Farken Ag Pilot!

[avbug]

What do you do if someone does that to you in a car on the road? You get really pi$$ed yell and probably use a gesture that we all know well.

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.

Long time lurker, first time post. I have a "little" bit of experience in aviation safety and regulatory compliance. The ag pilot was unsafe and broke the regs.

Apparently very little experience. Exactly which regulation did this pilot break? And this, based on the second hand reports of a low time inexperienced pilot?

avbug,

Recently the respect I once had for you has been going down the drain, and you've just hit rock bottom. Usually you're the first one to advocate safety, what happened to this here?

Ooooh, you're killing me. I've lost your respect? However will I sleep at night? Get over it.

I'm a big advocate for safety...including the fact that any pinheaded yahoo that thinks the radio spots traffic is a flaming idiotic safety hazard. For many of the "professionals" who responded here to condemn without knowing anything more than what an inexperienced low time pilot posted in anger...it only confirms what I already well know. 90% of the pilots out there aren't worth their weight in dung. Seems more than a few have weighed in here.

According to the only information we have, the ag pilot did *not* remain clear and give way to aircraft conforming the the traffic pattern.

Not at all. What we have here is rampant speculation. Many, many times I've cut ahead of traffic that had eons to land...rather than trying to stall out snaking around the pattern behind them, I went ahead and landed. Did I do something dangerous? Not hardly. I was practically tied down and home in bed before they ever made it to the runway.

The original poster seems so confident that an ungodly disaster was imminent that by his own admission he began making radio calls on behalf of the ag pilot...a ridiculously stupid act, but one that he felt compelled to do. Far outside his own privilege...yet he did it. And here the lemmings that have posted have climbed aboard the same mindless stupid mentality, clamering to hammer the ag pilot for something that not one of them has seen.

This very afternoon I landed an airplane in Bermuda Dunes, California. I went around after a king air decided to ignore my radio calls and enter the runway, departing the opposite direction I was landing. continued north and east, turned around, and landed. Not a big deal. Over the next hour, I listened to pilot after pilot whine, argue, cry, and kibbitz on the radio, making accusations about "you cut me off," and this nasty remark and that. Each one a fractional or corporate professional aviator, biting and seething at one another, each fighting over who got to get to the runway first. Not a whole lot different than the story that mattpilot told, except no ag aviator as the scape goat here.

Such crap.

 

[wmuflyguy]

Some of us are a little above that...gave it up along with childhood years ago. You should try the same.

Ah...but you haven't gave up calling people "stupid" or talking down to them.

 

[Vector4fun]

Over the next hour, I listened to pilot after pilot whine, argue, cry, and kibbitz on the radio, making accusations about "you cut me off," and this nasty remark and that. Each one a fractional or corporate professional aviator, biting and seething at one another, each fighting over who got to get to the runway first. Not a whole lot different than the story that mattpilot told, except no ag aviator as the scape goat here.

Not much different from this webboard either...

Ah well, job security for us ATC types. Where's my striped shirt and whistle?

 

[aucfi]

The original poster seems so confident that an ungodly disaster was imminent that by his own admission he began making radio calls on behalf of the ag pilot...a ridiculously stupid act, but one that he felt compelled to do.

I'm a big advocate for safety...

Sounds like he was increasing safety to me by giving others a heads up. Hows that stupid?

 

[PCL_128]

Sounds like he was increasing safety to me by giving others a heads up. Hows that stupid?

Well, you see, avbug thinks that radios are nothing but a hindrence to his flying. He would prefer that everyone trust their eyeballs to finding the traffic. Nevermind the fact that all airplanes have huge blindspots and it's impossible to spot everyone. These newfangled radios are just too much for avbug.

 

[Xav8tor]

(Avbug)The reg(s) in part 91 broken, and the inapplicability of part 137 to the incident described, firsthand, by a pilot there, has already been correctly cited to you. Give me the same situation as a hypo, and my position is unchanged. Nobody, not even in an ultralight, has a good excuse (except for an emergency) for not having, and using, a radio in the pattern at field open to public use. Forget the regs and think SAFETY. If a midair had resulted between the ag plane and any other plane conforming to the pattern, regardless of the "see and avoid" concept, with the possible exception of a contributory negligence state (and I doubt that), a pilot who did that alleged would pay through his nose.

Perhaps I missed the point you are attemting to defend on a day I missed class in law school because I was consulting doing trial prep on a major crash case (one of many I've done). Or maybe I missed something at the many schools, seminars and conferences I attended while Director of Safety at two airlines. Then again, perhaps I was wrong when the same thing happened to me when I was flying a standard pattern (carrying paying, sked 121 pax) and was cut off on relatively short final by one of those hard-working above the law ag types with no radio who just had to get one more run in before the light/humidity/temp or whatever meant he had to wait until tomorrow. Finally, maybe I need to rethink everything and fold up my highly successful aviation safety related biz I have had for a decade now. There's more, but that "little" bit of experience should entitle me to express an opinion I usually get paid quite well to give should it not? Again, thank you for welcoming me to the board. I'll zip up now.

 

[DC4boy]

PCL, perhaps your're missing his point. Too many pilots use radios as a primary source of traffic collision avoidance. When in fact, there are still several airplanes and pilots that do not use radios, and behold, traffic remains separated.


Course, that probably does'nt happen much outside the cockpit of your RJ.......

 

[jbDC9]

Man, this thread is still going??? Perhaps we should all take a time out and go spend some quality time with our TCAS and Trunk Monkeys. Maybe take him for a walk, let him crap on the lawn... then he can fling it on the neighbors front door. Can't you just feel (and smell) the love from our little TCAS monkeys?

 

[mattpilot]

PCL, perhaps your're missing his point. Too many pilots use radios as a primary source of traffic collision avoidance. When in fact, there are still several airplanes and pilots that do not use radios, and behold, traffic remains separated.


Course, that probably does'nt happen much outside the cockpit of your RJ.......

Perhaps you are missing the point of this thread. It is not about not using the radio. It is about landing on a runway in the opposite direction while someone is taking off and others are in the pattern.

Oh btw... nice job of avoiding the RJ question - i'll give ya 10 points for that.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Avbug turned into a tool on this thread.

Any A-hole who lands directly opposite the flow of traffic just to shave a few minutes off his flight can kiss my rear end.

Avbug's ultra-liberal interpretation of the Ag rules apparently gives him permission to be discourteous and conduct operations that are of questionable safety. You pull that crap with a regional aircraft coming the other way and cause a near miss, and I bet Mr. FAA is going to take an entirely different view that YOU about just what regulations you are entitled to dismiss.


Ever try to teach an old spray pilot to fly IFR by the way? I have, and it is a royal pain. There's a reason why a large number of them should stay safely below the rest of us.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

90% of the pilots out there aren't worth their weight in dung.

I think avbug is worth his weight in dung.
I recall a day in a well-known, highly congested, Air Force pilot training pattern where my eyes...yes my eyes...detected an ag guy busting right through the pattern about 100 feet below my altitude. I made a simple evasive move and "saved the day" by letting the others in the pattern know there was an idiot in our midst (avbug would have had me say nothing?). This was not even an area that he was spraying, just cutting through our pattern to get from point A to point B. There's a term out there that of course, the all-knowing, king-$hit avbug has probably heard and it's called LEGAL-STUPID. Just cuz it's legal, doesn't make it smart. And no, radios don't spot traffic, a good VFR scan does. It's saved my bacon a few times, but willfully going against the grain on a technicality would place the guy (or gash) at the controls in your beloved home in the 90th percentile. Sorry to see the bug hasn't gotten any sweeter with age. Probably someone with a lot to teach. Pity all that energy is selfishly wasted on condescension.

 

[Xav8tor]

Good point on the radio not being the sole issue. In 2000 hours of instruction, most of it XC, and more than enough into such airports, some used by ag ops, that type of behavior and attitude towards safety (esp. of other pilots/planes), no radio and no pattern to speak of, seems to be the rule, not the exception. I dealt with it flying part 91, but when one of those guys endangered a whole ship of people flying what can only be described as some sort of jungle run low level perpendicular direct approach to threshold, that was my limit. Nobody's time is worth the couple of minutes it takes to fly the pattern and/or use a few hundred dollar radio to announce intentions, possibly saving a life...even your own.

Ag flying is dangerous enough. Why make things worse by successfully completing a ton of on the edge passes all day, only to get your wing clipped by a solo student in a 152 who didn't see you coming?

 

[Sniper Bob]

Ag pilots can spray and talk on the radio at the same time. I have seen and heard them (talk on the radio) while spraying the cotton fields that are about 1/2 mile from the control tower @ LBB. So any talk that it's "I'm too busy" or "It's too hard" or "my tummy hurts" or "it's MY airport, not yours" is a load of crap.

It's not the 50's anymore, boys. Radios are cheap (compared to the price of the ag plane). Install the radio and use it.


As a side thought, ever notice ag planes are the same color and same length as the "short bus"?

 

[mattpilot]

As a side thought, ever notice ag planes are the same color and same length as the "short bus"?

haha.. thats funny. I can't stop laughing

 

[DC4boy]

I find no humor in that. Short bus huh, come spend a day in an ag airplane,. Assuming you could even taxi it, you'll be a grease spot in amatter of seconds.


Stick to your auomatic flying bus, **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**.

 

[Nindiri]

This kind of behavior causes problems for all of us when the FAA over-reacts with new regs after stupid accidents. When Mr. "I don't need no stinkin' regulations" causes an accident in the traffic pattern, he not only kills himself, he takes innocent lives with him and makes life more difficult for the rest of us as the public screams for tighter government controls on general aviation.


BTW, flying an ag plane in the pattern isn't very hard, unless you're stupid enough to let it get way out of balance.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

I find no humor in that. Short bus huh

I thought it was kinda funny. Skin...Grow some.

 

[PCL_128]

PCL, perhaps your're missing his point. Too many pilots use radios as a primary source of traffic collision avoidance. When in fact, there are still several airplanes and pilots that do not use radios, and behold, traffic remains separated.


Course, that probably does'nt happen much outside the cockpit of your RJ.......

I'm not missing the point, I just think it's a BS excuse. Flying without a radio may be legal (though I think it shouldn't be), but it isn't safe at an airport that has lots of training activity. It's your job as a pilot to understand that legal and safe are two different things. We're supposed to err on the side of safety. Cutting people off, not using a radio, and then actually using the wrong runway in a congested pattern is not safe and should not be tolerated.

As someone else said, this isn't 1950 anymore. Buy a frickin radio already.

 

[Blue]

There's a term out there that of course, the all-knowing, king-$hit avbug has probably heard and it's called LEGAL-STUPID. Just cuz it's legal, doesn't make it smart.

Kind of like the Ag pilot who collided with the T-37 awhile back in Oklahoma. He was legal to be flying there, but one look at a sectional showing the high density jet training going on would have told him that it was pretty stupid to be flying there.

 

[kingairyahoo]

short bus...a-hahahahahahahaha

 

[FN FAL]

I didn't see the incident, so I cannot really side with or against the original poster, but I can say that so far in my short flying career that most ag pilots that I delt with had radios or at least their ground crews did (they were using a road near our skydiving airport).

I would say that if the AG pilot saw and knew of the traffic and he cleared the runway before there was a runway incursion...then get on with your life.

I would have to say that I would prefer that all pilots use a radio, but I accept that some pilots do not have radio equiped aircraft.

A couple of summers ago, I was departing into the sun at a non-towered airport. Just about the time I was doing the instrument cross check, a guy called out that he was almost over the numbers on the opposite end of the runway in an ultra light. I never heard him call out while I was taxiing for the runway, nor did I hear him call out when I took the runway for departure.

Since I was about ready to rotate when he called and could not see the guy, I keyed the mike and said, "Go ahead...stay on runway centerline, I'll get it up in ground effect and side step the runway to the north!" He said he had me in sight, but I never saw him untill I sidesteped on the departure and we passed abeam of each other. The fact that he had a radio and the fact that he had me in sight, made it easy for me to accept sidesteping on the departure.

I wouldn't recommend it, but that's what happened on that day. At the very least, since he saw me, I figured he could side step to the south and we'd have been fine if it got close.

Basically, we worked it out because we had radios. If he would have commited to landing and I would have chopped power and stopped...what would have been the difference if we struck on the ground?

 

[Immelman]

Like said, never rat out another PILOT!

I don't like ratting anyone out.... in fact its not something I recall doing in my life thus far, ever, pilot or otherwise. Just thinking about ratting or being ratted on gives me the creeps. The thing is, where do you draw the line? What if your kids are in the back seat as you're departing and this moron comes barreling in head on?

There is a lot I would overlook before thinking of ratting someone out in terms of operation that would be classified as careless and/or reckless, but at some point when the safety of innocents is compromised I'd rat someone out. Sorry.

But then this is the internet and my interpretation of the story that the thread starter wrote is probably much different than what actually occured, or what your perception is... in the end I guess it comes down to those who witness such acts and decide whether its worth being an a$$ and ratting someone in the name of safety.

 

[FN FAL]

Really, who knows, Immelman? We weren't there.

I have had incidents while under parachute canopy where I got the b-jesus scared out of me...and believe me, there's nothing I fear more than a canopy entanglement below 1,000 feet.

Once I got on the ground and I got a chance to talk to the other guy/gal, and found out they were aware that I was there...I quit worrying about it.

It's when people don't know or care that you were there that scares me the most.

If ag guy was non-chalant (sp)...that's one thing. If he was ignorant of who was lined up on the opposing runway, then I say frag the guy.

 

[avbug]

Ever try to teach an old spray pilot to fly IFR by the way? I have, and it is a royal pain. There's a reason why a large number of them should stay safely below the rest of us.

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.

 

[Nindiri]

I think Avbug is mad.

 

[urflyingme?!]

Guys, let's all just cool off a little bit here.
Eh??

 

[FL000]

Y'all are starting to find out what I pointed out a few years ago...avbug is the Wizard of Oz. You are just now starting to pull back the curtain.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

I think Avbug is mad.

Stark-raving.

 

[Stinkbug]

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, 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.

And yet, you call my comments condescending. Interesting. Foolish, but interesting none the less.

The above quotes are from your last post alone. And you wonder why people accuse you of being condescending? Sorry, I forgot you're the only pilot on this board who "works for a living". I guess that entitles you to insult everyone who questions you?

I'm done with this thread.

I hope so...your continued references to small furry animals are disturbing (sorry couldn't resist)

 

[Xav8tor]

Good Lord this place can get schizo. I have found it to be a very informative source and expect some of this type of OT rant on every board I frequent, but Mr. Bug, you are out of line. I entered the "poster's" door humbly and did not attack you personally but stated my own opinion. Only after you questioned my experience did I back it up. Sorry, but I do have a doctorate in law (plus a few more degrees if you must know), I was DOS at two 121 carriers, have investigated both GA and major accidents, and did fly the line at two 121's after paying my dues as a CFI and doing the charter thing. Toss in a bit of civilian SAR (low level BTW) and some just plain fun flying. I am the master of absolutely NOTHING in aviation, much less Grand Poobah. I am humbled by many in the industry and have even felt that way after reading a number of YOUR posts, this thread being an exception. Your experience is to be learned from. Excuse me for setting my own goals and achieving them (except for the financial ones, given the choice of aviation as a field and having a modicum of ethics).

Yes, the FAR's are as hard to understand as any regs or statutes out there. In my experience, the people that know them best are generally not attorneys, but pilots, mechanics, controllers, etc., depending on the part in question. Every law is open to interpretation and may be applied in an inconsistent manner. That is one of the things that makes it so frustrating (and fun for some people). In the case described (and in the ones I am personally familiar with), what is so hard to understand? Again, think safety not regs. If you insist on a reg cite from me, how about 91.13? "They" can hit just about anyone with that one. Others have already cited 137.45(d), which, based on the account, MIGHT (how's that for a compromise) have been violated.

My opinion on this topic though is not really a legal one, but rather, it is safety oriented. The FAR's in many respects are a floor or baseline, and, as has been pointed out, legal does not mean safe. Traffic patterns at public airports are filled with different types of aircraft flown by pilots of various levels of experience. The only way for those aircraft to remain separated is for EVERYONE to follow a systematic set of procedures. Again, "see and avoid" is so deeply rooted a concept that nothing will replace it under VFR, but given blind spots, due to both aircraft design and aging vision, diverted attention, and simple human vulnerability, how can any sensible person argue with the position that, at least when other aircraft are in the area, a pilot should conform to a standard traffic pattern, land on the proper runway, and announce his intentions on a radio to achieve a reasonable degree of safety and not endanger the lives and property of others?

Go check the NTSB database and look past the standard "failure to see and avoid the other aircraft" statutory probable cause (frequently not a "cause" at all, but a statement of obvious fact) on nearly every midair, including those involving 137 ops, and look at the contributing factors. That is where the true root causes are usually found in any accident report. In the vicinity of an uncontrolled field, the two most often cited factors are failure to follow a standard pattern and failure to use/have a radio. I rest my case.

Regarding "ratting" someone out, or calling a pilot's actions into question, I absolutely despise working accidents where the crew was at fault (roughly 80% of all accidents). For years, I refused to do it. It took EgyptAir 990 for me to come to the realization that a line had to be drawn somewhere. When I was an APC for the FAA years ago, one of my duties was to counsel pilots who had trouble with the regs or safe practices. The airlines have professional standards committees for much the same purpose.

When one of my flights had a close call in a very similar situation described by the starter of this thread, I tried to approach the operator of the ag plane (and the airport) in a reasonable manner. I met the same kind of groundless defense and indignation seen above. The powers that be took a dim view of the ag pilot's actions. And...I promise you, any such behavior that results in a collision will lead to a settlement before trial that exhausts the policy limits of all but a few GA operators and places their personal assets at risk.

Dollars aside, would anyone want to live with the fact that two or three more minutes in the pattern, or a few brief words on a radio, would have avoided the grief and emotional/financial distress of a widow(er) and his/her children?

PS - I think I'll go back to lurking. It seems to be safer! A good debate is enjoyable but this thread got ridiculous and I guess I didn't help matters. It was fun while it lasted.