No RNP for PacificBlue. The Company Port briefing essentially details the info above

It is work in progress but as it stands PB do not have RNP approval for ZQN operations.

Well I suppose thats one novel way of removing any chance of an airline ever hiring you in NZ....

the plane took off on runway 23 and travelled down frankton arm at about 2200 AMSL. (1100 above lake)

they followed the standard departure route at this altitude till they crossed back over land near jacks point, jardines.

upon getting there they most likely picked up the VOR and buried the throttles.

i watched it and certainly considered it unusual but they remained in VFR till they had a fair bit of altitude. i saw them last with plenty of altitude overhead the tollgate reporting point.


it does not help matter when the media talks to someone who plants his ass on a jetski all day and has no involvement in the local aviation industry other than in a company trying to start a float operation.

facts
 

Not true

ATC was on watch but do not make the go or no go decision with reference to weather. Weather information is given and it is up to the pilot to decide whether or not the required minima exists.

There is no requirement in the AIP for flights to be airborne 30min prior to ECT.

and glad you enjoy the service

Concur. That bloke's been a pain in the regions collective arse since the 1st day he was appointed. He doesn't like letting too much time pass before he sees his name in the paper again either.

When I was there, the guys and gals in QN tower/flight-service (yup, including MF) were to an individual superb. Especially when the chips were down.

This whole thing stinks to me of a media beat-up, with the charge led by the... incomparable (yeah, that's the word I was searching for :rolleyes: ) John Campbell.

So incensed was I with Campbell Lives pathetic "I thought I was gonna die" media beat up reporting, I wrote into TV3 explaining that passengers and PPLs make singularly bad and unreliable witnesses. I did receive a response from a lady by the name of Pip, she told me they had tried to find a Professional Pilot and someone from PacBlue to comment, but had found no one.....clearly they didn't look very hard:hmm:

I'm not entirely familiar with this particular departure, however, it does appear to be fairly standard with regard to the visual segment, despite the Aussies "waiting for the Captain to tell us we were going to ditch" comment:rolleyes::ugh: And this gem, "I could see the lights in the houses":rolleyes: Absolute garbage from start to finish. :yuk:

As for Campbells pained facial expressions during the re-telling of what was a departure in mountainous terrain in turbulence, it was farcical and he should review the tape....its nothing short of embarrasing:mad::=

But you've missed the most pressing problem, there are no runway lead-in lights, you can't takeoff like that! :eek:

Pacific Blue pilot charged after safety compromised - CAA
 

The Civil Aviation Authority has charged the pilot of a Pacific Blue passenger jet for allegedly compromising safety by taking off from Queenstown Airport last year after the deadline for departures.

It was reported at the time Flight DJ89 departed Queenstown for Sydney on June 22 in darkness, potentially endangering the 140 passengers and crew aboard.

CAA said today that two charges had been laid under the Civil Aviation Act following an extensive investigation into the departure of the B737-800 aircraft from Queenstown, in conditions of poor light and visibility.

"The investigation concluded that the airline's procedures and operating conditions were breached in this take off...and that safety was compromised as a result."

Director of Civil Aviation Steve Douglas said that the airline had not been charged.

"I am satisfied that Pacific Blue had the appropriate procedures in place for operations conducted at Queenstown," he said.

The matter was now sub judice and the CAA would not comment on the case until it was heard in the Queenstown District Court.

Queenstown is surrounded by mountainous terrain and has no radar or runway lights.

CAA spokesman Bill Sommer said after the incident that airlines operating out of Queenstown must depart no later than 30 minutes before twilight as a precaution.

"If anything does happen they've got sufficient time to return to the airfield and land."

NZPA

Is it a requirement in NZ to be able to return to the airfield of departure in the event of a problem? Or is there no EDTO Takeoff Adequate within range?

30 before ECT take off out of NZQN,
Interesting as this is not a rule.

So on the basis of an extensive investigation....media intrigue...and no legal requirements (apart from rigourous company ops procedures) criminal? charges have been laid under the CAA act?
What about a takeoff alternate? What about a S/E procedure that allows a climb to MSA? what about a bit more info pertaining to Pac Blue's operation? and how those reg's are supposidly used as a basis for enforcement action? (or am I missing the point?)

no need to worry arent PB pulling out of zqn soon anyway...

No but it's a requirement that you can land somewhere.
When departing Queenstown non rnp you always have a plan A and a plan B (like most flights I guess) . What this guy did was compromise his PLan B.
eg Plan A, you climb to around about 5500ft VMC, at this stage, if you have two engines you have enough height to be able to lose one, go IMC, and still get out of the valley without hitting a hill. Plan B, get to 5400ft VMC, realise you can't make 5500ft without going IMC, descend and return into a visual figure of 8 pattern at the feild, and land. Part of plan B involves having enough daylight left to be able to depart, realise you can''t meet the requirements of the departure, go into the figure of 8 in order to align with the strip, and then conduct a visual landing. The 30 minutes is to allow you enough time to do that if Plan A doesn't work, and every now and then, Plan A doesn't work. Hope that helps explain it.

Is this pilot still working at PB? Is it true he is a Checkie? Have the company supported him and handled it well?

I understand Farmer but what's the CAA's proof? A couple of scared pax who had never been to Qn before?

The only hard evidence is the breaking of the Op's manuals 30 min ECT deadline.
Trying to put a mess like this in front of judge will be hard work for CAA but with pressure on them they had to come up with something.

Fair enough, but surely the tower can tell you the cloudbase so you know you are going to be able to do the SID visual segment? I can't imagine an RPT jet operation zooming up to the base of the cloud, having a look and then figure-of-eighting back down because they were going to go IMC on the Visual Segment. Bit of a hick operation if that's the case.

As for performance/engine failure, it would seem to me that a non-RNP departure is no different to an RNP departure. Engine failure at 1000ft IMC on the RNP and then make 500ft/nm all the way up to 9800ft? I'd like to see that.

How much more do they need? Thems the rules.

Its quite a bit different. An escape path that can have curved legs wherever you want, guided by GPS instead of straight lines to/from a navaid, dead reckoning, arcs and timed turns. Who said the RNP T/O minima is 1000'?
Yep, its true.

How you navigate to avoid the hills is immaterial, provided you can.

Nobody.