Without delving into the issue of whether returning to load is a dispensing or nondispensing activity, it should be pointed out that 137.29 is not carte blanche to deviate from any and all of the provisions of Part 91. It is authorization to "................ deviate from the provisions of part 91 of this chapter without a certificate of waiver, as authorized in this subpart...." In other words, Part 137 cites specific regulations which 137 operators are authorized to deviate from and describes the requirements for those deviations. The authorized deviations from traffic patterns are in 137.45 which reads in part:
"..............At an airport without a functioning control tower, the pilot in command may deviate from the traffic pattern if --
(d) The aircraft at all times remains clear of, and gives way to, aircraft conforming to the traffic pattern for the airport.
All we have is Matt's description of the event. If we reject the rationale that Matt *must* be wrong, because he has only 250 hours, and the ag pilot *must* be in the right, becuase he is an ag pilot, (and I would hope that all would see the idiocy of this reasoning, although several posts seem to be based exclusively on this mindset and little else) we pretty much are left with his version of what happened. None of us were there, so we have no basis for discounting his description. In that case, it seems pretty clear that the ag pilot was not complying with his obligations under 137.45.
According to the only information we have, the ag pilot did *not* remain clear and give way to aircraft conforming the the traffic pattern.
Unless someone has actual knowledge (as opposed to groundless speculation) of the event which shows matt's version to be in error, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that the ag pilot was in the wrong here.
As for the radio issue, the idea that somhow an ag pilot is physically incapable of using a radio is nothing short of laughable. I have to think really hard to recall when I've had to remove my hand from a stick or yoke to make a radio transmission. A yoke or stick mounted transmit button is a very simple, common thing. Yes I have flown a few planes which didn't have one, and I was required to use a handheld mike. It was possible, I don't have 3 hands. Would it be a good thing to do while on a swath? obviously not. Is it a physical impossibility (or even slightly difficult) while approaching an airport to land. Just as obviously, No. It is well within the capabilities of anyone who poseses a third class medical to remove your hand from the throttle, pick up the microphone, and use it. The thottle will not suddenly go to idle. The airplane will not suddenly stop flying and plummet from the sky.
The idea that a radio *shouldn't* be used merely because it isn't required is equally fallacious. Yes I know about NORDO aircraft, I've flown them myself. I expect them at uncontrolled airports. I look for them, as I look for any traffic.
The reality though is that the human eye is not 100% effective at detecting other airplanes, no matter how skillfully and dilligently it is used. Couple that with the fact that most of airspace surrounding an airplane is not physically viewable from the cockpit, and you are left with the reality that no matter how well you scan for traffic, it is not humanly possible to detect all collision hazards.
Yes, communicating without looking is poor practice.
I would agree that looking without communicating would be better.
It should be obvious that looking *and* communicating is better than either of the previous two scenarios.
Personally, I don't like radios, I think they're a pain, always have. But I would have to question the thought process of somone who would conciously chose to place themselves in the "looking but not commuicating" category when the means were at hand to easily be in the preferable "looking *and* communicating" category. It doens't make sense.
He does have a point.
