|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2009 7:11:36 GMT 12
The "logbook" was the loader driver's timesheet. How the loader driver's time is meant to cause pilot fatigue is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
Post by fletcherfu24 on Apr 22, 2009 7:16:03 GMT 12
There is/was a 1000 flying hour per year limit for topdressing pilots.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Apr 22, 2009 9:10:14 GMT 12
Interesting about the loader driver then working 70 hours per week. Same applies but perhaps less of a problem than pilot flying same hours. Whatever. I can only go on information presented.
1000 hours per year does not stipulate per week. I'm assuming that weather is important thus restricting number of days/weeks per year for flying. I don't think that is a realistic target. Humans work to a 24 hour clock - not one year.
I'll repeat: If too many ag pilots are lost in accidents it would seem to me that something is amiss. No one needs to die for their job. I'll repeat: Perhaps farmers will need to do something else with their unproductive land if they cannot afford to pay for ag pilots working less hours per day with a lighter under the limit load. If everyone works according to new regs (and we don't know what these will be or their effect) then perhaps the fatal accident rate will be reduced. That would be my hope. Farmers need to pay for a safer ag industry that is tightly regulated for the BENEFIT of the AG pilots - all of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 22, 2009 10:42:15 GMT 12
Phil, most of the land that gets topdressed cannot be farmed without topdressing, as it is steep hill country and inaccessable valleys where tractors, trucks and farm bikes cannot go to. Topdressing by aircraft meant that it could be turned from wasteland into productive farmland. Nothing else can do that. Even having people with sacks of fertiliser spread it on foot would be too dangerous and less productive. The nature of farming in this country is vastly different from that in Australia.
If most topdressing is flown in spring and autumn, what do the pilots do in winter and summer generally? Do they make enough money to vacation? Do they fly in other industries? Do they go topdrssing in other countries?
Does that statistic of nearly 150 people in 60 years killed include spray pilots in aircraft and helicopters, which must be just as dangerous a type of work, or is it only fertiliser topdressing pilots?
How do our statistics compare with other countries too? We seem to have two to three pilots killed a year if the stats they presented are right. How many ag pilots are killed a year in Australia, African or Asian countries, the USA or Canada? Anyone know if we compare favourably?
Let's face facts, more NZ fishermen die per year than ag pilots. And probably more construction workers. And undoubtedly more professional drivers.
This report has presented stats and "facts" without backing them up with either evidence or comparisons.
And they seem to have a beef with safety yet made clear that new regulations are being enforced, so where is the problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by bazzaboeing on Apr 22, 2009 11:33:48 GMT 12
Hi all, not sure if anyone has watched the videos on the Phoenix Aviation website but to me they look to be quite risky (head on taking off and landing) and the aircraft on landing slipping all over the strip. This may be only for the camera but it looks to be a bit close to me. www.Phoenixaviation.co.nz/video-fletcher-carol.htm and also the Fletchers at Mt Linton on the same site. Cheers Bazza |
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Apr 22, 2009 12:19:21 GMT 12
Dave, I'm not against crop dusting - only I'm against unsafe work practices. It seems to me that there has been a slippage in safety standards in this industry. It happens because we are all human, trying to do our best, in obviously difficult circumstances - with the other considerations of making money. It happens in all jobs - ultimately to compromise safety. It is good that there will be a fresh look at ag flying in NZed.
Vaguely I recall that NZed make too much produce from their farms. Perhaps some of the more marginal can do something else, if they cannot afford to pay for top dressing under the new ag regulations (if that means that such operations become more expensive). If any other profession has needless deaths then that profession needs to look at what they do to make the work environment more safe. Make sense? It just so happens we discuss ag flying in NZed here.
I have no problem with SAFE ag flying in NZed. However flying whilst fatigued and overloaded in the dangerous country does not make any sense to me at all. How did this happen? Surely flying when rested whilst properly loaded (to better handle the difficult conditions) makes a lot more sense to anybody involved in ag flying. If everyone has to obey the same sensible new regulations then the squeeze most likely will be on the farmers and NOT the ag pilots. Now that seems a better place to have pressure - rather than losing an ag pilot for the sake of some topdressing on a marginal farm. I'm on the ag pilot's side and no other side.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Apr 22, 2009 12:38:48 GMT 12
You can have as many rules and regulations as you like, but really it comes down to a guy sitting on a farm strip in the backcountry where no-one is watching him.
He may have pressures from the customer, the weather, his bank manager, the next job and suchlike and be tempted to cut some corners to satisfy some or all of the above and then fudge the paperwork to coverup. It has happened and will happen again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 22, 2009 13:25:18 GMT 12
Phil, I wasn't saying you're against anything, just pointing out that without aerial topdressing that the land is pretty much useless, and it has enhanced NZ's farming industry incredibly, which is why it is now a leader in the world.
I don't know what you mean about New Zealand producing too much. Can you explain? There have been isolated cases in the past where there has been a suplus of butter due to good years or bad markets but they usually balance out. I'm no farmer but I don't think there's a constant surplus. They are pushing TV ads right now to get more and more people into farming, especially dairy farming, so I don't think there's "too much" being produced at the moment. Probably miore like not enough considering the shortage of food in the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Apr 22, 2009 13:58:48 GMT 12
Dave, I was just dredging up long ago 'factoids' from my fevered brain about NZed farming surplus. Pay no attention. However I will restate. I do not believe people (ag pilots) need to die for the sake of NZed farmers. My hope is that the ag industry will have better regs and better cooperation by all for the sake of ag pilots - they have families also.
flyernzl, one thing about regulations is that a framework is provided for those who don't know any better (if there was only 'self regulation'). People need to be educated about flying safety I believe. Once they realise that flying safety involves them (not just ag pilots) perhaps the environment for better ag flying outcomes will be there. Just saying it is too hard or we always do it this way or whatever other excuse is used is not good enough. I'll repeat: No one needs to die for the sake of NZed farmers. I'm certain the whole ag environment can be improved. I'm certain NZed farming practices can be improved. Shirley.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 22, 2009 14:47:41 GMT 12
I totally agree that safety is paramount in every facet of aviation, and it's good to see regulation being enforced on this area that has been neglected. But as Peter says above, you can tell the industry about safe working practices and regulations and procedures till you're blue in the face, but there will always be individuals who push past the boundaries because they are desperate to pay their bills or to be the best, etc, or plain ignorant. And as I mentioned earlier in the thread, there are maintenance facilities who also ignore safety practices and regulations and fiddle their books to look good, so the pilot may be the safest bloke in the world but his engine may still die or his tail fall off due to some lazy or sleazy mechanic.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Apr 22, 2009 15:07:00 GMT 12
To all here: Aviation Safety is a worthwhile goal despite those who want to undermine it for whatever reason. What other people do is no excuse. I wish all the ag pilots well - fly safe when rested and not overloaded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2009 18:00:48 GMT 12
I've watched the Phoenix video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjxRZ3mL4xY) a couple of times....1:50, the 400 takes off, and almost as soon as its airborne, the Walter comes in OVER THE TOP for his landing....just showmanship? Or I wonder if that's how they operate? Interesting they have two planes on what I imagine is one job.
|
|
|
|
Post by mstokes on Apr 22, 2009 19:14:54 GMT 12
I have seen up to three aircraft doing the same job on our small farm. The process is reasonably common on large farms and large jobs, or where a job has fallen behind or needs to be finished.
The pilots I know that did it all adopt a landing pattern (as I have seen there is normally still only one loader) in which the waiting fletchers will make their approach and then either land if they judge the other will be off, or they overshoot and complete a circuit. Normally the approaching aircraft will fly from a higher angle and from the route that the loaded plane will not take (i.e over the top of a ridge and from a circuit over the non-topdressing side).
The rule is that the Fletcher with a ton in it can't do what the empty one's do so priority is given to ensuring the loaded fletchers path is clear.
What really pains me about that clip is actually the high speed turns they do from the loading area onto the strip. The amount of weight transferred to the oleos on the right wing (as seen front on) is very high.
Dad practiced always lining up straight back down the strip to avoid carving the strip up, and also to place less strain on the motor, prop and brakes by making them 'work harder' moving with an extra ton of weight.
The loaders didn't always like it, but it is kinder to the airframe.
|
|
|
|
Post by fletcherfu24 on Apr 22, 2009 19:35:46 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Apr 22, 2009 20:49:45 GMT 12
Up until recently, all the years of my flying has been conducted in what you might call a supervised environment. After flight planning, fuel calculations and weight-and-balance computations there has always been someone else around to run their eyes over all the figures for a final check.
Recently I've been outside that setting, and it has been interesting to see how disconcerting the change has been. It's entirely a mental thing I know, but you realize that these potentially hazardous decisions rest entirely in your own hands. All humans are fallible, and make mistakes, and when there is no-one else to act as a safety net I'm certainly double-checking things a lot more than usual.
I can certainly appreciate the difficulties faced by these solo practitioners much more than I used to.
|
|
|
|
Post by mstokes on Apr 22, 2009 21:17:46 GMT 12
I have been to that strip a few times, just up the road and I remember when BXZ crashed. Very sad occasion... I wish I could say that anything that comes's of regulation or review will mean no more folded wings...
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Apr 22, 2009 22:22:42 GMT 12
Pool Guy, thanks for the link to the PDF with the WAKE turbulence information. It is astonishing to see the video clip mentioned in the light of just having read that info. Then reading flyernzl's great reminder of how a pilot unsupervised needs to be extra careful. FWIW I can see how standards deteriorate when there is no supervision or rules to fly by. Education about these flight safety issues and the unique conditions that NZed ag pilots fly in would go a long way to improve their safety record I reckon. For military pilots flight safety is an issue that NEVER goes away. It is constantly referred to before all flights. Attention to flight safety can make the difference.
Ag flying in NZed is dangerous. No need to make it more dangerous than it need be.
|
|
|
|
Post by philip on Apr 23, 2009 16:10:06 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Apr 23, 2009 16:34:49 GMT 12
Jesus - making phone calls while you're flying really is asking for trouble. Pity he hadn't learnt from the earlier sheep incident.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 23, 2009 16:37:28 GMT 12
Dear oh dear! Using the cellphone "to stay alert" while flying at low level? Studies have found that the distraction of talking on a cellphone whilst driving is the same as drunk driving, so what sort of distraction is it to a pilot whilst taking off or flying in a low valley. It's plain common sense that it's stupid to do so.
Talking on the radio with a headset would be bad enough distraction-wise I'd imagine, but texting?
|
|
