The future of a pilot with more than 33 years' flying experience will be known next month after the Civil Aviation Authority and defence made their final closing submissions at the Queenstown District Court yesterday.
A 54-year-old Auckland pilot faces charges of operating an aircraft carelessly after he allegedly departed Queenstown on June 22, 2010, in conditions of near darkness, high winds, with a low cloud ceiling and outside a departure time limit, and he will know his fate on October 23.
Earlier this year, Judge Kevin Phillips heard more than four weeks of evidence from expert, pilot, and ground witnesses.
The CAA alleges the pilot exceeded the level of care required on his Pacific Blue 89 flight, carrying 65 passengers and five crew bound for Sydney.
"There were standards, there was a prescription and there were procedures. He operated outside of the procedures of what the CAA had approved to be safe and what passengers assumed to be safe," prosecution lawyer Fletcher Pilditch said.
He reflected on the six expert opinions that have been in front of the court during the four-week hearing and said each had "distinct experiences, distinct personalities and distinct idiosyncrasies".
"There has to be rules ... sometimes there is a line, those lines are there for a reason.
"Rules are there to be met and to be followed in every instance.
"They were not followed and that amounts to careless operation of an aircraft."
Defence lawyer Matthew Muir submitted the context of the pilot's departure must be considered in his final decision and that the breaches did not amount to a level of non-conformance or carelessness.
The pilot's decision-making behind the departure was based upon "in-built conservatism".
"He was not going to leave until he was satisfied the conditions for departure were met."
Mr Muir told the court the pilot faced falling on the wrong side of criminal law in regard to the crosswind breach because, had he flown for Air New Zealand on that day, the 19 knot crosswind component he allegedly breached would not have surpassed the Air New Zealand 20 knot limit.
"You have other airlines operating under higher limitations."
Mr Pilditch said a breach alone in departure time, crosswind limits, the planned contingency and a required visual segment would mean a level of carelessness. The fact more than one of those were allegedly breached meant the standard of a reasonable prudent pilot had not been met on June 22, 2010, he said.
It was important to consider the technical and challenging environment of Queenstown's surrounds also.
Mr Pilditch's closing submission placed emphasis on the pilot's operation of the aircraft in the air, such as the lowering of the plane's altitude level causing a "don't sink" warning, the first officer's verbal "speed" call warning and the "bank angle" cockpit alert caused by the plane's level-off over the Kelvin Height's golf course area.
The three warnings had all occurred within one minute and 11 seconds of the flight's departure, something the prosecution claims is highly unusual.
"This wasn't another day in the office. Look at the way the aircraft had to be flown in these conditions."
The defence's case relied on the judge being convinced that the actions and the decision-making were those of a reasonable and prudent pilot.
If the CAA case is successful, the pilot faces disqualification as a commercial pilot and a fine of up to $7000.
