Farken Ag Pilot!

[Wang Chung]

"Boy, everyone is stupid except me."

- Homer J. Simpson

 

[Flylo]

What A Thread!!

ROF,

Somebody start passing out the Midol.

.

 

[DC4boy]

What do you expect from a bunch of 12 year old wanna-be airline pilots.

 

[Fury220]

What do you expect from a bunch of 12 year old wanna-be airline pilots.

avbug is the only one acting as such that I've seen in this thread.

 

[TurboS7]

This guy is trying to make money you are just boring holes, cool it.

 

[flyinloki]

Heheh. This whole the thread is exactly why it costs a butt load of money for ag operators to insure themselves and why alot of insurance companies won't even insure this kind of operation. Not sayin these guys shouldn't fly or anything, just stating that the profession is more dangerous than your standard flying is. By the way I grew up on a farm

 

[low-n-slow]

Heheh. This whole the thread is exactly why it costs a butt load of money for ag operators to insure themselves and why alot of insurance companies won't even insure this kind of operation. Not sayin these guys shouldn't fly or anything, just stating that the profession is more dangerous than your standard flying is. By the way I grew up on a farm

I've been flying ag for a long time and this is the first I've heard that insurance is hard to get for an ag operation or that it cost a butt load of money to get coverage.

Like some other folks above, I'm having a heck of a good time reading through this funny mess...I had no idea we were popular.

Don't stop now kids, keep it coming.

 

[RightPedal]

Ag aviation is and always will be my second love. I'll not mention my first love, this would only start another keyboard war about religion.
For the most part, all the agpilots I know are of the most professional and experenced airplane pilots out there. From WW2 P51 pilots to retired airline pilots and everything in between. I feel that all veteran agpilots started flying for the sole purpose of becoming a crop duster. It's something one is born with, it's in the blood kind of thing.
This business of aerial application is misunderstood by most. Yes they do thing different but for reasons we all can understand if explained. This would require someone better at the keyboard (like avbug) than I to do.
I have no idea what was going on at the time for Mr.502JP but I might guess it had to do with low fuel if he was working. Eventhough agpilots are as good at crashing as most other pilots are at flying, the replacement cost of that machine after a crash is why insurance rates are as they are in this trade. So keep in mind that five more minutes in the pattern waiting for a few 152's to get out of the way could ruin 502JP's day or future.
Most people think crop dusting is all fun with low level aerobatics but this is so far from the truth. There is a fine window of opportunity with a lot of money at stake to successfully complete the task. You try a 10 hour day in a stinking rattling loud overweight garrett powered airplane on a 105 degree day with banker's investors farmer's EPA greenpeace nut heads screaming at you. Then throw in a pair of students in a 90kt 152 scared slam to death of a 5mph crosswind on a 3 mile final to a 2000ft runway and tell me this 502JP has room for a radio to ask approval to get on the ground before this gas guzzlin' million dollar machine goes quite on him looking at the runway?
Think about it. Now you chullin' stop this fightn' before eagleflip puts you all in the penalty box for acting ugly to one another

 

[mattpilot]

RightPedal.... please.. read the thread before you go off on a tangent and try to come up with excuses. It was already stated that it would have been quicker to land on the runway in use (no overflying the field and entering the pattern on the other side of the airport) and it was already stated that the ag pilot flying 502JP was simply not paying attention (verifiable by calling the FBO).

Now.. what other excuses do you have?

Wait.. don't tell us. This thread is already dying. Let it rest in peace .

 

[RightPedal]

Nothing better to do on this beautiful saturday afternoon. Wind is to high to spray.
Always keep in mind that we land in the direction of the ramp and takeoff going away from the ramp and a 200ft pattern. This is SOP.
Have a good weekend.

 

[prpjt]

Mattpilot says: "We approached from the west at roughly 2500ft (~1600agl) - while doing that we listened to CTAF and figured out that there were roughly 4 guys in the pattern (5 with us soon). About 3 miles out from the airport we notice a yellow plane at around 2000ft (~1100agl), approaching from our left and headed for the airport. He was no more than a mile from us. That farker cut right infront of us. According to the right-of-way rules, we had right of way, but that gung-ho beotch just cut us off.

Regs say:

91.113 (g)

When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way



Mattpilot says: Gung-ho Ag pilot drops to a lower altitude, shoots across the runway while someone else (plane1) is on short final, makes a left turn for a LEFTpattern for 17 - all very tight turns. So get this - while he is on final, someone else(plane2) is in the process of taking off , immediately after rotation from runway 35, he sidesteps because this gung-ho ag pilot is on short final."

Now this sounds fishy with regard to hanging the ag pilot. Bear with me. You're saying that the ag plane crossed overhead, entered a downwind, tight base and final. During this time, an aircraft (plane1)had time to land and clear the runway, and another plane (plane2)

had time to enter the runway, apply power and get to Vr. Sounds to me that the ag plane was in the pattern for no less than 2 minutes or so, plenty of time to be seen by an aircraft holding for the runway. Sounds like (plane2) failed to clear the airspace before departure. This wasn't a camo military plane, it was a bright yellow chemical pisser.

You see this all of the time. If an airport is right traffic for a runway, many pilots will only clear the right pattern for the runway they themselves declare active. Be careful, someone may have other plans or needs, and being right means nada once the fire is extinguished.

It was also mentioned that another aircraft was giving position reports for the ill mannered ag pilot. Well if everyone knew his position, why did (plane2) elect to initiate a takeoff. Must not have been listening to the radio, hhhmmm.

Just seems to be a lot of holes in this account as far as the ag pilot being labeled as Satan. Seems to be plenty of blame to be shared, as is usually the case.

Be safe.

 

[mattpilot]

Just seems to be a lot of holes in this account as far as the ag pilot being labeled as Satan. Seems to be plenty of blame to be shared, as is usually the case.

No. The holes are only in your reasoning.


first:

When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way

Aircraft was spotted 3 miles (as stated in original post) from the airport. That is not the traffic pattern. So normal right of way rules apply.

Now this sounds fishy with regard to hanging the ag pilot. Bear with me. You're saying that the ag plane crossed overhead, entered a downwind, tight base and final. During this time, an aircraft (plane1)had time to land and clear the runway, and another plane (plane2)

had time to enter the runway, apply power and get to Vr. Sounds to me that the ag plane was in the pattern for no less than 2 minutes or so, plenty of time to be seen by an aircraft holding for the runway. Sounds like (plane2) failed to clear the airspace before departure.

Yes, aircraft crossed overhead and entered downwind - not just any downwind, but downwind for the other side of the runway.

As i recall, there was 1 aircraft holding short, and the one that was landing at the time the ag pilot crossed the runway, was going to taxi back.

I'd agree with you that the plane was about in the pattern for 2 minutes. And yes, plenty of time to be seen by other aircraft - and he was seen and pointed out by others.

Failed to clear the airspace? really? Or was it the Ag pilot, by his own admission that he wasn't paying attention, failed to clear the airport? Who really expects opposing traffic? And who expects it in a full pattern? Also, the aircraft taking the runway was announcing it over the radio. So who failed in what regard again?

It was also mentioned that another aircraft was giving position reports for the ill mannered ag pilot. Well if everyone knew his position, why did (plane2) elect to initiate a takeoff. Must not have been listening to the radio, hhhmmm.

Correct, position reports where given. The last report i made was stating the ag plane is crossing the runway. After that i concentrated on getting my own plane in the pattern. It was only on base that i heard another plane, that was on upwind for 35, announce that "careful, a plane is on final for 17". As i heard that, i looked and saw the ag pilot make a tight turn from base to final. At that point, i was turning final for 35. As the announcement was made that the yellow plane is doing a landing on 17, the plane that was holding short of the runway previously, has already begun his take off roll.

See.. for all we know, the ag pilot could of used the airfield as a checkpoint. We didn't know his intentions. Everyone else in the pattern announced his or her intentions.


I also pose you the same questions i posed DC4boy, about the RJ. Care to answer them?

 

[Snakum]

Perhaps we should all take a time out and go spend some quality time with our TCAS and Trunk Monkeys.

Or our IFR Monkeys, if you happen to have one of those. If Avbug hasn't been killed by a pack of feral CFIs yet, he can tell you about the IFR Monkey.


Minh

 

[prpjt]

Here's a scenario for you. You are in a RJ flying to an uncontrolled airport. While on short final you notice a little yellow plane also on short final, but approaching from the other end. This is the first time you saw him while doing your own approach. You weren't aware of his presence because he didn't announce. Winds are 10 knots in your favor. What do you do?

Here's another scenario. You just started your take off roll at an uncontrolled field in you RJ. Suddenly you notice a little yellow plane coming in on final as you are about to reach Vr. Again, you weren't aware of the plane and the winds are 10 knots in your favor. What do you do?

I'll bite. Sorry, it took me a while to find the question.

Scenario 'A' is an immediate go around for me. The fact he didn't announce is not material. I failed to see him and the FO failed to see him. Shared responsibility.

Also, in scenario 'A' how do you know not hearing him announce isn't a problem on your end. Don't try to figure it out. You are on final and everything isn't right - discontinue.

Scenario 'B'. Past Vr continue the takeoff and begin a turn. Once cleaned up discuss with the FO how we missed seeing someone on final. Light winds and no radio do not preclude us from looking out the window.

In your post you used these words" Who really expects opposing traffic? And who expects it in a full pattern?.

These are dangerous words. I'm not slamming here, but remove the words 'expect' and 'expectation' from your psyche. It is the unexpected that kills people. Who 'expects' to have an engine failure at V1? Everyone should, and mentally prepare for it.

Who 'expects' traffic to be in the wrong place? Everyone should, and mentally prepare for it. That means looking for traffic in the areas that they are least expected. And we're not just talking planes here. How about low flying geese croosing right to left. Are there pilots that would take off into them.You bet, 'cause they're so focused on that left downwind, they miss the flock coming over the trees. These would be NORDO geese.

The regulations state that it is incumbent upon the pilot in command, that he see and avoid traffic. It has no disclaimer about only seeing the traffic that is doing things in a predictable way. No mention of geese either.

This game has nothing to do with being right.

 

[wmuflyguy]

Aircraft was spotted 3 miles (as stated in original post) from the airport. That is not the traffic pattern. So normal right of way rules apply.

The reg doesnt say anything about airport traffic pattern, it says:

When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way

He was below you and obviously you both were approaching the airport for the purpose of landing. So he had the right of way

I do agree, it sounds as though his flight in the traffic pattern could have been dangerous from what was described

 

[The_Russian]

Avbug is right.

Mattpilot is also right.

Two different sets of operating rules merged together at the same time.

No one was right or wrong. And no one got hurt thanks to both pilots looking out for other planes. If either of you were not looking, there obviously would have been a collision in this instance.

What the heck is a trunk monkey? IFR monkey?

 

[flyboy]

Once cleaned up discuss with the FO how we missed seeing someone on final. Light winds and no radio do not preclude us from looking out the window.
.

Well, it's kind of hard, when you take a runway that's surrounded by trees, to see a little yellow aircraft flying the pattern (if he's even flying a pattern) at 100 feet AGL. Not even possible to see him. It's not just about not looking out the window. The fault here is with the Ag planes, plain and simple. Don't blame your FO or even yourself in this scenario.

On another note, I have childhood memories of my dad paying me $5 to wash his truck of the chemicals that the duster dropped while spraying a nearby field. I used to have to empty the dog's waterbowl 3 times a day to ensure it didn't have chemicals in it. Every Saturday morning sleep in the summer was ended by the dusters spraying nearby. Those are actually fond memories even though I now know how unsafe they are.

 

[DC4boy]

Flyboy, whats so unsafe about it???

 

[54tw]

delete

 

[54tw]

delete

 

[U of I Tweak]

Selfish?

Its not the lack of proceedure, or situational awareness, or anything else. Time is of the essence when flying ag. Nobody gets paid when the gates closed.


Simple professional common curtesey, to give way, let him do his thing. Then resume your routine.

Then to bring it here to this board is, well, Rook, just unprofessional

What makes his time any more valuable than that of anyone else? Is there some double standard that makes the Ag pilot worth more than the CFI? This isn't a comment about the particular situation, but a general observation. I don't think he needs any special treatment.

 

[CapnVegetto]

That's perhaps the single most arrogant, asinine statement I've read on this board for a great while, maybe even to date. Stay below the rest of us, huh? Several of the ag pilots on this thread, and on this board, are the rest of "us." We are you, think about that.

As a matter of fact, the best instrument student I ever had to date was an ag pilot...20 years of hard core VFR and he took to flying instruments like a duck to water. Royal pain? It was a pleasure.

Perhaps if you really believe we should stay below "us," then those us's to whom you refer should stay clear and out of the way of ag operators, too.

All the little lemmings have gathered to play lynchmen once again, bleeting and baahing about that which they know not...so typical, so common. Here I'm accused of advocating not using a radio...I made no such advocacy, suggested no such thing. But oh, how you rail, how you bleet and caw and howl, putting words into my mouth I never spoke, attributing to me your own ideas. So typical, so common.

Never did I suggest one should not use a radio..but I did revile agains those who would accusing such an one without the facts. My comments are true and correct and without grounds for contestation.

I'm accused of suggesting that an ag aviator is not without fault...never have I suggested any such thing in any way, shape or form. I did suggest that those without the experience to say, should perhaps keep their tongue, as they should. One poster, claiming numerous accolades as a master of law, director of safety, and grand high poohbah to the accidnet investigators of the world, stated that I was wrong, and stated that the subject of this thread had acted illegally. I challenged him to cite the law of which his expertise shouts...yet he could only respond by tooting his own horn and further listing his infinite qualifications.

I'm accused of advocating unsafe practices, when I did no such thing. I did correctly state the regulation, and further cited common practice in the industry which is done safely every day. Never, not once did I advocate cutting off another pilot or creating a hazard, though certainly more than a few mindless lemmings have pounded home just such an attack. I did suggest, rightly, that one may land ahead of other traffic when their circituous path has exceeded that of the SR-71 on a warm day...gaurantee that I'm not going to climb to 1,000' and drag myself in a long tour following all the kiddies on training day when there's work to be done and it can be done safely.

Kids, you only look stupid reviling me for that which I never said...can you not read? If you can read, can you not comprehend? If ou comprehend and still press on, are you really that stupid? And yet, you call my comments condescending. Interesting. Foolish, but interesting none the less. For the armchair experts who have experience operating under Part 137 and the application of the regulation thereof, thanks for your skewed misunderstood direction. It's been fun.

I'm done with this thread.

Well Mr. Avbug I've got lots to say about this. I ESPECIALLY like this little tidbit....

I'm accused of advocating unsafe practices, when I did no such thing. I did correctly state the regulation, and further cited common practice in the industry which is done safely every day. Never, not once did I advocate cutting off another pilot or creating a hazard, though certainly more than a few mindless lemmings have pounded home just such an attack.

You've just spent an entire 10 page thread defending this, and every other ag pilot that's ever scared the crap out of someone, cut them off, landed in the wrong direction, and generally caused unsafe conditions to occur when mattpilot, myself, and most of the other people on were not only following the correct FAR/AIM procedures, but just using plain ol' simple common SENSE! Then you go digging in your book and quoted some obscure part 137 regulation that allows you to justify completely asinine (a word you like to use), and unsafe actions. I don't give a flying crap how many hours you have, what you've done, blah blah blah blah.....when somebody cuts somebody else off and lands in wrong direction with another plane already on the runway without making a single radio call, I don't give a two bit flying crap what part 137 or whatever the hell it is says you can do, it's UNSAFE AND IT'S STUPID. You can post on this board all the da-n regulations you want, and use all the big words that you want, but that doesn't change the fact that myself, and almost every other person on this thread, on this board, and probably in the aviation world think that it is completely f-ing stupid that you are even attempting to justify it. I remember not more than a couple of weeks ago, you were probably one of the most respected members of this board, hell, people were advocating that you write a book. Now I know it's just a stupid internet message board, and that you probably could give a crap less what people on flightinfo.com think about you, but it's still there. What respect I had for you is GONE. It might come back in time, but that remains to be seen. I'm sure you're not going to lose any sleep over it, but I really don't care. I just wanted you to know.

Oh yeah.....and about my car comment:

No perhaps that's what you do. Some of us are a little above that...gave it up along with childhood years ago. You should try the same.

I don't think you have any right whatsoever to call me childish, when you do everything you can to justify an ag pilot's right to do anything he wants, and forget about everyone else. Why are we arguing for the little ol' cause of safety? We should all just get out of their way and let them do what they want. That sounds like a pretty childish temper tantrum to me.

 

[Cat Driver]

Wow....

I can't believe what I'm reading here, I would suggest that all of you take a deep breath and realize just how unprofessional this thread has become.

Cat Driver

 

[Metro752]

After observing the flame wars here I'd like to offer one bit of job networking advice not directed anyone in particular.

The guy you piss off today may be your Chief Pilot or job interviewer tomorrow. Aviation is a small community in many respects. Get your facts straight (all of 'em) and always be professional.

Wouldn't wanna work for someone who felt it was OK for another pilot to disregard any notion of safety just because he's flying the little yellow short plane.

 

[54tw]

I concur with the safety point.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

I can't believe what I'm reading here, I would suggest that all of you take a deep breath and realize just how unprofessional this thread has become.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Cat Driver, our newest Professionalism Cop.

 

[Snakum]

I give you Cat Driver, our newest Professionalism Cop.

Jesus ... did we really need another one of those?

Minh
(Author of "TCAS Monkeys I have Known", not available in stores.)

 

[CatYaaak]

I work(ed) for a living under Part 91, 135, and 121. I just re-checked the FARs governing them, as well as the AIM. Lots of stuff in there concerning right-of-way and airport operations, but nowhere in them did I find that I was supposed to automatically yield to cropdusters. Let's see....lighter-than-air, etc. etc....nope...nothing that separates "ag aircraft" from the rest of us fixed-wing types in the eyes of the FAA with regards to that.

And checking 137, guess what?....it didn't say "Do whatever you want, you own the sky". Nope, they have rules and stuff too...which is mutually exclusive with "Having carte blanche", btw. This would seem to be at odds with the idea that everyone needs to get out of their way in airport traffic patterns just because they are going to or from whatever patch of soil they're working.

So if a he-men cropduster shows up at a field where other aircraft are already in the pattern, and are so good at seeing and avoiding, they can avoid me if I've taken the trouble and spent the time entering a flow of traffic when they're not going to do the same.

I don't scare easy, but if he ain't transmitting then I'm not going to assume he sees me (I'm getting paid NOT to assume potentially-lethal things). I've operated in and out of many fields with ag planes...I learned to fly at one... and if he's down and out of the way before me...perfectly fine...he can loop his way onto short final for all I care.

But if I'm inconvenienced by his antics, he can expect a visit from me. If me and my pax lives are endangered to the point I have to avoid him via go-around, aborted T/O, or execute a radical maneuver, and his attitude is "I'm working for a living", he can expect a visit from the FAA as well. They can sort it out, and render an opinion as to what constitutes "non-dispensing application ops" as it relates to airport operations and see-and avoid, especially when I was the one who had to do the avoiding.

I've lost one friend and one aquaintance in mid-airs, both of which collided near uncontrolled airfields with aircraft that were equipped with radios, but not being used. If you call yourself a professional pilot (and I think ag pilots consider themselves that, don't they?), and your aircraft is so-equipped, you'll use it to raise the level of awareness and safety during airport ops, because assuming you see everyone else and every potential threat is pretty stupid. Lots of dead people have assumed that.

Oh, and that "country-boy/city-boy" thing....I worked long enough on my own family's farms to know what a friggin' joke that line-of-excuse is. If ag pilots feed the world, they why aren't they sitting in the real tractor? Spare us the psuedo-nobility, willya?

 

[flyboy]

Flyboy, whats so unsafe about it???

It's really more unsafe to other pilots flying in the vicinity of ag operations as well as the general public. I think I've provided more than enough evidence to support the case. If you really want me to give you every piece of evidence I can think of, it will take up more room than any other thread on this board. Remember, born and raised around ag ops for 27 years.

 

[avbug]

I was gonna quit here, despite the rampant stupidity, but it's too much...

I don't scare easy, but if he ain't transmitting then I'm not going to assume he sees me (I'm getting paid NOT to assume potentially-lethal things).

Does that mean you do assume traffic sees you if they're talking, or that they are even looking at the right target?

Radios dont' see traffic. You do. You should always assume that the other traffic doesn't see you, and act accordingly. Always.