Pacific Blue Queenstown incident

[monkou]

Roderick & Goliath

This has been a typically pathetic saga of the Airways Corp chest beating with CAA in tow to show they do exist & will keep us all safe from the perils of independant thought & decision makers of the real world. The justice ministry have come along for the ride - a junket for them in fact. And Rod has been stood down on full pay for how long has this taken? How productive and to be eventually fined what around $5,000. What a circus! How much has this debacle cost the NZ tax payer - anyone like to state a figure here? One man against who - the sick sleazy pathetic government departments of New Zealand. I would have thought an incident report would have been sufficient with some internal discussions but no you government departments are so damned out of control you just have to make a bloody circus of it all. I have no respect for CAA Airways Corp or the Ministry of Justice over this - you make me want to puke. The only arrogance I have seen in all of this has come from the judge (wanted to be a pilot but failed obviously).There, I said it and gosh I feel so much better. As for you rule quoters and paper shufflers - why not join the dickheads in the govt departments as it would appear their jobs are ideally suited to your personalities. Oh! I am feeling better all the time, such a load of my hairy chest. Good luck Rod and don't worry about your lack of currency. Push the stick forward the houses get bigger & vice versa. I suspect you've been the sim trg capt for the past yr or so. You look good in that suit and tie, very smart. Need to work on reclaiming that fine back plus interest. Cheers.

[Tarq57]

Monkou,
what involvement did Airways have regarding your above vent?

[monkou]

"ZQN ATC had a fit when the a/c departed" - Sqwark2000.
One would assume they (ATC) provided CAA with the ammunition to take it to court or is any man in the streets interpretation of aviation events now sufficient. Why not - we have judges ignoring expert witnesses. One has to question why ATC would not have made the radio coms comment that the airport was now closed to operations. We all know the time pressures and general chaos that can exist in trying to maintain time tables but this crucifixion of the Captain is akin to the police & judiciary prosecuting the drug users and forgetting about the drug suppliers. How convenient -easy pickings like police and motor vehicles. The easy way out is the way of governments and their barking dogs - CAA, Airways, Ministry of Justice/judges because it gives them a bone.

[Offcut]

But the airport wasn't closed. It's up to the crew to decide whether the conditions meet the limits for their operation, not ATC. As an example, and I'm not saying QT has a curfew as such, but in WLG, ATC will clear you for takeoff or landing during the curfew. It is up to the pilot to ensure he does not break the rules. I wouldn't be too quick to blame ATC for allowing them to take-off. I'm not sure they even have the right to deny you take-off clearance unless the airport is actually closed. In my experience, NZ ATC are one of the least malicious around.

[Tarq57]

monkou, ATC are not a regulatory body. If they (we) become aware of an incident -any incident - a report is required by law.

Failure to do this results in dismissal.


"ZQN ATC had a fit" is, indeed, a classic reporting of the facts.

[framer]

from the perils of independant thought & decision makers of the real world

Your argument doesn't stack up. To be clear, I don't think this should have gone to court either but...... Someone made a decision that a Pacific Blue aircraft wouldn't take off with less than 30 mins until ECT so that the aircraft could use that 30mins to visually circuit and land if an engine was lost. They sat around a table and decided that to mitigate the risks of high terrain in Queenstown they would put that rule in place. That is a real world decision on running an airline. The Captain was aware of it. Do you suggest that all company SOP's go out the window and it's left solely to the Captain to decide where and when he/ she flys? Or just some of the SOP's be adhered to? Maybe the top ten most restrictive SOP's should be adhered to and it's up to the Captain whether they follow the others?
This should have been dealt with differently but your rant about " real world decision makers" is rubbish. The company made decisions about the risk it wanted it's aircraft and passengers exposed to.....is that not a legitimate decision?

[monkou]

Framer framed

Yes Framer I am suggesting SOPS & OPS be thrown out the window but I doubt there is one big enough on anything commercially built. What have they ever contributed other than the demise of millions of trees. We have the AIP and Approach Charts, the Captain has a medical & a ATPL and has studied Air Transport Aviation Law. All this other stuff in ring binders is garbage designed by people who should be in politics/bureaucracy - preferably somewhere else but not here. The buck stops with the Captain's/Crew's decision based upon their experience and situation/conditions on the day. I am sick & tired of shiny bums dictating how to fly when they can't. We don't need all this other garbage which keeps the non contributing sector in a job riding the coat tails of productive people. How we ever allowed all this BS to creep in is beyond me. Must have happened while we were out flying - you know carrying the passengers who pay the money who pay for the fuel and engineers and repayments to the bank and all that stuff the industry of parasites has never seen let alone lost sight of. The paper shuffling brigade have never and never will add anything to flight safety, if anything they make the job harder by there constant amendments to the ring binder - just how much space do you think the average human has in their hard drive for this crap. The job is only complicated because of the fine print the paper shufflers constantly vomit. Don't we see it all the time - the paper shufflers have had a dream on the weekend and come monday none of us is any longer qualified or experienced enough to continue doing what we've been doing for the past 30 plus years - better go and do a course on this or that - it's policy, in the ops manual,SOPs -give me a break. This industry is the worse for the paper - just wish they made it out of tissue so it could be used before I flush.

[Ollie Onion]

Have to disagree, he new the rule with regard to the 30 minute before ECT and he knowingly broke it. SIMPLE!! It shouldn't have gone to court, should have been an internal investigation and remedy.

But at the end of the day it is 'THEIR TRAIN SET'. As long as 'they' buy the aircraft, market the routes, sell the tickets and more importantly, put my salary in my bank account on time every month, I am quite happy to abide by 'their' rules.

I am still perplexed by this particular situation, I am always looking for an 'excuse' to get off the aircraft and go to the pub, in Queenstown I would be very adverse to going anywhere when I can justify not going!!

[monkou]

Hi Tarq57 OK point taken apologies offered but I just think there should have been a better way of dealing with this other than CAA taking the Captain to court. Perhaps then Airways bears no blame in this other than reporting the facts but really I think this has gotten so far out of hand to be more of a detriment to the industry in the public eye than ever there was likely to be from a safety aspect. We all want to get home safely when we leave the ground. How did it get to this from comments from people on the ground! I think CAA should keep themselves busy prosecuting pilots posthumously and leave the live ones alone that way they'd be communicating with people of similar thought processes - just a thought.

[monkou]

Now Ollie Onion I think you should make your roster public knowledge by advertising it in all major newspapers and on line.The people demand to know when you will be in and out of Queenstown so they know not to book that flight. They want the 'Can Do' attitude who's gonna get them to Sydney not the minute past Pumpkin Hour attitude that sends operators broke and people back to their hotels. Oh there's a thought - you don't by chance have a commercial interest in accomodation in Queenstown do you? Oh how this could yet yield more dirty linen. There must be something in the SOPs about a 'conflict of interest' surely - let me check with Ops.

[Tarq57]

Originally Posted by monkou

Hi Tarq57 OK point taken apologies offered but I just think there should have been a better way of dealing with this other than CAA taking the Captain to court.

I don't disagree with that.

[monkou]

LINKHOG capitane

Oh yeah while I am at Capt Link Hog- you sound similarly like one of those S4brains I met there at Link once - Oh what an experience it was to lucheon with you all - totally unforgetable. There wasn't anything you didn't or couldn't know. In fact your ars3s were so smart you knew everything b4 it happened. I'm sure you could use the soft tissue too. Suggest you go back to the pig trough and when you have something of value to add don't call me - just jump I'll be there to catch you not. If your'e with the link I think then your organisation is a disgrace having experienced its SOPs and Ops personally and how would you have done it out of Queenstown - probably not taken off from Nelson is my pick.

[Ollie Onion]

Really, my passengers want a Captain in charge who is willing to break the rules to get them to their destination. I believe in my human factors training this was called 'get-there-itis' and I am sure it was discouraged. A can do attitude in my book is to explore ALL options available to you within the rules to find a solution to a problem. Blatantly ignoring rules set out in your ops manual is not a 'can do' attitude but more an example of negligence of your duty. What rules are 'important' enough to observe??

Say your medical expires today and you are delayed meaning that if you take off you will land 1 minute past midnight with an expired medical, would you bend this rule?

Your DA for an approach is 250 ft, cloud being reported as overcast at 200 ft, at the DA you are not visual, do you demonstrate your can do attitude and push on a bit further so not to disappoint you passengers?

Your Op's manual says a minimum of 5 cabin crew required for a flight where as the legislation says 4 is the minimum. One of your crew doesn't report for work, do you load the passengers and go anyway?

[Kharon]

Boys, may I ask a couple of questions. 1) It's very difficult to tell from the 'video', but I got the impression that the take off was pretty much 'on sched' but was there was a delay due to excess cross-wind?. 2) Was the 'departure' time defined i.e. off blocks, or, wheels up or, 1500 ft, etc. or was it loosely worded e.g. departure will be no later than ELCT – 30 minutes ??......

Only not so idle curiosity at this stage.

[prospector]

Your Op's manual says a minimum of 5 cabin crew required for a flight where as the legislation says 4 is the minimum. One of your crew doesn't report for work, do you load the passengers and go anyway?

Your pax load is less than 50%, are you allowed to make a judgement call and load and go? It would appear, after this case at Queenstown has played itself out, the answer would be no. The man in the Court House knows best.

[neville_nobody]

Blatantly ignoring rules set out in your ops manual is not a 'can do' attitude but more an example of negligence of your duty.

Problem for people like Ollie is that due to the ridiculous number of procedures and rules now in aviation nothing is blatant. The fact that this become a saga goes to show it is not blatant beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The second problem is that the company may not hold the same interpretation to rules that you do, what then and who is right?

Was the 'departure' time defined i.e. off blocks, or, wheels up or, 1500 ft, etc. or was it loosely worded e.g. departure will be no later than ELCT – 30 minutes ??.....

Yes the issue of departure was debated but until we can find a transcript it will be hard to know what came of it.

I believe the pilot said off blocks was the departure whilst the CAA disagreed.

[nike]

The modern journalist loves the PPRuNe cut 'n' paste......


Pacific Blue Pilot Roderick Gunn's Case A Legal... | Stuff.co.nz

[canterbury crusader]

Pacific Blue Pilot Roderick Gunn's Case A Legal... | Stuff.co.nz

Now your all aviation commentators. Doesn't it give you a warm fuzzy feeling. Lazy reporting John Edens.

[always inverted]

Prospector... The simple answer to what you answered would be, if it is in your manual to operate with a reduced compliment of crew, then yes, you may go, if not, then no...
Wow, quotes from here will be taken as gospel now on... if it makes the paper then it must be true...
Departure time is taken as time of takeoff... Dispatched wrt a maint issue and the associated MEL relief may be time of pushback or once the engineer has disconnected... May be different between operators.

[clack100]

Hey John Edens..

As per my earlier post..

How about asking the CAA what they intend doing about the passengers videoing the departure. It's illegal! They were using an electronic device at a stage of flight where this is not permitted. Yet the CAA have seen fit to ignore this and use the footage as evidence...