For the last few years, AgAir Update has included a survey question in many of its weekly eEditions sent via email. The responses to these questions have been overall very good with interesting indications. I spent a little time to look over a few of them and decided to summarize some of the results in this month’s editorial.
One thing I noticed was the responses numbered generally in the 100-120 range. For electronic surveys, that is considered an indicative number; meaning that a fairly accurate reflection of the industry.
The first and second surveys I viewed were about affiliation with industry associations. Of 116 respondents, 106 (91.3%) said they were a member of their state association. Likewise, when the question was how many were NAAA members, of 133 respondents, 117 (87.9%) were members. Those numbers are good indicators of the professionalism level our industry has reached, where most are a member of an industry association, at least with AgAir Update readers.
Another survey asked which type of mobile phone was used. Not surprisingly, the iPhone led the 113 responses with 66 (58.4%), while the Android came in second with 37 (32.7%) and all other mobile phones were the balance (8.9%). This should be valuable information for any ag-aviation vendor who is considering developing an app for a smart phone.
The next two survey questions probably could start intense hangar talk conversation, only bested by how to dump a load, or take off with or without flaps and that is, “How do you land loaded?” and “How do you land empty?”. For the loaded question (no pun intended), of 140 respondents 115 (82.1%) claimed to wheel land when loaded. That makes plenty of sense. No doubt landing three-point would be slower and potentially safer if you lost control of the aircraft or needed to stop short. However, miscalculate the flare and stall speed for a three-point landing and you could do lots of damage to the aircraft.
Obviously from the second question about landing empty, ag-pilots must generally like to wheel land when out of 116 respondents, 72 (62%) preferred to wheel land even when empty. For me, wheel landings are easier than three-pointers. Whenever I evaluate a different and strange aircraft, I always wheel land. I have more control through the touch down phase and can more easily abort if needed.
Like runways and fuel, you can never have too much lift with a loaded ag-plane. In the past, vortex generators (VGs) were considered smoke and mirrors. Today, these lift enhancing devices are fairly well-accepted by ag-pilots. Of the 85 respondents, 56 (65.8%) said their aircraft was outfitted with VGs. I speculate not all 56 could be wrong, so there must be something about VGs that help the ag-plane; just don’t walk on the wing barefoot or pull the fuel hose across them.
Ag flying is strictly a VFR endeavor. Sometimes the ferry to and from the job or to relocate can put the unsuspecting ag-pilot into a world of trouble by encountering IMC conditions that require the skills of an IFR pilot with IFR equipment. Of 120 respondents, 59 (49.1%) were IFR certified. The survey question did not ask if the pilot was IFR current. That is the key. Having an IFR ticket only gives you the ability to learn about real IFR flying. It has no relationship with ag-flying. Even more notable, the IFR rating is not much good if the plane does not have IFR equipment.
The IFR rating question created up a couple more survey questions; “Do you have an attitude indicator in your aircraft?” and “Do you have a VHF radio in your aircraft? The attitude indicator should be standard equipment for an ag-plane. Not to be dependent upon, but to hopefully save the pilot from spacial disorientation in the clouds or fog. The intent is to stay the heck out of IMC, but as we know, it does not always work out that way. For the attitude indicator to be of any real value, some practice using it would be needed, and with a single seat aircraft, practice under the hood would be an FAR violation without a safety pilot. Now what? From 65 respondents, only 19 (29.2%) have one in their aircraft.
As for a VHF radio in the aircraft, the survey question asked if the pilot communicated with other pilots on 123.45. From 99 respondents, 59 (59.5%) uses a VHF radio. That is a good practice, even in VFR conditions. Too much talk is distracting, but if everyone monitors the channel a lot of good can come from it. Maybe ag-pilots should come up with their own discrete, universally accepted frequency. That way general aviation pilots would not be chattering and listening in to our conversations. Also, the VHF has another frequency selection, 121.5, the emergency frequency. Getting caught in the fog, pulling up through it and finding yourself stuck on top, calling ATC might be of some help.
With the last survey question I viewed, paraphrased, “How much do you charge per acre?”. Oddly enough, there were more respondents willing to respond to this question than any of the others, 150.The majority of 35 (23.3%) charged $8.00 USD per acre. There was a range from $6.00 to $10.00 or more that represented 22-26% of the respondents. Less than 1% each charged $3.00 or $4.00. This does not take into account the volume rates or whether the work is dry or wet applications. These results are just a generality, but does demonstrate where our industry is with pricing.
I find the information from AgAir Update’s eEdition surveys revealing. The more participates, the more accurate the information. Don’t hesitate to express yourself with them. They are single question surveys and AgAir Update does not know who responds.
Until next month, Blue Sky and Tailwinds…
Keep Turning
