Combining Mixed-Use Flight Operations Safely at Airports (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

39 Aerial application applies to both aerial agricultural operation and aerial firefighting operations. Aerial agriculture is the preferred term for what many previously knew as crop dusting or crop spraying. The term is more acceptable because the use of aircraft to disperse chemicals has extended beyond just dusting or spraying to include aerial firefighting and the application of other materials or chemicals by aircraft. An agricultural aircraft operation is the operation of an aircraft for the purpose of dispensing any economic poison; dispensing any other substance intended for plant nourishment, soil treatment, propa- gation of plant life, or pest control; or engaging in dispensing activities directly affecting agriculture, horticulture, or forest preservation, but not including the dispensing of live insects (14 CFR 137). Aircraft used for those purposes are regulated by 14 CFR Part 137, unless they are public aircraft. If an aircraft is used in aerial application and is engaged by a federal, state, or local government agency for a public purpose, then the organization conducting aerial application operations are not required to comply with Part 137 (49 USC 40125). This is the case for more aerial firefighting operations than agricultural applications, although states contract with a private operator to fulfill a public mission, such as mosquito control. In AC 00-1.1, an FAA determination was rendered that private contractor aircraft used by a federal agency are considered public aircraft when engaged by a governmental organization (FAA 2014g). Part 137 exempts a certificate holder from several Part 91 operating rules, such as altitude restrictions and traffic pattern operation, without need for a waiver. AERIAL APPLICATION: AGRICULTURE Airspace Accommodation Agricultural aircraft are certified in FAA’s restricted certification category. This means the aircraft has design or operating characteristics different from normal certificated aircraft. For aerial application, aircraft are modified to accommodate nonstandard equipment and loads, and they operate at altitudes in ways that are unique to their purpose. Operations over congested areas are restricted because of the potential to cause harm to people or property below. A key aspect of safe operations at an airport is the use of standard traffic patterns and radio communi- cation procedures. One of the consistent concerns expressed by airport managers in the survey was that aerial applicators often ignored standard traffic patterns and radio communications. There are two expla- nations for this. One is that many aircraft used in the business do not have radios, as they frequently oper- ate in rural areas and do not interact with ATC. Radios become an unnecessary expense or maintenance item. Pilots generally carry a nonaviation radio for communicating with ground support or their base. The other reason for not complying with standard accepted procedures is that aerial applicators are not required to do so. Part 137.45 provides an exception, as shown in Textbox 8. The last criterion in Textbox 8—that of giving way to other aircraft—can be problematic, as an agricultural aircraft may not have an aviation radio and can therefore be unaware of other aircraft in the pattern. Also, similar to the skydiving business, time is money for agricultural operators. Given the length of the day, area to be sprayed, and proximity of the loading area to the spray area, every minute counts in terms of expense and daylight. The human factors of time and peer pressure can result in a pilot focusing on a quick turnaround and being complacent toward other aircraft. An airport agreement describing the chapter eight AERIAL APPLICATION: AGRICULTURAL AND FIREFIGHTING

40 procedure to be used may help address the issue. Contributing to the issue can be the location of the loading pad operation. Its location often dictates the arrival and departure patterns of the agricultural aircraft, sometimes contrary to normal traffic patterns. Airfield Accommodation Because agricultural operators use small aircraft, they are inclined to operate from uncontrolled GA air- ports. A review of the AFD found that many agricultural applicators operate from private airstrips rather than from public airports. Rarely do agricultural applicators operate from Part 139 certificated airports. The availability of minimum standards, operating procedures, or lease agreements was found to vary among the few airports reviewed for this report. The character of the airport, and whether an airport manager was employed on-site, appeared to be key determinants of whether standards existed or not. Some states had strong aviation offices that promoted having minimum standards, operating procedures, or lease agreements in place to enhance safety and communication among mixed-use aeronautical users. At rural airports, the lack of either an on-site airport manager or a set of operating rules and regulations can make coordination of agricultural operations a problem. As described in chapters two and fifteen, the promulgation of minimum standards, operating rules and regulations, and lease provisions are an important component for safely combining mixed-use aeronautical activities. Enforcement of the same is another critical component. A sample agricultural operator agreement is provided in Appendix K. One concern raised in an interview was of a conflict created by the transitory nature of aerial applicators, often from out-of-state operators. In moving from one airport to another for a short period of time, proper notification to the airport often is not provided beforehand, especially at rural airports where an there is no on-site manager. The need for and use of airport water and the availability of fuel were other concerns. Modern turboprop agricultural aircraft require jet fuel, a fuel not readily available at small rural airports. Fuel may be transported onto the airport and can conflict with minimum standards in effect, or with an airport’s FBO fuel provider. Aerial applicators do have a right to self-fuel, but the airport can require certain standards to be met for fuel dispensing. Access to water to dilute chemicals or to wash the aircraft after use is a consideration. The type of loading pad to be used for aerial applicators is likely determined by a state’s agricultural statutes. Agriculture applicators prefer to stage loading processes and equipment as close to a runway as possible, to reduce turnaround times and minimize operating expenses. This can cause a safety concern at airports, as the proximity to a runway or taxiway can result in lower separation and safety TEXTBOX 8 Federal Regulation on the Observance of Airport Traffic Patterns (Source: 14 CFR 137.45) Notwithstanding part 91 of this chapter, the pilot in command of an aircraft may deviate from an airport traffic pattern when authorized by the control tower concerned. At an airport without a functioning control tower, the pilot in command may deviate from the traffic pattern if— (a) Prior coordination is made with the airport management concerned; (b) Deviations are limited to the agricultural aircraft operation; (c) Except in an emergency, landing and takeoffs are not made on ramps, taxiways, or other areas of the airport not intended for such use; and (d) The aircraft at all times remains clear of, and gives way to, aircraft conforming to the traffic pattern for the airport.

41 margins for other aeronautical users. Figure 11 illustrates a loading operation with vehicles and equipment inside the runway safety area and close to the approach end of a runway. The location of a loading pad also needs to address the possibility of a spill causing ground or water contamination. One airport manager cited the need to be firm and have a lease agreement that spells out allowable staging locations based on safety and the resolution of potential environmental issues. If multiple applicators are using an airport, having one loading area may not be wise, as cross- contamination and other liability issues would make it challenging to determine the responsible party. Figure 12 depicts a staging area that can accommodate two operators. Adequate ground area is necessary to accommodate the maneuvering, loading, cleaning, and fueling of agricultural aircraft. Notices to Airmen Because Part 137 aerial applicators are waived from complying with standard traffic pattern operation, airports responding to the survey and interview indicated they issue NOTAMs, provide announcements over AWOS, or respond to Unicom or CTAF calls. Appendix G provides samples of remarks listed for aerial applicators in the AFD. FIGURE 11 Staging of agricultural equipment near a runway end (Source: Imagery © 2015 DigitalGlobe, State of Arkansas, USDA Farm Service Agency; map data © 2015 Google. Fair use.). FIGURE 12 Staging of agricultural equipment near a runway end for two operators (Source: Imagery © 2015 DigitalGlobe, State of Oregon. Fair use.).

42 Environmental Considerations Aerial applicators are subject to environmental laws governing the use and disbursement of chemicals. A publicly operated airport manager’s concern for federal environmental regulation increases if an agricultural applicator stores, mixes, or cleans chemicals on airport premises. This is simply because of the amount and type of chemicals used, and the requirement for spill prevention and containment measures to be taken. Lease agreements should address environmental requirements for bulk storage and dispensing. In allowing the aerial applicators onto the airport, an airport operator can be subject to federal and state laws addressing spillage, storage, and disposal. If contamination occurs, no matter who is responsible, expansion or use efforts of the contaminated land will be hindered and clean-up can be costly. State EPA requirements identify minimum requirements for storage and spill pre- vention measures. Several of the airports in the survey indicated they were required to have storm water pollution prevention plans and National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System per- mits. Most states have agriculture statutes related to on-site containment of pesticides, fertilizers, and soil conditioners. Information on steps to take in the event of pesticide spill can be found on the Internet. Aerial applicators are required to be trained and certified for any chemicals or products being used. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act include regulations applicable to the certification of persons who apply pesticides and to pesticide handling. There can also be local, tribal, and state regulations associated with the licensing, use, storage, handling, and disposal of chemi- cals. The state or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has responsibility for enforcement. Federal environmental Worker Protection Standards for personnel protection apply to individuals involved in mixing and using pesticides, as can Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations at the state or local levels. The most effective preventive measures can be taken when an airport manager knows what chemical and processes are used at the airport. Communication and cooperation with the aerial appli- cator is a necessity. Because of the toxic nature of some chemicals used, informing and coordinating information with emergency response and firefighting personnel are important. While the agricultural operator is required to have material safety sheet data available, it is important that the airport also have them available. A handbook on agricultural aircraft operations on municipal airports suggests that airport managers obtain a number of records from an agricultural operator in the event of a spill. Appendix L is a sample form used by Iowa’s airports to record and list data of importance for emer- gency or other purposes. Appendix M provides an outline for an incident response plan and sample reporting form in the event of a spillage. Security Considerations Security concerns for bioterrorism exist with the ability of agricultural aircraft to spread toxic chemicals. For this reason, DHS oversees measures that affect aerial applicators and can directly affect airports as well. All aerial application operations are required to have some measure of site security in place to minimize crime, prevent unauthorized access, and protect company assets. Aerial applicators are trained to be vigilant as part of their security efforts, as airport employees, tenants, and users should be. Breaches of security or suspicious activity around aerial applicators should be reported as outlined in the airport security plan, if one is in place. The review indicated that many of the airports used by aerial applicators do not have a security plan. Otherwise, security notices are normally given to the local police, Federal Bureau of Investigation field office, and DHS. The trade organization for aerial applicators, the National Aviation Agriculture Association (NAAA), provides a number of safety- and security-related education best practices for its members. Airport managers may consider the elements shown in Textbox 9 in their security and operations plans, or for incorporation into leases.

43 Related Information A number of resources exist for those seeking more detailed information on aerial agricultural application. In particular, the Minnesota Airport Technical Assistance Program, or AirTAP, pub- lished Agricultural Aircraft Operations on Municipal Airports: A Guidebook for Municipal Airport Managers (AirTAP 2009). The guide provides information on related laws and recordkeeping suggestions, mixing and loading area requirements, storage requirements, incident and emer- gency response plans, and a specialized insurance program established for pesticide applicators under Minnesota statute. A sample incident report form is provided in Appendix M. Other states have similar statutes, outreach, and programs that provide assistance for airport and agricultural operators. The NTSB conducted a special study on agricultural operations that found most accidents occurred away from an airport and involved a variety of accident causes, factors, or other safety concerns (NTSB 2014). One accident during the 10 years investigated was noted to have involved a runway worker injured during a repositioning flight. Additional sources of information on aerial applicators are identified in Textbox 10. AERIAL APPLICATION: FIREFIGHTING ACRP Synthesis 32: Managing Aerial Firefighting Activities on Airports explored the impact of aerial firefighting operations on both controlled and uncontrolled airports (Phillips 2012). The synthesis provides a useful guide and reference source for airport operators with aerial firefighting operations at their airports. It provides comprehensive economic, administrative, and operational information on the various aspects of an aerial firefighting base on an airport, and gives a reasonable idea of what to expect, which agencies are involved, what issues an airport operator might face, where to get help, TEXTBOX 9 Security Elements in Airport Plans or for Leases (Sources: NAAA and FAA) • Have basic fencing, lighting, and locks. • Use intrusion detection systems and cameras. • Establish inventory management policies. • Park the aircraft and equipment in a secure place when not in use. • Park disabled trucks or other equipment in front and back of aircraft. • Install hidden electrical system shut-off switches. • Remove batteries from aircraft, vehicles, or equipment. • Use devices that lock propellers or rotors. • Disable engines in unused aircraft. • Establish methods to know the location and status of all equipment used. TEXTBOX 10 Sources of Information on Aerial Applicators • Aerial Applicator’s Manual: A National Pesticide Applicator Certifications Study Guide (O’Connor-Marer n.d.) • Aerial Application Manual (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2006) • National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) • National Agricultural Aviation Research & Education Foundation • Various state and local agricultural aviation associations

44 and how to deal with most of the challenges presented by aerial firefighting base operations. Topics covered in the report include: • Airport and operator roles • Fire management in general • Money and contractual matters for airport operators • Safety and operational matters • Lessons learned • Appendices containing references and contact information resources • A checklist of items commonly considered in agreements between an airport and an aerial firefighting support agency/user • How airports with commercial service and subject to Transportation Security Regulation 1542 Airport Security address the issue of access control • Information from the Interagency Helicopter Operations Guide (2013) by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group, which governs the safe use of aerial firefighting helicopter operations on an airport. Airfield Accommodation It is more common for aerial firefighting aircraft than agricultural application aircraft to use a public airport, because firefighting craft often require longer runways than private airports can provide. Firefighting aircraft also routinely operate in airspace controlled by ATC. When operating from rural airports during a fire, normal procedure is: If more than six aircraft will be used in the operation, a contractor ATCT will be set up at previously uncontrolled airports. A NOTAM would be issued alert- ing other aeronautical users of the ATC operation. An aerial firefighting operation on an airport can be of two types: (1) the firefighting unit is stationed on the airport, or (2) a seasonal or temporary base is established to address a nearby wildfire. In the for- mer, a lease agreement normally exists. Generally, the agreements are between the airport and a federal agency, such as the United States Forest Service (USFS) or the Bureau of Land Management in Alaska, although a lease could also be made with a state entity, local agency, or regional entity with firefighting responsibilities. Figures 13 and 14 provide examples of aerial firefighting operational areas on airports. In establishing a base, airport operators were asked to provide or accommodate a number of different resources and support functions. ACRP Synthesis 32 elaborates on each, including: • Hazards of helicopter operation • Security and access control issues FIGURE 13 Firefighting operational area at McCall Municipal Airport, Idaho (Source: Imagery © 2015 DigitalGlobe, USDA Farm Service Agency; map data © 2015 Google. Fair use.).

45 • Safe fueling operations • Foreign object debris potential • Staging and parking of aircraft • Reduced visibilities from smoke • Spillage of retardant or chemicals • Temporary flight restriction (TFR) that can impede other aeronautical activity. Notices to Airmen No airport operators interviewed in the report identified any problems or issues with NOTAM proce- dures. Appendix G provides examples of AFD remarks related to aerial firefighting. Sponsor Assurances Sponsor Assurance 27 covers governmental aircraft use, often for aerial firefighting applicators. A firefighting aircraft under contract to the USFS and acting in that capacity is considered to be operating as a public aircraft and performing a governmental function (49 USC 40125). A public aircraft is different from a civil aircraft primarily in its intended use [49 USC 40102, (a)(41)]. The distinction between the two can have implications on the ability of an airport to recover fees for use of an airport, issues arising from legal and environmental liability exposure, and accommodating aircraft that exceed an airport’s pavement design capabilities. ACRP Synthesis 32 FIGURE 14 White Sulphur Springs Airport, Montana, with remote agricultural and firefighting pad location (Source: © 2016 Microsoft Corporation © 2016 HERE. Fair use.).

46 discusses the pressures to accommodate aerial firefighting activity and how safety margins can be affected. Related Information Both positive and negative impacts were reported in the ACRP Synthesis 32 study. Positive impacts were economic and more of benefit to the community than to the airport. Negative operational impacts of aerial firefighting operations on airports were listed as: • Noise complaints during extended operations • Dust generated by vehicle and helicopter operations • Aircrew issues with security access measures • Increased workload on airport staff and field maintenance personnel • Fire season corresponding with construction season • Conflicts with other aeronautical users, especially student training • Potential damage to surfaces from overweight operations • Generation of foreign object debris from rotor and prop blast. Pertinent to the current synthesis study were the following observations from ACRP Synthesis 32: • Airports reported damage to airport facilities. While the USFS took responsibility for the costs associated with the repairs, the repair was generally left to the airport to resolve. Common damage was to runway or taxiway lights, sod disruption, propeller or rotor blast, and pavement overstress. • If an ATCT is not in operation, the firefighting operator often established a temporary ATCT on the field. Triggers for establishing a temporary mobile tower were having approximately six or more aircraft operating from the airport simultaneously or having visibilities reduced by smoke. The primary issue for airport operators related to portable ATCTs is the identification of a suitable site.