Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Merged: Pacific Blue infringement in NZQN?

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Merged: Pacific Blue infringement in NZQN?

Old 15th Jul 2012, 01:51
  #141 (permalink)  
 
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
..and if you take a fairly liberal view of the "built up area" rule then you could fly at 500' level all the way round Deer Park before climbing flat out to 3300' and be totally legal so the part of the case involving disturbed members of the public and low flying could've been tossed out in the first 5 minutes.
mattyj is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2012, 02:35
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
mattyj quote..."Probably ALPAs go to guy and sympathetic member?"

.....mostly likely mattyj,and a better choice than most......but for me,the experience and input from this part of the "opera",is better than the "armchair" pilots and "wannabe" aviators trying to hang this crew......after reading what the flying Capt has said,I would have done the same thing........or like you previously stated,...dont make command decisions,...taxi back to the gate
pakeha-boy is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2012, 04:54
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: South
Posts: 638
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I would have thought that taxi back to the gate would have been the command decision that maybe could have been made!

Plan continuation bias is one of the more difficult HF tendencies to recognize.
c100driver is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2012, 15:19
  #144 (permalink)  
BGQ
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wanaka
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mangatete just for the sake of accuracy the "Don't Sink Don't Sink" warning can be triggered without sinking. A reduction in climb rate towards zero will do it on some occasions. It is not that unusual to get it in a low altitude level off.

Pakeha Boy and MattyJ Captain Juian is the NZALPA Technical Director and a previous Regional Vice President of IFALPA. I am aware that he testified at the Palmerston North Dash 8 case... not sure about the other one.

There are some concerning issues being raised in evidence presented by CAA.

Mark Hughes said that pilots cannot override reported weather from ATC. That is incorrectinmy view. Every company I have worked for has encouraged pilots to use their own judgement of visibility etc from the takeoff point. It is a completely different perspective to that of ATC.

Last edited by BGQ; 15th Jul 2012 at 15:33.
BGQ is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2012, 15:43
  #145 (permalink)  
BGQ
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wanaka
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
C100 Driver you are right about Plan Continuation Bias and you do present a viable option in taxiing back to the terminal.

However a properly considered risk assessment of the takeoff was another option. Your employer and the passengers require you to depart only if you have done that.

Clearly this crew did not just taxi out and go without making that risk assessment. That's what the four stripes are for.

The argument is all about others second guessing that decision without all of the available information. None of the witnesses can really compare what they think those conditions were to the conditions assessed by the crew. They would have had to have been on the flight deck with them or in very close proximity to it with the same level of experience and some qualifications to go along with it. All CAA's witnesses don't cut it in my opinion. They either were there and not qualified or qualified and not there.

If this guy gets convicted it will be a travesty.
BGQ is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2012, 15:59
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BGQ......thanks for input....so this bloke is obviously a reliable"expert" witness...not my words...theirs,but I have no doubts about his ability

C100 also makes a point....I believe his point on "command" decisions which I didnt state,...being that,...it was rather obvious the Capt had this choice.....

I would also agree ,that a conviction would be a travesty

Last edited by pakeha-boy; 15th Jul 2012 at 16:02.
pakeha-boy is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2012, 16:19
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
I would also agree ,that a conviction would be a travesty
Based on what I've read in the press and spoken to guys who operate and out of NZQN regularly, I have to agree.
haughtney1 is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2012, 21:34
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Live in Taupiri, Waikato, work in the big smoke, New Zealand
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mark Hughes said that pilots cannot override reported weather from ATC. That is incorrectinmy view. Every company I have worked for has encouraged pilots to use their own judgement of visibility etc from the takeoff point. It is a completely different perspective to that of ATC.
Couldn't agree more... we sit in our towers in elevated positions, usually half way down the runway and outside the obstacle clearance fan and do our best to report overall conditions using instruments that maybe measuring conditions in yet another different location, but we don't have an accurate picture of what it is actually like on the ground, at the threshold. The Crew are "Johnny on the spot" and usually have a much clearer picture of what the actual conditions are, and being at the pointy end (and usually the first on the scene at an accident!) have a significantly higher vested interest in getting it right.
slackie is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2012, 00:39
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
slackie mate...actually quite refreshing to hear that....most of us have been in positions ,whether it be in the take-off or landing mode ....and had differences of opinion on "reported weather" versus "actual weather'.......civil twiligt etc is hard to dispute.......Ive had issues requesting visual approaches after civil twilight times,and been dinied and having to do a full app,s....no worries...good practice...co-operate graduate......Ive always had issues leaving the "gate"....officialy now dispatched...and being confined by civil twilight times for "SIDS" ....and complying with company/CAA/FAA/ rules regarding those ops....either 91/135/121....and supplemental.....personally...this CAPT was doing"his job"

Last edited by pakeha-boy; 16th Jul 2012 at 13:43.
pakeha-boy is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2012, 12:46
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 56
Posts: 3,082
Received 442 Likes on 121 Posts
I donīt think he should be tried in a criminal hearing at all, but now that he is I think regardless of the weather at the time he is going to find it hard to justify taking off after ī30 mins prior to ECTī.
Even if the weather was CAVOK and nil wind.....how do you justify it given that the reason the rule is there, is to allow you enough time to get around the circuit and land before it's too dark. There are dozens of reasons why a return would be preferable to a divert to NZCH, thats why they are not the only airline to have that rule. He would have to argue that it was safer to use his command powers to break the rule than to return to the gate and put everyone in a hotel. I canīt imagine that argument being successful.
Does anyone know why this ended up in court instead of being dealt with through some retraining?
My GP made a dubious judgement call last year, everything worked out well though, I suffered no harm.....why isnīt he in court?
framer is online now  
Old 17th Jul 2012, 11:22
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: au
Posts: 48
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mark Hughes said that pilots cannot override reported weather from ATC. That is incorrectinmy view. Every company I have worked for has encouraged pilots to use their own judgement of visibility etc from the takeoff point. It is a completely different perspective to that of ATC.
Also, remember as PIC you are a qualified met observer. Perhaps, and I obviously wasn't there, they may have been better to state their plan to ATC to maintain LL til a certain point (past the cloud) and climb. Not like ATC had a lot of other departures!
Daylight Robbery is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.