Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T11:50:43.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Safety aspects of the aerial application of pesticides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

H. R. Quantick
H. R. Quantick*
Affiliation:
International Agricultural Aviation Centre, Cranfield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Pesticides help to protect man, plants, animals, structures and various goods from injury, disease or destruction. They maintain and improve our food supply and public health. In some cases, actual economic survival is dependent upon these chemicals.

Although biological and integrated control play an important role in our overall control of pests, we must still rely, to a large extent, upon chemicals to control or suppress the majority of pests. Although there are other methods of controlling insects and pests by biological and physical means, the object is to prevent pest damage of economic significance by the most compatible, acceptable, efficient and economic method.

At the present time, this means chemicals, and in many cases, the rapid application to match an insect invasion, a vector-borne disease outbreak or application in inaccessable areas requires aircraft to apply them.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 83 , Issue 821 , May 1979 , pp. 175 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1979 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Handbook on aerial application in agriculture. A & M College of Texas, December 1956.Google Scholar
2. Dehaven, H. Accident survival—airplane and passenger automobile. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the SAE, January 1952.Google Scholar
3. Dehaven, H. Aeronautical engineering review of the IAS, June 1946.Google Scholar
4. Ashmead, B. W. Accidents in agricultural aviation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Flying Farmers’ Association (Denver, Colorado), March 1952.Google Scholar
5. Military Specification B-5053 (Aer.) furnished by the Navy Department through the suggestion of Hugh DeHaven on Crash Injury Research, Cornell University Medical College.Google Scholar
6. Dehaven, H. Current safety considerations in the design of passenger seats for passenger aircraft. Crash Injury Research, Cornell University Medical College, New York, NY.Google Scholar
7. Stapp, J. P. Technical Report No 5915, US Air Force, December 1951.Google Scholar
8. Akesson, Norman B. and Yates, Wesley E. Agricultural Services Bulletin 16: The use of aircraft in agriculture. FAO, Rome, 1972.Google Scholar
9. Aviation Safety Digest. Department of Transport, Australia.Google Scholar
10. Snyder, Richard G. Occupant impact injury tolerances for aircraft crashworthiness design. Institute of Science & Technology, The University of Michigan. 710404.Google Scholar
11. Snyder, Richard G. Bio-engineering of impact survival in business aircraft. Institute of Science & Technology, The University of Michigan. 690335.Google Scholar
12. Snyder, Richard G. Crashworthiness investigation of general aviation accidents. Institute of Science & Technology, The University of Michigan. 750537.Google Scholar
13. Snyder, Richard G. General aviation crash survivability. Institute of Science & Technology, The University of Michigan. 780017.Google Scholar
14. Proceedings. Symposium on: Operational safety and environmental safety. The Associate Committee on Agricultural & Forestry Aviation, NRC of Canada, February 1976.Google Scholar
15. Royal Aeronautical Society Agricultural Aviation Group Symposium on: Operational and safety aspects of agricultural aviation. Vol 73, No 697, January 1969.Google Scholar
16. NASA Conference publication 2025: ‘Agricultural Aviation Research’ Workshop at Texas A & M University, October 1976.Google Scholar
17. Aerial application of agricultural chemicals. Agricultural Handbook No 287, USDA.Google Scholar
18. The Aerial Application Permission, Civil Aviation Authority, Printing and Publication Services, Greville House 37 Gratton Road, Cheltenham, Glos. GL50 2BN.Google Scholar
19. Haley, J. Expert Flagging. A training manual for aerial application ground crews. University of N. Dakota.Google Scholar
20. ICAO Training Manual Part 19—The Agricultural Pilot Doc 7192—AN/857, 1969.Google Scholar
21. ICAO Circular: Safety in Aerial Work Part 1—Agricultural Operations’ Circular 85-AN/71, 1968.Google Scholar
22. Handbook for Agricultural Pilots. 3rd ed, 3rd imp. IAAC, Cranfield Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
23. Agricultural Pilots’ Manual, issue 4 (Australia). Department of Transport, Box 1839Q, GPO, Melbourne, VIC 3001.Google Scholar
24. Various references in Agricultural Aviation, the quarterly journal of the IAAC.Google Scholar
25. Handbook on Chemical safety in the aerial application of chemical materials. Associate Committee on Agricultural and Forestry Aviation, NRC of Canada, 1972.Google Scholar
26. Mason, Gp Capt J. K., MD. Protective helmets and harness restraint in fatal light aircraft accidents—UK experience. RAF Institute of Pathology, Halton, Aylesbury, Bucks, UK.Google Scholar
27. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 20th November 1978.Google Scholar
28. Stapp, J. P. Human tolerance to severe, abrupt deceleration. Gravitational Stress in Aerospace Medicine (Gauer, O. H. and Zuideman, G. D., Eds), pp 165–188. Little, Brown & Co, Boston. 1961.Google Scholar
29. Stapp, J. P. Voluntary human tolerance levels. In Crash Injury and Crash Protection (Gurdjian, E. S., Lange, W. A., Patrick, L. M. and Thomas, L. M., Eds), pp 308, 349. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, 111. 1970.Google Scholar
30. Lewis, S. T. and Stapp, J. P. Experiments conducted on a swing device for determining human tolerance to lap belt type decelerations. 6571st Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Holloman Air Force Base, NM. Report ARMDC TN-57-1, 1957.Google Scholar
31. Stapp, J. P. Human exposures to linear decelaration. Part II: The forward-facing position and the development of a crash harness. December 1951.Google Scholar
32. Air Force Systems Command. Handbook of Instructions for Aircraft Designers. Andrews Air Force Base, Washington, DC, Report ARCDM-80-1. April 1960 (Revision DN3g2, 20th July 1969).Google Scholar
33. Swearingen, J. J., A. H. et al. Kinematic behaviour of the human body during deceleration. Aerospace Medicine, Vol 33, pp 1407–1414, 1962.Google Scholar
34. Anon, . Occupant restraint harness design study. Aviation Safety Engineering and Research Div of Flight Safety Foundation Inc, Phoenix AZ Report No M67–7, October 1967.Google Scholar
35. Young, J. W. Recommendation for restraint installation in general aviation aircraft. RAM Report 66–33. FAA, 1966.Google Scholar
36. FAA Advisory Circular, change 2, Chapter 2, Shoulder-harness installation, pp 49–56. Effective 26th May 1967.Google Scholar
37. Snyder, Richard G. Civil aircraft restraint systems state- of-the-art evaluation of standards, experimental data and accident experience. SAE Report No 770154, 1977.Google Scholar
38. Dehaven, H., et al. Development of crash-survival design in personal, executive and agricultural aircraft. Crash Injury Research, Cornell University Medical College, 1300 York Avenue, New York 21, NY.Google Scholar
39. Singley, G. T., III. A survey of rotary-wing aircraft crashworthiness. Safety & Survivability Division, Eustis Directorate, US Army Air Mobility Research & Development Laboratory, Fort Eustis, Virginia.Google Scholar