Pacific Blue Queenstown incident
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, are you guys saying that whatever is the most restrictive between the regs & the operators manual, is law?
In this case, the 30 mins before ECT in the PB ops manual was the most restrictive, so that is the law? And the departure time taken as airborne time by the CAA is the most restrictive (assuming that the post above, about the PB ops manual saying departure is off chocks, is accurate), so that is the law?
If that is the case, why would the CAA approve a manual that states off chocks time is departure time, leading to possible confusion & error? It affects much more than just this circumstance, e.g. flight & duty times, engineering inspections based on flight times, etc.
And if this is the case, wouldn't the difference have given the defence another angle for their case?
In this case, the 30 mins before ECT in the PB ops manual was the most restrictive, so that is the law? And the departure time taken as airborne time by the CAA is the most restrictive (assuming that the post above, about the PB ops manual saying departure is off chocks, is accurate), so that is the law?
If that is the case, why would the CAA approve a manual that states off chocks time is departure time, leading to possible confusion & error? It affects much more than just this circumstance, e.g. flight & duty times, engineering inspections based on flight times, etc.
And if this is the case, wouldn't the difference have given the defence another angle for their case?
Last edited by Oakape; 18th Mar 2013 at 11:03.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 27/09
...armchair experts with big egos, one with a nautical background that has aeronautical aspirations?
hmmm... of a surname that implies an absolute absence of colour, light even? If so, I can't help but marvel that he is still allowed to be involved in anything remotely regulatory.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sentence was simply a $5100 fine. No reduction of licence privileges. The CAA made a motherhood statement about it sending a message about rules etc. I read somewhere that it cost the CAA about $1m to prosecute.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, I stand by my earlier comment, it should never have gone to court. The government seriously needs to do an inquiry into this and WHY CAA took this to trial for a $5000 fine and nothing else. What an absolute waste of time, money and everything else... They could have used that money to cover the bullshit charges we have to pay before we go sit a medical just so those in the ivory towers can walk outside and sip a latte in the terraces... 
Glad it's over, unless he is to appeal the decision.
Hopefully those involved can go back to doing what they do best...
Glad it's over, unless he is to appeal the decision.
Hopefully those involved can go back to doing what they do best...
Folks,
Of course, if this was Australia, CASA would now proceed against the pilot with administrative action.
Shades of the disgraceful treatment of two QF domestic pilots years ago, now, in Tasmania.
Tootle pip!!
Of course, if this was Australia, CASA would now proceed against the pilot with administrative action.
Shades of the disgraceful treatment of two QF domestic pilots years ago, now, in Tasmania.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gate_15L
Age: 50
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not accept the argument that this event should not of ended up in court. This is exactly where a safety breach should end up - after all who are we protecting here - I hope it's the traveling public. -Prospector
As has been pointed out before in this thread, when there is a medical case, it is heard by a panel of Doctors. When the Bar is involved, a panel of Lawyers. This Judge has no aviation background nor experience of flying in and out of Queenstown, nor the CAA's star witness Colin Glasgow (He spent the last 30 years drinking coffee at FL300 in his B747-200) nor Mr Black the Harbour master. The arrogance of the witnesses is astounding.
I agree, any wilful breech needs to handled accordingly. Supposedly a "Just Culture" which anyone involved in NZ aviation knows is a nice byword that cannot be achieved under current CAA regulations and law.
However as has been said before, this non-compliance could have been handled in-house with internal company sanctions with the same result, lower costs and greater educational deterrent value.
The only educational value I get out of this is never trust the NZ CAA.
Last edited by Gate_15L; 26th Mar 2013 at 09:37.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I do not accept the argument that this event should not of ended up in court. This is exactly where a safety breach should end up - after all who are we protecting here - I hope it's the traveling public.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spending probably in excess of $1m on a case just to get a conviction with a related fine of $5100...Really...seriously...
What a waste of money, and who really won? The lawyers...
What is Stu going to teach him that he doesn't already know. Why is the retraining going to take 17 months?
What a waste of money, and who really won? The lawyers...
What is Stu going to teach him that he doesn't already know. Why is the retraining going to take 17 months?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Space
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This made world wide headlines news! NZ tourism is worth billions employs
Thousands of people. This had the potential to affect Queenstown and the Nz tourist market as a safe place to vist and yes John key being the minister for tourism,sure he was not impressed sum Egg from Pac bro/virgin Austrila Nz pty ltd or what ever they call it F;$king it up not to mention damage to the Virgin brand itself .
If there was any dought I Can't understand why he didn't just park up and go for beers in Q town?
Thousands of people. This had the potential to affect Queenstown and the Nz tourist market as a safe place to vist and yes John key being the minister for tourism,sure he was not impressed sum Egg from Pac bro/virgin Austrila Nz pty ltd or what ever they call it F;$king it up not to mention damage to the Virgin brand itself .
If there was any dought I Can't understand why he didn't just park up and go for beers in Q town?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geez, just watched the video for the first time. That's pretty dark! After three years and a lot of wasted money and stress we have ended up with a result that should probably been imposed by PacBlue to start with (minus the fine). Ie, a rap over the knuckles and a bit of retraining. If there is one positive to come out of this it is to remind all of us that we answer to a higher authority than the chief pilot. No, not Allah, but the even more scary CAA.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone throw some light on the reason for the 30 min restriction. I don't live in NZ so I don't get it. He departed 10 mins later than he should have, so how his that a serious, dangerous, reckless action? Did anyone get hurt? Just curious.
Geez, just watched the video for the first time. That's pretty dark!
There's nothing in that video that I would consider to be evidence of 'dangerous'.
I would like to know how the cross examination went with the so called 'expert witnesses' there would be much to challenge after looking at the video.
Can anyone find a transcript of the court case?
Interesting words from the judge.
Surely this wasn't about EFATO escape procedures as per the Otago Daily suggests....
The judge who sentenced a Pacific Blue pilot for his careless Queenstown take-off has concerns about industry pressure to keep aircraft ''off the ground''.
Auckland-based captain Roderick Gunn was yesterday fined $5100 for carelessly operating a Sydney-bound aircraft on June 22, 2010, in dark conditions and outside the airline's and Civil Aviation Authority flight rules.
The 55-year-old married father-of-two is still allowed to fly but must undertake extensive training before he renews his licence, which expired during his two-and-a-half-year stand-down following the incident.
Gunn must not operate as pilot-in-command on flights in and out of Queenstown - regarded as a ''category X'' aerodrome with the highest degree of difficulty - for 12 months. During sentencing in the Queenstown District Court, Judge Kevin Phillips said he held concerns about pilots feeling the urgency to keep aircraft moving.
''In my view, there appears to be some degree of either peer pressure or operator pressure to personnel, and I find that alarming that a person as experienced as you has come to need to get this aircraft off the ground, out of Queenstown, in these circumstances,'' he said.
''If there is the prevalent view among senior pilots that `the job has got to be done' then that has to be, in my view, denounced.''
Gunn's good character from his exemplary 30-year commercial flying career ''is now gone forever'' after a wilful disregard for the strict aviation rules, Judge Phillips said. Gunn took off from Queenstown with 64 passengers and six crew at 5.25pm, 11 minutes after the rules stipulated it was safe to do so at that time of year.
That, compounded by low cloud and high crosswinds, meant that a prudent and reasonable pilot would have left the plane grounded. During Gunn's lengthy trial last year, the prosecution case centred on the idea that if there was an engine failure during or immediately after take-off, the plane would not have been able to make it safely out of the mountainous basin and to another airport.
A transcript of an interview with Gunn following the incident showed he regarded flying on that day as ''just another day in the office''. Judge Phillips found that to be an aggravating comment.
''It was denouncing of your duties and denouncing of yourself.
''You seemed to ignore the fact that you had to maintain visibility - not only with the lake and the ground below - but also the mountainous terrain that you had to fly around.
''Somehow, you as pilot-in-command could make your own rules.''
Outside court, Gunn declined to comment, being contractually bound to not say anything. Defence counsel Matthew Muir said: ''I think that Mr Gunn will be delighted that the judge has given him another chance in his career.''
CAA director of civil aviation Graeme Harris welcomed the sentencing.
''Airlines in New Zealand are among the safest in the world and the vast majority of airline pilots are highly professional and focused on the safety of their passengers.
''While we prefer to work with airlines and pilots that share a common interest in safety, there is a threshold beyond which those involved in aviation must be held accountable for their actions.'
Auckland-based captain Roderick Gunn was yesterday fined $5100 for carelessly operating a Sydney-bound aircraft on June 22, 2010, in dark conditions and outside the airline's and Civil Aviation Authority flight rules.
The 55-year-old married father-of-two is still allowed to fly but must undertake extensive training before he renews his licence, which expired during his two-and-a-half-year stand-down following the incident.
Gunn must not operate as pilot-in-command on flights in and out of Queenstown - regarded as a ''category X'' aerodrome with the highest degree of difficulty - for 12 months. During sentencing in the Queenstown District Court, Judge Kevin Phillips said he held concerns about pilots feeling the urgency to keep aircraft moving.
''In my view, there appears to be some degree of either peer pressure or operator pressure to personnel, and I find that alarming that a person as experienced as you has come to need to get this aircraft off the ground, out of Queenstown, in these circumstances,'' he said.
''If there is the prevalent view among senior pilots that `the job has got to be done' then that has to be, in my view, denounced.''
Gunn's good character from his exemplary 30-year commercial flying career ''is now gone forever'' after a wilful disregard for the strict aviation rules, Judge Phillips said. Gunn took off from Queenstown with 64 passengers and six crew at 5.25pm, 11 minutes after the rules stipulated it was safe to do so at that time of year.
That, compounded by low cloud and high crosswinds, meant that a prudent and reasonable pilot would have left the plane grounded. During Gunn's lengthy trial last year, the prosecution case centred on the idea that if there was an engine failure during or immediately after take-off, the plane would not have been able to make it safely out of the mountainous basin and to another airport.
A transcript of an interview with Gunn following the incident showed he regarded flying on that day as ''just another day in the office''. Judge Phillips found that to be an aggravating comment.
''It was denouncing of your duties and denouncing of yourself.
''You seemed to ignore the fact that you had to maintain visibility - not only with the lake and the ground below - but also the mountainous terrain that you had to fly around.
''Somehow, you as pilot-in-command could make your own rules.''
Outside court, Gunn declined to comment, being contractually bound to not say anything. Defence counsel Matthew Muir said: ''I think that Mr Gunn will be delighted that the judge has given him another chance in his career.''
CAA director of civil aviation Graeme Harris welcomed the sentencing.
''Airlines in New Zealand are among the safest in the world and the vast majority of airline pilots are highly professional and focused on the safety of their passengers.
''While we prefer to work with airlines and pilots that share a common interest in safety, there is a threshold beyond which those involved in aviation must be held accountable for their actions.'
The pilot guilty of operating a commercial jet aircraft carelessly in Queenstown has been told his actions were arrogant and "increased the risk of tragedy occurring".
Auckland-based Roderick Gunn, 55, has escaped disqualification from flying but has been fined $5100 plus court costs during his sentence in Queenstown District Court today.
He must undertake extensive retraining, to be overseen by Air New Zealand captain and expert witness in the case Stu Julian. He is also barred from being a pilot-in-command of a flight in and out of Queenstown for 12 months.
Gunn, a pilot with more than 30 years' commercial flying experience, is the Pacific Blue captain who flew out of Queenstown Airport in dark, wintry conditions in his Sydney-bound Boeing 737-800 on June 22, 2010. He was found guilty two weeks ago by Judge Kevin Phillips. Interim name suppression was lifted at the conclusion of his sentence.
Gunn has been stood-down from flying since the incident.
During sentencing, Judge Kevin Phillips told Gunn that despite his exemplary career, he showed a "wilful disregard" for the aviation rules he was bound by.
"There was an arrogance in that your experience and abilities would overcome rules of law," Judge Phillips says.
"Your actions increased the risk on your crew and increased the risk of tragedy occurring in the Queenstown area. Any accident could have been catastrophic."
Lawyer for the Civil Aviation Authority, Fletcher Pilditch, argued prior to sentencing that Gunn should have been disqualified because that would denounce and deter any future incidents by pilots.
He also said Gunn failed to show any remorse or contrition for his offending.
Gunn's lawyer Matthew Muir argued that Gunn's conviction alone was a significant-enough deterrent for others in the aviation industry.
He also reasoned that Gunn has already been barred from flying for two-and-a-half years and would take a further 17 months to get a new licence. Gunn's employment contract also included an option for dismissal if he was disqualified.
Judge Phillips' guilty verdict follows a lengthy trial of Gunn last year.
Gunn took off from Queenstown with 64 passengers at 5.25pm, 11 minutes after the rules stipulated it was safe to do so at that time of year. That, compounded by low cloud and high cross-winds, meant that a prudent and reasonable pilot would have left the plane grounded, Judge Phillips found.
The prosecution case centred on the idea that if there was an engine failure during or immediately after take-off, the plane wouldn't have been able to make it safely out of the mountainous basin and on to another airport.
Auckland-based Roderick Gunn, 55, has escaped disqualification from flying but has been fined $5100 plus court costs during his sentence in Queenstown District Court today.
He must undertake extensive retraining, to be overseen by Air New Zealand captain and expert witness in the case Stu Julian. He is also barred from being a pilot-in-command of a flight in and out of Queenstown for 12 months.
Gunn, a pilot with more than 30 years' commercial flying experience, is the Pacific Blue captain who flew out of Queenstown Airport in dark, wintry conditions in his Sydney-bound Boeing 737-800 on June 22, 2010. He was found guilty two weeks ago by Judge Kevin Phillips. Interim name suppression was lifted at the conclusion of his sentence.
Gunn has been stood-down from flying since the incident.
During sentencing, Judge Kevin Phillips told Gunn that despite his exemplary career, he showed a "wilful disregard" for the aviation rules he was bound by.
"There was an arrogance in that your experience and abilities would overcome rules of law," Judge Phillips says.
"Your actions increased the risk on your crew and increased the risk of tragedy occurring in the Queenstown area. Any accident could have been catastrophic."
Lawyer for the Civil Aviation Authority, Fletcher Pilditch, argued prior to sentencing that Gunn should have been disqualified because that would denounce and deter any future incidents by pilots.
He also said Gunn failed to show any remorse or contrition for his offending.
Gunn's lawyer Matthew Muir argued that Gunn's conviction alone was a significant-enough deterrent for others in the aviation industry.
He also reasoned that Gunn has already been barred from flying for two-and-a-half years and would take a further 17 months to get a new licence. Gunn's employment contract also included an option for dismissal if he was disqualified.
Judge Phillips' guilty verdict follows a lengthy trial of Gunn last year.
Gunn took off from Queenstown with 64 passengers at 5.25pm, 11 minutes after the rules stipulated it was safe to do so at that time of year. That, compounded by low cloud and high cross-winds, meant that a prudent and reasonable pilot would have left the plane grounded, Judge Phillips found.
The prosecution case centred on the idea that if there was an engine failure during or immediately after take-off, the plane wouldn't have been able to make it safely out of the mountainous basin and on to another airport.
Last edited by neville_nobody; 26th Mar 2013 at 22:46.
