what was a departure in mountainous terrain in turbulence, it was farcical and he should review the tape....its nothing short of embarrasing
Pacific Blue pilot charged after safety compromised - CAA
The Civil Aviation Authority has charged the pilot of a Pacific Blue passenger jet for allegedly compromising safety by taking off from Queenstown Airport last year after the deadline for departures.
It was reported at the time Flight DJ89 departed Queenstown for Sydney on June 22 in darkness, potentially endangering the 140 passengers and crew aboard.
CAA said today that two charges had been laid under the Civil Aviation Act following an extensive investigation into the departure of the B737-800 aircraft from Queenstown, in conditions of poor light and visibility.
"The investigation concluded that the airline's procedures and operating conditions were breached in this take off...and that safety was compromised as a result."
Director of Civil Aviation Steve Douglas said that the airline had not been charged.
"I am satisfied that Pacific Blue had the appropriate procedures in place for operations conducted at Queenstown," he said.
The matter was now sub judice and the CAA would not comment on the case until it was heard in the Queenstown District Court.
Queenstown is surrounded by mountainous terrain and has no radar or runway lights.
CAA spokesman Bill Sommer said after the incident that airlines operating out of Queenstown must depart no later than 30 minutes before twilight as a precaution.
"If anything does happen they've got sufficient time to return to the airfield and land."
NZPA
It was reported at the time Flight DJ89 departed Queenstown for Sydney on June 22 in darkness, potentially endangering the 140 passengers and crew aboard.
CAA said today that two charges had been laid under the Civil Aviation Act following an extensive investigation into the departure of the B737-800 aircraft from Queenstown, in conditions of poor light and visibility.
"The investigation concluded that the airline's procedures and operating conditions were breached in this take off...and that safety was compromised as a result."
Director of Civil Aviation Steve Douglas said that the airline had not been charged.
"I am satisfied that Pacific Blue had the appropriate procedures in place for operations conducted at Queenstown," he said.
The matter was now sub judice and the CAA would not comment on the case until it was heard in the Queenstown District Court.
Queenstown is surrounded by mountainous terrain and has no radar or runway lights.
CAA spokesman Bill Sommer said after the incident that airlines operating out of Queenstown must depart no later than 30 minutes before twilight as a precaution.
"If anything does happen they've got sufficient time to return to the airfield and land."
NZPA
Queenstown is surrounded by mountainous terrain and has no radar or runway lights.
CAA spokesman Bill Sommer said after the incident that airlines operating out of Queenstown must depart no later than 30 minutes before twilight as a precaution.
"If anything does happen they've got sufficient time to return to the airfield and land."
CAA spokesman Bill Sommer said after the incident that airlines operating out of Queenstown must depart no later than 30 minutes before twilight as a precaution.
"If anything does happen they've got sufficient time to return to the airfield and land."
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
So on the basis of an extensive investigation....media intrigue...and no legal requirements (apart from rigourous company ops procedures) criminal? charges have been laid under the CAA act?
What about a takeoff alternate? What about a S/E procedure that allows a climb to MSA? what about a bit more info pertaining to Pac Blue's operation? and how those reg's are supposidly used as a basis for enforcement action? (or am I missing the point?)
What about a takeoff alternate? What about a S/E procedure that allows a climb to MSA? what about a bit more info pertaining to Pac Blue's operation? and how those reg's are supposidly used as a basis for enforcement action? (or am I missing the point?)
Is it a requirement in NZ to be able to return to the airfield of departure in the event of a problem?
When departing Queenstown non rnp you always have a plan A and a plan B (like most flights I guess) . What this guy did was compromise his PLan B.
eg Plan A, you climb to around about 5500ft VMC, at this stage, if you have two engines you have enough height to be able to lose one, go IMC, and still get out of the valley without hitting a hill. Plan B, get to 5400ft VMC, realise you can't make 5500ft without going IMC, descend and return into a visual figure of 8 pattern at the feild, and land. Part of plan B involves having enough daylight left to be able to depart, realise you can''t meet the requirements of the departure, go into the figure of 8 in order to align with the strip, and then conduct a visual landing. The 30 minutes is to allow you enough time to do that if Plan A doesn't work, and every now and then, Plan A doesn't work. Hope that helps explain it.
I understand Farmer but what's the CAA's proof? A couple of scared pax who had never been to Qn before?
The only hard evidence is the breaking of the Op's manuals 30 min ECT deadline.
Trying to put a mess like this in front of judge will be hard work for CAA but with pressure on them they had to come up with something.
The only hard evidence is the breaking of the Op's manuals 30 min ECT deadline.
Trying to put a mess like this in front of judge will be hard work for CAA but with pressure on them they had to come up with something.
Originally Posted by Framer
Plan B, get to 5400ft VMC, realise you can't make 5500ft without going IMC, descend and return into a visual figure of 8 pattern at the feild
As for performance/engine failure, it would seem to me that a non-RNP departure is no different to an RNP departure. Engine failure at 1000ft IMC on the RNP and then make 500ft/nm all the way up to 9800ft? I'd like to see that.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...but what's the CAA's proof?...The only hard evidence is the breaking of the Op's manuals 30 min ECT deadline.
As for performance/engine failure, it would seem to me that a non-RNP departure is no different to an RNP departure
I can't imagine an RPT jet operation zooming up to the base of the cloud, having a look and then figure-of-eighting back down because they were going to go IMC on the Visual Segment
Last edited by waren9; 15th Apr 2011 at 01:10.
Originally Posted by Waren
Its quite a bit different. An escape path that can have curved legs wherever you want, guided by GPS instead of straight lines to/from a navaid, dead reckoning, arcs and timed turns.
Who said the RNP T/O minima is 1000'?
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 15th Apr 2011 at 00:32.