Merged: Pacific Blue infringement in NZQN?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then whats your point?
RNP allows lower minimas, and more accurate tracking. Otherwise why do it?
In other words
is not immaterial at all. Technology moves to facilitate the commercial imperitive. Otherwise we'd all still be following ADF needdles wouldn't we?
RNP allows lower minimas, and more accurate tracking. Otherwise why do it?
In other words
How you navigate to avoid the hills is immaterial
My point was it doesn't matter what sort of departure you are doing, you still need the performance to make the required gradient.
If when doing the Non-RNP departure you must have the "visual return to land" option, why then are RNP departures allowed with engine failures at potentially very very low altitude in IMC, with a higher gradient requirement than a Non-RNP departure? The RTOW penalty must be pretty severe, although I suppose it's mostly fairly chilly there?
If when doing the Non-RNP departure you must have the "visual return to land" option, why then are RNP departures allowed with engine failures at potentially very very low altitude in IMC, with a higher gradient requirement than a Non-RNP departure? The RTOW penalty must be pretty severe, although I suppose it's mostly fairly chilly there?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The decision to go or return is actually quite high.
Again, with RNP departures you can design in any lateral path ie as many track miles as you want, at any gradient you want at MCT to achieve MSA, allowing a better payload bearing in mind ZQN is relatively high and short and often has low QNH's.
Again, with RNP departures you can design in any lateral path ie as many track miles as you want, at any gradient you want at MCT to achieve MSA, allowing a better payload bearing in mind ZQN is relatively high and short and often has low QNH's.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Aspen, Colorado
Age: 86
Posts: 16
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Framer that 5500' must have been on the 200, the 800 can meet the performance req from below 3000' at Tollgate.
CAA does not have a 30 mins prior to ECT departure requirement for ZQN and at least one jet operator in NZ does not have that that requirement in their manuals.
CAA does not have a 30 mins prior to ECT departure requirement for ZQN and at least one jet operator in NZ does not have that that requirement in their manuals.
Originally Posted by Waren9
with RNP departures you can design in any lateral path ie as many track miles as you want, at any gradient you want at MCT to achieve MSA, allowing a better payload
By using RNP (AR) departure procedure B737 and A320 can have an EF after V1 (still on the runway) and meet all the performance requirements by using the engine out SID to MSA
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Is this pilot still working at PB? Is it true he is a Checkie? Have the company supported him and handled it well? "
Good questions Pammy A. Yet another reason to justify the ALPA fees (I have no idea if this guy is a member or not)
I, for one, wouldn't want to be relying on the support of "the company", or having to retain a lawyer out of my own pocket.
One would have to assume the pilot is on "limited duties" or possibly even suspended awaiting the results of the charge.
Lesson to all...be careful out there. Your career may be on the line wth every decision.
Good questions Pammy A. Yet another reason to justify the ALPA fees (I have no idea if this guy is a member or not)
I, for one, wouldn't want to be relying on the support of "the company", or having to retain a lawyer out of my own pocket.
One would have to assume the pilot is on "limited duties" or possibly even suspended awaiting the results of the charge.
Lesson to all...be careful out there. Your career may be on the line wth every decision.
Originally Posted by c100driver
By using RNP (AR) departure procedure B737 and A320 can have an EF after V1 (still on the runway) and meet all the performance requirements by using the engine out SID to MSA
Being criminally charged by the CAA for not complying with your company ops manual seems a bit harsh.
Fair enough, but surely the tower can tell you the cloudbase so you know you are going to be able to do the SID visual segment?
For a start they don't know what weight you are at and therefore where your visual segment ends, it's a different height on every departure.
Secondly, they have the same mark one eyeball as you so there is little point. Reports from a/c are not suitable as the cloud may be at 1000ft in one part of the basin and at 6000ft in another.
thirdly, the cloud moves quickly, it hugs the hills where you are climbing out and can change in minutes, snow storms or rain moves down the arms of the lake very quickly. It's not a normal environment when compared to most jet rpt airports.
How you navigate to avoid the hills is immaterial, provided you can.
It would seem to me of another case of the regulator making sure that it is being seen to be doing it's job. How many times have they done this and ended up with egg on their face?
Wasn't there case a while back where the judge called the CAA legal team into his chambers and suggested that in the light of new evidence that their case was probably unsustainable and did they wish to continue proceedings? Apparently they did continue and lost.
Will be inteteresting to see how this case goes.
Wasn't there case a while back where the judge called the CAA legal team into his chambers and suggested that in the light of new evidence that their case was probably unsustainable and did they wish to continue proceedings? Apparently they did continue and lost.
Will be inteteresting to see how this case goes.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Down Under
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some facts...
Wow, this place could be the world’s greatest rumour mill. Here are some actual facts about the evening for those interested...
Flight DJ89 flew the Bowen 3 departure. It is a VOR/DME based departure. It has a visual segment which is about a 250 degree left turn until the initial departure fix known as Tollgate. An aircraft must reach 3800ft by Tollgate. The pilot must maintain own terrain clearance until Tollgate. From this point terrain clearance is provided by the departure procedure.
Lower performing aircraft will generally have a higher altitude requirement for the initial departure fix. For some aircraft operators this is weight dependant. Other operators use one altitude that will always work. In the case of Jetstar A320s this altitude was 4000ft.
If an aircraft is unable to depart they will generally attempt an alternate departure or manoeuver visually to land. The tracking to return to the runway is undefined, but a lower figure-8 circuit will generally be used if it suits. (Not all departures follow the figure-8 pattern, but the Bowen3 does). There is no requirement to return to land in the event of an engine failure if the aircraft is able to reach set heading.
On this particular evening the pilot was very confident he could reach the set heading altitude. He was observed easily reaching this altitude by Tollgate. At this point he was still visual.
Contrary to statements in the media, the aircraft was never operating under the Visual Flight Rules. It was at all times an IFR flight. The tower was on watch until the published time of 0600.
ECT at Queenstown on the evening was 0544z. This is based on Aerodrome specific charts rather than the area charts published in the AIP. (AD specific charts are on the Airways IFIS website).
Pacific Blue has a company requirement to depart Queenstown 30 prior to ECT. It is not an aerodrome requirement. Business jets and local operators often operate until ECT.
The aircraft was airborne at approximately 0525z. 20min before ECT. The pilot was actually ready for departure earlier but waited for a lull in the wind.
Previously a significant front of weather had passed through the field. This was the reason the flight was delayed. By the time of the departure there was only light rain. As is very common at Queenstown a low band of cloud had built up around the frankton arm/township area, around 1000ft agl.
The controllers reported that this layer was more extensive, however the tower’s view of the departure area is obscured by Deer Park. The pilot stated that cloud in the area had dissipated and was suitable for departure. He was only now concerned with the crosswind. The pilot’s assessment of the cloud proved more accurate.
When the aircraft departed it levelled out under the layer of cloud in the Frankton Arm. (It did not descend as reported). Reaching Kelvin Heights golf course the aircraft resumed climbing and followed the published visual segment to Tollgate where it was still visual.
The reports made to the CAA were made by the general public. Neither the control tower nor Pacific Blue filed an incident report.
To answer some other questions....
For those discussing it earlier, the RNP departure has a procedure where if a certain height is not reached by Tollgate, the pilot will execute an engine out procedure and track south towards Invercargill. As such terrain clearance is always provided on the RNP departure.
Pacific Blue does not fly RNP procedures at Queenstown. They are the only remaining jet operator not RNP certified. As such the general public is not used to seeing jets operating at lower levels, flying the visual segments of these departures.
Flight DJ89 flew the Bowen 3 departure. It is a VOR/DME based departure. It has a visual segment which is about a 250 degree left turn until the initial departure fix known as Tollgate. An aircraft must reach 3800ft by Tollgate. The pilot must maintain own terrain clearance until Tollgate. From this point terrain clearance is provided by the departure procedure.
Lower performing aircraft will generally have a higher altitude requirement for the initial departure fix. For some aircraft operators this is weight dependant. Other operators use one altitude that will always work. In the case of Jetstar A320s this altitude was 4000ft.
If an aircraft is unable to depart they will generally attempt an alternate departure or manoeuver visually to land. The tracking to return to the runway is undefined, but a lower figure-8 circuit will generally be used if it suits. (Not all departures follow the figure-8 pattern, but the Bowen3 does). There is no requirement to return to land in the event of an engine failure if the aircraft is able to reach set heading.
On this particular evening the pilot was very confident he could reach the set heading altitude. He was observed easily reaching this altitude by Tollgate. At this point he was still visual.
Contrary to statements in the media, the aircraft was never operating under the Visual Flight Rules. It was at all times an IFR flight. The tower was on watch until the published time of 0600.
ECT at Queenstown on the evening was 0544z. This is based on Aerodrome specific charts rather than the area charts published in the AIP. (AD specific charts are on the Airways IFIS website).
Pacific Blue has a company requirement to depart Queenstown 30 prior to ECT. It is not an aerodrome requirement. Business jets and local operators often operate until ECT.
The aircraft was airborne at approximately 0525z. 20min before ECT. The pilot was actually ready for departure earlier but waited for a lull in the wind.
Previously a significant front of weather had passed through the field. This was the reason the flight was delayed. By the time of the departure there was only light rain. As is very common at Queenstown a low band of cloud had built up around the frankton arm/township area, around 1000ft agl.
The controllers reported that this layer was more extensive, however the tower’s view of the departure area is obscured by Deer Park. The pilot stated that cloud in the area had dissipated and was suitable for departure. He was only now concerned with the crosswind. The pilot’s assessment of the cloud proved more accurate.
When the aircraft departed it levelled out under the layer of cloud in the Frankton Arm. (It did not descend as reported). Reaching Kelvin Heights golf course the aircraft resumed climbing and followed the published visual segment to Tollgate where it was still visual.
The reports made to the CAA were made by the general public. Neither the control tower nor Pacific Blue filed an incident report.
To answer some other questions....
For those discussing it earlier, the RNP departure has a procedure where if a certain height is not reached by Tollgate, the pilot will execute an engine out procedure and track south towards Invercargill. As such terrain clearance is always provided on the RNP departure.
Pacific Blue does not fly RNP procedures at Queenstown. They are the only remaining jet operator not RNP certified. As such the general public is not used to seeing jets operating at lower levels, flying the visual segments of these departures.
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accused Pacific Blue pilot 'is highly qualified, not careless'
5:30 AM Tuesday Mar 6, 2012
The Pacific Blue pilot accused of carelessly operating an aircraft at Queenstown in 2010 was "probably the absolute top of the tree in terms of aircraft qualifications" his lawyer told Judge Kevin Phillips in the Queenstown District Court yesterday.
The 54-year-old Auckland pilot, who has name suppression, denies the charge.
On June 22, 2010, the flight carrying 65 passengers and six crew, including the captain and first officer, took off from the resort bound for Sydney.
The Civil Aviation Authority charged the pilot in April, alleging the plane took off in near darkness, potentially endangering the 71 people on board.
Yesterday defence counsel Matthew Muir, of Auckland, said there was a "significant danger" in elevating an alleged breach of Pacific Blue's exposition to "criminality". The flight was scheduled to depart at 4.30pm, but took off at 5.25pm, meeting the "basic daylight requirements" by taking off 20 minutes before the advised Evening Civil Twilight (ECT) time.
However, it was a potential breach of the company's exposition, so it had to be proven "there was such a failure and the pilot decided in a manner that was not reasonable and prudent" to take off. Pacific Blue's exposition required take-offs to occur "at least 30 minutes prior to Evening Civil Twilight to allow for visual manoeuvring".
"The defendant will say given the range of exposition requirements, a breach of Pacific Blue's exposition at the time ... can't in itself be equated with carelessness."
He said the captain and first officer formed a departure plan "which did not involve a return to Queenstown" and the only visual manoeuvre required was between the airport and a reference point, which took about two minutes' flight time to reach.
"It had completed, we say, all the visual manoeuvres it was going to do that day ... still with 18 minutes running before Evening Civil Twilight."
Further, a "return to land scenario" would not only represent "very poor professional judgement" but it was prohibited in Pacific Blue's exposition, given there was an "alternate airport" available and suitable in terms of weather conditions.
"We are saying that the pilot was faced with conflicting messages in the Pacific Blue exposition," Mr Muir said. The hearing continues.
5:30 AM Tuesday Mar 6, 2012
The Pacific Blue pilot accused of carelessly operating an aircraft at Queenstown in 2010 was "probably the absolute top of the tree in terms of aircraft qualifications" his lawyer told Judge Kevin Phillips in the Queenstown District Court yesterday.
The 54-year-old Auckland pilot, who has name suppression, denies the charge.
On June 22, 2010, the flight carrying 65 passengers and six crew, including the captain and first officer, took off from the resort bound for Sydney.
The Civil Aviation Authority charged the pilot in April, alleging the plane took off in near darkness, potentially endangering the 71 people on board.
Yesterday defence counsel Matthew Muir, of Auckland, said there was a "significant danger" in elevating an alleged breach of Pacific Blue's exposition to "criminality". The flight was scheduled to depart at 4.30pm, but took off at 5.25pm, meeting the "basic daylight requirements" by taking off 20 minutes before the advised Evening Civil Twilight (ECT) time.
However, it was a potential breach of the company's exposition, so it had to be proven "there was such a failure and the pilot decided in a manner that was not reasonable and prudent" to take off. Pacific Blue's exposition required take-offs to occur "at least 30 minutes prior to Evening Civil Twilight to allow for visual manoeuvring".
"The defendant will say given the range of exposition requirements, a breach of Pacific Blue's exposition at the time ... can't in itself be equated with carelessness."
He said the captain and first officer formed a departure plan "which did not involve a return to Queenstown" and the only visual manoeuvre required was between the airport and a reference point, which took about two minutes' flight time to reach.
"It had completed, we say, all the visual manoeuvres it was going to do that day ... still with 18 minutes running before Evening Civil Twilight."
Further, a "return to land scenario" would not only represent "very poor professional judgement" but it was prohibited in Pacific Blue's exposition, given there was an "alternate airport" available and suitable in terms of weather conditions.
"We are saying that the pilot was faced with conflicting messages in the Pacific Blue exposition," Mr Muir said. The hearing continues.
This is a very significant court case. In basic terms there has been no CAA rules broken. Some very extreme and outrages media reporting which has lead to this court case.
If the CAA wins this case, any pilot can be criminally liable for any breach of their company operations manual.
If the CAA wins this case, any pilot can be criminally liable for any breach of their company operations manual.
