Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 503; Flight Crew Total 1252; Flight Crew Type 1013
Conflict NMAC
Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Airspace Structure
I was south-westbound at about 300 AGL performing low level pipeline patrol. Note that our patrol operation is performed under the provisions of an FAA low level waiver. I observed a turbine powered aerial application aircraft; an Air Tractor or similar; completing a northbound spray run towards my position. On this course the other aircraft posed no hazard to me as I would pass well beyond its course prior to it passing my course. However; out of an abundance of caution I turned on my landing light. Upon completing the spray run; the other aircraft performed a pull up and left turn to the west; which brought our courses together. Accordingly I turned right 5 degrees to the west; and descended to about 150 AGL over fields. I passed about 500 feet in front and approximately 250 feet below the other aircraft; at which point I lost sight of it despite my efforts to maintain visual contact. Until I lost sight of the aircraft; we were both flying straight and level. I turned left 10 degrees and then right 5 degrees to return to my course. Upon rolling level from the right turn; I observed the other aircraft on a southbound spray run on an approximate collision course; closing fast. The aircraft was at my 4 o'clock moving to my 2 o'clock position and slightly below my altitude. As the other aircraft's groundspeed was substantially faster than my 110 MPH; I performed an aggressive evasive maneuver by pulling up and turning hard to the right; passing behind and above the aircraft. I would estimate our nearest relative distance to be about 250 feet horizontal and 40 feet vertical. Had I not taken evasive action; I believe we would have passed closer than 50 ft. After passing behind the aircraft; I maintained visual contact with the aircraft until it completed its spray run; pulled up; and departed to the west.Light and visibility was good; and weather was not a factor.When I first saw the aircraft and turned on my landing light; I thought it likely that the other aircraft had me in sight. Considering what took place; I now doubt that the other aircraft had me in sight at any time. I don't understand how the other aircraft did not see me when it was above my position and turning towards me. My white and blue aircraft should have stood out well enough against the green cornfields.The current 'see and avoid' system can work well when both aircraft are on relatively constant courses and are participating in both the seeing and avoiding. In this case; I wonder whether the other aircraft was participating. The other aircraft's unpredictable flight path was definitely a contributing factor; leading to difficulty in choosing what evasive action to take.My aircraft is not equipped with strobe lights; and the red beacon is difficult to see in daylight. I believe that high-visibility wing-tip strobes; especially of the 3-pulse variety; could contribute significantly to better aircraft visibility. I also believe that high visibility paint schemes; such as the yellow paint of the other aircraft in this case; contribute positively to aircraft visibility. It might be prudent for low level aerial patrol companies to adopt a high visibility orange paint scheme to promote safety.
A pipeline patrol pilot reported a near mid-air collision with an aerial application aircraft.