Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Farken Ag Pilot!

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
You city boys. . .If you go back to doing your touch and goes in the middle of town. . .You want have to worry about the good 'ol boys in the country.

Use your eyes rather than your mouth.
 
avbug said:
Many, many times I've elected to use a different runway than what others are using, and rightfully so. Most of the time, all the little weekend lemmings flying the "active runway" see the light and switch runways, but not always so. Do I care? No.

"See and avoid" doesn't work so well when you guys are flying a 200' pattern. If you're gonna fly that low and not talk to anyone, I don't see the intelligence or professionalism in intentionally taking the opposite runway as someone who's departing. Furthermore, don't you think it would be wise to consider the experience level of the "lemmings" you're mocking? A pattern full of soloing student pilots and 300-hour flight instructors is not the place to be doing your own thing. Regs aside, it seems to me that what you're talking about, Avbug, is at best rude and at worst unsafe.
 
avbug said:
Don't patronize me. It does little to engender a good disposition on my part

Your disposition needs to be endangered not engendered, it sucks! That IS the point!

You bring a lot of knowlege and experience to the table, no doubt, just find it in yourself not to be so harsh and judgmental on people that you may disagree with, that's all.
 
Last edited:
mattpilot said:
Could you please highlight the words where it says that an ag user may also deviate from rules when he is conducting any operations not involving dispensing?
Uhhh...sure. try the next sentence.

§ 137.29 General.
(c) The holder of an agricultural aircraft operator certificate may deviate from the provisions of Part 91 of this chapter without a certificate of waiver, as authorized in this subpart for dispensing operations, when conducting nondispensing aerial work operations related to ...
 
Maybe you should file a complaint with the Fed's. Or better stroll on over to Mr. Duster and quote a few Reg's to him and inform him that if he does it again your going to hit him with your purse. Get a grip you little Prick, go back to your home airport and burn the tires off whatever POS your learning to fly. My hats off to the fellow, next time I hope he has a little Heptaclor saved in the barn to hose your sorry rump.
 
I've never flown Ag stuff, and I hesitate to engage myself into this fray, but as I read 137.45...

(d)the aircraft at all times remains clear of and gives way to, aircraft conforming to the traffic pattern for the airport. or

in it's entirety

137.45 Nonobservance of airport traffic pattern

Notwithstanding part 91 of this chapter, the pilot in command of an aircraft may deviate from an airport traffic pattern when authorized by the control tower concerned. At an airport without a functioning control tower, the pilot in command may deviate from the traffic pattern if---
(a)Prior coordination is made with the airport management concerned;
(b)deviations are limited to the agricultural aircraft operation;
(c)Except in an emergency, landing and takeoffs are not made on ramps, taxiways, or other areas of the airport not intended for such use;and (d) The aircraft at all times remains clear of, and gives way to, aircraft conforming to the traffic pattern for the airport.

I would imagine the airport involved does not have a tower. I don't have any indication that the operation did or did not engage in agricultural aircraft operation and therefore do not know if (b) applies. It would appear that (a) and (d) would apply.

It seems to me from a basic reading of the account that the AG pilot probably should have complied with the standard traffic pattern recommended in the AIM or facility directory or as established by the airport management. Operating in a reckless manner does not require a regulation to determine if it is or not.

As for the radio, I think a lot of military guys are multi-functional and have mike buttons on the stick. I don't think operating in a traffic pattern requires an extraordinary amount of skill to include a radio in the operation, not that a radio saves you, but it is a tool that the modern age as adapted to. A lot of gliders also don't have radios for various reasons and some older aircraft also don't have radios. Most do.

I have always respected and appreciated the skills of an AG pilot, but really this seems to have been uncalled for as it was described by Mattpilot, regardless of his own problems.
 
Stinkbug said:
A pattern full of soloing student pilots and 300-hour flight instructors is not the place to be doing your own thing.
Maybe an airport with an active ag operation isn't the place to be soloing students. :rolleyes: You can do T&Gs anywhere, but they have to operate near the fields they are spraying.

I am more scared trying to land a jet with a pattern full of "300 hr instructors." Especially the young lady who, after acknowledging our pattern (yes we flew a L traffic pattern), decided to do a sim eng out to an intersecting runway...at the same time.

Give me the ag pilots.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top