Tag: drone

  • How to Calibrate a Drone – Swath Width Calculation

    How to Calibrate a Drone – Swath Width Calculation

    Calibration is a fundamental step in any spray application. To apply the correct product rate, we need to know how much liquid per unit land area is deposited under the sprayer.

    To conduct the calculations, either manually or through the drone software, we need to know the width of the spray swath. This task requires the operation of the sprayer under typical conditions, some kind of sampler capture the spray deposit, and a means of quantifying that deposit so the spray pattern becomes apparent. Here’s how we do it:

    1. Confirm the accuracy of the flow meter

    Drones don’t typically report the spray pressure of the spray mix. Instead, they report the flow rate using a built-in flow meter. The drone maintains the desired application rate by using the flow rate to adjust pump speed and engage nozzles over a range of travel speeds. Because everything depends on the flow meter, its accuracy needs to be verified.

    • Fill the spray tank with clean water and flush all the lines.
    • Install nozzles required for task, ensuring all nozzles are identical and in good working order.
    Nozzles installed on DJI T20 drone.
    • Select the nozzle size you installed on the spray monitor.
    • Purge the air from the system.
    • Activate the spray and wait for the flow rate to stabilize on the spray monitor. This may take a few moments.
    • With the nozzles flowing, place collectors under each nozzle and collect the spray liquid for a fixed time, say one minute.
    Capturing spray during flow meter calibration.
    • Ensure the collector catches all the spray. Buckets often create turbulence. Rotary atomizers make this more difficult.
    • When the time elapses, remove the collectors and then shut off the spray.
    • Unless the shutoff is very fast and positive, leaving the collectors in place during shutoff can introduce error as the flow diminishes.
    • Confirm that the volume collected from each nozzle was identical, and that the flow rate reported by the drone flow meter is accurate.
    • Repeat to ensure consistency.
    Use of a Spot-On digital calibrating cup ensures that all spray is captured and it also reports the volume instantly.

    2. Measure the swath width

    Spray swath width is variable. For a measurement to be relevant we must evaluate spray deposition under environmental conditions that are similar to the planned spray operation, as well as use the same operational settings such as altitude, travel speed, nozzle choice, and application volume.

    Spray samplers are positioned along the ground, perpendicular to the flight path. We use water-sensitive paper (WSP) because it’s readily available, fast and easy to use, and the deposits can be analyzed visually or using simple apps that calculate coverage. We create a sampling line of WSP positioned a 1 m intervals (or maybe 0.5 m for narrow swaths). The samplers should extend to twice the expected swath width to account for any swath displacement from sidewinds.

    • Choose a day with light, consistent winds.
    • Find an open space free of obstruction in the direction of the prevailing wind.
    • Install a weather station to document conditions during flight.
    A Kestrel 3550AG or 5550AG wind meter can record weather data and download to a phone via Bluetooth.
    • Mark an approximately 200 m long flight line into the prevailing wind direction by placing wire flags every 50 m.
    • At the 150 m mark, use wire flags to centre a sampler line perpendicular to the flight path. Sampler line length should be about twice the expected swath width.
    Swath sampling line
    • Wooden blocks with paper clips can be used to secure WSP at regular intervals along the sampler line.
    Wooden blocks attached to a 4″ tow strap allows for easy setup and movement of sampling line.
    • Fill the drone 1/2 full.
    • Manually fly the drone along the entire flight line. The spray pressure, flow rate and altitude of the drone should be stable before it reaches the sampler line. This may take 25 meters or more depending on drone model, flight speed and drone weight.
    • Fly 50 m past the sampling line without any drone maneuvering to avoid affecting the deposit.
    • Land the drone and walk along the sampler line.
    • Note the deposits in the central region. Walk along line as the deposits taper off, looking for deposits that are approximately 50% of the average central deposits.
    Water-sensitive paper following a drone application.
    • Estimate the distance between these deposits on both edges of the swath. This is the estimated swath width that can be entered for the second flight.
    • Replace the WSP with a fresh set, refill the drone to 1/2 full, and repeat the flight two more times.

    Other methods perform a more advanced assessment by analyzing the entire swath, and not just intervals. These methods use dyes and dedicated hardware to quantify the deposits along strings or paper samplers.

    The Swath Gobbler documents swaths at high resolution using lengths of 3″ bonded receipt paper, food grade dye, and a digital scanner.
    The Application Insight LLC Swath Gobbler scanner in action.

    3. Analyze the Pattern

    The nearest approximation for drone swathing is that of a manned aircraft. The spray pattern of an aircraft is tapered, meaning the highest deposition is near the centre of the swath, and the edges of the swath fade to zero deposit. In order to achieve consistent coverage, we need the edges of the spray swath to overlap so the cumulative coverage at the edges is closer to that in the centre. Too little overlap leaves gaps and too much overlap results in excessive deposit.

    Insufficient overlap creates gaps in coverage
    Excessive overlap results in over-dosing and waste
    Correct overlap is necessary for efficient and effective application.

    Deposits from drones can be highly variable. The challenge is to find an overlap distance that minimizes this variability, minimizes both over- and under-application, and maximizes swath width. Download a copy of our Excel spreadsheet to help you with this process.

    Drone-Pattern-Swath-Width-1Download

    The first step is to estimate a reasonable average deposit, called “Threshold”. Graph the deposits from each sampler, and estimate a point on the Y axis (Relative Deposition) that represents the average maximum deposit. This could be the maximum value of the plateau, or a midpoint between the maximum and a nearby dip. This is the Threshold. We then take 50% of this estimated average deposit, and find the two distances on the X axis (Sampler Locations) that intersect the curve at these points. The distance between these two points is our first estimate of the swath width. If two adjacent swaths are spaced so the edge of one overlaps 50% with the next, the overall cumulative deposit should be relatively even.

    The coverage information from each sampler location is graphed to create a deposit pattern.

    We can alter the amount of overlap to improve the apparent uniformity, but be cautious. For example, even though we can often improve the uniformity by narrowing the swath width, this can add deposit to the area under the drone and raise the overall deposit amount. Plus, the narrower swath also lowers the productivity of the drone. Use the Excel model to establish a swath width that has the lowest variability (Coefficient of Variability or CV) AND results in a balance between over- and under-dosing.

    The amount of overlap is adjusted to minimize variability (CV) and both equalize and minimize over- and under-dosing.

    4. Recognize the factors that influence swath width

    Operational use case affects swath width

    Swath width is affected by altitude, speed, water volume and spray quality. Generally, higher altitudes, lower volumes, and finer sprays will result in a wider swath. Unfortunately, the same configuration also results in greater drift. It is recommended that swath widths be determined for each spray volume and nozzle arrangement that will be used.

    Drones will be applying low water volumes and this requires a critical assessment of coverage to ensure the deposit density is sufficient to achieve the desired result. A low volume will require a finer spray for minimum coverage to be realized. Coarser sprays that reduce drift and evaporation will need higher water volumes and result in narrower swaths. Significant time may need to be invested to understand the effects of operational settings and environmental conditions on spray deposit uniformity and swath width.

    Effective Swath Width and the Agronomic Use Case

    The relatively sparse coverage at the extremes of the measured swath width may be insufficient to elicit the desired biological result. The Effective Swath Width (ESW) represents the segment of the total swath width that results in pesticide efficacy. In some use cases, the two widths can be similar, but typically the ESW is only a fraction.

    The difference is influenced by the “Agronomic Use Case” which includes factors such as:

    • Spray mix rheology (i.e. the interaction of spray mix viscosity and atomizer design on droplet size)
    • Minimum effective dose: This is a complex relationship between coverage, spray mix concentration and pesticide mode-of-action that results in an effective result while minimizing the environmental impact.
    • Target location (e.g. a pest within a dense canopy or a weed on relatively bare ground)

    Taken collectively, research has shown a 20-30% reduction in ESW for corn, wheat and soybean fungicide applications compared to swaths measured on open ground. Conversely, herbicides sprayed on bare earth or sparse vegetation can produce an efficacious response 20% wider than the measured swath width. The impact of agronomic use case on ESW must be considered during mission planning.

    Additional pointers

    Here are a few tips and tricks to help you be successful when calibrating your drone.

    • Drone patterns will have deposit peaks and valleys in the central region. Repeated runs are needed to confirm that these are real and persistent. If so, then adjustments in flying height, spray quality, or water volume may be needed to eliminate them.
    • The absence of pressure gauges on drones can be corrected by installing an analog gauge in-line with one of the spray nozzles. If may be necessary to mount an auxiliary camera on the drone to record this gauge. We have observed strong fluctuations in spray pressure, particularly on starting a spray swath, that were not reflected in the reported flow rate.
    A pressure gauge can be plumbed into a drone without affecting flight behaviour. A camera is trained on it to read pressure during a flight.
    • Many drones have the option of recording the flight screen during a mission. This will provide a record of the performance of the drone, and can be valuable should performance problems arise.
    • Although swath width calibration is done by flying into a headwind, the actual spray application should be done with a side wind. Start at the downwind edge of the field and turn into the wind. The drone is symmetrical and the tapered spray patterns should equalize the deposits. Alternately, flying into a headwind and returning with a tailwind can alter the aerodynamics of the spray deposition process, alternating between a wider and more narrow swath width, respectively.

    Drone spraying will walk a razor’s edge of sorts – there is little room for error when using scant water and fine droplets. Getting the basics right has never been more important.

  • Drone Sprayers – Are we Ready?

    Drone Sprayers – Are we Ready?

    One of the fastest moving new agricultural technologies is spray drones. Hardly a month goes by without some sort of new capability, some new features. It’s truly an exciting space to watch.

    As with all things, there are good news and bad news to share. First the good news.

    Drone capacity is on the rise. The early drones shipped with hoppers of 8 to 10 litres. Part of the reason was to keep weight below 25 kg. Below this weight, pilot licensing requirements and flight restrictions are easier. Anyone with a Basic RPAS license (RPAS is the official term for drones, Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems) can operate drones up to 25 kg. Above this weight, one requires an Advanced license, which is much more difficult to obtain. Current drones like the DJI T40 have a hopper capacity of 40 L, allowing more area to be covered per flight.

    The new DJI T40 holds 40 L of liquid and has a claimed swath width of 36 feet (Source: DJI)

    Swath widths are increasing with drone size. The limiting factor for electric drones is still battery power. Flight times of 15 to 20 minutes are possible, depending on the ferrying distance. As a result, larger drones don’t necessarily fly longer, but they spray wider, up to a claimed 30 feet for the DJI T30, and 36 feet for the T40.

    Atomizers are improving. The trusty flat fan nozzle certainly works on a drone, but its proper operation depends on spray pressure. And spray pressure is not currently reported by drones. Instead, their application software relies on flow rate, and pressure is adjusted in the background in response to changes in travel speed, swath width, or nozzle size. Although drone flow meters are remarkably accurate, the operator could inadvertently operate the drone at a pressure that produces the wrong spray quality for the conditions.

    Enter the rotary atomizer. Long a darling of the thinking applicator, these atomizers use centrifugal energy to create a spray with a tighter span, meaning fewer fine and fewer large droplets. Spray quality still depends on pressure-generated flow rate, but droplet size can additionally be altered with rotation speed. This means that if a faster travel speed increases the spray pressure, the effect on spray quality can be counteracted with a changed rotational speed to keep everything more uniform.

    Rotary atomizers, like this one from XAG generate more uniform droplet sizes and can alter droplet size without changing spray pressure.

    Hybrid systems are entering the market. Rotary wings allow for precise positioning of aircraft and they provide downwash that helps spread the spray pattern out. Downwash also improves canopy penetration and could reduce drift, like air-assist, if used properly. But rotary wings use a lot of energy, limiting battery life. When flown at the wrong height or speed, deposit patterns, drift, and swath width will change. That has to be managed and requires experience.

    In comparison, hybrid drones have fixed wings for flight and rotary wings for take-off and landing. The rotors just rotate into the position needed at the time. Fixed wing drones will fly faster, possibly improving capacity and also reducing the effect of the downwash. These systems are new, and much needs to be learned before we understand their various characteristics. But they offer a nice avenue into more productivity.

    Hybrid drones like this one from Advanced Robotics can cover more ground with less turbulence than a rotary wing drone.

    Drones are multi-purpose. Virtually all drones have interchangeable wet and dry hoppers so they can be used to apply dry nutrients or seed as needed. That makes them quite versatile. But the newest spray drones have scouting-quality cameras on board and can be asked to take high resolution images while they’re spraying. At the end of the mission, a very detailed picture of the crop emerges, with much higher resolution than the higher-elevation scouts produce. Other sensors on the drones can be used for variable rate application of nutrients, or even for spot spraying weed patches.

    Scouting camera takes pictures while conducting a spray mission (Source: DJI)

    Now for the bad news. It’s still not legal to apply mainstream pesticides using drones in Canada, and it may stay that way for a while yet.

    Pesticide application by drones remains illegal in Canada. The main reason is that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) has declared drones to be unique application method, separate from ground sprays and aerial sprays from piloted aircraft. This has triggered the need for risk assessment data for spray drift, efficacy, bystander exposure, crop residue. It’s a fair decision – drones produce finer sprays than any other existing system, they potentially use lower water volumes by necessity, and they create a less predictable deposit due to rotor downwash. The majority of current pesticide formulations are designed for 5 to 10 gpa, this creates a certain concentration of surfactants and products that interact with plant surfaces or that change the potency of drift. Altering this by a factor of 5 can have undesirable outcomes. Yes, aircraft also use lower volumes, but more in the area of 2 to 5 gpa. Drones could cut that in half again, and that warrants study.

    Registrants haven’t rushed to study drones. Most major manufacturers of pesticides have a small drone program to get their feet wet, and most have applied for Research Authorization (RA) from the PMRA to study them. But the decision to register a drone use for a pesticide has much to consider. Is it worth it to generate the required dataset for the regulators? Will drones amount to a lucrative new market for product? Do we have the resources and expertise to service this new market? The answers to such questions are clearly complex and much remains unknown. The registrants’ caution is understandable.

    There may be a small portfolio of available products. Anyone thinking that a fleet of inexpensive, nimble drones will replace their ground sprayer is banking on the registration of the products they need in their operatioin by the registrants. The most likely products to be registered are fungicides, for which drones would offer several advantages in canopy penetration and spraying in tight time windows due to, say, wet weather.

    Another obvious use is in industrial vegetation management where rough terrain or remote locations make it difficult to use wheeled sprayers. Or vector control with larvicides, which, incidentally, comprise the first pesticide registrations for drones in Canada (two microbial mosquito larvicides were approved for drone use in October 2022).

    But it seems unlikely in the short term that a producer would have their pick of products to apply by drone anytime soon. And this means that a drone would remain a supplemental tool on the farm, not the main workhorse.

    Regulatory hurdles are substantial. Not only is a pilot required to be licensed to use drones, a pesticide application also requires a Specialized Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC). In general, SFOCs are required if:

    • you are a foreign operator (i.e., not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident);
    • you want to fly at a special aviation event or an advertised event;
    • you want to fly closer to a military airport;
    • you want to fly your drone beyond visual line-of-sight;
    • your drone weighs over 25 kg;
    • you want to fly your drone at higher altitudes;
    • you want to fly your drone carrying dangerous or hazardous payloads (e.g. chemicals);
    • you want to fly more than five drones at the same time.

    SFOC applications are fairly easy to fill out. Aside from identifying the drone and the pilot, the application needs the purpose of the mission, the location of the mission, and the time period of the mission. The problem is that it may take up to 30 days to hear back for simple missions, 60 days for complex mission. And if the SFOC is not granted, you can’t fly. You can’t decide to spray a field at the last minute.

    The news is clearly a mixed bag. We have it all – exciting technology, obvious niche in the marketplace, significant regulations, slow process. In the meantime, spray drones are legal to purchase and relatively inexpensive. And we know they are being purchased. Canada doesn’t have a strong compliance system within the PMRA, so it’s hard to know how much pesticide spraying is being done illegally, or how perpetrators will be treated by the law.

    The reputation of the industry once again rests with hope that good decisions are being made by conscientious individuals.

  • The Most Important Developments in Spraying

    The Most Important Developments in Spraying

    Some things have improved a lot. Others have lost ground.

    Some years ago, a few of us weed scientists sat around a table and debated the most important developments in agriculture in our lifetimes. It was a great discussion, and we arrived at a few that included direct seeding (for its soil and moisture conservation as well as improved fertilizer placement), GMO crops (for slowing Group 1 and 2 herbicide resistance), and the abandonment of summer fallow in much of western Canada. Let’s apply this exercise to spray application to see what we come up with.

    What follows are my version of the most important spray technology developments in the last 50 years.

    1. Low-drift Nozzles. Spray drift is the biggest time management challenge and also perhaps the biggest public relations battle. These nozzles reduce drift, making more time available for spraying and doing it safely and effectively.
    2. Rate Controllers. I both love and hate these things. On the one hand, a rate controller matches sprayer output to travel speed. On the other, it has allowed spray pressures to go wherever they need, even beyond the optimum, to match travel speed, and that can lead to nozzle performance issues.
    3. Pulse Width Modulation. The pulsing nozzle fixes the rate controller problem mentioned above. Now, travel speed and pressure are independent. Plus, of course, a whole host of other flow management options, such as turn compensation and rate boosting, become available.
    4. Optical Spot Spraying. Once you see these in action, you can’t go back. Why would you spray a whole field when weeds only cover 10% of it? Products like WEEDit and WeedSeeker are proven green-on-brown performers after years of field success around the world.
    5. GPS Guidance. Some of us grew up with foam or disk markers, others learned to aim for brave family members perched on headlands. Achieving accuracy was stressful, overlap was insurance, and misses were common. The importance of this development is probably under-estimated.
    6. Sectional Control. The ability to adjust the spray width in individual nozzle steps makes sense, and this can come with or without PWM. In fact, that alone can save 5% of an annual chemical bill compared to conventional sections measuring about 10 to 15 feet. And it’s definitely better than the left boom or right boom options from the 70 and 80s.
    7. Operator Comfort and Safety. The refuge of the cab makes longer days bearable for all equipment, but for spraying it dramatically improves safety as well.

    But we’re far from done. We still need work in these areas.

    1. Cleaning and Waste Management. I can’t imagine another industry where managing potentially hazardous leftover materials are left to the discretion and circumstances of the applicator. Let’s make it easy and fast to thoroughly clean the sprayer and safely dispose of leftovers. Step 1 is smarter and simpler plumbing.
    2. Boom Stability. Booms are too high, resulting in more drift and poorer nozzle performance, and adding to operator stress. The sole reason is unsatisfactory levelling. It’s possible to solve this, but it seems to not be a priority.
    3. Weight. The road to productivity seems to be paved with larger, heavier machines. The side effects are fuel consumption, compaction, getting stuck. Let’s get smarter with frame design and logistics and talk acres/h rather than tank capacity and power.
    4. Cost. All farm equipment has seen cost increases that far outstrip inflation or any reasonable accounting of productivity and features. Sprayers lead the way. Yes, it’s possible to spins this as a value proposition. But it shouldn’t be necessary.
    5. Drift Management. Sprayer design continues to ignore drift management. We need sprayers that produce less drift by design, and this requires consideration of tractor unit, wheel, and boom aerodynamics. It’s more than a droplet size issue.
    6. Direct Injection. Although very handy for single product application, the plethora of product formulations and mixes has limited the success of direct injection systems. The complexity of injecting at the nozzle, and the resulting lack of available systems, has stymied some very attractive options, such as site-specific rate or product use.
    7. Ergonomics. If you need training, or to call someone before using your new sprayer for the first time, something’s wrong. Interfaces need to be intuitive and simple. The golden age of spray monitors was the 1980s. Those featured a main power toggle switch, a pump power switch, boom section switches, an agitation switch, and a simple way to enter the important information which was basically desired application volume. The screen can still be pretty, and you can still paint and monitor or tweak all the functions if you like that. But let’s at least have different tiers so beginners can also use the machine. Make interfaces using the philosophy Steve Jobs instilled in his trusted designer Jony Ive with the first iPod: no more than three clicks to achieve any desired outcome.

    A few areas show promise and may suit certain niches.

    1. In-Crop Weed Sensing. The green-on-green sensing that has been made possible by machine learning has shown some encouraging early success. Continuing improvements will eventually bring its reliability to within commercially acceptable standards. There is significant activity below the radar in this area, as all players recognize the enormous upside of a breakthrough.
    2. Autonomy. While dispensing a pesticide adjacent to sensitive areas isn’t exactly the low-hanging fruit of autonomy, such field sprayers will have a fit in the temperate plains of North and South America, Australia, and Asia and may help solve the cost and weight problem.
    3. Drone Application. The rapid pace of advancement in remotely piloted aerial systems, along with a seemingly low barrier to entry of new companies, will put pressure on the industry to make a decision on this alternate application method. If it can be done safely, it will have a dramatic impact.

    If you want to improve your sprayer, don’t ignore the small things you can do in your operation. Although we’re conditioned to look for game-changing technology, the most sustained improvements don’t come from a single innovation, but from a period of persistent evolution. A lot of small improvements add up. Spray application is no different.

  • The Challenges of Spraying by Drone

    The Challenges of Spraying by Drone

    Spray application by drone is here. It’s common practice in South East Asia, with a very significant proportion of ag areas now treated that way. Estimates from South Korea, for example, suggest about 30% of their ag area being sprayed by drone. It’s in the US, too. The Yamaha RMax and Fazer helicopters, which pioneered drone spraying in Japan dating back to the mid 1990s, have been approved for use in California since 2015.  DJI, the world’s largest drone manufacturer, introduced their ag model, the Agras MG-1, to North America in 2016. Many other spray drones are available or in development.

    As William Gibson, the author of Johnny Mnemonic, once said, “The future’s here, it’s just not widely distributed yet.”

    DJI Agras MG-1 spray drone (Source: DJI.com)

    Proponents of drone spraying cite a drone’s ability to access areas where topography is a problem, such as steep slopes, where productivity of manual application is much lower, or low areas where soil moisture prevents ground vehicles. Operator exposure is reduced compared to handheld application.

    Opponents talk about productivity and cost factors compared to manned aerial application, spray drift, and rogue use.

    Before drone spraying becomes commonplace, two important things need to happen.

    1. Federal laws need to be updated to accommodate the unique features of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS), as they’re now called. Current laws make many assumptions unique to manned ships, and the process to correct that will require some patience. A thorough review for US laws, and their shortcomings, can be found here.
    2. Federal pesticide labels need to permit the use of drones for application. As of August, 2021, Canadian labels have no such registered use.

    There is no doubt that we need to prepare for a future that includes spraying by drones. Features such as topography adjustment for height consistency and autonomous swath control are already essentially standard, and the capabilities that improve control and safety will continue to develop.

    And yet I’ve been nervous about the prospect of pesticide application with drones. My primary concern is around – you guessed it – spray drift. Because a drone payload is relatively small (about 5 to 25 L, depending on the model), application volumes will need to be low to have any sort of productivity. How low? For manned aircraft with a 200 to 600 gallon hopper, 2 to 4 US gpa (18 to 36 L/ha) are the lowest commonplace volumes. The lower volumes require a Medium spray quality (among the finer sprays in modern boom spray practice) to achieve the required coverage.

    It’s a simple concept: the less water is used, the smaller the droplets need to be to provide the necessary droplet density on the target. Drift control with coarser sprays requires higher volumes, and true droplet-size-based low-drift spraying can’t really happen at volumes less then, say 5 to 7 US gpa.

    At 2 to 4 US gpa, a drone would be able to do perhaps 1 acre per load. While OK for spot spraying, it represents a serious productivity constraint for anything larger.  There will be a push toward lower volumes, perhaps 0.5 to 1 gpa (5 to 10 L/ha). The only way these will provide sufficient coverage is with finer sprays, ASABE Fine to Very Fine, with expected problematic effects on off-target movement and evaporation. These fine droplets are also more prone to the aerodynamic eccentricities of aircraft.

    Vortices from the rotor can create unpredictable droplet movement (Source: kasetforward.com)

    The current regulatory models for aerial drift assessment in North America, AgDISP and AgDRIFT, are not yet able to simulate drone application. But by entering finer sprays into these models for their conventional manned rotary wing aircraft, we can see that buffer zones will be higher. Much higher. And that outcome will give pause to regulators. Failure to control the movement of a spray is, and should be, a problem.

    Estimated Buffer Zones (calculated by AgDISP) for a reference rotary wing spray aircraft, using three pesticide toxicologies and two spray qualities.

    Furthermore, ultra-low volume (ULV) sprays can change the efficacy of some products, and these will require new performance studies. At this time, regulators are seeking information not just on spray drift, but on product efficacy, operator and bystander exposure, and crop residues.

    Regulators are currently collecting spray drift and efficacy data from drones. Since the drones available in today’s market do not conform to a common design standard like fixed or rotary winged manned aircraft, each model may have its own characteristics and need its own study. Some will have rotary atomizers, others will use hollow cone hydraulic sprays. Some will have electrostatic charging, others may propose special adjuvants.

    Once data are assessed, there will likely be restrictions in flight height, flight speed, wind speed, spray quality, water volume, perhaps air temperature and relative humidity (or Delta T). This is not new to spraying, as current labels already constrain use for both ground and aerial spray application, more so for aerial.

    The obvious question is how these proper application practices can possibly be assured. Operators will need more than just regulatory approval to use a drone, they will require proper training, similar to what a commercial aerial applicator now receives prior to operating a business.

    Recall that our aerial applicators are governed by national organizations, the NAAA in the US and the CAAA in Canada. These organizations are in regular contact with federal regulators to assure compliance. They also help fund research into application efficacy and safety. They organize conferences in the off-season and calibration clinics in the growing season. At these, flow rates are confirmed and deposited droplet size is measured. Spray pattern uniformity is assessed and corrected as necessary.

    Should drone applications be exempt from these controls? I don’t think that would be wise. Are we ready to implement them? Absolutely not.

    These requirements would change the drones’ economic model. And despite these precautions, a drone may still leave the control of a pilot due to unforeseen technical or human events.

    In the US, Yamaha does not sell their drone helicopters. Instead, they deploy their own teams to make the applications. This way, they have assurance that only trained and experienced pilots use the technology.

    As the industry gears up for the first registrations, we see drone service companies take a leading role in testing. Much is being learned via legal applications of liquid micronutrients, for example, or limited use of pesticides under approved research permits. And I’m pleased to see the recognition of drift management in these efforts through the use of low-drift nozzles. We are off to a promising start.

    Requests for drone use are in progress at our regulatory agencies. The outcomes of their risk assessments will provide important initial guidance, and food for thought and discussion. In the meantime, the drone development continues at a rapid pace, with new features and greater capacity at each iteration.