Civil Aviation director Graeme Harris was responding to comments made at a public meeting in Queenstown on Monday that heard it was only a matter of time before an aircraft went off the end of the runway.
Mr Harris said the airport's runway end safety areas (Resas) met New Zealand's rules for existing runways and those of the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
"Those standards require runways to have a minimum of 90m-long Resa areas at both ends of the runway strip, which Queenstown Airport has in place."
More than 200 people attended the meeting about an alternative "master plan" for the airport in which it would be relocated and the site redeveloped for housing.
The plan's co-author, architect and urban designer David Jerram, told the audience a New Zealand Airline Pilots' Association officer had told him it was a case of "not if, but when" an aircraft went off the end of the runway.
Mr Jerram told the Otago Daily Times yesterday it was not the only alarming comment about the runway's safety areas he had heard from an aviation insider.
"Another pilot, who flies in here on A320s, told me he doubted you'd find many pilots who didn't think there would be an incident before long."
Such an incident could be as minor as an aircraft rolling off the end of the runway.
"But it could also be much more catastrophic."
It did not make sense to spend millions on further developing an airport with a runway of "bare minimum" length, he said. Any new airport, or a major upgrade such as that proposed for Wanaka Airport, would require 240m safety areas.
However, Mr Harris said Queenstown Airport had undergone 10 audits in the past five years and "the CAA is satisfied that the safety infrastructure in place in Queenstown is appropriate and sufficient to give passengers, airlines and the airport community confidence".
The Queenstown Airport Corporation said on Monday it was proposing turbo-prop and narrow-body jet flights at Wanaka from 2025.
Related Stories
Comments
O dear, Graeme Harris. Twisting facts aren't we?
Civil Aviation is operating off an exemption rule at ZQN eh.
Just because it meets current "requirements" doesn't make it safe or acceptable.
Why then, if a runway was extended, a full 240m RESA has to part of that, eh?
When A320s require minimum 1900m runways (threshold to threshold) everywhere else, how come they take off at ZQN on a 1777m strip? (even with the 60m & 50m takeoff extension areas at ZQN which are used for turning the aircraft around).
Oh, and take off into mountainous surrounds.
Mr Harris, you only have confidence in your pieces of papers you shuffle.
Us passengers and pilots don't have confidence in the actual structure.
Why then has the pilots won all the Court cases against you lot & WLG???
Put your exemption rule book down and use commonsense, facts & truth.