Ag Take-off Accidents.

[Lowlevldevl]

As the biggest single contributor to our dismal accident record the last couple of years, what can we do that will eliminate this type of accident?
It'd probably be fair to say that if there'd been no take-off accidents we'd be getting next to no grief from the insurance companies. So it's worth thinking about.

If we always did a take-off performance calculation before we accepted a load.
If we always ran through a decent check-list before we released the brakes on the pad.
If we always checked we were getting power and all the T's & P's were 'in the green' and warning lights out as soon as T/O power is selected.
Would that be enough?

Any thoughts?

[Rarely Dble Amber]

First up.. we will always get grief from insurance companys, no matter how hard we try not to, we continue to crash and they will continue to get worked up. Stop crashing guys, its making the insurence boys all upset. :8

I think the 1st item on your list of "If we's" is the important one. I doubt many of us ever have or ever will actually sit down and work out the take off distance required for the aircraft they fly. I know at sea level on a warm day (28 degrees C) I can get off the ground with full fuel and a full load in about 450 metres. Thats about as close to a P Chart as I ever get. Not very profesional of me I know, but I bet its typical in this industry. :(

I dont know about you, but I dont go very far if all the T's and P's dont sit where they are supposed to on take off. Does anyone Routinely take off without knowing what the engine is doing at the time??

[CRUZN]

I've always got a decision point on any runway where I should be able to pick the tail up. Now if it comes up easy then every thing is in the groove, if it is heavy then I know other opions may need to be exercised. If it doesn't come up at all the take off would be canned. Knowing your A/C flying characteristics I found was far more effective in go, no-go decision making than running your finger along a performance chart
1. Is all the power up?
2. did I remember to select take-off flaps?
3. Hand on 4x4 lever
4. Cancel take-off

Options are limited but useful in recovering the situation.:ok:

[currawong]

The four points raised should be used by someone exercising the privilages of a PPL, let alone an Ag pilot in a high performance aircraft with a dangerous payload. Alarming that this may not be the case.

T/O performance does not have to be a P chart each time. A quick check that MAUW is not exceeded would be a good place to start.

Perhaps the performance and reliability of the current generation of aircraft has led to an erosion of pilot skills?

[Lowlevldevl]

Ok,:uhoh:
When I say "always" do a take-off performance calculation before accepting a load, obviously the one you've done at the beginning of the season to establish that your home runway has more length than you could possibly need can be something 'known' rather than something which needs to be recalculated each time.

I think all ag-pilots should at least be 'familiar' with the calculation, even though they might use other techniques. The trouble starts when a few of the variables start to change. i.e A different type of aircraft. A different strip. A product with an unusually high SG.

One of these on there own may not be enough to spoil your day but you only need one occasion where 'all the holes line up' to completely stuff your career.

[CRUZN]

Knowing the SG is such a basic consideration when establishing load size I often shake my head when you ask the question and the pilot says 'I dont KNOW' but it bloody heavy. Reluctance to dump also is indememic though I think we are starting to break that culture. The last 502 to be wrecked had $400 worth of product in it and that was a classic case of all the holes lining up.
Has anyone ever seen a performance take-off chart for a 502? There's a good reason when qualifying a pilot on a different airframe that less than max takeoff load is used for the first few hours. One problem is knowing when to knock off when conditions are deteriating, I reckon we'd all be guilty of operating at the edge...besides thats what we're good at.

[CRUZN]

Currawong.
Were you referring to the four points I raised?

[airag3]

There are no P-charts , weight and balance info or any other limitations printed in the Approved Fright Manual for flight (hopefully) with an ag' overload, it's always been up to the pilots experience , both in general and on the airframe type, to decide how much he/she will take under the prevailing conditions from the given strip.

I think we all start with a conservative load and work up to a safe limit and thats never clearer than when spreading solids, after a few seasons and scares most people become comfortable with judging a safe load to begin with.

I've always worked on having 3 extras up my sleeve during the take-off/ initial climb (!) phase; a little extra power, more usefull flap (ie not drag flap) and a few extra knots during initial climb with the dump lever as a last resort, if things aren't going to plan as the take-off progresses these can be utilised as required.

Only once so far have I had to dump liquid on takeoff , however the process of using up my backups one by one makes the use of the dump lever an easy progression .

Trouble is I'm still human and it's an inherantly hazardous game we play.

[CRUZN]

My points exactly airag3..just because certain excursions from normal ops hasn't happen to you yet doesn't mean you should not have a clear plan if they do...it keeps you safe...to take the high ground and reassure oneself that 'it wont happen to me' and then when it does say 'I don't know what happened' (sounds all too familular) just means
1.you hadn't thought about and exercised your options at the critical moments because your just too good a pilot and shouldn't be in this predicament in the first place.
2. poor cockpit discipline..knowing when too knock-off or modifying you op's to create some margin (like 'TAKING OFF INTO WIND would be a good start)

[currawong]

CRUZN,

No, I was referring to the four points raised in LLD's initial post.

Todays flight manuals can be a bit hard to get specifics out of.

Probably the most comprehensive I have seen was for the old Agwagon. P charts even available. Less ambiguity too.

[Lowlevldevl]

Would it be fair to say that the manufacturers have approached this problem from the "4X4 handle solution" perspective as well, unconcerned with the potential value of the load?
Could their charts be better?
It'd be better wouldn't it if the P charts were standardized, simplified and covered ag overload weights also?
As pilots its our responsibility to be certain we have the performance required for a safe take-off. In your opinion, do we have the right tools available to us in the cockpit to enable us to do that? (Other than the 4X4 handle)

[Agwaggon]

Come on people what are we talking about here. Look I know that I'm a blooby nobody, right, so lets dismiss the Fig Jam replies before we even start.
I've flown Ag now for many thousands of hours in Pawnees, the beautiful Agwaggon (air ags answer to the MG ) Beavers, Fluctuators, 502s, Thrushes etc etc etc. and guess what? I have never seen nor used a t/o chart. I'll garentee the rest of the crew out there haven't either. You would never start work on a busy day if that was the norm.
If you don't know how much usefull ground you have in front of you when you push things foward, try another industry.
If you don't know where the wind is coming from at the same time, same advise.
If you think that taking off up hill but into wind is the right way to go, same advise again!
The only possible exception to these very basic things is Ag 2's straight out of boot camp.
As for tail up decision points etc. Well thats all very well on an airstrip where you can accelerate to that point go through that decision process and then abort and pull her up in time. Seems to me that if you have that much room it probably would have flown anyhow!
Remember we are a pretty lucky bunch now because most if not all the equiptment we operate is built for Ag. Lets get real here. A 502 with 800 mts will fly. Don't know many spraying strips that won't give you that. On the rice, well often less thats true. But if you only have say 600 mts then, well if you don't know what to put in, then should you actually be there??
This ALL comes back to attitude people. Carefully, Carefully is the way to go. But hey, we all know that don't we.!?
Don't get me wrong I've stood there scratching my big curley mop of hair wondering how much to load plenty of times just like every body else. I always erred on the light side and worked up from there. Anyhow thats the way it's always been done. Isn't it ??
And remember above all, two gg's please!

[Lowlevldevl]

Ag waggon

1. If we don't need to rethink our approach here, how come we're buckled at the knees after a succession of take-off accidents by high time pilots?
2. So how big a load can you pull of a 600m strip at 2000' on a 32 degree day? Don't look at the book now!
I know, stick 1000 in there and see how it goes. Thats 'professional!
3. Carefully, carefully? Why wouldn't the minute it takes to pull out the manual and check qualify as doing it carefully? It's one thing to say you have a changed ATTITUDE but if you don't change the way you DO things as a result, its just talk.

I KNOW the old way has worked fine 99.999% of the time. Thats all I've ever done. Sounds like you think we should just keep doing it like that and hope this all goes away.

I can just hear the accident investigators questions now.
"What was your T/O weight?"
"What was the maximum weight you could fly off this strip?"
"How did you establish that?"
Be nice to have the answers at least, hey?

Fig Jam? Give us a break.

[currawong]

Agwaggon has some valid points, no less valid than others expressed here.

I was trying to be polite, but there are problems with airmanship, essentially ability and attitude.

Could be people have avoided problems in the past through sheer luck. Ask some questions - you will be surprised at the level of ignorance.

[Agwaggon]

Devil. Sorry didn't mean to get your horns all hot and steamy.
Look this is a subject matter with so many variables that basically I think the use of any standard format t/o or p chart is usless! But thats just my opinion.
If you want to bring legal stuff into this chat as in your last reply I can see whee you are coming from in the event of a prang, but are we then to do a cal every t/o. As the day progresses the temp rises as then does the D/H. the wind gets up and sometimes gradually changes direction. My point being that your last calculation could not be the same as the currant one, in most cases anyhow.
If this became legal precedent any silk would tear us to bits.
The reply offered by airag3 is typical of the way i personally operate and I'm sure this comes out of my earlier supering background. You see taking off is only the first phase of big picture. After that you have to actually climb, keep it in the air, turn, fly to the job, maybe negotiate a hill or two etc. So I like to keep it reasonably conservative. Maybe thats just experience hey.

And by the way LLD.
Agwaggon is just one word mate not two.
Mum gets upset when someone gets our name wrong.

[Agwaggon]

And also while i'm on a roll here. May I pose a serious question.
This thread is all about our T/O problems at the moment.True?
Well I'm not completely in the picture as I don't deal with the insurers etc, and as R D Amber said earlier they will always have a grizzle. So my question is do we actually have a serious and eroding T/O accident problem.
I'm aware of a couple over the pase couple of years but that didn't stand out to me. Has there been many more??
Remember this is a question, so please don't shout.
Cheers AgwaGGon.

[currawong]

I do not envy those that have taken on this task, as I believe the problems are pretty systemic, top down.

Used to be a standard that an aircraft had to be able to jettison a load in 5 secs. Never really caught on here.

Once I tried applying the ALA rules to the base airstrip (where CASA audits take place). It did not measure up.

Both issues relevant to T/O problems.

I do believe the rules, regs, training, proceedures etc are up to speed.

The problem is they are routinely ignored. From the regulator, to instructors, to operators, to chief pilots, to individual pilots.

Before people start squealing "cheap shots" etc, have a think about the short-cuts you know go on, and think "are they clever? Or are they just making it harder for people doing the right thing?"

If you want me to spell some of them out, fine.

[Lowlevldevl]

Agwaggon,
I have to admit that when I started this thread I didn't expect much support for the P chart idea. Its just something we've never done as ag-pilots. However, I also have a background in helicopters and from time to time it makes sense to pull out the manual to get an idea what departure weight at S.L is going to need 100%Tq to hover at 5000'. Having done the calculation a few times you get a better instinct for whats going to work and whats not the next time you face something similar. So maybe I'm just not as reluctant to look at the graphs as some others may be. (Sure hope that doesn't come across as Fig Jam!)

Personally, I'd just like to have enough information to be able to say "well, I've got 5 kts of tailwind, 600 litres fuel, the temps going to 30C today and this strip is 800 m long with a fence at the end. How many Ha's worth should the mixer pour in the vat?" And be confident that I've got a pretty accurate answer.

An 'at risk' pilot could be someone as Currawong pointed out who simply lacks ability, has poor airmanship. But he could also be someone who just hasn't flown that particular type for a while, has only flown off the big home runway for months, who's tired or distracted (in otherwords 'human'). If we assume that we can't identify 'at risk' pilots until AFTER an accident, and they can't be forced out beforehand, what minimum procedures could we ALL adopt to see that it doesn't happen. Another way to put it is, what should the basics be? Because whenever any of us finds ourselves in an overwhelming situation we should know to go back to 'the basics' We run through the checklists we were taught at the beginning of our training. Adding "How much runway do I have?" and "How much runway do I need?" to our basic checklist and knowing how to get the answers would go a long way to solving this problem.(Just MY opinion.)

If doing a quick weight calculation and a P check is unreasonable/ impractical, what else would have the desired impact on the stats'?

To answer your question about having to do the calculation again as the day heats up. That would obviously depend on how much 'fat' there was in the first calculation. If the agronomist tells you he wants you to pull up at 32 C, you'd only need to do a calculation at full fuel and 32 C to work out your safe load. Obviously then anything cooler and your performance will be more than adequate. Do you think thats being too conservative? Do you think we should be carrying bigger loads while its cooler and/or our fuel load is down? Maybe you're right. Thats your decision to make but when you do, you erode your margin. We've all done it but if the margin is there to give a bit of buffer against all those 'holes lining up', the way things are going with insurance companies black listing accident affected pilots, do we really need to do that anymore?

Agwaggon,
Yeah we do. Take-off accidents in turbines accounted for the majority of losses since September \'04. I believe there were 5.

[airag3]

Possibly a part of the problem we all face with applying P-charts to our work in Ag' is the variety of strips we fly off, and everything does vary a hell of a lot, but one thing is for sure you cannot open the ERSA and extract TORA,TODA, ASDA , surface, slope Cardinal direction or whether or not dancing girls will greet us on arrival.

Personally the last one is of greater interest.

Classic case , tomorrow we're working off a strip I've never seen 80km away first thing in the morning and hope to haul near full loads off it.

S'pose I really should go to bed!

[lancaster52]

With this kind of history how on earth can you afford the insurance premiums you guys. ?

[SNS3Guppy]

The aircraft flight manual for my airplane is prefaced with a note that indicates nothing in the manual is to be believed, and that the data is not valid. Having checked on it, that's certainly the case.

I can tell you what feels right with the airplane and what doesn't, but as far as any performance data to substantiate what I can expect, there isn't any, and it's a feel proposition.

Perhaps more importantly is the use of some kind of checklist, weather it's a consistant flow or a printed list. A few years ago I was working out of a small mountain airstrip, and the terrain climbed slightly in each direction. I found that I was having a difficult time after takeoff, and finally realized that I had failed to put down the flaps before takeoff. The only time I've forgotten that, and it's such a standard part of my pretakeoff proceedure. A checklist might have prevented that.

This is an interesting thread; I've never considered takeoff to be the most critical aspect of ag flying, due to our constant exposure to other hazards during the course of a flight. It's certainly the most critical performance-wise, but I've seen more accidents and incidents in the field among operators than takeoff accidents.

Particularly owing to the fact that we carry a disposable load, unless we have a wheel failure, locked brake, drop a tire in a chuckhole, or have an engine failure, we can always get rid of the load and climb out in an emergency. I did see a non-fatal crash two years ago when the pilot overloaded himself and had the dump handle safetied with a tiedown strap that prevented him from being able to dump. His logic in tying the handle back was that he was less likely to bump it getting in and out of the airplane, and therefore less likely to accidently dump it on the ramp. That bit him neatly in the butt in the end, though.

I've forgotten to arm my system, which is electric, before. I have a dump handle that overcenters everything so I can dump or without hydraulics or electric, and I make sure that's clear. I do make sure I swipe the controls before entering the runway, I check my tailwheel lock, I thumb down the flaps and check them visually, make sure my temps and pressures are good, and run a flow check through the cockpit for every takeoff...that still didn't keep me from forgetting the flaps one day, and that could have bit me in the butt, too.

Doing the same thing constantly we are backed up by repetative habits that hopefully work to keep us safe, but repetition also leads to complacency, which can bite awfully hard.

[heliduck]

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I believe we are talking about self discipline. The first few hundred hours of helicopter mustering I developed a habit of blasting in for a landing in various locations & putting the machine on the ground with a minimum of fuss, until one day with a big ringer & all the tucker on board at 41 deg c I freightened the **** out of myself but landed uneventfully anyway. I made a conscious decision about half a second after that to ALWAYS do a power check before landing. I've applied this self discipline to all phases of flight ever since & have never scared myself again, although I've been a bit worried at times! I'm not FW ag(can't afford the training!) although I am rotary ag & have spent a few years as a FW loader/driver. I have seen the same complacency in the eyes of the pilots I loaded as I suffered myself years later. Familiarity breeds contempt, & self discipline is all that will save us. You blokes with vast experience all know what you need to check in order to have a safe take off, but having the self discipline to check it every time will be the hard part. If Ag was easy everyone would be doing it!

[multime]

Doubt these guys are really wondering about insurance.
When you shift from spraying all night then change to a product like super N (specific gravity 1.3/ 1.4?), common sense has to be the only option. I guess overall experience counts for everything.
Cheers Multi.:ok: