Queenstown Pacific Blue takeoff pilots stood down

[pilotgallagher01]

Not too impressive....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3960371/Qu...lots-stood-down

[HercFeend]

If the timings, reports & eye witness accounts are accurate this is shocking!

WTH was he thinking?? Classic case of push-on-ituss compounded by commercial concerns imposed by the operator - unfortunately neither of which will stand up as good reasons for his decision making at his tribunal.

[mfraser]

I wouldn't place make stock in the eye witness reports - especially if they're just casual observers/non-aviation types. I've received countless phonecalls in the Tower from concerned citizens about the 'legality' of certain flights. "Low flying over my rooftop" sounds a lot worse than "500ft AGL"!

Its been awhile since I did my Principles of Flight exams, but don't ALL aircraft have to bank on their sides??

[pilotgallagher01]

LOL yea theres some "over the topness" in the story..
You must get some very funny and strange calls from citizens ringing up the control tower complaining about low flying aircraft?

[Venge]

QUOTE (mfraser @ Jul 27 2010, 01:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldn't place make stock in the eye witness reports - especially if they're just casual observers/non-aviation types. I've received countless phonecalls in the Tower from concerned citizens about the 'legality' of certain flights. "Low flying over my rooftop" sounds a lot worse than "500ft AGL"!

Its been awhile since I did my Principles of Flight exams, but don't ALL aircraft have to bank on their sides??

Ya, I fielded 'reports' about a "Cessna" (they knew we used a 172 for training) flying so low over their house and they would like to lay a complaint. I asked if it was a high wing or a low wing, and explained the difference to them. They told me "We are not sure about which type it was". Which of course I then asked how the hell did they know it was a "Cessna"....

[IslandBoy77]

QUOTE (Venge @ Jul 27 2010, 05:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ya, I fielded 'reports' about a "Cessna" (they knew we used a 172 for training) flying so low over their house and they would like to lay a complaint. I asked if it was a high wing or a low wing, and explained the difference to them. They told me "We are not sure about which type it was". Which of course I then asked how the hell did they know it was a "Cessna"....

I wonder if it could have been one of those "generic" terms that people use - Cessna = any small, light aircraft with 1 engine. Not to excuse perhaps some people being paranoid about "low" aircraft (for me, low is GOOD, not bad!), but I come across that sort of generic (incorrect) use of terminology all the time in computers... e.g. Windows = everything to do with software on a PC when the person actually means Microsoft Word.

[LukeEYF]

Now Campbell Live decides to make a story about "Is it safe to fly in, and out of Queenstown"

Done it many times, just like landing anywhere else, just a bit more spectacular ofcourse, but nothing to difficult for pilots, and their fully equipped aircraft.

[Venge]

QUOTE (IslandBoy77 @ Jul 27 2010, 05:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wonder if it could have been one of those "generic" terms that people use - Cessna = any small, light aircraft with 1 engine. Not to excuse perhaps some people being paranoid about "low" aircraft (for me, low is GOOD, not bad!), but I come across that sort of generic (incorrect) use of terminology all the time in computers... e.g. Windows = everything to do with software on a PC when the person actually means Microsoft Word.

I agree 100%, but they were more or less saying they were sure it was us. My point was the inconsistency of them stating it was our plane and yet when questioned could not even say for sure if it was a high or low wing aircraft. How can they be sure it was our particular aircraft when they can not even give basic info that should be obvious if they were close enough to get a positive ID.
Regardless, was many moons ago and they dropped the issue once I started asking them these sort of questions.

[Daniel]

Love the "eye witnesses" accounts.

QUOTE

"It couldn't have been above a thousand feet, it was low, bloody low, never climbed at all," he said.
Another witness Alan Kirker said he first heard unusual noise. "I kept watching it and watching it."
It banked around the golf course and flew low down the lake.
"I thought, Jesus, man, it was banking almost on its side."[/quote] Off the Stuff article

Funny enough that so far there have been no passenger moans about the plane being on it's side.

Last edited by Daniel on Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[HercFeend]

If the following, from the report, is accurate - "Planes must depart no later than 30 minutes before twilight from the airport, which is surrounded by mountainous terrain and has no radar or runway lights." It begs the question, why, with QN being in Class D airspace, was the flight cleared by the controller to take off?

[mfraser]

Its because of the CAA rules - there is a specific clause which details when we can deny an aircraft a clearance. We can't deny an aircraft a clearance based soley on the light conditions - it comes back to pilot discretion. If the situation feels a little dodgy, most controllers will protect themselves by issuing a clearance such as "Cleared for takeoff, your discretion" or "With the required visibility, cleared for takeoff" etc.............

[HercFeend]

QUOTE (mfraser @ Jul 28 2010, 10:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its because of the CAA rules - there is a specific clause which details when we can deny an aircraft a clearance. We can't deny an aircraft a clearance based soley on the light conditions - it comes back to pilot discretion. If the situation feels a little dodgy, most controllers will protect themselves by issuing a clearance such as "Cleared for takeoff, your discretion" or "With the required visibility, cleared for takeoff" etc.............

Thanks for the clarification Fras. It's a bit of a grey area isn't it - you would think given the local rules re day light that a controller would be given the authority by CAA to prevent a flight form taking off on the grounds of safety due to the pilot breaching the local rules.....

[greaneyr]

This would have just been another 'odd take-off', had a local not gone to the media over it. However, now I see Campbell Live interviewing people about "What was it really like to be on that flight out of Queenstown??" like there was some major in-flight emergency.

I'm not going to speculate about who is to blame for this until I read the CAA report, but I know that the media are inflating it as a matter of duty. They're almost making a bigger deal out of this than over the mid-air at NZFI.

I had to have a giggle at the radio news yesterday when they explained the story. "Aircraft are not permitted to fly out of Queenstown after dusk as the runway has no lights, and there is no radar". Umm... don't they have THE best radar installation in New Zealand with the multilateration set up now? Secondly... WTH does radar have to do with night flying?? I can just picture it now "Tower, Bluebird 83 lined up on 23, ready for takeoff. Could we have the runway lights off please? We don't need them now since you've got us on radar"

[mfraser]

I'm told that Multi-Lat is still being trialled in NZQN as there's a few errors yet to be ironed out - its there and online but the controllers can't use it as a controlling tool just yet.

I discussed the whole issue with a couple of co-workers today and we've looked at the plates in depth. We all think that the departure was flown as required under the AIP/CAA rules - and that the exclamations of 'low flying' and 'close to terrain' are from non-aviation onlookers. Like greaneyr says, we'll have to all wait and see what comes out of the wash. I pity what must be going through the poor pilots minds right now.......

[mfraser]

And hot off the press, Multi-Lateration is now operational in Queenstown.........

"Queenstown MLat went live on the 2nd of August. The NZQN MLat system represents a significant deployment for the aviation industry, and consists of six interrogators, 14 receivers and 3 retrans sites, all networked back to a cental processor in NZQN Tower."