Recently, the University of California Davis and Yamaha Motor Corporation teamed up to develop aerial spraying of vineyard in the Napa Valley with a RMAX helicopter. The university is one of few who have FAA approval for flight testing with a UAV. The RMAX is a small, motorcycle-size, remote controlled aircraft that is capable of carrying a 16-liter (about four gallons) load. It works at 15 MPH. This RMAX is popular in Japan treating rice paddies that are typically five acres or less.
I suppose, by now you know where I am going with this. There are huge, insurmountable problems using a UAV to compete with aerial applicators, as we know them. Obviously, a four-gallon load traveling at 15 MPH is not going to cover very many acres. It is not that it couldn’t be done. It is the lack of efficiency and need.
The very nature of aerial applications is time and access oriented. The grower needs the application yesterday and/or the fields are too wet for ground equipment. Today’s UAV cannot meet that demand. Sure, there may be isolated instances where a very small plot in a sensitive area would be best served by a UAV. However, a UAV like the RMAX will never be able to respond to the workload of a typical aerial application company.
Already, you are thinking, “Maybe not today’s UAV, but what about those of the future that could carry a large load?”
There are a couple of issues that would need to be addressed for this to happen. First, and this is pure speculation because I don’t know the price of a 500-gallon capable UAV, I can’t imagine this type of a UAV costing less than our ag-aircraft, as it would have to have the same capabilities, plus more sophisticated GPS and an autopilot system.
What is of more importance is the demand factor. There is no epidemic shortage of ag-pilots , or people willing to become one. As long as there are ag-pilots, I cannot envision them being replaced by a UAV. Why would they?
There are instances in aerial firefighting where a bird-dog aircraft flying into smoke in mountainous terrain may be a fit for the UAV. However, that does not replace the SEAT pilot. If the situation dictates flights that are too dangerous for a pilot, maybe the UAV will find a use. That is not the case with the vast majority of aerial applications.
The UAV industry will undoubtedly grow and improve. That is simply the way technology works. It will meet resistance from those of us who want our privacy from them, and rightly so. The agricultural UAV would not fall into that category. since it would be flying over agricultural land. As it develops, I believe it will find its role not only in dangerous situations unfit for a human pilot, but also is surveillance of crops, or fires, for management purposes.
Not unlike ground machines some operators use for specialized applications, there may even be a place for the UAV at your ag operation. What is the cliché? “If you can’t beat them, join them.” Adding a UAV observation or specialized application service to your operation may be viable, especially when you consider being able to spread the costs over multiple growers making the technology more affordable on a per-acre basis.
Those who may have more to fear from the explosion of UAV technology could be the ground machine operators and manufacturers. The UAV could eliminate risks to the ground machine operator and replace its viability in small and application unique locations. When you see a green UAV with the John Deere logo emblazoned on it, then you will know for sure the direction of this up and coming technology. Until then, rest easy and do everything possible to keep the uninformed do-gooders from trying their best to shut down aerial applications (of course, wouldn’t that also apply to the UAV?).
Until next month,
Keep Turning
