Dovey Aviation Consulting Limited v Attorney General
[2021] NZHC 429
•9 March 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE
CIV 2018-485-972
[2021] NZHC 429
BETWEEN DOVEY AVIATION CONSULTING LIMITED
Plaintiff
AND
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND
First Defendant
JAMES PATRICK RANKIN
Second DefendantWARBIRDS OVER WANAKA AIRSHOWS LIMITED
Third Defendant
EDWARD RICHARD MILES TAYLOR
Fourth DefendantCHRISTOPHER CHARLES LEE
Fifth DefendantRONALD JOHN DAVID LAMONT
Sixth DefendantALLEN VICTOR HOGAN
Seventh Defendant
Hearing: 6 – 24 July 2020 Counsel:
C S Chapman for Plaintiff
J A MacGillivray and F W Biggs for First and Second Defendants M S Anderson, J C Dymock and C L Barclay for Third to Seventh Defendants
Judgment:
9 March 2021
JUDGMENT OF MALLON J
DOVEY AVIATION CONSULTING LIMITED v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2021] NZHC 429 [9 March 2021]
Introduction [1]
Background facts [12]
Uncontrolled airfields [12]
Temporary Restricted Area [14]
Airshow authorisation [16]
The landing plate [19]
The Airshow Organiser [23]
The Display Director [26]
The Military Display Director [28]
The Assistant Display Director [31]
Planning the display programme [33]
Approval to display at a show [36]
The written pilot briefing [39]
Daily pilot briefings [43]
The flying programme [44]
Passive control of displays [48]
The Tower and ADD support [55]
The pre-positioning of the cherry pickers [59]
The issue [59]
Alleged duty [60]
The evidence [64]
Findings [81]
Breach of duty [88]
The substitution [103]
The issue [103]
Alleged duty [104]
The evidence [110]
Findings [133]
Breach of duty [163]
The pilot briefing on the centre grass [166]
The issues [166]
Alleged duty [168]
The evidence [170]
Findings [193]
Breach of duty [219]
What did “available” mean [223]
The issue [223]
Alleged duty [224]
A default runway [229]
The designated runways [235]
Available at the pilot’s discretion [267]
A last-minute decision [272]
Breach of duty [282]
The choice of landing vector [287]
The issue [287]
Alleged duty [288]
Landing preferences [291]
Does the approved routine include the landing surface [297]
Did the practice give rise to an expectation about the landing [305]
Formation discipline [324]
What if the leader has not advised the Tower [348]
Discussion with ADD [353]
Breach of duty [357]
The radio call [362]
The issue [362]
Alleged duty [363]
The evidence [367]
Findings [384]
Contributory negligence [429]
Breach of duty [430]
Mr Dovey’s landing approach [432]
The issue [432]
Alleged pilot negligence [433]
Civil Aviation Act [435]
The evidence [439]
Findings [477]
Breach of pilot’s duty [497]
Summary of breaches [501]
Intervening cause/contributory negligence [504]
Quantum [511]
Result [522]
Appendix one – abbreviations Appendix two – landing plate Appendix three – experts
Introduction
[1] The Warbirds over Wanaka airshow (WoW) is a popular event that takes place biennially at Easter at the Wanaka Aerodrome. The show, which takes place over two days, involves flying displays as well as ground activities. It showcases vintage military aircraft as well as a large contingent of more contemporary civilian and New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) aircraft. The show was founded in 1988 by Sir Tim Wallis but a charitable trust was set up to take over the running of the event in around 2006. With participants, event personnel and crowds who pay to watch the show, there are around 55,000 people at the airfield during the show. It is a major event for the area, with an estimated economic impact in excess of $20 million every two years.
[2] The opening display at the 2018 event involved two Yak-3M aircraft. A Yak-3M is a World War II military aircraft from the Russian theatre. The display was to simulate a surprise airfield attack with two aircraft sweeping low over the airfield at speed accompanied by pyrotechnics causing loud explosions and smoke and flames. The pair were to fly in formation and were to land on the airfield in front of the crowds at the end of the display.
[3] Mr Dovey was the pilot of the second of the Yaks. The display proceeded without incident until the landing roll out, when the starboard wing of Mr Dovey’s plane struck a cherry picker. This was one of two cherry pickers that, unbeknownst to Mr Dovey, had been parked in the middle of the airfield in preparation for a later display. Fortunately, Mr Dovey was unharmed. However, his aircraft, which he owns through his company (Dovey Aviation Consulting Ltd), sustained major damage. This claim seeks to recover the costs of repairing his aircraft. Mr Dovey contends the organisers of the event and those with responsibility in its operation were negligent. He contends there were a series of failures in the organisation and operation of the show that led to the accident.
[4]These alleged failures concern:
(a)the early pre-positioning of the two cherry pickers in the middle of the centre grass area, which was contrary to the risk assessment submitted to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as part of its authorisation process, and the ambiguity in the published display programme about the timing of the set-up for this display;
(b)the late decision to open the show with the Yak-3M display in substitution for the scheduled display (involving a USAF F-16 that had become unavailable) without an adequate risk assessment of that substitution;
(c)the late decision by the organisers to make the centre grass available for takeoff and landing without alerting pilots to the presence of the cherry pickers or having them cleared from the centre grass; and
(d)the failure by those in the Tower, from which flight display direction was provided, to respond to Mr Dovey’s radio call that signalled his intention to land on the centre grass, or to ensure adequate radio reception to enable that call to be clearly heard.
[5] The defendants are in two groups. The first group relates to the Royal New Zealand Air Force’s (RNZAF) involvement in the airshow:
(a)the Attorney-General (the first defendant), representing the Ministry of Defence, which is responsible for the acts and omissions of its officers (in this case, the second defendant); and
(b)Squadron Leader (S/L) James Rankin (the second defendant), an RNZAF officer, who was the Military Display Director (MDD) in the Tower at the time of the accident and was involved in the decision to move the cherry pickers to the middle of the centre grass.
[6]The second group are the WoW defendants:
(a)the organiser of the event, Warbirds Over Wanaka Airshows Limited (WoW Ltd) (the third defendant);
(b)Edward Taylor (the fourth defendant), the General Manager of WoW Ltd, who had responsibility for overseeing the planning of the show and its operation;
(c)Christopher Lee (the fifth defendant), the Flight Display Director (FDD) (also referred to as the Display Director (DD)), who was involved in making the centre grass available and in approving the substitution of the Yak-3Ms for the opening display, and who was also in the Tower at the time of the accident;
(d)John Lamont (the sixth defendant), the Flying Display Planner (FDP), who was involved in the decision to substitute the Yak-3Ms for the opening display; and
(e)Allen Hogan (the seventh defendant), the Assistant Display Director (ADD), who checked the runways prior to the commencement of the show and was also in the Tower at the time of the accident.
[7] Although the claim was brought against individuals as well as the entities with responsibility for them, Mr Dovey through his counsel advised during closing submissions that he was content for the Court to determine the liability of the Attorney-General and WoW Ltd only.1 I proceed accordingly.
[8] The defendants largely do not challenge that S/L Rankin and the WoW defendants owed a duty of care to Mr Dovey. They do take issue with the scope of that duty as alleged. They say they acted with reasonable care in putting in place the substituted display, opening up the centre grass, and in providing display direction from the Tower. They say that Mr Dovey was responsible for the accident principally because:2
(a)Mr Dovey should have followed his leader and landed on the sealed runway, as practised and briefed, and should not have landed on the centre grass without express permission to do so, which they say he did not have;
(b)Mr Dovey did not respond to radio calls that indicated the Tower expected him to land on the seal and did not ensure that his radio call alerting the Tower to his intention to land on the centre grass had been heard; and
(c)Mr Dovey used a landing technique that meant he could not check the landing area was clear in breach of his responsibility as pilot-in- command and did not alert the defendants to his inability to discharge this responsibility.
1 It was accepted that the Attorney-General and WoW Ltd have responsibility for any liability of the individuals and determining individual responsibility and entering judgment for that responsibility would serve no useful purpose in the circumstances. This is without prejudice to the parties’ respective position on costs.
2 The WoW defendants raise additional issues but, as will be discussed, these were without merit and irrelevant.
[9] The defendants say that at the most their actions provided no more than an opportunity for the accident to happen and Mr Dovey’s actions were the effective and proximate cause. Alternatively, they say Mr Dovey was contributorily negligent to the extent that most of the loss should be apportioned to him. The WoW defendants also contest the measure of loss to be adopted.
[10] The plaintiff raises a further issue about whether display direction at an airshow amounts to providing an “air traffic service” (ATS) in breach of the Civil Aviation Rules (CAR). In the end, this was not pressed. I consider the plaintiff was right not to press it because this civil claim for damages is not the appropriate vehicle for the issue to be considered and, as the plaintiff accepts, it does not require resolution in this context. The issue is one for the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in the first instance and, potentially, judicial review or declaratory relief in an appropriate context with input from the CAA.3 I do not consider the issue further.
[11]Attached as Appendix one is a list of abbreviations used in this judgment.
Background facts
Uncontrolled airfields
[12] The airspace at airfields or aerodromes around New Zealand may be controlled or uncontrolled. A controlled airspace means that an “air traffic control service” (ATCS) is provided to control flights in the defined dimensions of the airspace.4 An uncontrolled airspace does not have an ATCS. It may, but is not required to have, another form of ATS, for example an “aerodrome flight information service” (AFIS).5 An AFIS provides advice and information but does not control the pilot. Movement in an uncontrolled airspace, including takeoff and landing, are at the pilot’s discretion. There are rules the pilot is required to follow for the safe operation of their aircraft in the airspace.6
3 The plaintiff did not claim that the CAA breached a tortious statutory duty owed to it.
4 Civil Aviation Act 1990, s 2. A controlled flight is any flight that is provided with or required by rules made under the Act to make use of an ATCS.
5 Section 2.
6 Uncontrolled airspace in New Zealand is classified as Class G airspace. Civil Aviation Rules (CAR) Part 91 and the Aeronautical Information Publication (discussed below) specify rules that the pilot must follow for the safe operation of an aircraft in Class G airspace.
[13] The Wanaka Aerodrome is an uncontrolled airfield. In common with the majority of uncontrolled airfields, ordinarily it does not have any ATS. It is operated by the Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd (QAC). Pursuant to arrangements with QAC, WoW Ltd operated the airport from midnight on Wednesday 28 March 2018 until midnight on Monday 2 April 2018 for the WoW 2018 event.
Temporary Restricted Area
[14] The Director of Civil Aviation may specify that an airspace is a Restricted Area.7 The Director specifies the type of activities for which a restricted area is designated and the administering authority responsible for the restricted activity. The major airshows in New Zealand are provided with a Temporary Restricted Area. Pilots operating in a restricted area must have the approval of the administering authority to operate in the area and comply with conditions promulgated by the Director or imposed by the administering authority for operation within the area.8
[15] The Wanaka Aerodrome was designated as a Temporary Restricted Area for the WoW show and WoW Ltd was the administering authority for that area. During the hours of the show and the practice for the show (which takes place on the preceding two days), the airfield was not available to aircraft without the permission of WoW Ltd except in the event of an emergency. Outside the show and practice days, WoW Ltd contracted with Airways Corporation of New Zealand (Airways) to provide an AFIS during certain hours. This provided information to pilots, for example, about movements and obstructions on the airfield. WoW Ltd arranged to provide this service because the airfield was busy before and after the show days with arriving and departing aircraft.
Airshow authorisation
[16] The CAR provide that an airshow of the size and nature of WoW cannot be held unless the organiser holds an authorisation issued by the Director of the CAA.9 To obtain an authorisation, the organiser must submit an event plan at least 90 days
7 CAR, Part 71.153.
8 CAR, 91.129.
9 CAR, 91.703.
before the start of the event.10 To assist organisers and those responsible for an airshow, the CAA has published an Advisory Circular, AC91-1. Amongst other things, this sets out the exceptions to the normal operating flight rules that apply at the show, and the matters an event plan will need to address. It also recommends that the organiser apply for an authorisation at least 180 days before the event.
[17] The WoW event plan for the 2018 airshow (the WoW 2018 Exposition) was a detailed document, comprising 56 pages including appendices. It provided the CAA with information about how the organisers intended to ensure the safe operation of aircraft and the safety of public spectators and participating crews. Amongst other things, it included:
(a)The responsibilities of key personnel, including the Airshow Organiser (Mr Taylor), the DD (Mr Lee), the ADD (Mr Hogan), and the MDD (S/L Rankin), and the role of the Flying Display Committee (FDC).
(b)A risk assessment undertaken by the Airshow Organiser, Event Manager and DD in conjunction with the FDC.
[18] The WoW 2018 Exposition was reviewed by the CAA and amendments were made during the review process. The CAA issued its authorisation for WoW 2018 on 15 March 2018. The conditions of approval included that the DD was to be Mr Lee and that the event be conducted in accordance with AC91-1.
The landing plate
[19] Aerodromes or airfields that are available for public use are published in the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP).11 Ninety days prior to an airshow, an AIP Supplement is issued by the CAA. This is provided and available to all pilots currently flying in New Zealand.12 Amongst other details, the AIP Supplement for WoW 2018 advised pilots of the Temporary Restricted Period (running from 29 March to 2 April
10 CAR, 91.703.
11 The AIP is published by Aeropath on contract to the CAA. Amendments are issued in two-monthly cycles.
12 Aeropath mailed the AIP Supplement to all holders of AIP documents, that is to pilots currently flying in New Zealand. The AIP Supplement was also available online for download.
2018), the practice and airshow days and times, the times at which Airways would provide an AFIS, the radio ground and display frequencies.
[20] The AIP Supplement also includes the name of the aerodrome (for example, NZWF in the case of Wanaka), the aerodrome designator and “the landing plate”. The landing plate includes a diagram of the airfield and information about the available runways (as prepared by the aerodrome operator), amongst other things. The published landing plate for the Wanaka Aerodrome at the time of the WoW 2018 event is attached as Appendix two. This landing plate, without the “notes”, was included in the WoW 2018 Exposition.13
[21] Runways are referred to by number (the runway designator) derived from the magnetic bearing of the runway.14 As shown on the NZWF landing plate, Wanaka Aerodrome has two runways that run parallel to the airfield buildings, with the designator numbers 11 and 29 at either end. The runway is referred to by the direction in which the aircraft is travelling (on takeoff or landing). For example, “it is a 29 day” means that the aircraft will be travelling from the 29 end (located at the southeast end of the airfield), heading towards the 11 end (at the northwest end).
[22] If there is more than one runway with the same designator at the airfield, they will be referred to by their surface type. At Wanaka, the runway closest to the airfield buildings is a sealed runway. The other one is grass. So at Wanaka the runways may be referred to, for example, as “29 seal” or “29 grass”. The 11/29 grass runway was established in May 2016. At the trial this was referred to as “the northern grass”. Prior to May 2016, the grass runway in use ran alongside the seal runway in between the seal and the northern grass runways. At the trial this was referred to as “the centre grass”.
The Airshow Organiser
[23] The WoW 2018 Exposition described the role of the Airshow Organiser as follows:
13 The notes refer to the matters listed 1 to 8 under the diagram. As will be seen, this is consistent with the WoW having authority to use any vector for the show as it considers appropriate.
14 This means that pilots can align themselves with the runway using their compasses.
The Airshow Organiser is responsible for the overall organisation and conduct of all Warbirds Over Wanaka 2018 activities. This includes co-ordinat[ing] planning, supervision of safety, site evaluation, community consultation and risk assessment.
The Airshow Organiser is also specifically responsible for:
(a)the appointment of additional personnel and ensuring those personnel are aware of their responsibilities
(b)general arrangement of the flying and ground display programme
(c)the site and control of spectator areas and vehicle parking
(d)co-ordination of pyrotechnics and/or other special effects
(e)establishment of an emergency plan
(f)liaison with other authorities such as the police, local authorities, emergency and first aid services, and defence, where defence aircraft are participating.
[24] The WoW 2018 Exposition provided for the Airshow Organiser to delegate authority to the Event Manager for all airshow operations and personnel.
[25]The AC91-1 also referred to the Airshow Organiser. As Mr Taylor put it:
A. I'm satisfied in the processes and systems we have in place and the personnel there to carry it out. I note in the [AC91-1] under “event organiser”, it says, “The organiser will co-ordinate planning supervision of safety site evaluation, community consultation and risk assessment. Some particular aspects of an aviation event such as air traffic services, provision of emergency services and supervision of the flying display should be allocated to people with the appropriate expertise, qualifications and licences.”
Q. Yes.
A. So that’s what I do.
The Display Director
[26] In any airshow like WoW, the DD has a key role. The WoW 2018 Exposition set out the DD’s responsibilities as follows:
The Flying Display Director … is responsible to the Airshow Organiser for -
(a)providing the Airshow Organiser, Event Manager and flying display committee with aviation advice and specialist guidance relevant to the planning and safe conduct of an aviation event
(b)supervision of compliance with civil aviation rules
(c)ensuring adequate communications are established between all agencies associated with the Airshow, such as emergency services, police, special effects, ground activities, spectator security, safety observers and flying display participants which will include secondary communication links or radio frequencies for use in emergencies or essential control
(d)ensuring display routines are approved
(e)ensuring all pilots submit a completed display pilot certification form
(f)airshow briefings, including Airshow procedures and flying programme
(g)ensuring safe conduct of the flying display
(h)ensuring minimum display heights, maximum speeds and display lines are observed
(i)general flying discipline
(j)approving and co-ordinating any modifications to the flying program caused by weather, aircraft unserviceability or other factor.
[27] Approving the program and display routines, conducting airshow briefings, providing display direction and other aspects of the role are discussed in more detail later.
The Military Display Director
[28] The RNZAF is involved in air display events to promote and demonstrate the NZDF’s skills and capabilities and to foster relationships with the public and the civilian aviation community. S/L Rankin’s role in WoW 2018 included creating a programme of events for the military aircraft and vehicles and acting as the MDD.
[29]The WoW 2018 Exposition provided that:
(a)military aircraft participating at the show were to be controlled by an MDD who would assume responsibility for the airspace during any military aircraft display;
(b)the MDD was also responsible for ensuring military pilots had the necessary experience and training;
(c)no civil aircraft was to operate during the period of any military aircraft display unless approved by the MDD; and
(d)the DD was to ensure that the MDD and the military display pilots attended the display briefing each day or were provided with a written copy of the briefing, as well as verbal updates if the pilots were not based at the airfield.
[30] Similarly, NZDF rules required that the MDD be the active display director whenever military aircraft were operating within the Restricted Area, even if they were not actually displaying at the time.
The Assistant Display Director
[31] The WoW 2018 Exposition stated that, because WOW is a reasonably complex aviation event, an ADD would be appointed to “assist and work alongside the Display Director to help ensure the safety of the event”. The only specific task assigned to the ADD in the WoW 2018 Exposition was to carry out “a main runway inspection … each day to check for foreign objects or hazards prior to Flight Information Service coming on duty”.
[32] Mr Hogan was appointed to the ADD role. His job description under his WoW contract listed some other responsibilities. Essentially, he attended to any tasks assigned to him by Mr Lee or S/L Rankin. This included taking the roll call at the daily pilot briefings and setting up the PowerPoint presentation for Mr Lee. Mr Hogan was also tasked with communicating with all ground crew operations from the Tower.
Planning the display programme
[33] The WoW 2018 Exposition provided that an FDC was to be established to assist the DD with planning and conducting the event. Mr Taylor, Mr Lee, Mr Lamont and Mr Hogan, amongst others, were members of the FDC for WoW 2018.
[34] One of the first tasks of the FDC and the DD was to discuss which aircraft WoW 2018 would like to feature and to set about securing aircraft for the show in
discussions with private owners, the RNZAF and other regional forces. Mr Lamont, as FDP, took the lead on this.15 Mr Lamont reported to the DD and the FDC, who had final sign off. Once aircraft and pilots were identified, secured and approved by the FDC to display at the show, contracts were entered into by WoW Ltd with each display pilot.
[35] Mr Dovey had flown at previous WoW airshows.16 He had flown with Graeme Frew, who also owned a Yak, at WoW 2014 and elsewhere.17 In around March 2018 it was decided to again offer Mr Dovey a place in the show flying a “pairs” routine with Mr Frew, who had already been offered a place in the show.18 Mr Dovey was also to take part in a fly past and mock air attack which was to be the finale of the show. WoW Ltd and Mr Dovey entered into a contract on 8 March 2018. Mr Dovey received the written pilot briefing (discussed below) on 18 March 2018. He received his Low Level Display Approval (LLDA) on 23 March 2018.19
Approval to display at a show
[36] As set out above, the DD is the person who authorises every display for the show. At WoW 2018 the process began with Mr Lamont approving the proposed routine submitted by participating pilots when putting together the programme. On 25 March 2018 Mr Frew emailed Mr Lamont with the proposed elements of the routine for the pairs display with Mr Dovey. It was an aerobatic tail chase routine, not in close formation, and was “pretty much” what Mr Frew and Mr Dovey had flown previously.
15 The FDP was not a specified role in the WoW 2018 Exposition.
16 Since purchasing the Yak in December 2005, Mr Dovey had displayed this aircraft at the 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014 WoW shows.
17 At the WoW 2014 show, Mr Dovey and Mr Frew flew a pairs formation display. Mr Dovey and Mr Frew also flew their Yaks as a pairs formation at the Omaka airshows in 2013 and 2015.
18 The background to how this came about was covered in the evidence but, as I discuss later, was not relevant. It had the flavour of unfairly seeking to discredit Mr Dovey’s discipline in display flying on a disputed matter that bore no similarity to the events at issue here. WoW Ltd must have been satisfied that Mr Dovey’s skills and discipline were satisfactory when they decided to offer him a place in the programme and that is the basis on which I proceed.
19 The CAR have minimum heights below which pilots cannot fly. The minimum level is lower at aviation shows but pilots need to have a LLDA. The LLDA applies for one year and therefore has to be issued or renewed each year. David Brown, an expert witness called by the defendants, has authority to issue or renew LLDAs for all New Zealand display and competition aerobatic pilots. He may renew an LLDA on the advice of another appropriate person. For example, in Mr Dovey’s case, he did so on the advice of Mr Lamont, who observed Mr Dovey flying his Yak for the purposes of approving his LLDA on 23 March 2018. In accordance with the procedure, Mr Lamont approved the LLDA and it was formally issued by Mr Brown on 31 March 2018.
Mr Lamont advised by email that the routine was approved. He included the display in the afternoon of the show programme.
[37] The next stage of approval was the practice days that preceded the show. The practice days were on Thursday 29 March and Friday 30 March 2018. Those displaying in the show performed their routine observed by Mr Lee so that he could make sure the routines were safe and met the needs of the airshow plan. It also provided the opportunity for any issues to be addressed with the pilots and Mr Lamont. Mr Lamont did not watch all the practices but did talk to all the pilots to ensure they were able to fly their routine.
[38] The practices were not a full dress rehearsal of the show in that the practice times were not in the same order as the show day programme. For example, Mr Dovey and Mr Frew practised their pairs display at around 11 am on the Friday, when on the flying programme they were not scheduled to do that display until 2.58 pm.
The written pilot briefing
[39] The WoW 2018 Exposition provided that pilots and other display personnel would receive a written briefing setting out the procedures and safety requirements for the event. The WoW 2018 written pilot briefing was distributed to participating pilots many days before the show. It was reissued to them when they physically registered at Wanaka for the event.
[40] Amongst other details it: advised the pilots that their attendance at the daily briefings during the event was mandatory; set out the proposed programme for the show (in outline form), noting that it might vary in content and sequence;20 and attached the AIP landing plate for the airfield (complete with the notes).
[41]On the topic of changes to the display routine it stated:
The Flying Display Director must approve any changes to a display routine. Any approval will be assessed on the applicant’s ability to demonstrate recent display experience on type and advice from similar type display qualified pilots. Spontaneous or “ad lib” displays are prohibited.
20 For example, the programme included in the written pilot briefing stated at 10.15 am “Sports Aircraft Display”. It included no other detail about this display.
[42]On radio communications it advised pilots that:
All participating aircraft must have VHF communication with “Wanaka Display” during the period of the flying displays and display practice. During this period, frequency 120.1 MHz will be used for ground movements and joining communications. Frequency 118.9 MHz will be used exclusively for all circuit and display communications. Pilots will remain on frequency
120.1 MHz until instructed to change to 118.9 MHz.
The Display Director will brief pilots of aircraft with no radios on what is expected of them during their display.
Daily pilot briefings
[43] The WoW 2018 Exposition also provided for the DD to conduct a “daily briefing of all participating display pilots, [the] military display director, special effects personnel and any ground display personnel who are supporting the flying display … prior to the flying display each day”. At WoW 2018 Mr Lee conducted the daily briefing each morning on the practice days and the two show days.
The flying programme
[44] The WoW 2018 Exposition stated that the detail of the flying programme was to be provided to the CAA within 30 days before the event and “the final approved programme, participating aircraft and pilots [was to] be submitted as soon as practicable prior to the event”. The FDC and the DD were required to review the capability and limitations of the activities within the programme.
[45] To prepare the programme Mr Lamont needed to consider what the display involved, the pilot’s capabilities, the time required for each display and how a display could be integrated with the surrounding displays. His aim was to provide an entertaining and interesting show, and to tell a story about the history of the more significant Warbird aircraft. He also aimed to design a programme that provided non-stop action for six hours with a variety of aeroplanes. The mainstay of WoW was WWII aircraft. The military usually had at least one hour and then there were helicopters, gliders, light sport aircraft and a range of other things to be included to keep the crowd entertained and engaged.
[46] Mr Lamont produced a movement schedule (the flying programme) which set out the sequence of events and their timings. This included the display start time but also other events necessary for that display. For example, the programme for the first five events on the Saturday morning of the show, before the news was received that the F-16 (item 3) was unavailable, was as follows:
Item Time on Duration Event Remarks 9 0 20 Airshow briefing 1 9 55 0 Chipmunk T/O Hold Hold at Mt Barker 2 9 58 2 NH-90 T/O and hover taxi down crowd line – Sir Tim Wallis Vacate for local
scenic, landing A/R
3 10 0 5 F-16 Strafes Airfield – 2 passes Pyros 4 10 05 10 LSA set up and Aircraft Taxi into position Position during Tiger/Chipmunk display 5 10 05 10.15 Dancing DeHavillands- Tiger and Chipmunk display Tiger commences from T/O 6 10 15 15 Light Sport Aircraft Display- Paintball Gunnery
[47] The programme continued in this vein with 97 items and concluded at 4.05 pm with the completion of the show. The bolded items were the displays and the non-bolded items were about activities associated with upcoming displays. It was produced on the morning of each show day and released to the participants at the morning pilot briefings.
Passive control of displays
[48] The AIP Supplement advised that ATS was not provided when display practices and the airshow were in progress. The WoW 2018 Exposition provided that the DD would provide “passive control” during these periods. This term, which is commonly used to describe the control provided by display directors at airshows, is seemingly intended to distinguish the direction from an ATCS, which can only be provided by qualified air traffic controllers in an appropriately designated airspace.
[49] Passive control was provided in discharge of the DD’s responsibilities for “ensuring safe conduct of the flying display” and the requirement that the restricted airspace could be entered only with the approval of the DD. The AC91-1 did not provide specific guidance about how this passive control of the display was to be exercised. An NZASA Guide to Air Show Display Director, which is recognised as a code of practice and indicator of best practice, did not do so either.21
[50] However, the evidence from the various witnesses about what passive control involves was largely consistent. As S/L Rankin put it, the DD approved aircraft for display but did not control them. This approval included “co-ordinating the takeoff slots, holding areas (if required) and landing slots to minimise the time taken between one display and the next, and to keep an orderly flow of activity”. Individual pilots remained responsible for their own separation from other aircraft. All operations remained at the pilot’s discretion and onus.
[51] As S/L Rankin explained, a DD could make only two decisions for the pilot – whether he could enter the control zone (meaning takeoff) and to “knock it off” if the display was unsafe. Also, if the DD was aware of a hazard, he (or she) would have a responsibility to stop the display.
[52] S/L Rankin further explained that when an aircraft was holding, the display director would give approval to commence the display.22 This meant “proceed, yes, I’m happy for you to do it”. Approval would be given when the DD knew that the airspace was clear. In other words, “there will be nothing within that bit of airspace for the duration of the display. Go for it”. S/L Rankin explained that such approval was given because:
… I’m the administering authority for that bit of airspace. CAA has actually effectively said, “Hey, everybody, that chunk of airspace now belongs to Warbirds over Wanaka and they decide who operates in that area.” What they actually do though is at the discretion of the pilot. An approval to a display means that, “I have sanitised the airspace you need to do your display.”
21 This Guide provides a range of other guidance to the display director in the discharge of his or her responsibilities. For example, the items that should be addressed in the daily verbal briefing. It does not discuss the content or scope of the “passive control” provided.
22 Sometimes this was referred to as “clearance” but the correct term is “approval” (to distinguish the role and responsibility from that of an air traffic controller).
[53]Similar evidence from the WoW defendants included the following:
(a)Mr Lee said the DD assisted pilots if they requested it, but they operated at their discretion. He described the role as choreographing aircraft to work closely together. He said the DD did not control the pilots and the burden was on the pilots to operate safely. The DD would provide guidance on aircraft movements – for example telling them if a display was delayed or there was an adjustment to airshow timings, and if an aircraft or formation needed to hold clear of the airfield or sit on the ground until their slot became available.
(b)Mr Hogan said a “passive control” service meant that the pilots had the responsibility for ensuring their operations are conducted safely. The display director could approve the pilot’s movements but could not “control” the pilot. It was not an air traffic control service. He agreed that there was an obligation to warn display pilots of hazards when they are landing on a runway or a vector that was available to them to use. Mr Hogan said each display was timed to allow planes to takeoff and land, either at the end of their display or in between another display.
(c)Mr Lamont said that once the display is set in motion, in the absence of a hazard or emergency, the pilots fly through the display that they have briefed and when they have finished the display they will land (unless they are landing elsewhere or at a later time).
(d)David Brown, an expert witness called by the defendants, said that when a pilot is ready to display at their allocated time and the airspace over the airfield is clear of other aircraft, the DD will advise the pilot that they can commence their display (saying, for example, “ display approved” or “display at your discretion”). After this, the DD may not make another radio call, particularly if the pilot is landing after their display, because the landing would be part of the approval from the DD to operate in the restricted area. He agreed that it was incumbent on
display directors to alert a pilot who is landing to obstructions on an active runway.
[54] Mr Dovey said he understood “passive control” to mean that the display directors generally confined their approvals and instructions to taxiing, takeoff and starting displays. Clearance to display was clearance to land.23 If a hazard was on the runway, the DD would inform the pilot. He said that, by a DD’s silence, landing approval is implied. Similarly, Mervyn Falconer, an expert witness called by the plaintiff, said landing was approved when the Yaks were given approval to commence their display. Keith Skilling, another expert witness called by the plaintiff, said “clearance to display is clearance to land” where the display concludes with landing at the airfield.
The Tower and ADD support
[55] At WoW 2018 passive control by the DD was provided from the Tower. The Tower was a mobile control tower facility owned by Airways Corporation.24 At WoW 2018 it was located immediately north of the terminal taxiway and provided an unobstructed view of the runways.
[56] The Tower included the equipment for the two radio frequencies (referred to in the WoW 2018 Exposition, the AIP Supplement and the written pilot briefing) that were used for coordinating the show and providing display direction. As set out in those documents, one of those radio frequencies was for ground movements and joining communications and the other was exclusively for circuit and display communications.
[57] In the Tower, Mr Hogan was tasked with communicating with all ground operations. For ease of reference, in case the DD required it, Mr Hogan maintained a
23 Unlike an air traffic controller, where a pilot does not land without clearance from the controller to do so, a DD’s role does not involve providing specific approval or clearance to land.
24 It is used around the country where a mobile facility is required because there is not a functioning tower building. It is effectively a modified shipping container that is movable by truck. It had seating for up to four people. It is fitted with two air-ground radios (with speakers and headsets), an ATIS transmitter (which broadcasts an automated message detailing airfield conditions), weather equipment and landlines and computer connections to the Airways network. It has panoramic windows with relatively unobstructed views in all lateral directions.
“record board” of aircraft in the air, those next to takeoff, and those in holding patterns. Mr Hogan also took any landline calls. He watched takeoffs and landings to support the DD when he was able to while performing his other duties. He explained:
Wherever possible I keep an eye on things but I don’t sit on the shoulder of the display director monitoring his every move, I mean, I’d never get my job done in that situation.
[58]S/L Rankin was asked about Mr Hogan’s responsibilities:
Q. … It [Mr Hogan’s job description] reads like this, “He is responsible to the display director, Mr Lee, for provision of an air traffic advisory service to all aircraft during the display and practice periods.” …
A. I don't like the term “air traffic advisory”. He’s normally running the ground frequency at displays. So when you said, “advisory,” the normal advice will be along the lines of we’re running five minutes early, five minutes late, the QFE which is the altimeter setting, like your hectopascals on your weather map. He does that sort of thing. So he’s advising aircraft of how the show is going and will occasionally be asked by the display director, ... if you could get those guys to taxi there or if you could get them to change to this frequency. He’s not providing an air traffic information service, and advisory service [is] probably as good a terminology as any.
The pre-positioning of the cherry pickers
The issue
[59] This issue concerns how the cherry pickers came to be on the centre grass and whether the defendants have responsibility for it.
Alleged duty
[60] The duties of care alleged against the defendants are particularised in considerable detail and are put in various and somewhat overlapping ways. As aspects of the pleaded duties are accepted by the defendants, I focus on those aspects and any of the particularised duties that appear to have most relevance to this topic.25
[61] The RNZAF defendants accept that S/L Rankin owed a duty to provide a competent display direction service, to provide passive control, to be alert to hazards
25 I have taken the same approach for all of the topics discussed that are said to give rise to duties to the plaintiff.
and to maintain situational awareness. They resist that this duty was a legal obligation to inform pilots of hazards, but S/L Rankin says as a matter of fact he would alert a pilot to a hazard that he was aware would be likely to affect them. S/L Rankin also accepted he had a duty to keep designated/active runways clear for takeoff and landing and says that the centre grass was not a designated or active runway. S/L Rankin says he acted with reasonable care in arranging to have the cherry pickers moved from their position close to a designated runway.
[62] With reference to the pleaded duties that potentially relate to the pre-positioning of the cherry pickers, WoW Ltd accepts that it, through the DD’s responsibilities, owed a duty to exercise reasonable care to:
(a)approve all operations in the restricted area;
(b)be kept informed of any risks, hazards or conditions that might affect the safe conduct of WoW 2018;
(c)identify, evaluate and remove hazards, or at least minimise hazards, as far as practicable;
(d)ensure that the flying programme unambiguously prescribed when and how the airside ground movements affecting active runways or vectors were to occur;
(e)consider the risk and safety implications of any modifications to the flying programme;
(f)approve and coordinate any modifications to the flying programme;
(g)refuse to approve any amendment to the flying programme unless or until he was satisfied that there were no adverse risk or safety implications to the proposed change;
(h)ensure that active runways or vectors remained clear of obstructions at all times during a display;
(i)close any runway or vector that was hazardous to aircraft operations; and
(j)be alert to any hazard or display aircraft.
[63] The WoW defendants go on to say that this list is a fragmentation of the duties and obligations which are defined by his DD role and responsibilities. They say that Mr Lee did not breach his duty of care in relation to the pre-positioning of the cherry pickers because he was reasonably entitled to rely on S/L Rankin, the centre grass was not a designated or active runway and the cherry pickers had been pre-positioned at a suitable distance away from the designated and active runways. They also say that notice was given to Mr Dovey of a potential interference with the centre grass through the flying programme which referred to the LSA set-up at 10.05.
The evidence
a) The original plan
[64] The Light Sports Aircraft (LSA) team, under Peter Clulow’s management and instruction, had displayed at the WoW 2014 and 2016 shows. The 2018 LSA display was to be more complicated than in the past because the pilots were going to fly the aircraft down to 50 or 60 kn and shoot balloons with paintball guns mounted on their wings. The balloons would hang from a string between the raised tower cranes of two cherry pickers. The cherry pickers were large machines (about the size of a minibus) and orange in colour.
[65] A risk assessment for this display formed part of the WoW 2018 Exposition that was approved by the CAA. This was a detailed spreadsheet setting out the risks of each activity involved in the display and how they were to be addressed. Relevantly for present purposes, it contained the following:
(a)Existing Controls: “Towers to be setup in the grass area between the sealed runway and grass runway and will only be erected for the display and dismantled on completion of the display. …”;
(b)Actions: “Secure suitable location for the tethering towers away from the active runways, setup just prior to the display and dismantle immediately after. Hard hats to be worn.”
[66] On the flying programme, the LSA was to “set up and Aircraft taxi into position” at 10.05 am and to “position during Tiger/Chipmunk display”. From 10.05 to 10.15 the Tiger Moth and Chipmunk were to display. At 10.15 the LSA display was to commence.26 This meant that the LSA display had 10 minutes for its set-up.
[67] The original plan was that the cherry pickers would be stored over by the pyrotechnics on the northern side of the northern grass. They would be brought out and set up on the centre grass for the display. Mr Lamont and Mr Lee’s understanding was that the cherry pickers would not be moved from the northern grass to the centre grass until 10.05 am, but would first need clearance from the DD to move into the operational area.
b) The plan changed
[68] Mr Taylor’s evidence was that the original plan changed following a practice that had taken place leading up to WoW 2018 at a high-country station near Wanaka. The LSA team had realised they needed more than 10 minutes to get the cherry pickers from the northern grass to the centre grass and to erect the towers.
[69] The defendants called evidence from Rex Smart, who was responsible for driving one of the cherry pickers needed for the display. Mr Smart attended the high-country practice. He confirmed that the fastest they managed to shift the cherry pickers, erect the two crane towers and tension the cable between them, was 15 or so minutes and the programme only allowed for 10.
[70]As to the WoW Friday practice at the aerodrome:
(a)Mr Smart said the LSA team set up the cherry pickers on the grass area just to the side of the sealed runway from around 7.45 am on the
26 See [46] above.
practice day, 30 March. He said the practice went according to plan and that they lowered and moved the cherry pickers to the far side of the northern grass after the LSA finished their practice.
(b)Mr Hogan said he saw the cherry pickers in situ for the LSA practice during his runway inspection and understood they had been moved into that position from the northern boundary.
(c)S/L Rankin noticed the two cherry pickers on the centre grass during the practice day and asked what they were for, but he did not observe the LSA practice or the movement of the cherry pickers.
[71] When the LSA ground crew arrived at the airfield on the Saturday morning of the show, the cherry pickers were on the far side of the northern grass runway, where they had been stored after the practice at the airfield the day before. According to Mr Smart, there was a discussion amongst the ground crew about how they were going to make the set-up work in their allocated 10 minute slot for this.
[72] A decision appears to have been made to pre-position them on the centre grass in a position close to the seal runway. Mr Smart said that he was not involved in that decision. It is unclear who made the decision as neither Peter Clulow (the overall LSA team leader) nor Peter Akass (the LSA ground crew leader) were called to give evidence.
[73]There is evidence that someone, most likely Peter Akass, called the Tower at
7.40 am (Airways were on duty) to ask for permission to cross the seal to go to the northern grass to collect the cherry pickers. Mr Smart said this would be about the time they were moving the cherry pickers to do the initial set-up. It appears that the cherry pickers were then collected and driven to the edge of the seal. There is no evidence that permission was sought from anyone at WoW.27
27 Mr Taylor’s evidence about this appears to have been what he pieced together after the event: “I was aware that a decision had been made to bring them out earlier, but I don’t remember when or why I wasn’t asked permission to do that” and “Your Honour, for me this is all hindsight. I was not involved in this process …”.
[74] S/L Rankin arrived at the airfield at around 7 am. He first visited the office to advise that the opening display (a USAF F-16 fighter aircraft which was to do two high speed passes across the field) was looking doubtful because of the weather. He then visited the Tower. On his way to the Tower (which must have been sometime after 7.40 am) S/L Rankin saw that the cherry pickers were on the centre grass in a position close to the sealed runway.
[75] The positioning of the cherry pickers close to the seal runway was unsuitable from S/L Rankin’s perspective because of the expected arrival of an RNZAF King Air aircraft. He asked the Airways staff in the Tower to contact the LSA display organisers to have them moved. Contrary to a submission made on his behalf in closing that he did not say where they to be moved to, his evidence was that he suggested that they be moved to the middle of the centre grass.28 S/L Rankin’s explanation for this at trial was that the centre grass was not a “designated” runway and it would keep the cherry pickers at a safe distance from both the sealed runway and the northern grass runway.
[76] Consistent with this instruction from S/L Rankin to Airways, Mr Smart said that he was in the rear of Mr Akass’ vehicle when Mr Akass had a conversation with someone who he understood to be a CAA person (someone official, wearing a yellow vest and holding a radio) on the verge of the sealed runway. It was discussed that the cherry pickers were to be moved to the mid-point between the seal and the northern grass runways. Mr Smart said it was around 8.30 am when they moved the cherry pickers to this midway point.
[77] At some point after giving the instruction for the cherry pickers to be moved and before the pilot briefing at 9 am, S/L Rankin told Mr Lee the cherry pickers were in the wrong place and he had arranged to have them moved. He did not tell Mr Lee where he arranged to have them moved to and nor did he wait to see where they were moved to. Mr Lee confirmed that S/L Rankin had told him about this. He did not ask S/L Rankin where they had been moved to exactly, but assumed they were near the taxiway (taxiway Bravo) leading to where the RNZAF aircraft would be parked.29 He
28 He described this as the “old holding point”. It was about two-thirds up the centre grass and by the tyres that usually funnelled traffic across taxiway B to the northern grass.
29 This taxiway is perpendicular to the sealed runway, going from the terminal side to around the midpoint of the sealed runway.
trusted S/L Rankin with getting the cherry pickers moved. He said he also had a conversation with Mr Clulow but left it to him to liaise with S/L Rankin.
[78] Mr Lamont was not told, and was otherwise not made aware, that the cherry pickers had been pre-positioned on the centre grass.
[79] Mr Hogan arrived at the airfield at around 7.30 am on the Saturday of the show. He commenced his runway inspection around 10 minutes later. The purpose of the inspection was to ensure the surfaces of the runway areas was serviceable. He carried out his inspection travelling in a vehicle at around 10-15 km/h. He began at the threshold of the 11/29 seal runway, travelling along its length in both directions. He then went along the centre grass in both directions.30 Lastly, Mr Hogan went up and down the northern grass runway. He said this took him 10 to 15 minutes but agreed it could have been 20 to 30 minutes.
[80] Mr Hogan recalled seeing the cherry pickers on the northern boundary. This must have been at the start of his inspection because, as noted earlier, at 7.40 am permission was sought from Airways to cross the seal to move the cherry pickers from the northern boundary. He did not remember seeing the cherry pickers being moved from this position, although the timing of the Airways call and S/L Rankin’s evidence suggests that they would have been in the process of being moved during Mr Hogan’s inspection. Mr Hogan was prepared to concede the cherry pickers must have been on the centre grass by the time he finished, but he does not remember that.31
Findings
a) Pre-positioning contrary to the approved WoW 2018 Exposition
[81] There was a suggestion advanced by counsel for the WoW defendants that “set up” in the approved WoW 2018 Exposition meant raising the cherry picker tower cranes, and that the cherry pickers could be pre-positioned on the centre grass (with the towers down) at any time before the display. I do not accept this suggestion.
30 As discussed later, tyres demarcating the taxiway across the centre grass had been removed during the previous afternoon, although Mr Hogan was not aware of the reason for this.
31 Mr Hogan generally and genuinely had difficulty recalling specifics about WoW 2018 and the accident.
[82] Mr Lamont said the intention was for the cherry pickers to be rolled out to the centre grass area at 10.05 am and the towers raised during the 10-minute period. He said this was what was meant by “LSA set up” in the flying display programme. Mr Lamont was referred to Mr Taylor’s response to the CAA draft report after the accident in which it was said that it had always been planned that the cherry pickers would be pre-positioned. Mr Lamont said that this was not his understanding.
[83] I accept Mr Lamont’s evidence. He was the person who prepared the programme and he was a thoughtful and careful witness who did not seek to shy away from matters that could count against the defendants. Further, his evidence was supported by Mr Lee. Mr Lee also expected that the cherry pickers would not begin to be moved from the northern grass into their position on the centre grass until
10.05 am and not without first being cleared by the DD to move into the operational area. He “certainly didn’t know [the cherry pickers] were go[ing to] be pre-positioned on the centre grass”.32
[84] Mr Lamont accepted that clear instructions in the flying programme or elsewhere as to when the cherry pickers were to move from the northern ground could be said to be a relevant factor in avoiding the accident. However, I consider the flying programme was sufficiently clear, as was the WoW 2018 Exposition. The error came about because the allocated time slot for set-up was insufficient. The error was by those involved in the decision to pre-position the cherry pickers contrary to the WoW 2018 Exposition and the flying programme. The initial error appears to have been made by someone in the LSA team when they were pre-positioned close to the seal runway. S/L Rankin noticed this hazard and took steps to address it. The issue is whether he and anyone else aware of this acted with reasonable care in doing so and breached a duty to the plaintiff by not taking reasonable care.
b) Risk assessment needed
[85] The CAA authorised WoW 2018 on the information provided to it, which included the risk assessment for the LSA display. The pre-positioning of the cherry
32 The cherry pickers would be driven clear of the airfield after the LSA display and before the Harvard display.
pickers changed what had been authorised. I consider that the cherry pickers should not have been pre-positioned on the centre grass without a proper risk assessment of that change. A risk assessment about whether the cherry pickers could be pre-positioned should have at least included whether that would conflict with the flying programme. However, no proper risk assessment took place.
[86] S/L Rankin’s concern was to move the cherry pickers from where they were a hazard to RNZAF aircraft. He appears not to have contemplated that any aircraft would be landing on the centre grass prior to the completion of the LSA display. I discuss later why that was.
[87] Mr Lamont was not made aware that the plan had been changed. Had the LSA asked him whether they could move the cranes on the airfield earlier than 10.05 am, he would have considered that in light of other movements on the airfield. He did not assess the risk of the early pre-positioning because he was not aware of it. The same applies to Mr Lee. Mr Hogan appears not to have noticed that the cherry pickers had been pre-positioned, but it was not his responsibility to address the risk that this potentially created.
Breach of duty
a) S/L Rankin
[88] I conclude errors were made relating to the early pre-positioning of the cherry pickers. The first error was that of S/L Rankin. His focus was on the safety of RNZAF aircraft. He should not have directed the cherry pickers to be moved to the middle of the centre grass without first checking whether this would constitute a hazard for other (non-RNZAF) aircraft.
[89] I accept that S/L Rankin’s responsibilities were confined to military aircraft and only civilian aircraft to the extent that they would be flying at the same time as military aircraft when he would be the acting DD. S/L Rankin was therefore not required to check the WoW 2018 Exposition risk assessment and the flying programme to see where the cherry pickers were meant to be stored (that is, the northern grass
until 10.05 am) or to conduct a risk assessment if they were to be pre-positioned in a different location.
[90] However, S/L Rankin took it upon himself to direct that the cherry pickers be moved and to suggest that they be moved to the middle of the centre grass. He did not tell Mr Lee where he had moved them to. Rather than suggesting a new location, he should have informed Mr Lee of the hazard so that Mr Lee could make the appropriate decision in light of his knowledge of the WoW 2018 Exposition and the flying programme, and as the person responsible for ensuring the safe conduct of the flying display and for approving and coordinating any modifications to it caused by any factor.
84 Stephen Todd Todd on Torts (8th ed, Thomson Reuters, New Zealand, 2019) at 25.2.08; Rt Hon Sir Peter Blanchard (ed) Civil Remedies in New Zealand (online ed, 2011) at 51.2.8.1; Gardiner v Metcalf [1994] 2 NZLR 8 (CA) at 13; Coles v Hetherton [2013] EWCA Civ 1704, [2015] 1 WLR 160 at [27]; Pargiter v Alexander (1995) 5 Tas R 158 (TASSC) at 164; Badham v Williams [1968] NZLR 728 (SC); and Stirling v Poulgrain [1980] 2 NZLR 402 (CA) at 424.
85 Todd on Torts, at 59.25.2.08(6) and Dodd Properties (Kent) Ltd v Canterbury City Council [1980] 1 All ER 928.
defendants denied liability. I consider in these circumstances Mr Smith’s estimate six weeks prior to trial represents an appropriate date. I order damages in the sum of NZD616,500 plus GST.
Result
[522] Judgment is entered for the plaintiff in the sum of NZD616,500 plus GST and interest against the first and third defendants. I have not apportioned this as between the first and third defendants because cross-notices were not filed and I was not asked to do so. However, leave is reserved for the parties to apply for that apportionment if necessary.
[523] I formally reserve costs but note the general principle that costs follow the event and the High Court Rules set out how this principle should operate. Leave is reserved for the parties to make brief submissions on costs, should that be necessary.
[524] The parties have six weeks from the date of this judgment to revert to me on apportionment and/or costs issues, should that be necessary.
Mallon J
Appendix one – abbreviations
AC91-1
CAA Advisory Circular 91-1
ADD
Assistant Display Director
AFIS
Aerodrome Flight Information Service
AIP
Aeronautical Information Publication
ATCS
Air Traffic Control Service
ATS
Air Traffic Service
CAA
Civil Aviation Authority
CAR
Civil Aviation Rules
DD
Display Director (see FDD)
FDC
Flying Display Committee
FDD
Flight Display Director or flight display direction
FDP
Flying Display Planner
LLDA
Low Level Display Approval
LSA
Light Sports Aircraft
MDD
Military Display Director
NZASA
New Zealand Airshow Association
NZDF
New Zealand Defence Force
NZWF
Wanaka Aerodrome
QAC
Queenstown Airport Corporation
RAAF
Royal Australian Air Force
RNZAF
Royal New Zealand Air Force
S/L
Squadron Leader
USAF
United States Air Force
WoW Ltd
Warbirds Over Wanaka Airshows Limited
WoW
Warbirds over Wanaka airshow
Appendix two – landing plate
Appendix three – experts
Military Civilian Airshows Mr Dovey Was part of the RNZAF between 1964 and 1969, achieving the rank of Flight Lieutenant. He flew in formation for operations and aerobatic displays. He also flew with the RAF, RAAF
and the USAF internationally.
Between 1970 and 2005, he flew with various international airlines and was a training instructor and held regulatory roles. He was a flight instructor and then Chief Standards
Captain for Air New Zealand. He was also Council Chairman of the NZ Airline Pilots’ Association, which included involvement in the Erebus Inquiry.
Total of 25,180 hours flying logged as of May 2020.
Has flown his Yak-3M in the 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012,
and 2014 WoW airshows and the 2007, 2011, 2013, and 2015 Omaka airshows.
Mr Frew Was part of the RNZAF between 1986 and 1994, mainly flying transport aircraft, and he achieved the rank of Flight
Lieutenant.
Since 1995, he has been a pilot for Air New Zealand.
Total of 19,200 hours flying as of April 2019.
Has flown in airshows since 2001 at Wanaka, Omaka, Tauranga and Wairarapa.
He flew pairs displays with Mr Dovey at Wanaka in 2014 and 2018 and Omaka in 2013 and 2015.
Mr Falconer Between 1968 and 2000, he flew as a
commercial and private pilot in New Zealand and overseas. He was also involved in testing and inspecting for Airways Corporation.
From 2000 to 2013, he was Manager of the Fixed Wing Division of the General Aviation Group in the CAA and was involved in inspecting and auditing. He also issued Aviation Event Approvals.
From 2013 to the present, he has been an aviation consultant.
Total flight time of over 15,000 hours logged as of May 2020.
Approved as an FDD by the NZASA.
Has been involved in the display team at Wings over Wairarapa events since 2001, as Display Director in 2019 and Display Direction Co-ordinator (equivalent of ADD) at the other nine events.
Mr Skilling From 1966 to 1978, he was part of the RNZAF, mainly flying transport aircraft, and achieved the rank of Squadron Leader. Between 1978 and 2012, he was an Air New Zealand pilot and instructor.
In 1979 he became a foundation member of NZ Warbirds. He led the Roaring Forties Harvard aerobatic team. He has flown in
many Warbird aircraft types such as such as the Yak 3, Mosquito, Spitfire, Hurricane, Lavochkin La9, Me 109, P51 Mustang,
Polikarpov I-16, Corsair, Kittyhawk, Harvard and various other WWI and WWII types. He has been a test pilot for most of these types.
Total flight time of 25,000 logged as of June 2020.
Has flown in every WoW airshow and has flown in most major airshows in New Zealand since 1984 and in Europe since 1994 (with five years in the Breitling Fighters Display Team).
Currently on the English display flying control
committee at the Imperial War Museum at Duxford.
He was listed as a CAA-approved display director in the NZASA Display Director Guide, but removed his name from that list a couple of years ago.
S/L Rankin He has been with the RNZAF from 1978 to
the present, primarily as a flight instructor. He has been the
commander of the
RNZAF Central Flying School twice. He has deployed in NZDF
operations three times. He achieved the rank of Wing Commander
several times, but remains as Squadron
Leader to continue as an active pilot.
Has flown as a display pilot (including in civilian
aircraft) since the late 1980s, with four years leading the RNZAF Red Checkers aerobatic team.
He is a display examiner and trainer for NZ Warbirds and has worked part-time for the CAA as a Safety Educator.
He has been the RNZAF’s principle display organiser and director since the 1990s, including more than 20
events per year, including all the major airshows. He is listed as a CAA-approved display director in the NZASA Display Director Guide. He designed the
RNZAF course for display pilots and directors.
Military Civilian Airshows Mr Taylor He joined WoW in 2012 and has overseen airshows every two years since.
He is the General Manager and looks after the running of WoW Ltd and the WoW Charitable Community Trust.
Mr Lee He was part of the
RNZAF from 1973 to 1987, achieving the rank of Squadron Leader. He was a flying instructor
and Training Flight Commander. He also
served as an instructor pilot for the USAF between 1982 and 1984.
From 1987 to the present, he has been with Air New Zealand, including as a Flight Examiner, Captain and Flight Instructor. Has been a display director since the 1980s, for the RNZAF and for various New Zealand airshows
including WoW shows in the 1990s, 2016 and 2018.
He was a display pilot in the A4 Skyhawk, Strikemaster and Harvard at many airshows.
He was Deputy Chief Flying instructor for NZ Warbirds.
Mr Lamont He was part of the
RNZAF from 1965 to 1975, serving as a flying instructor from 1967 to 1969, and achieving the rank of Flight
Lieutenant. He was a member of the RNZAF
Red Checkers aerobatics team.
He was an airline pilot with National Airways Corporation and Air New Zealand between 1975 and 2005, holding positions as Airline Training Captain and Instructor.
He received a QSM in the Queen’s Birthday Honours for services to aviation.
He has been part of NZ Warbirds since 1984. He joined the Roaring Forties in 1987 (and was leader from 1991 to 1996) and flew in the first WoW show in 1988. He has flown in many airshows internationally in Australia, America and Europe. He has flown many types of Warbird aircraft, including the F4U Corsair, P40, Spitfire, Hurricane, Mustang, Sea Fury,
Lavochkin La9, Polikarpov I-16 and I-153 and Yak 3. He carried out the post-restoration test flying in Mr Dovey’s Yak.
He is an approved NZ Warbirds instructor and delegated LLDA approver.
Mr Hogan He started flying in 1963 and worked as a commercial pilot, with 4,000 hours of
experience. He was an Air Traffic Controller for seven years. He has held Chief Flying Instructor positions in various organisations
His experience includes instructing, aerial top dressing, aerobatics and display flying, as
well as company flying in Australia and charter flying in New Zealand.
He represented New Zealand in the 1978 World Aerobatics Competitions.
He is listed as a CAA-approved assistant display director in the NZASA Display Director Guide. Mr Brown He was part of the
RNZAF between 1978 and 1990. He achieved the highest category of instructor rating. He flew in a number of
formation and low-level aerobatic displays in
New Zealand.
From 1990 to 2018, he worked for Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd as international pilot
He is currently a self-employed contractor, specialising in aviation.
He is the Standards and Training Manager for Warbirds Ltd. He is on the board of NZASA as a representative of NZ Warbirds and led the drafting of the NZASA DD manual. He is on the board of the International Formation
and Safety Training organisation. He is one of three check pilots in New Zealand and so can assess formation pilots for competency and upgrades.
Has logged 23,900 hours of flying time as of May 2020. He has logged 1,970 hours of flight instruction from ab-initio to low-level aerobatics, including formation and display flying.
He joined NZ Warbirds in 1995 and began volunteer instructing for them in 2002.
In 2006 he was appointed Deputy Chief Flying Instructor for NZ Warbirds and assisted in updating many of NZ Warbirds’ training courses for aerobatics, formation and display flying.
In 2011 he was appointed Chief Flying Instructor for Warbirds and still holds this position. He has oversight of all Warbirds’ training programmes and he issues
various authorisations (including Aviation Event Authorisations) and runs courses.
He has displayed in a variety of aircraft types at almost every New Zealand airshow since 2007. He joined the Roaring Forties Harvard Aerobatic Team in 2009 and became team leader in 2018.
He is listed as a CAA-approved display director in the NZASA Display Director Guide and last acted as a DD for the NZ Warbirds Armistice Day Open Day in 2017.
NZ Warbirds and NZASA gave him responsibility for training DDs and ADDs.