Queenstown's mountains and water attract thousands of tourists every year, but the spectacular terrain also makes flying visitors in and out of the resort a challenge for pilots.
A case in point is next week's closing of the hearing into the actions of a Pacific Blue pilot who is charged with careless use of a Boeing 737 on June 22, 2010. The hearing has run for four weeks this year at the Queenstown District Court before Judge Kevin Phillips.
Closing submissions will be made on Monday and Tuesday.
The 54-year-old Auckland pilot, who has name suppression, allegedly departed from Queenstown Airport in conditions of near darkness, high winds and a low cloud ceiling, on Flight 89, carrying 65 passengers and five crew members bound for Sydney.
If the Civil Aviation Authority is successful in its prosecution, the pilot faces a $7000 fine and disqualification as a commercial pilot, although the extent of any such penalty has not been revealed in court.
In the hearing so far, experts have debated whether the captain was careless in departing, or quite correct to take-off 11 minutes past the allowed evening civil twilight limit of 5.14pm.
First officer Christian Rush, a qualified pilot of 23 years, in his evidence questioned a contingency plan commonly used to land back in Queenstown in case of emergency, saying he and his captain would have chosen to avoid the figure-of-eight plan as it was not a safe option.
He admitted some unease during the departure, and said he had eventually pulled out of Queenstown night operations because they were "way too much work, too much stress" and he was "ill-trained for it".
Pilots flying in and out of Queenstown require special training to adhere to the restrictions and controls as it is a category X airport, the most technical of the four-tier system.
A prosecution witness and retired Air New Zealand pilot of 39 years, Captain Colin Glasgow, told the court the decision to depart placed the plane and its passengers at undue risk.
"I'm not sure what exactly was in the mind of Captain ...when he took off. All I am saying is, it didn't look good and I wouldn't have taken off."
He reasoned that Queenstown Airport is known for severe turbulence and was one of the most technical for pilots to fly in and out of because of the surrounding mountains and valleys, and its narrow runway.
Ground witnesses have given evidence they observed the plane flying much lower than usual.
During the early minutes following takeoff, the defendant received two warnings from the Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS), one of which was a mode six - "Bank angle" - alert and mode three "Don't sink, don't sink".
The system operates - from most urgent to the least urgent - on warnings, cautions and advisory levels. The aircraft computer calls, were of advisory and caution levels.
Defence lawyer Matthew Muir told the court the captain had operated under "sensible conservatisms" both before takeoff and once in the air.
Two pilots, Captains Stuart Julian and Fred Douglas, who between them have logged more than 25,000 hours' flying experience, each said the pilot made the correct decision to depart in the conditions.
Captain Julian, said the pilot had broken no rules throughout his departure and it had been "typical industry practice that day".
"I consider the decision made and the decision-making process, were all well made.''
This included the pilot's use of windsocks to gauge crosswinds, which he said provided accuracy, and that he disagreed with the tower's reading of winds of up to 19 knots before takeoff, assessing crosswind levels at well under 16 knots.
During his time in the witness stand, the pilot, of 33 years' experience, told the court he had no regrets at the time, but would not have left the runway if he knew he would be sitting in court two years later.
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.
At the end of Monday's court proceedings when both prosecution and defence submit their closing statements, the case will be adjourned before Judge Phillips makes a decision on whether the pilot fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable and prudent pilot.
![http://www.odt.co.nz/files/story/2012/09/flightdj89_jpg_50407e8eb0.jpg">...](http://www.odt.co.nz/files/story/2012/09/flightdj89_jpg_50407e8eb0.jpg">Click){kind=link}