Aerial Ag – Convention 2011 Success

Speakers covered a wide range of issues from leadership to pilot training, with Matt Hall providing great insights into both the Red Bull Air Race experience and personal professionalism and commitment. A workshop on the future of pilot training identified the need for the industry to better describe the qualities it wants in pilots, as well as a more formalised pathway into the industry, issues AAAA will be taking up as a priority.

The sold-out Convention dinner saw the industry’s top award – the Ray Mackay Award – presented to Graham Barrett, who for decades has worked tirelessly on pattern testing aircraft, introducing new technology, improving the quality of applications and more recently, in developing new chemicals for aerial application. The Professional Pilot Award went to Michael Brooks, while the Midcontinent Award went to Kev Warren, who recently retired after 30 years in the industry.

Next year’s Convention will be held in Cairns.

Col Pay Scholarship Winner

The winner of the 2011 Col Pay Scholarship is Mathew Fleming. Mathew was selected from a strong field of candidates and is currently completing his CPL and will soon start work in the industry as a mixer.

Last year’s winner, Glen Purdam is currently undertaking his ag rating with Pays, having spent the very busy summer working as a mixer in north-western NSW.

The role of loader/mixers in the industry is a critical one where would-be ag pilots can get great experience in understanding the chemical management side of the industry while also becoming familiar with the wide range of operational issues that daily affect aerial application. The mixer is a critical member of the aerial application team and their role is valued by all professional pilots and operators.

Mixing is also a great way for prospective pilots to assess whether the industry is for them.

FAA Acts on Wind Monitoring Towers While Australia Does Nothing
AAAA’s sister organisation in the US, the NAAA, advises that the US aviation regulator, the FAA, has introduced recommendations for the marking of wind monitoring towers that fall below the mandatory reporting height of 200 feet.

The FAA recommendations include that: METs (meteorological evaluation towers) should be painted with alternate bands of aviation orange and white paint. In addition, all markings should be replaced when faded or otherwise deteriorated; METs should have high visibility sleeves installed on the outer guy wires of METs; and METs should have high visibility spherical marker (or cable) balls of aviation orange color attached to the guy wires. The FAA recognizes that flexibility is needed when determining sleeve length and marker placement on METs.

The FAA has referred to Advisory Circular AC No. 70/7460-1, and has advised that the AC will be revised within the next six months.

This is a significant contrast to Australia where CASA says it has no mandate to require marking of METs, the Department of Transport is taking an advisory approach with the wind industry and the recent Senate Inquiry into windfarms appears to have not a single reference to aviation safety, despite submissions and evidence from AAAA and others.

In the real world, safety continues to be compromised daily by the increasing number of towers and the lack of a mandatory marking and notification system.

CASA on mosquitoes
And in the ‘bizarre’ category, we have the new CASA policy on mosquito spraying where you don’t need an ag rating or ag on your AOC to spray mosquitoes from a helicopter as long as you are not over agricultural land.

Ignoring the safety implications, the likely public outcry if there is an accident, and the fact that the chemicals being sprayed are, assumedly, approved and registered agricultural chemicals requiring a state chemical licence, what an inconsistent approach to regulation – especially when CASA points to the fact that under the ‘new’ regulations, such an operation will require all the normal safeguards including an ag AOC and rating.

Of course, all of this was fixed for fixed wing in Part 137 where ‘agriculture’ was replaced with the more relevant ‘aerial application’, and this is where CASA intends rotary aerial application to go at some point in the next few years.

If CASA truly believes it cannot change this policy because of a particular legal interpretation of the regulations, then what a good reason to step up and move all rotary aerial application to a revised Part 137 much sooner than the current CASA time frame.

Consider the policy implications for other types of spraying that don’t involve ops over agricultural land – think fire-ant control, powerline right of way or invasive weeds in national parks – and clearly CASA have lost the plot.

It just leaves the question, why?