Pacific Blue Queenstown incident
Does what it says on the box....
In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.
John Edens, you are a plagiarist. Just like sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, you are the lowest form of journalism, if what you write could be even called that.
Next time at least cite the URL of the site you took comment from.
The video evidence is a very good point and I wonder now if there is a technicality there as Oakape alludes to, that there is legal precedent for illegally gathered evidence to be considered inadmissible in the court of law...
You'd think surely the Q.C would have thought of that right?!
Not to mention the way NZ loves to use safety recording devices such as flight data and voice recordings to pursue criminal proceedings.. thats a beauty too...
Last edited by Gate_15L; 1st Apr 2013 at 00:29.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was the first prosecution and CAA look to have thrown everything at it, even overlooking something like the video footage, they would be clutching at straws with it anyway cause it doesnt show much, but they needed all the help they could, guess the judge felt sorry for them.
Hope the judgement is going to be appealed, and a review of the cost justification of the case...
Hope the judgement is going to be appealed, and a review of the cost justification of the case...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Auckland
Age: 52
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regards the use of video cameras, what makes you think it is illegal. According to Use of Electronics Onboard the Flight | Virgin Australia "Video and still cameras" ... "may be used at anytime onboard the aircraft". In any case, as the recordings were for a commercial TV program, I am sure that if it wasn't allowed, there would be exemptions whereby if the proper paperwork was filled in it would be permitted.
I just wonder what impact those competitors being onboard had on the Go decision that was made. What is the impact on the production company if 2/3 of the competitors are in Sydney and the other 1/3 are a day late arriving? How would Pacific Blue have liked it if the resulting episode when it screened showed their flight not going?
(for those wondering what was being filmed, read through here ‘Feared for passengers’ – flight witness - Queenstown News)
I just wonder what impact those competitors being onboard had on the Go decision that was made. What is the impact on the production company if 2/3 of the competitors are in Sydney and the other 1/3 are a day late arriving? How would Pacific Blue have liked it if the resulting episode when it screened showed their flight not going?
(for those wondering what was being filmed, read through here ‘Feared for passengers’ – flight witness - Queenstown News)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But they wouldn't be told much apart from it was to too late to depart due to not having lights on the runway. Wouldn't be the pilots fault the x wind was too high also, can't change the weather. Don't think the crew would have given a toss who was on board and very much doubt that would have had ANY bearing on the decision to go or not...
Alan Kirker? An unusual surname, which is also shared by someone who works for or used to work for CAA.
Last edited by 27/09; 1st Apr 2013 at 10:29.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think theres a distinction betw evidence being obtained illegally and that coming coming into existance through illegal activity.
if that were not the case the cops would never have any admisible evidence at all for any crime
if that were not the case the cops would never have any admisible evidence at all for any crime
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another need for RNP !!!
Sounds like he needed to have RNP. Apparently just one more case where ops beyond air carriers also now need RNP, for safe as well as reliable 24/7/365 operations, especially as at locations like this.
Geez, just watched the video for the first time. That's pretty dark!
The quality of light is certain, ie it is flat and not sunny.
I trust someone told the judge this?
Remember that in the reality series genre, scenes are edited out of context for maximum dramatic effect.
Images are also graded (manipulated) in post to suit the mood, so the night shot may have been graded to look darker to match the dialogue.
In this case the dialouge of a passenger who at the time of the take off was extremely anxious. His interview would have probably been coached by producers some time after the event and probably recorded after the scene was edited! So he may have been coached to say pithy comments to match the edited piece.
I trust the judge viewed the rushes (raw footage) and was not misinformed by this dramatised version that showed events out of context?
Was there any interaction between flight crew and producers?
The pilots announcements were very handy to "set the scene", just asking.
Mickjoebill
Last edited by mickjoebill; 1st Apr 2013 at 23:58.
Tom Imrich
Another need for RNP !!!
Sounds like he needed to have RNP. Apparently just one more case where ops beyond air carriers also now need RNP, for safe as well as reliable 24/7/365 operations, especially as at locations like this.
Tom Imrich
90% of your total posts contain a reference to the lack of RNP. You've blamed 4 separate accidents/incidents and one court case on the lack of RNP. It's a little odd.
Explanation ?
Another need for RNP !!!
Sounds like he needed to have RNP. Apparently just one more case where ops beyond air carriers also now need RNP, for safe as well as reliable 24/7/365 operations, especially as at locations like this.
Tom Imrich
90% of your total posts contain a reference to the lack of RNP. You've blamed 4 separate accidents/incidents and one court case on the lack of RNP. It's a little odd.
Explanation ?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nzqn has rnp approaches now... I can't see an ILS down there any time there are big hills in the way, rnp-ar approaches get you down to a couple of hundred feet anyway so why would you bother. Would not have eliminated this issue anyway.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Auckland
Age: 81
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RNP
These two links are the best a recreational pilot can offer you about NZQN.
Required navigation performance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Queenstown Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Required navigation performance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Queenstown Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: AUSTRALIA - CHINA STHN
Age: 59
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Open Question takeoff alternate..
Without knowing all the ops manual rules etc... what is the limitation on the daylight takeoff.. is it so that the aircraft can return in VMC or is it so that the departure can be conducted in VMC due obstacle etc?? I would think that regardless of the wx etc that an engine failure at V1 would require the aircraft to follow an EOP to achieve LSALT regardless of WX/LIGHT etc?
If so, and an immediate return required this could happen at anytime... for example the case of a takeoff in LOW VIS such that an immediate return to the departure airport is not possible, most operators ( and it varies ) have a takeoff alternate nominated within , typically one hour or so... ( and given this would have been an ETOPS flight to SYD , the aircraft would have been ETOPS signed out I expect?
Thus, in terms of risk/safety etc I dont see what the pilot( and I should say crew as it was a crew decision) has done particularly heinously?
If he had a V1 fail, would he have not followed the EOP and diverted to Wellington or Christhchurch or similar??
If anything I have asked seems silly or I dont understand the situation please enlighten me.. apart from a breach of a rule... which could be the same as any random rule.. like not wearing hat or dayglo vest in a walkaround... it seems rather harsh punishment to me... glad I am not a KIWI pilot as this had probably tarnished the no blame, systems approach we are supposed to be enlightened about???
WJA
If so, and an immediate return required this could happen at anytime... for example the case of a takeoff in LOW VIS such that an immediate return to the departure airport is not possible, most operators ( and it varies ) have a takeoff alternate nominated within , typically one hour or so... ( and given this would have been an ETOPS flight to SYD , the aircraft would have been ETOPS signed out I expect?
Thus, in terms of risk/safety etc I dont see what the pilot( and I should say crew as it was a crew decision) has done particularly heinously?
If he had a V1 fail, would he have not followed the EOP and diverted to Wellington or Christhchurch or similar??
If anything I have asked seems silly or I dont understand the situation please enlighten me.. apart from a breach of a rule... which could be the same as any random rule.. like not wearing hat or dayglo vest in a walkaround... it seems rather harsh punishment to me... glad I am not a KIWI pilot as this had probably tarnished the no blame, systems approach we are supposed to be enlightened about???
WJA