Farken Ag Pilot!

[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.

 

[mattpilot]

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

What does that have to do with landing on the opposite end of the runway?

Did the ag pilot spot the traffic in the pattern? If yes, did he land on the opposite end of the runway on purpose for whatever reason? If no, would the use of the radio have helped him spot 5 planes in the pattern and help him make a better choice on which runway to land?


Do you still maintain that the ag pilot did nothing wrong in the debated situation? Were the other five aircraft in the pattern at fault for following established procedures?

 

[CatYaaak]

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.

Perhaps I should re-write verbatim what I already wrote. I don't know how to put it any more clearly:

"I'm getting paid to NOT assume potentially-lethal things".

So, I answered your question before you asked it. Assuming another aicraft sees me just because they're talking and/or say they do would fall squarely into the category "potentially-lethal". Assuming I see everyone just because I see (or think I see) the ones talking falls in there too. Radios enhance safety when used properly as an aid to help people see some of the potential threats...that's indisputable....but nowhere did I imply radio usage assures seeing them all, let alone replaces see-and-avoid responsiblities.

The example in question really has less to do with radios than it has to do with arriving at a busy, uncontrolled field. In the thousand times I've done it whether in non-radio aircraft myself or in jets with all the fancy doodads mixing it up with slower traffic, the whole point is to not create a conflict. I believe all the pertinent regs and AIM were developed with this in mind. Landing the opposite direction of another aircraft already on the runway with no communication is creating a confict where there wasn't one before.

Besides, if the ag-pilot in the scenario indeed admitted he didn't know what was going on when he arrived, and didn't bother to look and find out everyone else was on a different page in order to time and adjust his non-standard arrival to avoid conflict, it sounds like he was either blind, lazy, or perhaps just a d1ck.

Do Part 137 regs give special dispensation for that too?

 

[Pelican 10]

AVBUG, give it up man.........If your mind really works the way you are trying to justify all this you should really give up flying and try something that requires less common sense !!..please, leave the flying to people that can handle thinking and talking at the same time..

 

[RightPedal]

I like talking about flying and I especially like talking about ag-aviation, but I don't like us fighting about something like this when all the facts are not known.
I think Mattpilot should call the owner of the a/c in question tomorrow and talk to them about this.
The owners of this aircraft are good people, and well know in the aviation industry.
I'm sure Mattpilot has done a search to find the owner. Now search for R????flying service and contact them. I'm sure Paul will give you the closure you seek.

 

[The_Russian]

Avbug,

I see you as a very respected poster/pilot on this board. However, you really don't have a leg to stand on here. Your defense of Ag pilots is honorable, and it should be, but your anger seems to be blurring your vision of the situation. CatYaaak is in the right here. I read the same regs he quotes, and I can see that the regs are not provisional for Ag pilots vs. GA pilots. No one has more right than the other, and both must obey the rules and AIM guidelines.

 

[RightPedal]

Has it ever dawned on any of you rocket scientist that this pilot in question just plain and simply screwed up?
Is there any of you here ever done anything stupid or am I the only one?
It seams that this is all about hanging crop dusters as a group. If so I take great offence to this. Ag-aviation holds some of the best pilots in the business and I personally think most pilots envy the skill they exhibit.

 

[mattpilot]

I think Mattpilot should call the owner of the a/c in question tomorrow and talk to them about this.
The owners of this aircraft are good people, and well know in the aviation industry.
I'm sure Mattpilot has done a search to find the owner. Now search for R????flying service and contact them. I'm sure Paul will give you the closure you seek.

I seek no closure. I also have no desire to give someone a hard time with their boss (hey, as far as i know it was a one time occurence). All i did was rant about this incident, as admitted in the original post. Anger did play a role, obviously. This thread more or less serves as a reminder that there are dangerous situations out there, and everyone should be as careful as possible. I sure learned something from that incident. Perhaps others have too, or at least have been made aware that there are non standard operations going on - legal or otherwise. I didn't intend for this thread to get out of hand as it has. However, some of the responces defending the ag pilot & telling me that I and the fellow pilots in the pattern were at fault do bother me.

As for contacting said owner ... thats okay. If you know the owner, feel free to send him a link to this thread, if you think that would help anything.

 

[Cat Driver]

There must be more important things to argue about than this.

We all have different ideas on what segment of aviation is the best, however we all must abide by the same regulations and some of us screw up ocassionally.

As to Ag flying, well for me it was the best job I ever had all things considered, but like all pilots I just was not satisfied and kept looking for something better....and still looking.

Your newest professionalism cop......

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

I'm done with this thread.

Promises, promises.

 

[Cat Driver]

I wrote a short story about crop dusting back in the fifties and sixties, anyone want me to link it here?


Just for something to read?