Defence denies Pacific Blue pilot's decision 'freelanced'

File photo / APN

The defence for a Pacific Blue pilot charged with the careless use of a Boeing 737 denies the pilot "freelanced" an emergency contingency plan for leaving Queenstown Airport two years ago.

The four-week hearing in the Queenstown District Court drew to a temporary close yesterday, with both parties making their final points before Judge Kevin Phillips adjourned until final submissions, which are expected within three weeks.

On June 22, 2010 the pilot left Queenstown for Sydney in a Boeing 737 at 5.25pm, after the Pacific Blue pre-twilight deadline for taking off.

The flight was scheduled to leave Queenstown at 4.30pm, but the pilot had received news of a front passing through, which included reported crosswinds of 26 knots at the airport.

Defence lawyer Matthew Muir told the court yesterday the pilot's decision not to consider the figure-of-eight contingency flight path in case of an engine failure and instead plan an emergency route to Christchurch was based on his reasonable assessment of the weather.

"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.