With regards to the cameras from the Amazing Race filming the take-off, I was surprised that hadn't received more prominence. A little bit of research, apparently the cameraman was in the witness box early on in proceedings.

‘Feared for passengers’ – flight witness - Queenstown News

Interesting...

Anybody with "time" in their log books also knows that you have to tin plate your back side in this job as well..not being familiar with this operation, on the surface it looks like a straight out rule was broken...why was that rule broken?....been flying for 27 years, done plenty of take off in less than ideal conditions in many parts of the world, but every time I have done so I have applied common sense, a regard for the rules and a liberal dose of tin plating of the back side in case something does go wrong..

Having "time" in the log book is no excuse for ignorance..anybody with "time" in their logbook should recognise that...:ugh::ugh::=:=

sand dune sam........your post is obviously directed at me ,so I shall respond....I too agree with your sentiment ,and yr reasoning.....my point was to emphasize,that there is sometimes a very fine line between legality and infringement when sitting at the end of the runway.......and to suggest that I would encourage anyone to "give it a go" and "see what happens" is ludicrist !!!......I have personal experience at this airport in those conditions(many years ago) and this is not the first time this has been a point of contention............you,being a pilot with 27 yrs tells me otherwise.....like yourself,I spend a lot of time in different countries,different airports etc etc,not to bore you or others........we are always being confronted with "a situations"...and yes ...as you stated ,one must make credible and proper decisions,....but this situation smacks of making "an example" of a crew,where the CAA,The Airline,and any body else that has a gripe.....can hang the Captain................Im all in favour of following the rules,my F/O,s reckon Im anal on that...its what protects us..the SOP,s..u wont find a greater advocate......tin plateing oneself(your term) only goes so far,,...we are paid to do a job,and makes decisions.....and make decisions that are safe,and by the rules.....that we agree.....I have been there,....and I in no way advocate,compromising safety r SOP,s......I do not believe this Captain did.....but then again we will find out

PB I agree mate.. Wasn't having a dig at you... It seems to me that it's an overreaction on the part of the regulator and other vested interests.. I was just making the point we have to tin plate our bums these days that's all..:ok:

Its seems that this issue has to be dragged through the public domain....they do have a right to know,but to what extent.......I find it troubling that this could not have been dealt with,within the walls of those people that really understand these issues and can do something about it,in a professional environment, rather than turning it into a circus.

If,in fact, an infringement did occur,it could have all been handled internally.....The Aviation authorities,The Company and the Flight Crew....The Crew gets taken off line,there is an investigation...no wrong doing ,..back on line....If they are guilty of wrong doing....Then,retraining,line check,a sign off,a bulletin company wide to the rest of the pilot group and back on line...............even if the crew did violate Regs,SOP,s......this is such a piss poor violation,I dont believe it merits the exposure its getting.....I dont buy the "what if".........we deal with the the "what if" every day .....by flying to the SOP,s complying with the regs.....and all this done,internally with no fuss

As flight crew ,we are held to a high standard,I have no issues with that.....but to drag this crew through the public spotlight is ridiculous

Any updates on this?

Only that the proceedings have finished and the judge may take up to 6 months to publish his report and final verdict.

Latest update here from yesterday:

Pacific Blue pilot trial | Pilot confident takeoff... | Stuff.co.nz

An additional report here:

Radio New Zealand : News : National : Co-pilot had safety fears about Queenstown flights

GoDirect,

Your mere posting of the link is misleading as it suggests the FO had fears about the flight. When you actually read the link, however, it discloses that the FO felt the company had not adequately trained him for flights into Queenstown but that he had no doubts about the safety of the flight in question.

Something very different.

Doesn't this whole thing make you tired and depressed..imagine going through the painfully slow NZ court process for a whole bunch of opinion and hearsay!

Just goes to show, there's no place for independent thought in the cockpit these days..if you suspect anything taxi back to the terminal!

By the way, why is the crossing height at toll gate so low..on two engines you could cross it at 12 grand with 60 pax on board?

For PLovett:

My posting of the link has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with respect to what the F/O felt about the flight - it is public information as reported from the ongoing case. For what it's worth, I think this whole thing is crazy and both the crew involved have my empathy as a fellow pilot. Posting a link that is in the public domain already (yesterday) is merely updating this thread that has remained dormant for several months, and is in no way reflective of anybody involved in this ridiculous process - of which we see way too much of in aviation. Chill out.

Must be a strange form of normal departure were the FO starts calling speed (because your too slow?) and the EGPWS starts calling "don't sink" because you are descending on takeoff.

C100, I'd be a little careful reading too much into the calls made...the speed call may have been made with reference to the commanded speed, but may or may not have had any safety implication, with respect to the EGPWS alert, there are plenty of terrain constrained airports around that will give you the exact same warning...again with no implicit safety concerns.
The point being, we have no terms of reference nor access to the company briefing material, lastly and most importantly the F/O from what I have read, felt that there was no major issue here.

Agreed however, you could hardly call either of these "normal"!

Uncommon - yes, occasionally- possible! but not normal!

The Question that should be asked is why in hell are PacBlue not RNP AR certified? The other three jet operators that operate into NZQN are!

C100, just to give you a real world example, I used to fly a bizjet in and out of a few even more terrain constrained airports, the two that spring to mind are Sion and Lugano, and both have special procedures that are similar to Queenstown in the respect that you require specific authorization and minima to depart and arrive over and above what you would consider as standard.
In both instances, I would include in my brief if appropriate things like "we may get a EGPWS "dont sink or terrain" on this departure, if we are VMC and are clear we will consider it spurious or a nuisance warning" etc etc.
So you are right, they certainly aren't normal, but are they an indication of something unsafe happening? without the CVR, the content/context of the departure brief/plan its very hard to say.
In respect of speed, again it could be very easy to construe that as unsafe cause hes going too slow..rather than a call to help keep the PF situationally aware.
Regarding RNP-AR certification....cost maybe? you'd have to ask PB I guess.
As always the devil is in the detail.....

From todays local paper.

Is that correct?
I was under the impression that the NZCAA assessed a company's manual suite and then that manual suite is what the pilot is required by law to operate to. Otherwise, what is the point in having the manuals? We could all just operate according to the NZAIP.

I am not of the opinion that this should have ended up in a public court but now that it has it might set some president regarding SOP´s in NZ.

Also,the paper said that this is the third trial Julian has been an expert witness in. Does anyone know what the other two were? How does that come about? Do some pilots proffer their services as experts? do they step forward always pushing one way ie against CAA

Probably ALPAs go to guy and sympathetic member?

Crossing ht at TOLLGATE
 

The crossing ht. at tollgate is a minimum height, not maximum height, to insure that from that point onwards the aircraft will be able to continue with engine failure and clear the high terrain ahead. The restriction on how high the aircraft can cross tollgate is CLOUD BASE as the departure is a visual departure until reaching tollgate.

The "don't sink" aural call out occurs if the aircraft begins to descend after takeoff, before it has climbed above 700ft agl. Cloud must have been shelving down on takeoff path to below 700ft agl. Requiring the pilot to descend prior to reaching 700ft agl.

If the minimum height at TOLLGATE could not be attained due to low could, the aircraft would be required to fly a visual maneuver in the valley and return to land.

RNP-AR approvals can take over two years for the regulators to approve, in the meantime operators are left with a, less than ideal, departure from Queenstown.

..and if you take a fairly liberal view of the "built up area" rule then you could fly at 500' level all the way round Deer Park before climbing flat out to 3300' and be totally legal so the part of the case involving disturbed members of the public and low flying could've been tossed out in the first 5 minutes.

mattyj quote..."Probably ALPAs go to guy and sympathetic member?"

.....mostly likely mattyj,and a better choice than most......but for me,the experience and input from this part of the "opera",is better than the "armchair" pilots and "wannabe" aviators trying to hang this crew......after reading what the flying Capt has said,I would have done the same thing........or like you previously stated,...dont make command decisions,...taxi back to the gate

I would have thought that taxi back to the gate would have been the command decision that maybe could have been made!

Plan continuation bias is one of the more difficult HF tendencies to recognize.

Mangatete just for the sake of accuracy the "Don't Sink Don't Sink" warning can be triggered without sinking. A reduction in climb rate towards zero will do it on some occasions. It is not that unusual to get it in a low altitude level off.

Pakeha Boy and MattyJ Captain Juian is the NZALPA Technical Director and a previous Regional Vice President of IFALPA. I am aware that he testified at the Palmerston North Dash 8 case... not sure about the other one.

There are some concerning issues being raised in evidence presented by CAA.

Mark Hughes said that pilots cannot override reported weather from ATC. That is incorrectinmy view. Every company I have worked for has encouraged pilots to use their own judgement of visibility etc from the takeoff point. It is a completely different perspective to that of ATC.

C100 Driver you are right about Plan Continuation Bias and you do present a viable option in taxiing back to the terminal.

However a properly considered risk assessment of the takeoff was another option. Your employer and the passengers require you to depart only if you have done that.

Clearly this crew did not just taxi out and go without making that risk assessment. That's what the four stripes are for.

The argument is all about others second guessing that decision without all of the available information. None of the witnesses can really compare what they think those conditions were to the conditions assessed by the crew. They would have had to have been on the flight deck with them or in very close proximity to it with the same level of experience and some qualifications to go along with it. All CAA's witnesses don't cut it in my opinion. They either were there and not qualified or qualified and not there.

If this guy gets convicted it will be a travesty.

BGQ......thanks for input....so this bloke is obviously a reliable"expert" witness...not my words...theirs,but I have no doubts about his ability

C100 also makes a point....I believe his point on "command" decisions which I didnt state,...being that,...it was rather obvious the Capt had this choice.....

I would also agree ,that a conviction would be a travesty

Based on what I've read in the press and spoken to guys who operate and out of NZQN regularly, I have to agree.

Couldn't agree more... we sit in our towers in elevated positions, usually half way down the runway and outside the obstacle clearance fan and do our best to report overall conditions using instruments that maybe measuring conditions in yet another different location, but we don't have an accurate picture of what it is actually like on the ground, at the threshold. The Crew are "Johnny on the spot" and usually have a much clearer picture of what the actual conditions are, and being at the pointy end (and usually the first on the scene at an accident!) have a significantly higher vested interest in getting it right.

slackie mate...actually quite refreshing to hear that....most of us have been in positions ,whether it be in the take-off or landing mode ....and had differences of opinion on "reported weather" versus "actual weather'.......civil twiligt etc is hard to dispute.......Ive had issues requesting visual approaches after civil twilight times,and been dinied and having to do a full app,s....no worries...good practice...co-operate graduate......Ive always had issues leaving the "gate"....officialy now dispatched...and being confined by civil twilight times for "SIDS" ....and complying with company/CAA/FAA/ rules regarding those ops....either 91/135/121....and supplemental.....personally...this CAPT was doing"his job"

I don´t think he should be tried in a criminal hearing at all, but now that he is I think regardless of the weather at the time he is going to find it hard to justify taking off after ´30 mins prior to ECT´.
Even if the weather was CAVOK and nil wind.....how do you justify it given that the reason the rule is there, is to allow you enough time to get around the circuit and land before it's too dark. There are dozens of reasons why a return would be preferable to a divert to NZCH, thats why they are not the only airline to have that rule. He would have to argue that it was safer to use his command powers to break the rule than to return to the gate and put everyone in a hotel. I can´t imagine that argument being successful.
Does anyone know why this ended up in court instead of being dealt with through some retraining?
My GP made a dubious judgement call last year, everything worked out well though, I suffered no harm.....why isn´t he in court?

Also, remember as PIC you are a qualified met observer. Perhaps, and I obviously wasn't there, they may have been better to state their plan to ATC to maintain LL til a certain point (past the cloud) and climb. Not like ATC had a lot of other departures!