In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and found that the CAA director 'erred in law in finding that a 90m runway end safety areas (RESA) would be acceptable if Wellington Airport's extension plans wetn ahead.
Pilots successfully argued that the Court of Appeal's decision was correctly decided, that the appeal should be dismissed, and the director be directed to reconsider his decision in March 2015, should the airport maintain that application.
The pilots' association said most aircraft accidents occur during landing and take-off. These include incidents where the aircraft 'undershoots' (lands or takes-off short of) or 'overruns' the end of the runway.
"The risk of such an incident can be likened to the chance of a severe earthquake. Although the likelihood of an 'undershoot' or overrun is low when compared to the total volume of air traffic, the consequences can be catastrophic,'' said the association's president Tim Robinson.
The original decision made by the Court of Appeal considered evidence that a landing overshoot incident at Wellington Airport would likely result in the death of all on board. NZALPA said. At the northern end, the presence of State Highway 1 lanes and traffic could cause further loss.
RESAs must be a cleared and graded area but do not have to be constructed to the same specifications as a runway.
Wellington Airport already had exemptions from the CAA for non-compliant Movement Air Guidance (MAG) signage (to prevent aircraft 'straying' on to the runway) and non-complaint runway width for international aerodromes.
"Even though airline pilots have the most to gain from extended runways and the extra international flights they encourage, safety will always be our first priority and this should also be so for both New Zealand's airport companies and especially for the CAA," Robinson said.
Wellington Airport chief executive Steve Sanderson said the transport hub was still committed to extending the runway and will review the judgment.
"We remain committed to the project and will be informing the Environment Court of our next steps in due course," Sanderson said.
"While we need to take time to review the decision and consider our re-application to the Civil Aviation Authority, the Supreme Court's judgement and interpretation is encouraging and provides more guidance on what the CAA should take into account."
The pilots association was also awarded costs of $30,000.
This was a "a great day for pilots, air crew, and the wider travelling public," said Robinson.
