|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 19, 2009 12:23:10 GMT 12
A heads up - tomorrow night's episode of 60 Minutes will feature an investigation into safety concerns in the NZ topdressing industry.
|
|
|
|
Post by mstokes on Apr 19, 2009 12:52:50 GMT 12
No doubt spurred on by the recent Vector article and the release of 'Let Fly' by Barry Cardno (good read) I am back in Aussie so will miss out  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2009 13:55:20 GMT 12
Thanks a million for the heads-up Dave.
|
|
|
|
Post by fletcherfu24 on Apr 19, 2009 21:50:40 GMT 12
Yep looks like a book launch come axe grinding session......again  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 19, 2009 22:17:04 GMT 12
On the advert it mentions around 150 deaths - is that since topdressing began 60+ years ago? I seriously thought it would have been higher. It's a very high risk job flying low like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2009 7:23:13 GMT 12
I glimpsed footage of a red and white aeroplane on the ad - I wonder if ZK-LTF is up for discussion again?
Always promising when they start off their promo with "undertrained" or words to that effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 20, 2009 19:53:34 GMT 12
Hmm, what did you guys think of that report?
I find it very, very hard to believe that any company chucked a novice into an aeroplane and told them to go to it, as Barry Cardno claims. Comparing it to the ASB advert (as they did in this report) makes it sound like he'd never flown before and was chucked into a Fletcher, shown the stick and instruments, and sent off to do the job. I think both he and the director/editor are using a bit of licence there to make it sound like the whole industry sound corrupt and unsafe.
Is there still that topdressing school running down country (Wanganui or King Country way?) that featured in a great 1960's national film unit film?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2009 19:58:36 GMT 12
The school was run by Beryck Dalcom at Wanganui, and from memory ceased operations around 1974. As companies began to train their own pilots such a school must have seemed unnecessary, and in fact the last course had a single student.
Certainly was an interesting piece. I had a feeling that it was ZK-LTF being raised again. I am also very sceptical of the idea of a fresh pilot simply being put into a Fletcher - or anything else - and being told to "go make the money". Perhaps Barry Cardno's book may be worth a read?
I'd have expected the industry to be doing better than ever in terms of safety, rather than the reverse?
This report was much talked about at work today, so will be interesting to hear reaction tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by mstokes on Apr 20, 2009 20:15:55 GMT 12
I have read Barry's book and having not seen the show can only go by the descriptions above that you have supplied. Barry had spent some time with another operator in Southland flying Cessna Agwagons and then got the job in Taupo on the Fletcher after he was apparently let go at the first job due to a lack of aeroplanes.
I think the book suggests that he had in the log book somewhere between 60 and 70 ag hours, however a lot of these were simulated in an Auster.
There is a lot of vagueness to all of this, no wonder the investigation is a bit difficult!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 20, 2009 20:24:41 GMT 12
A couple of times the reporter mentioned that that the fatality statistics are increasing. But I'd like to know is the number of topdressing pilots currently doing this flying also increasing? Are there more pilots doing this work now than ever before? Less? Is it steady?
Also how many of those 140 to 150 deaths in 60 years, and the average of 12 accidents per year, can they actually put down to pilot fatigue and pressure due to overwork? Or to overloaded weights as they were stressing? Sure both must be a factor in some cases but there must be a multitude of reasons why these guys get killed or have serious accidents, from birdstrike to wirestrike to downdraft, etc. I have heard a number of really shocking stories from insiders in the industry about the maintenance procedures (or lack there of) and fiddling of books in some of these topdressing companies and wonder how many deaths are down to poor maintenance practices over the years rather than anything the pilot did wrong.
There's got to be far more to this than what they reported.
|
|
|
|
Post by fletcherfu24 on Apr 20, 2009 20:29:25 GMT 12
Flight time This will not be less than either: 20 hours dual in an agricultural aeroplane and 40 hours of directly supervised solo training in an agricultural aeroplane, or 10 hours dual in a suitable aeroplane and 60 hours of directly supervised solo training in an agricultural aeroplane. www.caa.govt.nz/Advisory_Circulars/AC61_15_Rev3.pdfNo ones going to put someone from the local aero club in the driving seat of a $1 million dollar aircraft without a lot of training. I've got a scrapbook of ag stories going back over 30 years and this topic is raised quite often,I've also got a lot of ag accident reports and back in the late '50's and '60s they certainally did put guys with literally no experience in ag planes,but thats all changed now. One point I'd like explored and thats the crash worthiness of the Fletcher/Cresco.Its a 50 year old design,it has no overturn protection,since the 400hp removed the engine bed the frontal crash worthiness has greatly been reduced,combined with the pilot sitting between the hopper and the engine,they have been shedding their tails for over 50 years and that problem has only recently been adressed. Still at the end of the day its an extremely dangerous job,sadly the sky is very close to the ground. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 20, 2009 20:33:14 GMT 12
Wow, they just showed a footnote to story at the end of 60 Minutes where Barry Cardno and Sir Tim Wallis were talking in front of the Hurricane. Sir Tim has been his inspiration for Barry to get flying again. It was great to see Sir Tim back on TV. Good on him, he's a real hero and undoubtedly he's inspiring many other victims of accidents with his remarkable recovery from near death.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kereru on Apr 20, 2009 21:26:34 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Apr 21, 2009 9:26:37 GMT 12
I did note that the piece of film showing the Cessna 172 flying along the mountain range was shown reversed - evident by the fuselage registration being in mirror image lettering!
Slack.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Apr 21, 2009 11:52:08 GMT 12
As a rank outsider I find that allowing any pilot to fly 70 hours in any week to be ridiculous (unless it is a desperate wartime requirement). It is just as silly to me as allowing trainee doctors to work 36 hour shifts regularly and expecting them to function (at all). Just because 'we have always done it this way' is B/S. [Same goes for overloading a/c. What?] Yes topdressing in NZed is dangerous. How about making it less dangerous with appropriate regs. This seems to be happening at last. Hope it goes well for all concerned.
On another tack I'm hoping that one day NZ farms will be productive without top dressing. Shirley there must be other ways to manage youse farms. Oz farmers are learning heaps about how to do things differently albeit on usually flat farms. But that is another story for youse Kiwis I guess. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by mstokes on Apr 21, 2009 19:09:39 GMT 12
Fly Navy, on my home farm in the King Country, there is no way we can actually have any form of spreading other than Aerial Topdressing done due to some of the terrain we have on the farm. There have been attempts in the past to have some paddocks in our area ground spread, however there were many trucks tipping and rolling so the guys further on the river flats really are the only one's to spread this way.
I remember dad used to do long days (probably 6 days a week when the weather was good) but he never had any problems. As he got older though, he could start to feel it.
While he was doing a season of night spraying contract in oz out at Moree, I remember that two of his fellow pilots crashed after falling asleep on the job. Both fortunately survived but both were found in their cockpits quite disorientated and confused. I believe one of them told rescuers to clear the cockpit as he needed to land and do another spray run whilst the other one was trying to switch tanks, believing the silence was due to fuel exhaustion.
As for overloading of aircraft, I have seen this done quite often, but am tending to agree that an aircraft designed for a purpose should be flown within the designed and tested specifications. The latest vector points out the statistics on undercarriage collapses have risen dramatically, tending to indicate that this will be looked into.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Apr 21, 2009 19:40:03 GMT 12
mstokes, I don't claim to know anything about cropdusting in Oz either; but hope that there are regulations about 'fatigue limits' for not only pilots but for their aircraft.
Thinking more about what the chap said in the TV video (who had survived a crash himself) about 'self regulation'. I think we can see that this model has failed completely. The worldwide financial crash is one obvious recent example of this failure of 'self regulation'. For all kinds of reasons individuals 'fail' to:
know their own or their aircraft limits either through ignorance/ inexperience/ poor training or just sheer stupidity.
Yes there is pressure to get the most out of the machine/pilot expenditure but the chap who made this point well in the video sounds on the money. "If everyone starts with the same regulations then everyone is not disadvantaged." I would think that any extra cost involved would be happily borne by farmers unwilling to have their fields made productive by crop dusters crashing in them.
Now I hope you see my point is not made in a nasty way but nevertheless made dramatically for effect.
My thought about doing things differently was not in relation to spreading fertilizer. Oz farmers are discovering different techniques suitable for their individual farms and soil types that maximises crop production without use of (or minimal use of) fertilzers at beginning. Not cultivating the soil is one way. Not killing off soil microbes by cultivation but enhancing their free work to aerate and keep nutrition in the soil by enhancing the microbes with roughage left by the crops or whatever. I don't plan to go further in these details. I'll say that this 'different' way of farming will also enhance carbon capture for our future Oz 'cap & trade' regime. Some Oz farms will sequester more carbon than they release - which in itself will be an income. Perhaps some of your NZed farms can modify themselves in the same way. Thus no fertiliser needed.
Once again I'm not telling NZ farmers what to do but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE give our possums back! ;D
And I hope that NZed crop dusters see the sense in having good regulations that EVERYONE will adhere - to everyone's advantage. No one needs to die in any ordinary line of work. No one needs to die at any airshow. Another example where strict regulations helped defeat the 'self regulation' ethic - that demonstrably did not work.
Perhaps some NZ farmers on marginal farms may have to do things differently. That time is here anyway whether through the global recession or carbon trading / global warming. I'll stop now.
|
|
|
|
Post by mstokes on Apr 21, 2009 20:05:18 GMT 12
I think a lot of your points are valid Fly Navy and do make sense. I agree with a lot you say, I suppose I am just trying to pass off the way 'things are done' or 'have been done'.
I agree that safety always comes out above profit, that is why I believed night spraying was really pushing the boundaries given that there is no horizon or even reference lights for the pilot as well as disturbing their cicadian rhythm. However, the CSIRO found that spraying at night was over five times more effective in terms of targetting pests in the open and in allowing the spray to settle.
It didn't help that F-111's used to roar through the Northern New South Wales cotton fields either, low level and at high speed using the operations as radar targets... they were by far the biggest threat to safety!
|
|
|
|
Post by fletcherfu24 on Apr 21, 2009 22:57:39 GMT 12
Without seeing the latest figures the average ag pilot would do around 500-800 actual productive flying a year,which is around 10-15 hours actual topdressing a week.Although thats a bit slanted as most topdressing is done mainly in the spring and autumn.
The other 65-70 hours a week would be ferrying the aircraft from the airport out to the farm strip,waiting for the weather to come right,waiting for fertiliser to be delivered,shifting loaders from strip to strip,doing the paper work etc,etc.....so its not 70hours full on topdressing a week.Roughly the same hours a farmer would put in a weeks work.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Apr 21, 2009 23:01:39 GMT 12
Anyone who works 70 hours a week (the TV doco specifically showed an AG pilot's logbook recording 70 hours - or this is what I thought) is setting themselves up for a problem. We are not superhuman - AG pilots or not. This is not a macho thing at all. Just a reality. No one needs to die because 'they' need to spread fertiliser. The system has to change and it looks like it might at last.
|
|
