|
Dearfield Co. | I don't know what length of the thread has to do with it as well the deletion of the comments does absolutely nothing for the original poster escpially if he hasn't been present to view the thread it will appear confusing ---------------------- It is a forum if you have forgotten , and the principle behind this is for view points to be given and debated.
So on one hand Mr Lyon wants a investigation more than likely starting with the farmer going on up the ladder to ensure the safety of the woman who was sprayed. But the word investigation brought many up on their haunches with comments of FBI etc. Which I interpreted that the OP should as landlord consult with the farmer and then continue up the ladder
On the other hand Mr steve thinks let it go and the rest of the forum is spread between these two lines. BY LAW in most states Mr Lyons approach would be the direction it would go. the key things in the thread are the 4 phone calls to the ag pilot to finally get the answer that he was spraying fungicide so he now has played into the deal more than if he would of sent someone from the airport with material data sheets. Before you say he was from out of the area he would of had to have someplace to land and reload in the general area. Also you would of thought if he was totally up front on the chemical he would of wanted this stopped and fast. Secondly the farmer should of been alarmed at his land lords getting sprayed and wanted it corrected before he got that certified letter in the mail. When I had landlords I would have as well as I made sure in inclimate weather their cars would start and the walks were cleaned. If one would of called me and said they were sprayed by my ag pilot I would of made sure they could rest at ease over the material data in their possession as well as a personal apology from the ag pilot ---------if it was only fungicide. but thats the way it works in the handshake midwest | |
|
update on spray plane incident
