Pacific Blue Queenstown incident
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Back Paddock
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Essentially due to the terrain Woodja, pilots need to visually position onto a SID.
There may be some newer fancy RNAV departures but in general the SIDs have minimum altitudes, different for different weights, that the aircraft must achieve before going IMC-a visual segment to position onto an IFR SID. From these minimum altitudes the engine out performance allows the aircraft to continue climb and terrain clearance on the SID.
If an engine failure occurs (or even two engine an aircraft will encounter IMC) before this minimum altitude the aircraft will need to remain VMC and return to ZQN. Without airport lightning and surrounding terrain lighting, the need to have time (daylight) to do this is obvious. Hence operators stipulate a time prior to ECT that an aircraft needs to depart to allow time for this eventuality. For some this requirement changed/became more restrictive in the aftermath of this incident.
There may be some newer fancy RNAV departures but in general the SIDs have minimum altitudes, different for different weights, that the aircraft must achieve before going IMC-a visual segment to position onto an IFR SID. From these minimum altitudes the engine out performance allows the aircraft to continue climb and terrain clearance on the SID.
If an engine failure occurs (or even two engine an aircraft will encounter IMC) before this minimum altitude the aircraft will need to remain VMC and return to ZQN. Without airport lightning and surrounding terrain lighting, the need to have time (daylight) to do this is obvious. Hence operators stipulate a time prior to ECT that an aircraft needs to depart to allow time for this eventuality. For some this requirement changed/became more restrictive in the aftermath of this incident.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: AUSTRALIA - CHINA STHN
Age: 59
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks
great thanks, so I take it that the takeoff
minima for QT is essentially VFR only, and
day ( ie night VFR is out to reach the IMC Sid
start point?
my question still holds about a return to
QT.. that is if you departed at ect- 30 , and
lost a donk , are you legal to return , as you are now flying
at night.. from the fact you can't takeoff after ect-30 now defined as night?
..so is an RTB illegal in that case and diversion more desirable/ required ?
I guess my point is , if the captain departed late, but still in day vmc to get to
the IMC section of the SID, with the intention
of NOT returning to QT with a failure should it occur, had he
met the intention of the rule , that is ability to recover
the jet to a suitable airport ( not QT) if required?
ie did he consider an 'equivalent' level of safety in the decision process. ?
i have only been into QT once many years ago in a C130
and it was 8/8ths blue so we just flew up Milford sound at 250' and up into the strip... so not really what this chap was up against WX wise ..
I still think legal action a tad OTT but maybe I am out of touch with all aspects of the event. ta
minima for QT is essentially VFR only, and
day ( ie night VFR is out to reach the IMC Sid
start point?
my question still holds about a return to
QT.. that is if you departed at ect- 30 , and
lost a donk , are you legal to return , as you are now flying
at night.. from the fact you can't takeoff after ect-30 now defined as night?
..so is an RTB illegal in that case and diversion more desirable/ required ?
I guess my point is , if the captain departed late, but still in day vmc to get to
the IMC section of the SID, with the intention
of NOT returning to QT with a failure should it occur, had he
met the intention of the rule , that is ability to recover
the jet to a suitable airport ( not QT) if required?
ie did he consider an 'equivalent' level of safety in the decision process. ?
i have only been into QT once many years ago in a C130
and it was 8/8ths blue so we just flew up Milford sound at 250' and up into the strip... so not really what this chap was up against WX wise ..
I still think legal action a tad OTT but maybe I am out of touch with all aspects of the event. ta
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess with the rnp ar ops into ZQN they may need to review the 30 min issue because when they depart under ar , it does not provide a mechanism to come back to ZQN. Well not easily anyway, you either continues with the Sid if the failure is after the branch point, or you continue via the engine out Sid which takes you to invercargill if the failure is before... So in essence, why would you need the 30 min req. if you can launch on some ugly rnp.18/.30 minima day knowing that if you have a failure at v1 you will still continue via the engine out Sid to invercargill and make a decision once above terrain whether to go there or somewhere moe suitable. All you would need then is the required vis to depart by day.
Will be better once phase 2 is complete too...
Will be better once phase 2 is complete too...
The ECT - 30 minutes is not intended to redefine 'night'. It is there because as an IFR departure the initial part of the SID requires visual manoeuvring to achieve terrain clearance. If you lose an engine during this phase then in some cases your ONLY option is a return to ZQN, as you may not be able the achieve terrain clearance on one engine.
The 30 minutes is intended to provide you with sufficient time to position and land back whilst still remaining in daylight. No doubt there is a nice buffer built in, but it is there in the op's manual as a hard limit.
Where this Captain came unstuck is he applied the logic that he was confident that given the conditions and aircraft weight he could continue the instrument departure on one engine and would not need to return to ZQN and therefore the - 30 wouldn't apply.
As stated above with RNP departures you will be above the MSA before you can return anyway so most would divert. Probably makes the - 30 a bit redundant.
The 30 minutes is intended to provide you with sufficient time to position and land back whilst still remaining in daylight. No doubt there is a nice buffer built in, but it is there in the op's manual as a hard limit.
Where this Captain came unstuck is he applied the logic that he was confident that given the conditions and aircraft weight he could continue the instrument departure on one engine and would not need to return to ZQN and therefore the - 30 wouldn't apply.
As stated above with RNP departures you will be above the MSA before you can return anyway so most would divert. Probably makes the - 30 a bit redundant.
Prosecuting pilot cost $180,000 plus
Prosecuting pilot cost $180,000 plus | Otago Daily Times Online News : Otago, South Island, New Zealand & International News
Prosecuting pilot cost $180,000 plus | Otago Daily Times Online News : Otago, South Island, New Zealand & International News
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
Well thank goodness they put our medical application fees up 3000% otherwise the midwinter xmas party at Logan brown would have to be cancelled!!
