Drones - Where’s the Economic Advantage?

FROM THE COCKPIT Bill Lavender bill@agairupdate.com

One of the more often asked questions that I’m approached with goes something like, “How do you believe drones will impact our industry?” I read a lot of digital information concerning drones from news alerts subscriptions to newsletters dedicated to drone use. Admittedly, I’ve never flown a drone and my hands-on experience is naught. However, AgAir Update does own a drone for photography that is used legally for photo work for some articles.

None of the above qualifies me to be considered an expert drone commenter, either pro or con for the devices. However, that fact doesn’t prevent me from making observations backed by decades of experience in agricultural aviation.

A significant part of the drone industry believes drones are ideal for agricultural aviation applications and for whatever reasons solve perceived issues that don’t exist. Regardless of your particular feelings about drones in agaviation, the mantra “follow the money” should be adhered to. In this case, it is more like, “Where is the economic advantage?”

The drone industry has two insurmountable problems that, from what I know, have not been approached effectively by it; drift potential and load/production ability.

I have yet to see scientific data that validates a drone can make an even swath application and without drift issues. I know there is current research on-going, but only for one, maybe two, particular drone configurations. How about the different configurations of rotors, for example? This is a two-fold issue in that effective, current drone capabilities require Ultra Low Volume (ULV) applications, which in turn lead to very small droplet sizes to be effective.

ULV applications can actually outperform higher volume applications, if done accurately and correctly. Here’s where the drone may fail a flight test for a swath evaluation. How does six to eight rotors that keep the drone airborne affect the spray pattern? Where is the needed downwash that is easily created from a heavy, fixed wing aircraft or helicopter? It takes a massive air displacement to have the downwash needed for an application’s crop penetration that a drone does not have.

Let’s keep this in perspective by stating this discussion relates to current market drones that are economically feasible. Here comes into play the economic advantage, or rather the lack of. Sure, the military and maybe some wellfunded research entities may have a large UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle). But, how much does one cost that is as large as even the smaller 400-gallon ag-aircraft, or even the 200-gallon capable ag-aircraft? How much does a fleet of these very large drones cost? Drones believed to “take over” ag-aviation are typically under 55-pounds, or are attempting to receive an FAA waiver for only, relatively, slightly heavier drones when compared to a real ag-aircraft.

Now you know the two “elephants in the room” limitations for drones in ag-aviation: drift potential and economic advantage. It is going to be very challenging to overcome the drift potential problem with multi-rotor drones. The helicopter drones probably could mitigate the drift potential. Single-rotor drift data is available. They still face the economic advantage obstacle, of which there is none, considering the initial purchase price and operating costs.

Why does the industry need drones for large scale applications, anyway? Ideally, if the drift potential, label requirements and application efficiency can be met, the lack of capacity can be overcome when the drone is used in very tight and otherwise inaccessible locations by traditional ag-aircraft. These will be very small acreages, which in turn greatly limit the economic advantage. The drone operator should be within line of sight. God forbid a drone loaded with a pesticide go AWOL and crash into a school. Otherwise, drones are not needed in ag-aviation and therefore when there is no market demand, there is no market. Ultimately, a business must make a profit to survive and that should be its focus. Everything else is mute without a profit.

Evidently, drone manufacturers don’t understand the logistics of spraying a field. It is challenging enough for our industry to make a near perfect application in a field that requires three or more loads, even with GPS. Imagine hundreds of loads per field, how many batteries and battery chargers would be needed? How many additional people to manage changing out batteries and hooking up load hoses for a few gallons of mix? What about the transportation needed to each application site? It would take a small army to effectively take on a large scale spray job where multiple fields of large acreages are concerned. Maybe technology will advance to the point loading and battery changes will be automated, even for “swarms”.

With this editorial, I’m challenging the drone industry to show me scientific data where a multi-rotor drone can make an on-label, accurate application with a crosswind component. Drones typically have rotary atomizers, but even those that don’t, the emitters used all produce ultra-fine droplets that without the additions of crop oil and adjuvants rarely make it to the target site; requiring more capacity.

The next player in all this should be the EPA. Our industry and the National Agricultural Aviation Association has worked for countless years mitigating risks, always striving for the very best application for the grower with minimum risks to the public and environment in the safest manner possible. The NAAA is already working very closely with the EPA and has made tremendous progress, the most notable being the EPA’s recognition there is a large potential for off-target application. Technology moves at an astounding pace, so I’m not discounting the future, but should the drone industry meet the requirements of legal and accurate applications without changing the rules, it will then be faced with making the devices economically feasible - the economic advantage.