Ultralight Ag Operations Reviewed

The reasons are all just. But for wheat, sugar and cotton growers who see the chance of spraying their crops for 10 cents a hectare rather than $10/ha vanishing into the bureaucratic jungle, this is small consolation. One NSW wheat grower bitterly disappointed with the Department of Aviation’s decisionis Forbes farmer, Wade Mahlo. He has just bought a Thruster Ag Utility specifically for spraying purposes – to help him cope with a devastating wild radish weed problem in his otherwise excellent wheat crop.

The ultralight cost Mahlo about $7000, and the spray gear another $2000. But he was certain it would have paid for itself in one season, simply by helping him kill the wild radish problem cheaply. Mahlo has 1,000 hectares of wheat that needs spraying twice before the December harvest. He estimates that using an ultralight instead of a conventional crop-dusting aircraft (with pilot) would have saved him at least $10,000 in this year alone.

‘Killing wild radish in your wheat is the difference between making a buck or not up here,’ says a disappointed Mahlo. ‘And if you can spray your wheat crop just as efficiently for a tenth of the price then you’ve got a bit more chance to survive too.

‘I feel very safe crop spraying with the ultralight- especially since you can spray at 40 knots instead of 100. And because you are spraying smaller areas in one sweep you can actually spot spray the worst patches and save a lot on chemicals. ‘

But the Department of Aviation’s recent decision to outlaw spraying has put a sudden legal stop to growers’ cheap spraying ambitions. However, the Aviation Department’s ultralight specialist, Trevor Burns, is sympathetic towards farmers like Wade Mahlo and the needs of the industry in general. But he is certain that it would not help the reputation and image of ultralights, in the long run, to rush through owner-spraying regulations right now. Burns believes that manufacturers and owners, led by the fledgling Australian Ultralite Federation, are trying their hardest to improve the image and standing of ultralights both in the community and amongst the aviation fraternity. He is hopeful that the introduction of new air navigation orders, stricter airworthiness standards, and an improvement in aircraft registration will clean up the reputation of ultralights once and for all. But Burns knows that the ‘slow and steady’ pace legislative changes are proceeding at will not please everyone. And the outright banning of crop spraying at this stage looks like causing the biggest furore.

The move has already brought with it harsh accusations that the Department is shielding aerial spraying companies and ag pilots from the threat of ultralight competition. But Burnsis unconcerned about these charges, which he dismisses as ‘nonsense’. Of much more importance, he says, are the real reasons and fears behind the temporary black ban.

In the US, where farmers are allowed to spray their own land from ultralights, a row has blown up over spray drift and subsequent litigation cases. Commercial crop spraying companies claim that, in many incidences, they are being taken to the courts when it is actually the inexperienced ultralight sprayers who are to blame for the drift.

The number of litigation claims out against spraying companies has reached such enormous proportions that the industry’s biggest insurers, Lloyds of London, have withdrawn all underwriting for chemical spraying firms. This move in turn looks like forcing many spraying businesses under – and has also put ultralight spraying under the harsh environmental spotlight. Burns is determined to stop this chaos breaking out in Australia. And going hand-in-hand with his concern about similar litigation problems are further factors that have influenced the Aviation Department’s decision. One big worry is the structural stability of ultralights when exposed to powerful chemicals. Several of the latest herbicides to come on the market have been found to break down fibreglass and degrade Dacron, two major components in most ultralights.

There is also concern that pilots, many of them without enclosed cockpits, could be at risk from chemical exposure. Aircraft capability is another issue. Burns says it would be unfair to allow all ultralight models to use spraying gear, when light planes must pass special and stringent tests to be given an agricultural rating. The same applies to the pilots themselves. There would need to be some requirement for ultralight pilots to have reached a certain flying and chemical rating before being allowed to spray, in a similar way to the standards an ag pilot needs to have reached.

Despite some backlash from especially from several ultralight companies who had imported spraying gear in anticipation of its approval – Burns is certain the Aviation Department has made the right decision.

‘I am convinced that spraying from ultralights will eventually become legal a few years down the track,’ says Burns. ‘Once we have got both pilot and aircraft standards worked out in line with the aerial ag spraying codes, there should be no problems with ultralights.

‘But if the Department had said to go ahead with spraying right now, we would have had chaos and undoubtedly some farmer deaths. ‘ But while spraying from ultralights has been put on ice for a year or two, the rest of the ultralight legislation is progressing well. As Australian Aviation went to press, ANO 95-10 was nearly finalised. This legislation covers most private and farm uses of the smaller and lighter ultralights, while ANO 95-55 for commercial and heavier ultralights will hopefully be completed by mid 1985.

A special ANO covering the use of two-seater ultralights for flight training was just awaiting final approval from the Australian Ultralite Federation before passing into immediate legislation. .