Pacific Blue Queenstown incident

[Oakape]

The judge has handed down his decision in the PB Queenstown case.

Pacific Blue pilot found guilty
March 8, 2013, New Zealand


A pilot has been found guilty of careless operation of a passenger jet, following a takeoff incident in Queenstown in 2010.

Fairfax Media reports the decision was handed down in a written judgement on the charge that the 54-year-old pilot, who still has name suppression, operated a Pacific Blue Boeing 737 in a careless manner.

The June 22, 2010 incident saw the plane take off from Queenstown to Sydney at 5.25pm. The Civil Aviation Authority said the pilot shouldn't have taken off after 5.14pm, due to rules that departing aircraft need at least 30 minutes before the civil twilight cut-off of 5.45pm.

During a trial, the defence said the pilot's actions were correct and any breach of requirements was "below the level of carelessness".

However, Judge Kevin Phillips' ruling today said safety margins at that time were "seriously impacted".

"I am satisfied that no reasonable and prudent pilot ... would have commenced the takeoff roll," the judge said.

"I am satisfied the defendant was careless in his manner of operating the aircraft. The defendant ignored the mandatory requirements and, in their place, used his planning and self designed contingency."

[Ejector]

Gezz, how many times have the rules been broken in GA. Ouch.

[Wally Mk2]

I wouldn't mind betting that the PIC was under considerable commercial pressure, it's rife right thru out the industry from crop dusters to heavy international transport. It's called OTP, the leading cause of many rules being pushed!


Wmk2

[ramble on]

Its my bet that the real kicker for this chap will be that due to commercial pressures it won't be long before night operations occur at QN.

For the corporate jets fitted with HUDs and EVS (infra red vision systems) it's not much different night or day already.

[skol]

This guy had the "can-do" attitude and is going to pay the price, the same as the RNZAF is going to hang a guy for the "can-do" attitude.

[Ken Borough]

Why is this pilot's name suppressed? He's been found guilty of an offence by a judicial officer. Few others found guilty are not so lucky.

[headwires]

I think Sledge Hammer sums up the courts decision best: "I've seen better decisions made by ouija boards"

[Ken Borough]

Gate_15L

I'm neither a wannabe nor an anorak. And I know nothing about Microsoft Flight Sim 2000. What a shame you weren't taught correct spelling and grammar?

Pray, tell me why this guilty person's name should be suppressed? If he turned out to be a hero, you'd be shouting his name from the top of a building.

[deadhead]

Well people, Ken did ask a fair question, even as his supporting argument indicates the opposite. The answer is that the defendant hasn't been sentenced yet. His interim name suppression is set to be lifted at his next court appearance on March 26th, so Ken can slake his thirst at the trough of voyeuristic schadenfreude then. Knock yourself out

[Ken Borough]

Thanks DH but I'm still puzzled. Where I live, as soon as a defendant appears in court on trial, he or she is invariably named. The same generally applies to a bail hearing. Sentencing at a date subsequent to that on which a verdict has been handed down does not necessarily mean anonymity for the guilty party. What is different in this instance?

BTW, I couldn't give a FF about the identity of the person concerned. It just goes to show that some are more equal before the law than others!

[ad-astra]

Ken take it up with the Judge. Its his train set!

[On Track]

Ken, name suppression is quite common in NZ courts, at least in the early stages of proceedings. Don't ask me why.

[Servo]

Did the company support him?

[Ken Borough]

Thank you On Track, that's all I needed to know. The "red-necks" would go crazy were that the practice in my country.

[nike]

It's a small country. Forget 6 degrees, try 2 degrees....

[prospector]

"I am satisfied the defendant was careless in his manner of operating the aircraft

And from what aeronautical experience does this "satisfaction" spring?

Does not a lawyer or a doctor have to appear before a panel of their peers to adjudicate whether they have acted in an imprudent way?

It brings to mind "Rules are for the blind obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"

Surely it would be up to experienced aviation people, his peers, to judge whether these reported actions could be classed as "careless", not a judge who perhaps has absolutely no knowledge of things aeronautical.

.

[skol]

The moral of the story is, don't break the rules, and don't subscribe to the 'can-do' attitude, because if you make a mess of it your employer will be the last one to thank you for completing the mission.

Your contract will spell it out.

[haughtney1]

The moral is, operate to the most conservative set of applicable regulations and beware a regulator with a point to prove.

[27/09]

Did the company support him?

I don't know, but I think he was/is still employed by them, so, if that is the case, it would indicate some level of support.

And from what aeronautical experience does this "satisfaction" spring?

Precisely

I wouldn't be surprised to see an appeal lodged along with further name suppression.

[always inverted]

Yes the company has been supporting him...