"It was not freelanced or anything of that nature."
There was "reasonable and proper" basis for his alternate planned route and his 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 called tollgate. He said pilots took off from Queenstown every day of every week pilots and used their own judgment as to whether they could reach the required height at tollgate.
But prosecution lawyer Fletcher Pilditch, representing the Civil Aviation Authority, said the pilot had "rejected" the figure-of-eight plan.
The pilot was not entitled to plan for an emergency route to Christchurch and was required to plan for a return, using the figure-of-eight manoeuvre.
Ultimately, he said, this was a case about 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.
The case was summed up by the defence calling in its last witness, the CAA's acting manager of safety investigation, Alan Moselen .
Mr Moselen 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 an occurrence report for the Pacific Blue flight.
At the end of the hearing, Judge Phillips commended both lawyers for the way they conducted the case, saying it had made proceedings easier and more bearable.