The Pacific Blue pilot charged with operating a Boeing 737 carelessly after taking off from Queenstown Airport said yesterday he had no regrets over his actions at the time but would not have left the runway if he knew he would be sitting in court two years later.
The 54-year-old Auckland man told the Queenstown District Court yesterday the July 22, 2010, situation was nothing he had not faced before and he likened it to "another day at the office".
The commercial pilot of 33 years, who has name suppression, was in charge of a flight which left Queenstown carrying 71 passengers bound for Sydney after the Pacific Blue evening civil twilight (ECT) cut-off time of 5.14pm.
His departure time of 5.25pm, however, was before the official ECT of 5.36pm.
When cross-examined by prosecution lawyer Fletcher Pilditch yesterday, the pilot said he did not have any regrets initially after the incident. However, he admitted if he knew the Civil Aviation Authority would seek disciplinary action he would not have departed.
"I don't recall having any regrets about it at that stage. I thought it was a matter the company and I would resolve.
"I acknowledge absolutely the company and [CAA] have a different view. If I was aware of that at the time I would not have departed."
His career as a commercial pilot includes 16,043 hours' total flying time, 6000 hours in a Boeing 737 and 30 years flying in and out of Queenstown.
This was the first time flying for Pacific Blue since joining in 2005 that he had encountered a flight delay because of weather, but he defended his actions of leaving in clouded, wet and dark conditions and said he disagreed with evidence at the trial.
"I have great difficulty with some of the comments being made.
"A lot of criticism was on the basis there was a front, but the actual front had moved through.
"It's not usual to sit around twiddling your thumbs doing nothing and waiting for the flight to clear."
The pilot said the "nasty little front" had left, cloud had lifted and there had been a rapid improvement in the weather before they left the runway.
He and the first officer could see a cloud clearance of 4000ft using a reference point on the Remarkables mountains and could also see the top of the Crown Range, 12km away.
There was an unobstructed climb up to about 4500ft to 5000ft, he said. However, the control tower still warned of cloud below 2300ft and he admitted there was a different perspective.
The tower had also warned of crosswinds up to 20 knots at 5.24pm a minute before the aeroplane departed, but he claimed they were well under this.
"I felt I could take off with a reasonable degree of certainty with what I had read on the windsocks," the pilot said.
"We have to satisfy ourselves before take-off that the wind was within the aircraft's limits, which I am satisfied we did," he said.
"None of this I regarded as exceptionally difficult ... to me this was just another day at the office ... I actually think we did a good job."
The automatic cockpit warnings during the flight of "don't sink" and "bank angle" had come as no surprise to him and he likened them to a car's reverse beeping function.
"It's not an alarming thing that would startle anyone ... the computer doesn't know the pilot has initiated the descend."
While the weather was "not the best", he said it was "suitable for departure".
His experience as a pilot told him the contingency procedure he chose was a "conservative approach".
"To say this was unorthodox is actually not correct. Every departure we do is always planned on the basis there will be an engine failure. Any procedure you adopt in the event of an engine failure you do something different from the norm," he said.
"It's plain common sense. To me, it was the sensible thing to do."
The case continues today.
