Pacific Blue Queenstown incident
That is great to hear. Not a nice position to be in.
I agree with the comments "against" the judge. But you have to consider that to them it is black and white.
Most crew have a can do attitude which is born from GA days to get the job done. We often need to think outside the square.
Good luck.
I agree with the comments "against" the judge. But you have to consider that to them it is black and white.
Most crew have a can do attitude which is born from GA days to get the job done. We often need to think outside the square.
Good luck.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So how do we feel about FDR information, presumably being provided in good faith for safety purposes/FOQA, being used in a criminal prosecution by the regulator?
I'd be very happy to stand corrected here if I've got the wrong end of the stick btw.
I'd be very happy to stand corrected here if I've got the wrong end of the stick btw.
I am not casting aspersions here, but even in a Just Culture framework, if you knowing violate rules or regulations - you're on your own.
BTW, where wasthe FO in all of this? Did the FO disagree or advocate against departing?
Genuine question.
BTW, where wasthe FO in all of this? Did the FO disagree or advocate against departing?
Genuine question.
Here is the original http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...ment-nzqn.html
Alot of eye witness testimony from non pilots miles from the aircraft. I would be interested in reading a transcript of the case or judges verdict if anyone has a link.
Alot of eye witness testimony from non pilots miles from the aircraft. I would be interested in reading a transcript of the case or judges verdict if anyone has a link.
Last edited by neville_nobody; 10th Mar 2013 at 13:18.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Normally, would avoid this sort of debate however, feel a need for 2 bob's worth. The judgement only ever had one way to go – the 'law' says XX minutes before EOD. The 'law' is not required to consider that it was operationally safe i.e. suitable alternate, performance, adequate visibility etc. or any of the operationally sound reasons which the PIC probably did consider before using 'command discretion' and decided that it was operationally safe to take off.
This is one of the major problems with "prescriptive" rules and the system. Was it operationally sound – yes. Was the black letter law broken – yes. Wriggle room=zero. I feel for the guy, I really do; but this is a good example of what you face in a tribunal or court.
This type of thing undermines command prerogative; but removing the restriction can then be exploited by 'ruthless' operators. Rocks and hard places – especially where the thing is built into an operations manual; the operator wants the service done but then blames the driver when it all turns to Pooh. I hope the company is going to find a way around the issue and reinstate a honest, hard working bloke as soon as possible.
That's it $00.20 – back to my knitting.
This is one of the major problems with "prescriptive" rules and the system. Was it operationally sound – yes. Was the black letter law broken – yes. Wriggle room=zero. I feel for the guy, I really do; but this is a good example of what you face in a tribunal or court.
This type of thing undermines command prerogative; but removing the restriction can then be exploited by 'ruthless' operators. Rocks and hard places – especially where the thing is built into an operations manual; the operator wants the service done but then blames the driver when it all turns to Pooh. I hope the company is going to find a way around the issue and reinstate a honest, hard working bloke as soon as possible.
That's it $00.20 – back to my knitting.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Home
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This should have been dealt with not by the courts, but by a professional disciplinary tribunal similar to what lawyers and doctors etc etc have. The subject matter is too technical for the judge to firmly grasp.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me start by saying that I don't think this should have ever gone to court. It is a worrying precedent and will be a negative for self reporting and flight safety.
However......
I don't see the grey area. There is a curfew. Everyone knows the rules down there. They aren't new. It is black and white. After xx:xx, you cannot take off. Park the jet and go to the hotel. All the other factors in this incident could be argued but this one is indefensible. Does it deserve a court case? Probably not. Just culture should apply. Did he knowingly break the rule? If so, why?
As for "command prerogative/authority", call it what you will. It is largely a myth. The only time a PiC can intentionally ignore the law is if following it would be the more dangerous situation. You cannot use the so called "command authority" to ignore the law, just because you judge it to be safe, or in the company interest, or you want to get home or whatever.
When I got my first job I was told the following to aid in decision making:
1)Is it safe?
2)Is it legal?
3)Is it in the companies interest?
If you can satisfy ALL THREE, then go for it.
However......
I don't see the grey area. There is a curfew. Everyone knows the rules down there. They aren't new. It is black and white. After xx:xx, you cannot take off. Park the jet and go to the hotel. All the other factors in this incident could be argued but this one is indefensible. Does it deserve a court case? Probably not. Just culture should apply. Did he knowingly break the rule? If so, why?
As for "command prerogative/authority", call it what you will. It is largely a myth. The only time a PiC can intentionally ignore the law is if following it would be the more dangerous situation. You cannot use the so called "command authority" to ignore the law, just because you judge it to be safe, or in the company interest, or you want to get home or whatever.
When I got my first job I was told the following to aid in decision making:
1)Is it safe?
2)Is it legal?
3)Is it in the companies interest?
If you can satisfy ALL THREE, then go for it.
.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Downunder
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, this shouldn't have got to court, you're dealing with a collection of faceless, humourless, civil servants - CAA - the matter could have been addressed in a far better manner.
I lost my medical a while back; after providing all the proof I needed to CAA that I was as fit as any man my age on the planet, it still took months top get it back. These are not easy people to deal with, they probably have an axe to grind and this case decided to make an example of the individual involved. I've been told there are lots of drivers out there with medical problems, but they don't declare them. Who would?
This is the kind of victimisation that makes pilots decide not to tell CAA some of the incidents that really could facilitate safety in the air.
He's got my utmost sympathy- don't break the rules-go to the pub.
I lost my medical a while back; after providing all the proof I needed to CAA that I was as fit as any man my age on the planet, it still took months top get it back. These are not easy people to deal with, they probably have an axe to grind and this case decided to make an example of the individual involved. I've been told there are lots of drivers out there with medical problems, but they don't declare them. Who would?
This is the kind of victimisation that makes pilots decide not to tell CAA some of the incidents that really could facilitate safety in the air.
He's got my utmost sympathy- don't break the rules-go to the pub.
Last edited by skol; 14th Mar 2013 at 01:37.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
I believe there was some disagreement over what defines 'departure'. The PIC and possibly the ops manual means off chocks whilst CAA says it is airborne.
The answer is for a NZ registered operator..the CAA.
If there was/is a variation between the local rules and the company manuals, that oversight in documentation is supposed to be caught by the regulator and then imposed on the operator in accordance with what is promulgated.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was led to believe that the 30 minute requirement was only in the PB ops manual not a CAA requirement, in that the CAA only required departure before ECT.
Is this not the case?
Or is the CAA picking & choosing between sections of the PB ops manual & their requirements/interpretations & making the story up as they go along?
Is this not the case?
Or is the CAA picking & choosing between sections of the PB ops manual & their requirements/interpretations & making the story up as they go along?
Last edited by Oakape; 14th Mar 2013 at 07:53.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pb manuals are approved by CAA, therefore, what ever is in them becomes law over CAA reqs if caa's happen to be less restrictive.
I have no knowledge of NZ law but I would be very surprised if there was anything in the NZ Act or Regulations that incorporated a company's ops manual into the legislation. Just think for a minute about what you are saying.
That the Pb ops manual is more restrictive than the CAA legislation and therefore a breach of the ops manual by a Pb pilot can be prosecuted in a criminal court, whereas, another pilot employed by a different company who takes off after the Pb pilot but before the CAA restriction (hypothetical case for example purposes only) could not be similarly prosecuted.
I don't think so.
Actually that could happen in Australia also.
Have a look at CAR 1988 Reg. 215 (9).
This requires compliance with the operations manual.
This is an offence of strict liability with a penalty of 25 penalty units.
You could be prosecuted for failure to comply with your ops manual.
Have a look at CAR 1988 Reg. 215 (9).
This requires compliance with the operations manual.
This is an offence of strict liability with a penalty of 25 penalty units.
You could be prosecuted for failure to comply with your ops manual.
Last edited by pcx; 18th Mar 2013 at 05:38. Reason: Accidently downloaded the original CAR 1988 from the Comlaw site. Many changes since that was promulgated.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, I know my job... Plovett 
And that's what happened here isn't it... Might not want to assume when you don't know...
So in your cloudy logic, if I did a approach to company minima, which was higher than the actual minima, then went to the lower minima, and got in, you think that is okay do you... Glad I don't fly with you.
And that's what happened here isn't it... Might not want to assume when you don't know...
So in your cloudy logic, if I did a approach to company minima, which was higher than the actual minima, then went to the lower minima, and got in, you think that is okay do you... Glad I don't fly with you.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plovett, this should never have gone to the courts. Should have been handled in house, but a few other "external factors" were at play which may have affected this being handled in house.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not a lawyer, but.......
My way of thinking is that your company manuals form part of the exposition. They explain how the company is going to comply with the law. In other words, to ignore them means you are now making up your own method of complying with the law as you go along. Therefore, your chance of now breaching the law is rather high. In any case, to my knowledge, the daylight restriction in Queenstown is the same for all operators as it is the only acceptable method of complying with the law. This may well change with RNP AR ops, but has not yet.
My way of thinking is that your company manuals form part of the exposition. They explain how the company is going to comply with the law. In other words, to ignore them means you are now making up your own method of complying with the law as you go along. Therefore, your chance of now breaching the law is rather high. In any case, to my knowledge, the daylight restriction in Queenstown is the same for all operators as it is the only acceptable method of complying with the law. This may well change with RNP AR ops, but has not yet.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA may have a blanket time for ZQN but each operator will either have that time in their manuals or something more restrictive, but you can apply for an exemption to operate less than the CAA level, as does mt cook...
Just because an operator may have rnp ar ops approval, still doesn't negate the daylight req.
Just because an operator may have rnp ar ops approval, still doesn't negate the daylight req.