The defence for a Pacific Blue pilot charged with the careless use of a Boeing 737 denies the pilot devised his own emergency contingency plan for leaving Queenstown Airport two years ago, as the case was adjourned yesterday.
The four-week hearing yesterday drew to a temporary close at the Queenstown District Court, with both parties making their final points before Judge Kevin Phillips adjourned until final submissions, which are expected in the next three weeks.
On June 22, 2010 the pilot left Queenstown for Sydney in a Boeing 737 at 5.25pm, after the Pacific Blue evening civil twilight time of 5.14pm. The flight was scheduled to leave Queenstown at 4.30pm, but the pilot had received news of a front passing through, which included reported crosswind levels of 26 knots at the airport.
Defence lawyer Matthew Muir yesterday told the court the pilot's decision not to consider the figure-of-eight contingency flight path and instead opt for the Boeing Four departure in case of an engine failure, was based on his reasonable weather assessment: "It was not freelanced or anything of that nature."
He said there was "reasonable and proper" basis for his alternate planned route and confidence the aircraft would meet minimum altitude requirements in the weather conditions.
Mr Muir said it was self evident to the pilot he would reach the required height before a reference point known as tollgate.
He said every day of every week pilots would take off from Queenstown and use their own judgement as to whether they can reach the required height at tollgate.
However the prosecution lawyer representing the Civil Aviation authority, Fletcher Pilditch, did not accept this and said the defendant had "rejected" the figure-of-eight contingency.
He said the pilot was not entitled to plan for an emergency route to Christchurch and was required to plan for a return to land using a figure-of-eight manoeuvre.
Ultimately, he said, this was a case of whether "his own contingency was prudent" and whether the manner and methodology behind it was appropriate on the the day.
Judge Phillips said the question was whether the pilot had fallen below the standard of care expected of a reasonable and prudent pilot on June 22, 2010.
The case was summed up by the defence calling in its last witness, the CAA acting manager of safety investigation, Alan Moselen. He said it was appropriate for a pilot to file an occurrence report if something out of the ordinary happened during flight. The pilot facing charges had not filed such a report for that flight.
Judge Phillips commended both counsel for co-operation.
