Risk and Safety Analysis for Florida Commercial Aerial Application Operations

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Risk and Safety Analysis for Florida Commercial Aerial Application Operations
Physical Description:
1 online resource (119 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Robbins,John Michael Phd
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Agricultural and Biological Engineering
Committee Chair:
Leary, James D
Committee Members:
Lehtola, Carol J
Fishel, Frederick
Porter, Wendell A
Olexa, Michael T

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Agricultural and Biological Engineering -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Agricultural and Biological Engineering thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to determine self-reported perceptions in the areas of agroterrorism, bioterrorism, chemical exposure and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) oversight. The aerial application industry has been in existence since the 1920?s with a gamut of issues ranging from pesticide drift to counterterrorism. The attacks of September 11th, 2001, caused a paradigm shift in the way the United States views security and, more importantly, the prevention of malicious activity. Through the proper implementation and dissemination of educational materials dealing with industry specific concerns, it is imperative that everyone has the proper level of resources and training to effectively manage terrorist threats. This research study was designed to interpret how aerial applicators view these topics of concern and how they perceive the current threat level of terrorism in the industry. Research results were consistent, indicating that a high number of aerial applicators in the state of Florida are concerned with these topics. As a result, modifications need to be made with respect to certain variables. The aerial application industry works day in and day out to provide a professional service that helps maintain the integrity of the food and commodities that we need to survive. They are a small percentage of the aviation community that we all owe a great deal for the vital and necessary services they provide.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by John Michael Phd Robbins.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local:
Adviser: Leary, James D.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID:
UFE0043310:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 RISK AND SAFETY ANALYSIS FOR FLORIDA COMMERCIAL AERIAL APPLICATION OPERATIONS By JOHN MICHAEL ROBBINS A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 J ohn M ichael R obbins

PAGE 3

3 To Diego and Maggie Robbins

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writing of this research study has been a culmination of effort from many people, for who wit hout their support, the last three years would have been an insurmountable journey. I would like to thank my family John, Shirley, Gabriel and Robbins who have given me support throughout my academic career. I would also like to recognize five Prof essors who have consistently worked to hone me into the person I am today: Dr. Carol Leh tola, Dr. James Leary, Dr. Wendell Porter, Dr. Fred Fishel, and Dr. Michael Olexa.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ .............................. 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 15 Issues in Aerial Application ................................ ................................ ........................ 15 Background and Significance ................................ ................................ ..................... 17 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ........................... 17 Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 18 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH ................................ ....... 19 Summary of Relevant Data ................................ ................................ ........................ 19 History of Aerial Application ................................ ................................ ....................... 20 World War II and Beyond ................................ ................................ ........................... 21 Certification of Pilots ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 22 Aerial Applicator Certification in Florida ................................ ................................ ..... 24 Federal Aviation Administration Part 137 Requirements ................................ .... 24 Knowledge and Category Exams ................................ ................................ ........ 26 Aviation Security ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 28 Security Countermeasures ................................ ................................ .................. 30 Perimeter Controls ................................ ................................ ............................... 31 Access Controls ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 31 Biometric Controls ................................ ................................ ................................ 32 Agricultural Aviation and Security ................................ ................................ ........ 32 National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) ................................ ............. 34 Terroris m and Agriculture ................................ ................................ ........................... 35 Agroterrorism and Bioterrorism ................................ ................................ ........... 36 Florida State Agricultural Response Team (FLSART) ................................ ........ 39 Agrochemicals and Security ................................ ................................ ................ 39 Chemical Exposure ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 40 The Federal Aviation Administrati on ................................ ................................ .......... 41 Department of Homeland Security ................................ ................................ ............. 42 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 42

PAGE 6

6 3 RESEARCH M ETHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ .................. 47 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 47 Quantitative Research Methods ................................ ................................ ................. 49 Research Model ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 50 Description of Research Participants ................................ ................................ ......... 50 Instrument Pretest ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 51 Distribution Method ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 51 Statement of Hypothesis ................................ ................................ ............................ 52 4 RESEARCH RESULTS ................................ ................................ .............................. 53 Part I Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ 53 Part II Perceptions on Agroterrorism ................................ ................................ ....... 54 Part III Bioterrorism ................................ ................................ ................................ 55 Part IV Chemical Exposure ................................ ................................ ..................... 57 Part V Federal Aviation Administration Oversight ................................ .................. 58 Part VI Training ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 59 Descriptive Statistics ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 60 5 RESULTS & DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ........................ 85 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 85 Perceptions on Agroterrrorism ................................ ................................ ................... 88 Bioterrorism ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 91 Chemical Exposure ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 93 Federal Aviation Administration Oversight ................................ ................................ 94 Training ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 97 General Comment ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 99 6 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 100 7 RECOMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ................................ ................. 103 APPENDIX A REGULATORY TABLE ................................ ................................ ............................ 104 B SURVEY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 105 C SURVEY COMMENTS ................................ ................................ ............................. 115 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ 116 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .............................. 119

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Descriptive Statistics for the data collection ................................ .......................... 82

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 T otal Domestic/I nternational United States Enplanemen ts ................................ .. 44 2 2 Geographic Concentration of Agricultural Production ................................ ........... 45 2 3 Needs ................................ ................................ ................ 46 4 1 Percentage and number of participa nts who indicated gender. ........................... 61 4 2 Percentage and number of participants in each ag e group. ................................ 61 4 3 Number of Flight Hours: ................................ ................................ ......................... 62 4 4 Number of Flight Hours in Agricultural Aircraft: ................................ ..................... 62 4 5 Years in Service as an Aerial Applicator: ................................ .............................. 63 4 6 How many pilo ts are employed by your company? ................................ .............. 63 4 7 What Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ratings do you currently possess? ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 64 4 8 Type of aircraft you primarily fly for the purpose of aerial application: ................. 6 4 4 9 Which best classifies your role as an aerial applicator? ................................ ....... 65 4 10 Does the company who employs you require a background check in their pre empl oyment screening? ................................ ................................ .................. 65 4 11 I feel that the threat level as it relates to agroterrorism is high amongst aerial applicators. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 66 4 1 2 I feel that I have been properly educated to deal with the threat of agroterrorism. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 66 4 13 I feel confident that I could identify or "stave off" an event related to agroterrorism. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 67 4 14 I feel that Florida is more susceptible to an agroterrorism attack than other states in the U.S. ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 67 4 15 I feel that my company h as the proper protocols in place to mitigate the threat of agroterrorism. ................................ ................................ ........................... 68 4 16 I think that I or my company is susceptible to agroterrorism. ............................... 68

PAGE 9

9 4 17 I think that an act of agroterrorism could happen somewhere in the U.S. ........... 69 4 18 I think that an act of agroterrorism could happen somewhere in the state of Florida. ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 69 4 19 I feel that the threat level as it relates to bioterrorism is high amongst aerial applicators. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 70 4 20 I feel that I have b een properly educated to deal with th e threat of bioterrorism. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 70 4 21 I feel confident that I could identify or "stave off" an event related to bioterrorism. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 71 4 22 My profession is more susceptible to bioterrorism, t han it is agroterrorism. ........ 71 4 23 Bioterrorism and agroterrorism are covered well by "in house" traini n g and trade publications. ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 72 4 24 Government agencie s provide adequate information on the potential threats associated with bioterrorism and agroterrorism ................................ ................... 72 4 25 I use the proper Personal Protective Equipme nt, (PPE), for every job. ............... 73 4 26 I have become sick or disabled from coming in contact with a toxic chemical w hile working as an aerial p esticide applicator. ................................ .................... 73 4 27 I feel that the PPE required for each application is acceptable to prevent exp osure to toxic chemicals. ................................ ................................ .................. 74 4 28 I feel that the ventilation systems in the aircraft I or my company utilize are acceptable to prevent exp osure to toxic chemicals ................................ .............. 74 4 29 I often feel t hat I know what PPE to use to prevent exposure to toxic chemicals without referri ng to the chemical label. ................................ ................ 75 4 30 The PPE that I us e on a regular basis are: ................................ ........................... 75 4 31 I feel that the FAA places too much regulation on aerial applicators. .................. 76 4 32 I have had concerns of being "ramp checked" by an FAA inspector while operat ing agricultural aircraft. ................................ ................................ ................ 76 4 33 I feel that the FAA places more emphasis on the safety of other commercial operators than they do on operators of agricultural aircraft. ................................ 77 4 34 I would approve of an anonymous incident reporting system for aerial applicators ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 77

PAGE 10

10 4 35 I feel that the FAA should be more involved in day to day operations and oversight within the aerial applicator. ................................ ................................ .... 78 4 36 I am concerned about the consequences of receiving a violation by the FAA while operating aerial application aircraft. ................................ ............................. 78 4 37 I feel that I or my company have more knowledge about the safety of our operation, than that of the FAA. ................................ ................................ ............. 79 4 38 I feel th at accredited schools or colleges offering an aerial applicator certification program provide superior training ................................ ..................... 79 4 39 I feel that I have gained most of my experience and knowledge while per forming on the job. ................................ ................................ ............................ 80 4 40 I regularly attend outside training events pertaining to my profession ................ 80 4 41 I would like to regu larly attend re current training on a bi annual basis to keep up with industry standards and new policies. ................................ ........................ 81 4 42 I feel that the company I work for provides adequate training and materials o n a regular basis to allow me to do my job safely. ................................ .............. 81 4 43 I feel that I gain the most training and re curren cy from the following sources. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 82

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF ABBREV IATIONS AOPA BWC Biological Weapons Convention CEU Continuing Education Unit CFR Code of Federal Regulations CVM VETS College of Veterinary Medicine Veterinary Emergency Treatment Service DHS Department of Homeland Security ESF Emergency Support Function FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Federal Aviation Regulation FBO Fixed Base Operation FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act FLSA RT Florida State Agricultural Response Team FSDO Flight Standards District Office GDP Gross Domestic Product IFAS Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences IRS Internal Revenue Service MARE Mobile Animal Response Equipment NAAA National Agricultural Avi ation Association NAAREF National Agricultural Aviation Research & Education Foundation NSAS National Strategy for Aviation OTA Office of Technology Assessment PAASS Professional Aerial Application Support System PPE Personal Protective Equipment

PAGE 12

12 SART Stat e Agricultural Response Time UFIRB University of Florida Institutional Review Board VFR Visual Flight Rules WNAAA

PAGE 13

13 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy RISK AND SAFETY ANALYSIS FOR FLORIDA COMMERCIAL AERIAL APPLICATION OPERATIONS By JOHN MICHAEL ROBBINS August 2011 Chair: James D. Leary Major: Agricultural a nd Biological Engineering The purpose o f this study was to determine self reported perceptions in the areas of agroterrorism, bioterr orism, chemical exposure and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) oversight. The aerial appl ication industry has been in existence with a gamut of issue s ranging from pesticide drift to counterterrorism. The attacks of September 11 th 2001, caused a paradigm shift in the way the United States view s security and more importantly the prevention of malicio us activity. Through the proper implementation and dissemination of educational materials dealing with industry spe cific concerns, it is imperative that everyone has the proper level of resources and training to effectively manage terrorist threats. This research study was designed to interpret how aerial applicators view these topics of concern and how they perceive the current threat level of terrorism in the industry. Research results were consistent, indicating that a high number of aerial applicators in the state of Florida are concerned with these topics As a result, modifications need to be made with respect to certain variables. The aerial application industry works day in and day out to provide a pr ofessional service that helps maintain the integ rity of the food and commodities that we need to survive. They are a small

PAGE 14

14 percentage of the aviation community that we all owe a great deal for the vital and necessary service s they provide

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Issues in Aerial Application Agroterror ism a nd Bioterrorism have existed since the beginning of known civilization. With increases in both technology and population, the threat of an attack of this nature has significantly increased causing a high level of concern and the need for awareness wi thin given communities With the attacks of September 11th, 2001, millions of people directly view ed how a terrorist event could a ffect not only a nation, but the entire world. Security measures and protocols have been increased, however, is there any guar ant ee that this type of event will not occur again? Several government and state agencies have targeted terrorist activity with regard to aviation. Aviation operations, such as agricultural aerial applicators, have a very unique level of responsibility tha t many indust ries do not have on a daily basis. The aerial application industry ensure s our food is free of pests and capable of delivery to the global market. They work every day to provide a service that without many people would succumb to a number of consequences. The industry, however, can be very difficult to regulate, because of the lack of guidance and oversight from agencies who are overworked and unde rstaffed They are, nonetheless, responsible to provide protection from the ongoing threat of te rrorist activity. The issue of aviation and terrorism can be viewed as daunting to the average person, considering the number of fligh ts that are flown annually solely in the commercial sector. This is where most people develop t heir insights and percepti ons about terrorist threats. I t is important, however, to educate the public about the dang ers

PAGE 16

16 of terrorism associated with other commer cial aviation applications, such as aerial applicators. have the proper rating or endorsement to fly a given category of aircraft within a given application. This is achieved through the use of written tests and pract ical exams administered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aerial applicators are a lso licensed by their respective state in the procedures and protocols that may have an impact on local or state resources. They must complete state specific training within the state s guidelines to keep their license current, allowing them to operate as an aerial applicator. They are required to continue their education through the utilization of mandated continuing specific and allow them to gain insight into current tech nology while at the same time maintain their licensure requirements. The implementation o industry' s concern for a given s et of knowledge, skills, and abilities that may be in need of further education. The most prevalent topic discu ssed among aerial applicators is drift, or the unwanted movement of a product through the air that may come into contact with non target organisms (EPA 2009 ) This is an important concern, however anti terrorism and safety countermeasures often are not in the forefront as the problem of drift. Agencies and advocates to the aerial application industry must hold these issues in high regard, as it is likely that a terrorist event coul d occur again with the use of agricultural aircraft as an instrument of dest ruction. There is another concern of aerial applicators besides the threat of terrorism The amount of noxious chemical that applicators are exposed to during each application

PAGE 17

17 poses a serious threat to the health and well being of those who apply agricultu ral chemicals on a regular basis. Many of the aircraft in use around the United Sta tes are considered to be aged and have accrued substantial amounts of flight time over their tenure as aerial application aircraft. These aircraft often have minor issues th at may put their operator at risk for high levels o f exposure to noxious chemicals to include faulty seals and antiquated ventilation systems. It is important to determine where and how the above mentioned issues contribute to agricultural awareness. With a higher level of awareness, we may work to achieve a better tomorrow and a more sustainable future in reference to the effects of agroterrorism, bioterrorism chemical exposure, and FAA oversight A better understanding of these factors will represent a level of clarity that may comfort society, considering previous events Background and Significance The purpose of this s tudy was to examine how the research participants perceived the level of threat or concern to each of the above mentioned factors imp ose d and how relevant new educational materials would be to provide them with a higher level of intrinsic knowledge. The educational materials that aerial application professionals have at their disposal dealing with these issues are inadequate for the cur rent level of threat As a result, these materials need to be modified to a llow a greater repository of resources dealing with the issues of agroterrorism, bioterrorism, chemical exposure and FAA oversight. Statement of the Problem Agroterrorism, bioterror ism, chemical exposure, and FAA oversight are paramount issues that aerial applicators deal with on a daily basis; therefore it is important to study

PAGE 18

18 these factors within applicable populations. This study provides insight into the self reported perception s of professionals who currently work in this field and are susceptible to each of the above mentioned factors. It was used to understand which components of each relevant topic are pertinent and require the implementation of further training and education Objectives Identifying the perceptions of agricultural aerial applicators in the state of Florida and how they pertain to underlying variables that may affect their operations and the well being of the public. Specifically this study has four main object ives: Determine the level of threat that aerial applicators in the state of Florida perceive in regard to agroterrorism and bioterrorism. Determine whether or not agricultural aerial applicators in the st ate of Florida desire more educational materials tha t pertain to counter/anti terrorism. Investigate the relationship between agricultural aircraft currently in use and how agricultural aerial applicators feel about their respective levels of chemical exposure. Interpret the relationship that currently exis ts between agricultural aerial applicators and state/federal agencies that support them.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LI TERATURE AND RESEARC H Summary of Relevant Data The aviation industry is constantly adapting to the same forces that drive every other i technology allows us to reach almost any point this growth comes an increase in risk s and threats associated with terrorism The information paradigm, which started with wid espread mail carri age and improved routes of communication has been a component of our lives since the beginning of the 19 th century. Today, with the use of computers and the internet, it has made us capable of accessing vast amounts of information at relatively instant ra tes. With this paradigm, comes the possibility of a collection of information that can be used for malicious planning. T errorist cells that exist both in the United States and abroad work without delay to develop plans and ideas to cause harm to their targ et groups and are a serious cause for alarm. Every industry must constantly evo lve to meet the demands of counterterrorism however, with flight, many businesses face a unique set of cha llenges, which are not representative of normal industry. The dynami cs that drive agricultural aviation are unique in respect to the entire aviation community as we know it. They are required to produce a viable service in often remote or obscure locations sometimes with little notice Instead of operating from a standard airport with security parameters and protocols in place, many work out of unimproved areas that ha ve very little security It is the responsibility of the operator and those who are wo rking with the given mission to have sound knowledge and be cognizant o f the ongoing threat of terrorist or malicious activity.

PAGE 20

20 History of Aerial Application At the turn of the 20 th century the airplane was still in its developmental stage. Two brothers, Orville and Wilbur Wrigh t, were working on a prototype aircraft, which w ould be both powered and controllable (Kane, 2007) Prior to this time, prospective fliers were taking to the skies in gliders, balloons, and just about anything else that would sustain some kind of buoyancy in the air. In 1906, John Chaytor, took to the s kies in a tethered hot air balloon over a swamped valley floor in Wairoa, New Zealand (NAAA, 2011). This flight was monumental, because it was the first recorded use of an agricultural d sowing It proved to be a breakthrough that would lead to the inception of a wide spread industry that we depend on for food and crop production today. A problem with aerial seed sowing was the delivery method. Tethered balloons, even though mobile to s ome degree, could only cover small areas and were therefore not very effective. A few more years were required to provide something sustainable, and secure the future of agricultural aerial application. The first well documented use of aircraft to control an agricultural pest in the United States occurred in 1921. An article by C.R. Neillie and J.L. described how lead arsenate dust was spread on catalpa trees near the Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station by being poured through a hole in the humble beginning, aircraft have had a role in the production of ag ricultural crops (Dean, 1999). This was one of the first insta nces of true aerial application as we know it today. Under the direction of the Ohio Department of Agriculture, Lt. John A. Macready, a U.S. Army pilot, made the first application. The government then utilized aerial application in the S outhern states. By 1922, Curtis biplanes were used to dust cotton fields near

PAGE 21

21 Tallulah, LA, to control bollweevils and by 1923, Huff Daland Duster, Inc. the forerunner of Delta Airlines established the first comm ercial dusting of crops with their own specia lly built airc raft (NAAA, 2011). All of this innovation, however, did not come without a price. As news began to spread and other farmers looked for local pilots when they faced invasions, p ilots would teach others how to drop down on a field, fly with their wheels almo then pull up sharply at the end of the field. The trick was to know where obstacles like power lines, fence posts and water standpipes were. Hitting an obstacle could kill you. And more than one pilot wa s responsible for killing the power to a nearby town or rural area by snagging the power lines with his or her tail. parts of the field still needed to be sprayed. This was almost as dangerous a job as the pilots, both because of the possibility of being hit by the plane and the long term exposure to deadly chemicals. Both pilots and flagmen after a day of s praying (Ganzel, 2007). World War II and Beyond The U.S. Air Force has had a long history of aerial applications of pesticides to fulfill a variety of missions, the most important being the protection of troops through the minimization of arthropod vector s capable of disease transmission. Beginning in World War II, aerial application of pesticides by the military worked to effectively control vector and nuisance pest populations in a variety of environments (Breidenbaugh & Haagsma, 2008). When the war was over, s everal factors contributed in the favor of the civilian aerial application industry and allowed it to have a very high prospectus for growth and innovation. The following are a list of notable events that allowed aerial applicators to grow over the later years of World War II: The war, when finished, brought new chemicals to the civilian market that became popular with farmers.

PAGE 22

22 The need for pilots during WWII trained thousands most of who m wanted to keep flying afterwards The military produced thousands of military training aircraft that then became surplus. For instance, the Piper J 3 Cub was the airplane that 80 percent of U.S. m ilitary pilots learned to fly during the war. A total of 14,125 Piper Cubs were built betwee n 1939 and 1947, which equated to the production of one every 20 minutes. After the war, the government relinquished 30,000 surplus airplanes on the market at low prices. Surplus two wing, two seat Boeing Kaydet trainers were sold for as little as $250, so many of these aircraft were converted into crop dusters (Ganzel, 2007). Today, aerial application has evolved into an extremely viable method to control pest populations. The industry has evolved from the low powered, low capacity aircraft of the early to mid 20th century into aircraft with much more capability. Aerial application accounts for up to one fourth of the delivery of crop production products in American agriculture. Farmers value the use of aircraft because they can cover vast amounts of area q uickly, without disturbing the soil or the growing crops. Aircraft can glide over the crops at up to 140 miles per hour, which is an important factor to cons ider, as some pests can cause serious damage in less than 24 hours (NAAA 2011 ). Many companies hav e worked to develop high efficiency aircraft, which include not only airplanes, but helicopters. Some of the newer airc raft are capable of carrying 850 gallons of product and can we igh as much as 16,000 lbs (AirTractor 2011 ). This makes them a very useful source for longevity, however, it also makes them a viable tool for terrorist activity. Certification of Pilots Pilot certification in the U.S. i s regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61 of t he Federal Aviation applicants are required to meet the following criteria:

PAGE 23

23 Be at least 18 years of age. Be able to read, speak, write and understand the English language. Hold at leas t a private pilot certificate. Meet the aeronautical experience requirements of this section that apply to the aircraft category and class rating sought. Pass a written knowledge test. Pass a practical test administered by the FAA or someone designate d by the FAA to give such exams ( FAA 2011). An applicant for a commercial license applying for an airplane single engine rating must also meet the certain criteria with regard to the total amount of flight time in aircraft. If applying for a commercial pilot c ertificate with an airplane category and single engine class rating the applicant must log at least 250 hours of flight time as a pilot (of which 50 hours, or in accordance with FAA Part 142, a maximum of 100 hours may have been accomplished in an approved flight simulator or approved flight training device that represents a single engine airplane) that consists of at least: 100 hours in powered aircraft, of which 50 hours must be in airplanes. 100 hours of pilot in command flight time, which includes at le ast 50 hours in airplanes and 50 hours in cross country flight in airplanes. 20 hours of training on the areas of operation as listed for this rating, that includes at least 10 hours of instrument training, of which at least 5 hours must be in a single eng ine airplane, 10 hours of flight training in an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller, or is turbine powered, one cross country flight of at least 2 hours in a s ingle engine airplane in day Visual Flight Ru les (VFR) conditions, consisting of a total straight line distance of more than 100 nautical miles from the original point of departure, one cross country flight of at least 2 hours in a single engine airplane in night VFR conditions, consisting of a total straight line distance of more than 100 nautical miles from the original point of departure. 10 hours of solo flight in a single engine airplane, including one cross country flight of not less than 300 nautical miles total distance and as specified, and 5 hours in night VFR conditions with 10 takeoffs and 10 landings (with each landing involving

PAGE 24

24 a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport with an operating control tower ( FAA 2011). The requirements to become a commercial pilot a re strenuous and very de tailed. This training provide s pilots enough background to safely operate aircraft in regard to providing services to the public. Aerial applicators are required to have a commercial license in the category and class of aircraft they are flying and also a state license for the application of chemicals by air. Aerial Applicator Certification in Florida The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) is the regulatory body within the state of Florida that outline s registration and record k eeping requirements for aerial applicators in the state. State requirements vary, however some resident licensed applicators to work under someone who is current ly licensed in the given state. Th ese reciprocal agreements vary from state to state, but most often require the licensure candidate to complete all of the n ecessary requirements beyond written examinations. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 137 Requirements Initially aerial appl icators must attain compliance with the certification requirements contained within this regulation, private applicators and commercial applicators Commercial applicato rs differ from private applicators because to the public and are required to meet more stringent requirements set forth in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this se ction, which are outlined below: (c) Commercial operator pilots. The applicant must have available the services of at least one person who holds a current U.S. commercial or airline transport pilot certificate and who is properly rated for the aircraft to be used. The applicant himself may be the person available.

PAGE 25

25 (d) Aircr aft. The applicant must have at least one certified and airworthy aircraft, equipped for agricultural operation. (e) Knowledge and skill tests. The applicant must show, or have the person who is designated as the chief supervisor of agricultural aircraft o perations for him show, that he has satisfactory knowledge and skill regarding agricultural aircraft operations, as described in paragraphs (e) (1) and (2) of this section. (1) The test of knowledge consists of the following: (i) Steps to be taken before s tarting operations, including survey of the area to be worked. (ii) Safe handling of economic poisons and the proper disposal of used containers for these poisons. (iii) The general effects of economic poisons and agricultural chemicals on plants, animals, and persons, with emphasis on those normally used in the areas of intended operations; and the precautions to be observed in using poisons and chemicals. (iv) Primary symptoms of poisoning of persons from economic poisons, the appropriate emergency measur es to be taken and the location of poison control centers. (v) Performance capabilities and operating limitations of the aircraft to be used. (vi) Safe flight and applications procedures. (2) The test of skill consists of the following maneuvers that must be shown in any of the aircraft specified in paragraph (d) of this section, and at that off weight, or the maximum weight established for the special purpose load, whichever is greater. (i) Short field and soft fiel d takeoffs (airplanes and gyroplanes only). (ii) Approaches to the working area. (iii) Flare outs. (iv) Swath runs.

PAGE 26

26 (v) Pullups and turnarounds. (vi) Rapid deceleration (quick stops) Helicopters only* ( FAA 2011) Once in compliance with FAA regulat ions, the applicant files an application for a states and regulated by the nearest F light Standards District Office (FSDO) to the applicants respective home base. T he rule states: An application for an agricultural aircraft operator certificate is made on a form and in a manner prescribed by the Administrator, and filed with the home bas e of operations is located ( FAA 2011) Once the certificate has been issued to the operator it is valid until it is surrendered, suspended, or revoked. The holder of an agricultural aircraft operator certificate that is suspended or revoked shall return i t to the administrator as prescribed FAA 2011). State regulations are very specific to the state in which licensure is to be requested and applicants must adhere to those rules in order to obtain the proper license for the desir ed application. Knowledge and Category Exams Knowledge tests in the state of Florida consist of two different options based on the role of the given applicator. For a person who distributes any chemicals listed under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicid e and Roden t icide Act (FIFRA), but does not make any ground applications or decisions pertaining to the use of the given pesticide, they may only be licensed under the testing requirements for that of an aerial applicator. Conversely, if the applicator is responsible for ground application or decision making in regards of how to, where to, or when to distribute a given pesticide, they must be

PAGE 27

27 licensed in the appropriate ground categories to be treated, e.g agricultural row cr op, forestry or right of way ( B raxton 2006). In addition to the aerial category, p ilots must also provide a valid FAA license to FDACS before receiving certification in this category. The testing requirements by the state of Florida require a minimum grade of 70% and are submitted to F DACS for certification after the test has been administered by a representative of the Agency. The first test that must be taken to achieve the aerial applicator category licensure in Florida is the core exam. It is designed to provide assessment of an ade quate base knowledge for individuals wishing to apply pesticides. The exam is administered at all county cooperative extension offices affiliated with the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS). The category exams, which a re based upon th e type of application to be conducted are comprised by IFAS and administered in select cooperat ive extension offices. Once the appropriate exams have been passed with a minimum score of 70%, FDACS will send the applicant a license applicat ion, which will require the payment of fees for certification before a license will be issued. The fees for application are listed along with recertification or re currency requirements in Appendix A Recurrency and continu ing education are a very importan t component of the aviation industry, but especially in the case of aerial applicators. With constant advances in technology it is important to remain current and up to date on procedures and protocols which may make application more efficient or safe. Onc e state licensure has been obtained, there are requirements to keep it in current standing. Some re certifications or re currency can be done by simply taking the licensure exams after they

PAGE 28

28 expire, however most re currency can be achieved by successfully c ompleti ng within the time frames listed in Appendix A applicable number of CEU's In regards to reciprocal agreements and operations in other st ates, Florida has defined agreements with Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Indiana ( Braxton 2006). Applicators who move to Florida and desire to be aerial applicators are only waived from the exam requireme nts but not a ny of the licensure requirements. The important consideration to infer is that regulatory policies differ by state, but are still overseen by the FAA and the ir specific requirements to operate as a certified aerial applicator. Aviation Security The securit y and economic prosperity of the United States depend significantly upon the secure operation of its aviation system and use of the commercial interests. Terrorists, criminals, and hostile nation states have long viewed aviation as a target of attack and exploitation. The tragic events of September 11, 2001 and the Heathrow plot of August 2006 are telling reminders of the threats facing aviation and the intent and capabilities of adv ersaries that mean to do harm to th e United States and its people (DHS, 2007). much smaller Vast amounts of people have attained the utility to travel not only across stat e borders, but around the entire globe within a very short time frame. T his increase in air travel has resulted in a mixture of cultures and groups, which have been a relevant cause for concern as it pertains to the security and welfare of all who travel As the skies over the entire world become more and more congested, the number of people traversing continental boundaries have inc reased sub stantially It is the responsibility of

PAGE 29

29 federal and state agencies to support aviation security by assigning and mai ntaining safety as the highest priority in air commerce (TSA, 2001 ). Figure 2 1 depicts the total number of domestic and international commercial airline enplanements in the United States in 2008, which represents 740 million passengers in a one year perio d. The number of commercial travelers varies annually due to such things as the economy and passenger security concerns; however; air travel is the most cost effective and efficient way to travel over large areas (Kane, 2007). In the commercial sector, p assenger opinion can range greatly in how effective aviation security is currently With increases in threat come increased security; however many view current airport screening methods as exaggerated or extreme. In June of 2006, building upon the Administ directed the development of a comprehensive National Strategy for Aviation Security (NSAS) to protect the Nation and its interests from threats in the Air Domain (DHS, 2007). NSAS was developed to imple ment regulations and increase the level of security awaren ess by integrating public and private aviation security activities in a global effort to d etect, deter, prevent, and defe at threats to the Air Domain. It also set out to reduce vulnerabilities, mini mize the consequences of, and expedite the recovery from attacks that may occur (DHS, 2007). The global perception of aviation security is that it only per tains to airline travel since most people are only exposed to that particular facet of aviation. Howe ver, private sector security is of paramount concern because of the potential that gene ral aviation aircraft have to cause harm to the existing infrastructure. Another strong misconception

PAGE 30

30 is the interpretation that all aviation attacks are going to be a p roduct of foreign distension. It is important to include that malicious or terrorist attacks can be the product of both foreign and domestic entities. On February 18, 2010, Joseph Andrew Stack flew his single engine airplane into a seven story office build ing in northwest Austin, Texas. The building housed an office of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), along with several other tenants. According to a statement he posted to the Internet before taking off on his suicide flight, Stack intentionally targeted the IRS due to a long history of problems he had had with the agency. In the an zombies to wake up and revolt expressed his hope that his message of viole nce would be one the government could not ignore (Stewart, 2010 ) This attack was used to convey one individuals dislike for the federal government with the utilization of a general aviation aircraft. In the finality of the event Stack killed himself alon g with one other fatality and 13 injuries. Reports indicated that Stack had removed several seats from the aircraft and loaded a drum of aviation fuel inside the passenger compartment to increase the effects of his plan. If the aircraft would not have hit the concrete reinforcing floor t he aircraft may have been able to further penetrate the building causing more casualties and property damage. This incident along with many others indicate s the need for concern in the general aviation sector. Vu lnerabilities in certain areas of the industry are prevalent and must be viewed in detail in order to create a plan for prevention. Security Countermeasures The Aircraft has launched a campaign to increase awareness am ongst the public in regards to the security of general aviation airports. Available on their website, http://www. aopa.org, is an interactive module that is designed to enhance general aviation security with regard to flight schools, aircraft

PAGE 31

31 owners, renter pilo ts, fixed base operations (FBO ), and flying clubs. The material contained within the module discusses how to identify potential threats to general aviation and also discusses different types of security countermeasures an airport may put in place to p revent or inhibit the occurrence of malicious intent. Several types of controls are used to deter would be assailants from breaching an airport perimeter and are commonly referred to in three categories: Perimeter controls, access controls and biometric co ntrols. Perimeter Controls Perimeter controls are defined as count ermeasures that prevent intrusion by surrounding the airport perimeter or by creating a boundary that prevents intrusion. Examples of perimeter controls are fences, ga tes, walls and bodies of water (USGS, 2010 ). They can be very effective prevention tools, how ever most airports cover expansive areas of land making maintenance difficult. Perimeter controls ar e considered primary devices against intrusion, which means that they are a first l ine of defense in protecting an asset. Perimeter controls are considered to be very effective and cost efficient methods to de ter entry into a protected area and are therefore highly utilized in aviation security. Access Controls Access controls a re defin ed as systems which en able authority to control access to areas and resources in a given physical facility or compute r based information system (CNSS 2011 ). Examples of access controls are lock s, card readers and turnstiles These devices are considered a primary line of defense and exhibit a high level of efficiency, however, under certain conditions they may be rendered ineffective. For instance, most card reading devices are indiscriminate as to who is using the card.

PAGE 32

32 So, if a card is stolen, entry may be obtained if biometric data or codification is not required to gain access to the desired entry point. These devices are highly utilized in commercial aviation sectors, however, their high initial cost deter s all but a minority of operations from using t hem. Biometric Controls Biometrics are highly effective entry tools that consist of the utilization of methods for uniquely recognizing humans based upon one or more intrinsic physical or behavioral traits. They can be div ided into two main categories: Ph ysiological related to the shape of the body. Examples include, but are not limited to fingerprint, face recognition, DNA, palm print, hand geometry, iris recognition, and odor. Behavioral related to the behavior of a person. Examples include, but are not limited to typing rhythm, gait, and voice. These devices are gauged on several different factors that pertain to individuals such as universality, uniqueness, permanence, collectability, performance, acceptability, and circumvention (Biometrics 2011) All of these properties are used to derive the effectiveness of a biometric control, however, for most operations, they are considered to be a less viable option because of the inherent cost of the system. Agricultural Aviation and Security Agricu ltural aviation is a facet of industry that many lack knowledge They are the pro fessionals who often work from unimproved remote areas, most of which have very few security countermeasures. They are especially v ulnerable to malicious activity; therefore it is important to educate all stakeholders in the relevance of proper aircraft security and the storage of noxious chemicals which may be located on the se premises.

PAGE 33

33 Aircraf t security is a primary concern because of the areas in which most aircraft are st ored or kept. Many agricultural operations are based in remote areas which are not located within an airport perimeter, therefore increasing their vulnerability to unwanted trespassing and intrusion. Many operators use countermeasures such a s locks and ant i theft devices ; however; many of these devices are f airly easy to manipulate or allow access. Aircraft Security and pestic ide/fer tilizer storage are two factors which are considered very important in promoting the overall protection of an agricultural ai rcraft base Basic securing states generally that aircraft must be (NBAA, 2011). There are several methods outlined for keeping the aircraft secure such as keeping it in a locked building, locked in place securely, or mechanically disabling it from flying. Pesticides and fertilizers must not be accessible to unauthorized persons. valve locks; electronic security systems; disabling of mobile storag e units; blocking of access, ingress, or egress; or any other reasonable method to prevent or deter theft or unauthorized use (NBAA, 2011) Buildings used to store pesticides and/or fertilizers must be of rigid constru ction so unauthorized entry can not be achieved without the use of heavy machinery or equipment. If a portable building is used, the building mus t be secured in place so it can not be towed or otherwise removed by unauthorized persons ( Braxton 2006). Lastly, the state has specific requirement s pertaining to record keeping. Records must be kept for a minimum for two years and must be in the areas listed below. Aerial application of all pesticides; Aerial application of all fertilizers;

PAGE 34

34 Aerial application of all seed ( Braxton 2006). National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) NAAA is an advocacy group for agricultural aircraft based in Washington D.C. Their goal is to support the industry along with other organizations such as the National Agricultural Aviation Research & Education Fou National Agricultural Aviation Association (WNAAA) These organizations work to promote agricultural aviation and m ake recommendations for issues facing the industry. From a safety and security standpoint they have worked t o develop an educational program whi ch emphasizes aviation security and safety and drift mitigation. Professional Aerial Ap plication Support System (PAASS ) was developed to provide educational support to aerial applicators through a collaborative effort wi th NAAREF and is delivered during the off season for aerial appl icators (NAAA, 2011). They have made some recommendations to prevent the occurrence of malicious or unwanted activity around agricultural operation s which are as follows: Storing aircraft and crop protection products in locked hangars with electronic security systems when not in use. Parking and disabling loader trucks, forklifts, or other equipment to block aircraft. In cases where the aircraft must be left outdoors, using propeller locks, pr opeller chains or tie downs on aircraft. Removing batteries from planes and disabling engines from unused aircraft. Operators have installed hidden security switches to prevent unauthorized startup of the aircraft. Establish contact with federal and local law enforcement agencies to coordinate responses to security breaches at agricultural aviation facilities. Encourage operators to list the appropriate law enforcement agency telephone numbers in a prominent place within their operations. Also outdoor secur ity lighting around hanga rs and operations is encouraged (NAAA, 2011).

PAGE 35

35 Terrorism and Agriculture Terrorism is defined as the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion Since the attacks of September 11th, 2001 the world has gained a much clearer definition of terrorism. In the past, generations had been witness to terrorist activity as reported by the media, however; most would consider September 11th to be a turning point in not only the U.S. perception of te rrorism, but that of the entire world. The United States Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) has estimated that an attack with less than 100 kilograms of aerosolized anthrax spores could cause as many as 3 million casualties, which compares to the lethal ity of a thermonuclear weapon (Koblentz, 2003/04). We now, as a society, have a clear idea of what can happen when terrorist groups target a nation s infrastructure. We have been able to observe loss of life, economic loss, and a heightened sense of concer n for the protection of our country's assets Agriculture and the food industry are vital to the social, economic, and arguably, workforce, 16% of the workforce is involved in the food and fiber sector, ranging from farmers and input suppliers, to processors, shippers, grocers, and restaurateurs In 2002, the food and fiber sector contributed $1.2 trillion, or 11% to the gross domestic product (GDP), even though the farm sector itself contributed less than 1%. Gross farm sales exceeded $200 billion, and are relatively concentrated throughout the Midwest, parts of the East Coast, and California (Figure 2 2). Production is split nearly evenly between crops and livestock (Monke, 2004). With the great responsibility of agricultural production, comes the protection of those crops by chemical means, much of which is done by air.

PAGE 36

36 inability to identify criminal intent rapidly in outbreaks of foodborne i llness caused by common pathogens or animal 664). The same qualities that make agricultural aviation such a viable tool, also make it a viable threat in the event of malcontent, from an agroterrorism or bioterrorism standpoint. The responsibility of agricultural aviation is one of epic proportions. Agricultural aviation plays a significant role in the prevention of terrorism because of the significant likelihood that agricultural aircraft could be used as an instrument of terrorism in an agroterrorism or bioterrorism event. Agroterrorism and Bioterrorism Agroterrorism is defined as the deliberate or intentional mishandling of agricultural chemicals, aircraft, implements, or personnel to cause harm to perso ns or property. It has been a threat tactic since the beginning of civilization. The food source, being one of the most important requirements for sustaining human life has been a constant tool for malicious attacks on civilizations. The intentional saltin g and burning of fields by the historically well defined use of agroterrorism. When a food source is taken from a civilization, the people will revert back to an anarchical state as def ined b Figure 2 3 ) This defines how we, as humans, will react to the deficit of certain stimuli within our environment. Physiological needs are amongst the first order, and are therefore the most important tool for survival ( Simons, Irwin, & Drinnien, 1987) Agroterrorism was listed as the source for the Oklahoma City Bombing which occurred in 1995. On April 19th, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma city was considered to be the most destructive act of terrorism on American soil until September 11th, 2001 ( Shariat, Mallonee, & Stephens, 1998 ). The attack took

PAGE 37

37 place, utilizing a bomb made of 108 50 lb. bags of Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer and 3 55 gallon drums of Nitro methane (FBI, 2011) These produc ts are both readily available in the commercial market and very easy to obtain, which makes them a popular tool for terrorist attacks. The estimate d damage in the event was $652 m illion with 168 fatalities (FBI 2011 ). The Oklahoma City bombing was a clear example of how agricultural products and chemicals can be used to create incendiary devices. The concern for agricultural aviation is that an aircraft could be used in this nature. For instance, the Air Tractor 802F, made by Air Tractor, Inc., has an oper ating weight of 16,000 lbs at capacity with an empty weight of 7,210 lbs. This allows the aircraft to carry nearly a 9,000 lb. load without accounting for fuel. The hopper, or spray tank, on this aircraft has a holding capacity of 820 U.S. gallons, with a fuel capacity of 254 U.S. Gallons (Air Tractor, 2011). This type of aircraft, given its size and carrying capacity could be used to create an incidence of even greater destruction than the Oklahoma City bombing. Agroterrorism is a subset of the more gener al issues of terrorism and bioterrorism. People more generally associate bioterrorism with outbreaks of human illness (such as anthrax or small pox), rather than diseases initially affecting anima ls or plants (Monke 2004). The use of biochemical warfare, w hich includes stockpiling and using biological weapons, was outlawed by the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). The rationale behind this treaty, which has been ratified or acceded to by 163 countries as of 2009, is to prevent a biological attack wh ich could conceivably result in large numbers of civilian fatalities and cause severe disruption to economic and societal infrastruc ture (The Sunshine Project, 2007 ). Attacks of biological warfare have occurred f or centuries,

PAGE 38

38 from the purposeful infection of smallpox to native peoples, to the more current issues today with anthrax and other pathogens that may cause widespread losses to human and animal life Our current agriculture and food sectors have features that make them vulnerable to terrorist attack s. These include the high concentration of our livestock industry and centralized nature of our food processing industry. As a result, chemicals and infectious pathogens can be intentionally added at various points along the farm to table food continuum (G AO, 2003). satisfactory vectors for pathogens causing both morbidity and mortality in target populations t Harbison, & Draughon, 2003, p. 666). extremist environmental groups and disgruntled farm workers. In 1996, a cow carcass was intentionally contaminated with Chlordane, now banned in the U.S., and sent to an animal rendering plant where it was added to the feed. In this attack 4,000 tons of potentially contaminated animal feed was sent to 4,000 farms in four stat es causing a multimillion dollar product recall of dairy products and a 250 million dollar loss to the feed company. From this attack comes a level of awareness that biological attacks were still a relevant cause for concern. From an aerial application sta ndpoint, chemicals or biological agents could easily be disseminated from an aircraft causing widespread damage to life and property. economic, political, and social stability, addressing the bioterrori sm threat to agriculture

PAGE 39

39 This concern is not only dusting the food we eat, but the towns we live in, the schools where our children attend and the hospitals that provide care Florida State Agricul tural Response Team (FLSART) FDACS is the lead agency in Florida for dealing with agricultural and animal emergencies. FLSART was developed to implement planning, training, and response support with the aid of IFAS (FLSART, 2011) SART units ca n be develop ed at the Federal, state, and county level to implement a higher level of awareness in issues pertaining to agriculture and preparedness Their website, http://www.flsart.org, contains a variety of materials that deal with both agroterrorism and bioterrois m, that work to educate a number of people about these issues. The following are a list of the SART programs strategic imperatives: Support an Emergency Support Function (ESF) 17 Multi agency Coordination Group for state level response activities for anim al and agricultural issues. Develop and support an ESF 17 Management Team with equipment and training. Develop and support ESF 17 response resources such as the Mobile Animal Response Equipment (MARE) Units, College of Veterinary Medicine Vet e rinary Emerge ncy Treatment Service (CVM VETS), Florida Veterinary Corps with funding and training. Develop and support County and Regional outreach, training and information coordination in order to enhance local and region al ESF 17 response capabilities (FLSART, 2011) Agrochemicals and Security Agrochemicals and Security have been reviewed in a training module developed by the Florida Cooperative Extension Service, under the direction of Dr. Carol Lehtola. This module was developed to increase awareness in safety and security to those who utilize or distribute dangerous chemicals such as fertilizers and anhydrous ammonia.

PAGE 40

40 The module was distributed through the Florida AgSafe website, http://www.flagsafe.ufl.edu which dissemi nates information to stakeholders in the agricultural industry. It contains background, pre/post tests and table top discussions which are very effective systems for transferring knowledge. The main objectives of this program in cooperation with Florida Ag safe were developed to: Inform people about ways to be safe and secure, and thereby reduce the number of deaths, injuries and occupational diseases, particularly for agricultural workers and their families. To build a safety infrastructure for Florida thro ugh five activities: training of workers, training of students, publications, networks, and linkages. To encourage adoption of safe practices among employees and clientele. Every employee or client should be exposed to a safety tip or safety practice on a regular basis. To prepare the people of Florida to face disaster of any kind, to mitigate losses, both in life and property, and to promo te rapid and effective recovery ( Lehtola, Robbins, & Brown, 2005 ) Chemical Exposure Chemical exposure is a serious con cern for anyone who mixes, handles, or applies agricultural chemicals. The main routes of chemical exposure are through the skin (dermal), eyes (ocular), oral (ingestion), and inhalation. This hazard can expose aerial applicator pilots to serious condition s from exposure if the proper ventilation systems or maintenance issues are not in compliance on a given aircraft. Mechanical issues, such as dry rotted rubber seals, u nchanged filtration devices and antiquated components may be a cause for concern o n olde r aircraft. The Kentucky Aerial Applicators M anual suggests using filtered air as a means for ventilation because it is nearly impossible for the pilot to avoid flying back through some of the swath of the previous flight passes. If a filtered air helmet i s not available, the pilot should at least

PAGE 41

41 wear an approved respirator Filter or canister type respirators appropriate for the chemical being applied should be used. If one is needed for extended periods during hot weather, the use of a respirator and cra sh helmet combination is recommended. (Overhults, 2011). Pilots should never be involved in loading aircraft with pesticides. It is difficult, even with normal protective clothing and equipment, to load without some exposure. Accumulated exposures may brin g on mild pesticide symptoms, including dizziness and fixed contraction of the pupils (miosis) of the eye. The latter symptom has been reported to have diminished visual acuity, especially at night. While these mild symptoms may not be serious to ground ap plicato rs, or the ground crew, they may be potentially fatal to a pilot (O verhults, 2011). The Federal Aviation Administration The FAA oversees the safety of civil aviation. The safety mission of the FAA is first and foremost and includes the issuance and enforcement of regulations and standards related to the manufacture, operation, certification and maintenance of aircraft (Kane, 2007). From an agricultural aviation standpoint, the FAA is responsible for inspection and certification of pilots, aircraft, a nd operational authority as listed under FAR Part 137. FAA oversight has become a significant problem in the United States. Most of the flights per day. There are curre ntly 4,500 safety inspectors employed by the FAA (FAA 2011) which creates some kind of disparity in regar ds to other types of operations. The amount of support provided to othe r sources of aviation may diminish because of the lack of support. The FAA reli es par t ially on state agencies to aid in their effort to support

PAGE 42

42 smaller components of the aviation community. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Cons umer Services is an agency who advocates aerial application and provides a level of support in coop eration with the FAA. These agencies share a combined responsibility to ensure the safety and well being of agricultural operations around the country. Department of Homeland Security The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established shortly after the attacks of September 11th. Their primary responsibilities are to protect the U.S. from terrorist attacks and provide natu ral disaster response (DHS, 2007 ). They have been influential in the increase of awareness with regard to agroterrorism, bioterrori sm and aviation community, but anyone who seeks preparedness information in the event of a terrorist or natural disaster occurrence. They have called for a number of su mmits and workgroups that work together to increase awareness. Summary The literature review's purpose is to provide background into each one of the research topics to be discussed. It defines both outside and inside perceptions of some of the issues fa cin g agricultural aviation presently and provides a solid overview of the operational definitions and causes for concern as they relate to agricultural aviation. Based on the review of relevant literature, the following conclusions have been made: Agroterrro rism and Bioterrorism are of significant concern to aerial application operations.

PAGE 43

43 The proper education and implementation of best practices for safe storage and aircraft security is essential to provide aerial application operations and the public the hig hest level of safety. Chemical exposure on both older and newer aircraft can be of significant concern to pilots if they choose not to maintain their equipment or use the proper PPE. The FAA is understaffed and in need of modification to existing protocol s to ensure agricultural aerial application operators are satisfied and protected with their respective level of service. The creation of materials that are specific to the concerns generated by agricultural aerial applicators are essential in providing a framework of support to the existing educational infrastructure. It is imperative that research be done in order to measure pilot perception on the issues of agroterrorism, bioterrorism, chemical exposure, and FAA oversight in order to develop an understan ding of their needs in the industry. In order to achieve an acceptable standard of safety, the current trends both inside and outside of the industry must be examined in order to ensure the welfare of the agricultural aviation community. These are importan t concerns and an area for heated debate which must be examined in order to better serve agricultural aviation.

PAGE 44

44 Figure 2 1 Total Domestic/International U.S. Enplanements (DOT 2008)

PAGE 45

45 Figure 2 2 Geographic Concentration of Agricultural Produ ction (USDA 2002) 1 dot = $20 million United States Total: $200.6 Billion

PAGE 46

46 F igure 2 3 f Needs (Russellkeppn er, 2010 )

PAGE 47

47 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The purpose of this research was to gain agricultural pilot s perspectives on the current levels of threat in regard to agroterrorism and bi oterrorism along with their insight on the amount of conce rn for chemical exposure and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) oversight. This study reflects current trends and regulations which must be assessed on a regular basis in order to maximize safety throughout the literature that is related to the need for this research, and explains how all of these factors need to be researched in order to develop proper insight s. The study is a non experimental quant itative research design. This study was initiated upon the researcher s concern for the ramifications of a future terrorist event and the possibility to create training materials that are viable references for agricu ltural aerial applicators. Pilot perception is an integr al part of the research process because it allows for an unbiased representation of the need to either keep or modify existing policies, procedures and best practices. The instrument used to acquire d ata for this research was designed by the researcher. Its intent was to measure perception by asking questions which measure d the topic from multiple perspectives that would allow the rese archer to correlate and identify patterns which may not be apparent present using other methods. Research Design The instrument that was used for this study was a self developed survey using the self reported approach. The survey was designed to reflect the attitudes concerning level of concern, time in service, flight tim e and other pertinent factors which were

PAGE 48

48 intended to yield valid data and reflect pilot perceptions. Questions were derived through collaboration with multiple subject matter experts in the area of agricultural aerial application. The data were interpreted by Likert scale responses and direct pilot input fro m a response questionnaire ( Appendix B ). The survey contained a demographics section along with a total of 43 questions of significant relevance to the research topic. The purpose of the demographics sec tion was to determine the experience and personal profiles of the survey population. Questions 11 through 18 related to the current level of threat agricultural aerial applicators felt that they were exposed to in regard to agroterrorism. Questions 19 thro ugh 24 we re developed to infer how pilot s felt about the current threat level they are exposed to with regard to bioterrorism. Questio ns 25 through 30 sought data on aerial applicator pilot s perception of their respective exposure to the chemicals they ap ply. Questions 31 through 37 were created to develop an understanding of the aerial applicators relationship with the FAA. The final set of questions, were designed to interpret the need for specific training materials that relate to the research topics. T he survey co ncluded with a comments section which was designed to allow each participant to freely write in their own comments. The demographics section contained variables such as gender, age, number of flight hours, and years in service. These questions sought to determine the relationship, if any, between age, experience and time of service. Gender was another important consideration, which was included in order to gain insight into the number of men and women currently operating in the state of Florida in this fac e t of industry.

PAGE 49

49 Data from questions 11 through 42 were derived through the use of a Likert scale response system. The survey allowed participants to rate how strongly they felt about each statement by assigning a response, which varied from SA ( Strongly Agree), through SD (Strongly D isagree). Once the survey was completed, it was delivered to the University of Florida's Institutional Review Board (IRB) where it was reviewed for legalities and content. Once approval was obtained, the survey was r ecommended for dissemination to the research population. Quantitative Research Methods Quantitative methods involve the collection and analysis of numerical data obtained from tests, questionnaires, checklists, and surveys. An important assumption that und erlines the quantitative approach is that the world in which we live and carry out our research is relatively stable, uniform, and coherent; therefore, it can be measured, understood, and classified (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2006). The data obtained from th is research could graphically be depicted through the use of line graphs This representation would allow the reader to develop insight into the relationships between responses to each question. The researcher also utilized descriptive statistics to inc lud e mean, standard deviation and variance calculations These tests were chosen to determine the level of correlation between variables and also because of their reliability and validity. The data collec ted from the surveys were tabulated twice to ensure acc uracy, then implemented into a statistical databas e for interpretation. The device u sed for this process was SPSS 17 which is a standard statistical analysis program. The program

PAGE 50

50 was chosen on the basis of validity and popularity amongst statisticians wor king with social science type projects. Research Model From the research presented in the Literature Review, it has been established that agroterrorism, bioterrorism, chemical exposure and FAA oversight are a cause for concern amongst agricultural aerial a pplicators in the state of Florida. Pilot s who are improperly trained or not exposed to relevant material on a regular basis may impose a high level of concern for not only themselves, but the entire public. It is imperative that research be done in these areas of study in order to validate this cause for concern. It was important to collect data with an assurance of anonymity throughou t the survey population since it allowed unbiased responses from each participant. Since there were very little quantifiabl e data from current agricultural aerial applicators in the state of Florida, it was essential for the researcher to develop a reliable instrument to yield valid data. The survey developed by the researcher strived to look at the variables from mult iple vie wpoints and did not strive to illicit any given response from the participant. The direct input from people who are in the industry was found to be the best method to achieve the desired research objectives. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to obta in quantifiable data, which would give the researcher insight into whether or not the topics of study were valid concerns amongst the industry. Description of Research Participants The subjects for this research were current agricultural aerial applicator listed under the current Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) registry. The subjects were qualified airplane, helicopter, airplane/helicopter pilots consisting of both genders with various levels of experience. This group was

PAGE 51

51 intended to represent a sample of all agricu ltural aerial application pilot s who operate under the existing FAA infrastructure. One hundred and fifty one s urveys were distributed via internet survey techniques. The internet survey was deployed via ht tp://www.surveymonkey.com, beginning on October 15th, 2010 and ending on February 23rd, 2011. Names, e mail addresses, and phone numbers of partic ipants were obtained from FDACS in Au gust, 2010 with a total of 151 potential participants Of the surveys se nt out, 63 were returned as undeliverable with a total of 40 completed sur veys by the research population, for a response rate of 46%. Instrument Pretest A pretest of the survey was conducted in order to assure comprehensives and accuracy for the data coll ection device being used. The survey was administered to 3 Professors of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 1 Law Professor, and 1 Professor of Agronomy at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida. After the completion of the pretest, each s ubject was asked to assess the survey based on their previous knowledge and experience in research. The survey results from all participants were positive in nature, which led the researcher to make only minor changes to the original document. Distributio n Method The survey was distributed via internet survey techniques. The researcher entered the data via a survey distribution tool: h ttp://www.surveymonkey.com which is a standard tool for disseminating surveys via the internet. Each participant received a link to the survey through their e mail acc ount, which allowed them to complete the survey with the highest level of anonymity. T he researcher was unable to identify who had or

PAGE 52

52 had not taken the survey. The internet was chosen as a distribution method be cause of its ability to reach out to each participant and allow them to accomplish the survey with no pressure or time frame constraints. In order to achieve the highest level of reliability the researcher e mailed only those pilots who were listed under t he current FDACS certified agricultural aerial applicator list. Statement of Hypothesis It is hypothesized, that the empirical data collected throughout this study and pilot surveys will graphically and qualitatively yield results which show a positive co rrelation between pilot perception and the need for more educational materials and Continuing in the areas of agroterrorism, bioterrorism, chemical exposure, and FAA oversight.

PAGE 53

53 CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH RESULTS The data for this research study was analyzed and depicted graphically using SPSS 17 for Windows. This research does not attempt to disprove a hypothesis; instead the researcher is attempting to gain insight into how pilots perceive research variables that affect their respective o perations and industry as a whole. The researcher evaluated this data using percentages and raw scores from the surveys. The percentage of participants who answered each question is represented by a line graph. The data was then analyzed using descriptive statistics to determine the mean, standard deviation and variance of each question. The survey instrument was comprised of a demographic section followed by a 32 questions that directly relate to the opinions and input of the research participants. Part I Demographics Question # 1 asks the gender of each participant. Figure 4 1 shows the percentage and number of males and females who accomplished the survey. Question # 2 asks each participant their age. Figure 4 2 shows the percentage and number of par ticipants in each age group. Question # 3 asks each participant their number of flight hours. Figure 4 3 shows the percentage and number of participants who chose each category. Question # 4 asks each participant their number of flight hours in agricultura l aircraft. Figure 4 4 shows the percentage and number of participants who chose each category. Question # 5 asks each participant to indicate their years in service as an agricultural aerial applicator. Figure 4 5 shows the percentage and number of partic ipants who chose each answer. Question # 6 asks each participant to indicate how

PAGE 54

54 many pilots are currently employed by their respective companies. Figure 4 6 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each category. Question # 7 asks eac h participant what Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ratings they currently possess. They were instructed to check all that apply. Figure 4 7 shows the percentage and number of participants who chose each answer. Question # 8 asks each participant the primary type of aircraft they fly in their respective operations. The participants were instructed to check all that apply. Figure 4 8 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each answer. Question # 9 asks each participant to classif y their role as an aerial applicator. The participants were instructed to check all that apply. Figure 4 9 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each answer. Question # 10 is the final question contained within the demographics sect ion and asks each participant whether or not the company they primarily work for has a pre employment screening program. Figure 4 10 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each answer. Part II Perceptions on Agroterrorism Questions # 11 through # 18 were designed to develop an understanding of how each survey participant felt about the perceived level of threat in the agricultural aerial application industry with regard to agroterrorism. The questions relate to both Florida and thei r perceptions on the rest of the country. The participants were provided a Likert scale with a five response range from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. Question # 11 asks the participant how highly they would rate the threat level of agroterrorism amo ng aerial applicators. Figure 4 11 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each response. Question # 12 asks the participants how well they would agree that their own personal education in the area of agroterroism

PAGE 55

55 is substantial enoug h to deal with the threat. Figure 4 12 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each response. Question # 13 asks the participants related to agroterrorism. Figure 4 13 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each response. Question # 14 asks the participants how much they would agree that Florida is more susceptible to an agroterrorism attack than other states in the U.S. Figure 4 14 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each response. Question # 15 asks the participants to rate how they perceive their companies current protocols and procedures to mitigate the threat of agroterrorism. Figure 4 15 ind icates the percentage and number of participants who chose each response. Question # 16 asks each participant to rate how they perceive the threat level of agroterrorism in the company they currently work for. Figure 4 16 indicates the percentage and numbe r of participants who chose each response. Question # 17 asks each participant to rate how they feel about the susceptibility of an agroterrorism event somewhere in the U.S. Figure 4 17 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each re sponse. Question # 18 is the final question contained within the agroterrorism component of the survey and asks participants to rate how they feel about the likelihood of an agroterrorism event happening somewhere in the state of Florida. Figure 4 18 indic ates the percentage and number of participants who chose each response. Part III Bioterrorism Questions # 19 through # 24 were designed to develop an understanding of how each survey participant felt about the perceived level of threat with regard to

PAGE 56

56 b ioterrorism in the agricultural aerial application industry. The questions relate to both Florida and their percepti ons on the rest of the country. The participants were provided a Likert scale with a five response range from Strongly Agree to Strongly Dis agree. Question # 19 asks the participant how highly they would rate the threat level of bioterrorism among aerial applicators. Figure 4 19 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each response. Question # 20 asks the participants ho w well they would agree that their own personal education in the area of bioterrorism is substantial enough to deal with the threat. Figure 4 20 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each response. Question # 21 asks the participan ts related to bioterrorism. Figure 4 21 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each response. Question # 22 asks the participant to rank thei r perception on the relationship between bioterrorism and agroterrorism by asking them if bioterrorism is more of a current threat among aerial applicators. Figure 4 22 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each response. Question # 23 asks the participant to training and trade publications. Figure 4 23 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each response. Question # 24 asks the pa rticipant to rank how well government issued advisory circulars and other publications cover the potential threats associated with bioterrorism and agroterrorism. Figure 4 24 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each response.

PAGE 57

57 Part IV Chemical Exposure Questions # 25 through # 30 were designed to develop an understanding of how each survey participant felt about their levels of chemical exposure and the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) that they are required to use during each application. The participants were provided a Likert scale with a five response range from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. Question # 25 asks the participant to rate how often they use the proper PPE for every job. Figure 4 25 indicates the percentag e and number of participants who chose each response. Question # 26 asks the participant to rate how often, if ever, they have become sick or disabled from coming into contact with a toxic chemical while working as an aerial pesticide applicator. Figure 4 26 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each response. Question # 27 asks the participant if they feel that the current level of PPE required for each application is acceptable to prevent exposure to toxic chemicals. Figure 4 27 in dicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each response. Question # 28 asks the participant to rate how effective they feel the ventilation systems in the aircraft they use are in preventing exposure to toxic chemicals during applications Figure 4 28 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each response. Question # 29 asks the participant to rate how often they feel that they can correctly identify the proper PPE for each application without referring to the approved chemical label. Figure 4 29 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each response. Question # 30 asks each participant to classify what types of PPE they use on a regular basis. The participants were instructed to check all that appl y and a comment box was left in the bottom of the question for input outside of the

PAGE 58

58 researchers answer selection. Figure 4 30 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each answer. Part V Federal Aviation Administration Oversight Ques tions # 31 through # 37 were designed to develop an understanding of how each survey participant felt about the current level of involvement the FAA has in day to day operations of agricultural aerial application operations. The participants were provided a Likert scale with a five response range from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. Question # 31 asks each participant to classify how they feel about the current regulation enforcement by the FAA in regard to aerial applicators. Figure 4 31 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each answer. Question # 32 asks inspector while operating an agricultural aircraft. Figure 4 32 indicates the percentage a nd number of participants who chose each answer. Question # 33 asks each participant to rate how they feel the FAA places emphasis on other commercial aviation operations in comparison to how much is placed on agricultural aircraft operators. Figure 4 33 i ndicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each answer. Question # 34 asks each participant to rate how they would feel about the implementation of an incident reporting system which would be used for educational and safety purposes in th e aerial application industry. Figure 4 34 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each answer. Question # 35 asks each participant how they feel about the FAA being more involved in day to day operations and oversight within the aeri al applicator industry. Figure 4 35 indicates the

PAGE 59

59 percentage and number of participants who chose each answer. Question # 36 asks each participant to rate their respective level of concern for receiving a violation by the FAA while operating an aerial appl ication aircraft. Figure 4 36 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each answer. Question # 37 asks each participant how they would rate their own knowledge about the safety of their respective operations compared to that of the FAA Figure 4 37 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each answer. Part VI Training Questions # 38 through # 43 were designed to develop an understanding of how each survey participant felt about the level of training and education they have attained since becoming a licensed aerial applicator and resources they may use for developmental purposes. The participants were provided a Likert scale with a five response range from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. Question # 38 asks each participant to rate how well they feel accredited schools or colleges who offer aerial applicator certification programs rank in regard to other training methods. Figure 4 38 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each answer. Quest ion # 39 asks each participant to rank whether or not they have gained most of their experience as an aerial applicator while on the job. Figure 4 39 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each answer. Question # 40 asks each partici pant to rank how often they attend outside training events that keep them up to date on innovation and technology throughout the aerial application industry. Figure 4 40 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each answer.

PAGE 60

60 Question # 41 asks each participant to rate how often they would like to attend re current training on a bi annual basis to keep up with industry standards. Figure 4 41 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each answer. Question # 42 asks each participant to rate how they feel about the level of training and materials their respective company puts out to allow them to do their jobs safely. Figure 4 42 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each answer. Question # 43 asks each participant to classify what sources of information they use on a regular basis for training and re currency. The participants were instructed to check all that apply and a comment box was left in the bottom of the question for input outside of the re searchers answer selection. Figure 4 43 indicates the percentage and number of participants who chose each answer. The final part of the survey left room for individual comment. It was designed to allow the participant to write freely about any concerns or general comment about the survey. Descriptive Statistics SPSS 17 was utilized to infer mean, standard deviation, and variance calculations from the data set. Table 4 1 shows the output data collected. The data was found to be normally distributed utilizi ng the Shapiro Wilk method ( Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2006 ). This method was chosen for its appropriateness with small sample sizes and is considered to be a valid and reliable statistical test for normality.

PAGE 61

61 Figure 4 1 Percentage and number of participant s who indicated gender (N=40) Figure 4 2 Percentage and number of participants in each age group (N=40)

PAGE 62

62 Figure 4 3 Number of Flight Hours : (N=40) Figure 4 4 Number of Flight Hours in Agricultural Aircraft : (N=40)

PAGE 63

63 Figure 4 5 Years in Service as an Aerial Applicator : (N=40) Figure 4 6 How many pilots are employed by your company ? (N=40)

PAGE 64

64 Figure 4 7 What FAA ratings do you currently po s sess ? (N=40) Figure 4 8 Type of aircraft you primarily fly for the purpose of aerial application : (N=40 )

PAGE 65

65 Figure 4 9 Which best classifies your role as an aerial applicator? (N=40) Figure 4 10 Does the company who employs you require a background check in their pre employment screening? (N=40)

PAGE 66

66 Figure 4 11 I feel that the threat level as it relates to agroterrorism is high amongst aerial applicators. (N=40) Figure 4 12 I feel that I have been properly educated to deal with the threat of agroterrorism. (N=40)

PAGE 67

67 Figure 4 13 I feel confident that I could identify or "stave off" an event related to ag roterrorism. (N=40) Figure 4 14 I feel that Florida is more susceptible to an agroterrorism attack than other states in the U.S. (N=40)

PAGE 68

68 Figure 4 15 I feel that my company has the proper protocols in place to mitigate the threat of agroterrorism. (N=40 ) Figure 4 16 I think that I or my company is susceptible to agroterrorism. (N=40)

PAGE 69

69 Figure 4 17 I think that an act of agroterrorism could happen somewhere in the U.S. (N=40) Figure 4 18 I think that an act of agroterrorism could happen somewhere in the state of Florida. (N=40)

PAGE 70

70 Figure 4 19 I feel that the threat level as it relates to bioterrorism is high amongst aerial applicators. (N=40) Figure 4 20 I feel that I have been properly educated to deal with the threat of bioterrorism. (N=40)

PAGE 71

71 Figure 4 21 I feel confident that I could identify or "stave off" an event related to bioterrorism. (N=40) Figure 4 22 My profession is more susceptible to bioterrorism, than it is agroterrorism. (N=40)

PAGE 72

72 Figure 4 23 Bioterrorism and agroter rorism are covered well by "in house" training and trade publications (N=40) Figure 4 24 Government agencies, such as the FAA and Department of Homeland Security, provide adequate information and advisory circulars on the potential threats associated w ith bioterrorism and agroterrorsm. (N=40)

PAGE 73

73 Figure 4 25 I use the proper Personal Protective Equipment, (PPE), for every job. (N=40) Figure 4 26 I have become sick or disabled from coming in contact with a toxic chemical while working as an aerial pesticide applicator. (N=40)

PAGE 74

74 Figure 4 27 I feel that the PPE required for each application is acceptable to prevent exposure to toxic chemicals. (N=40) Figure 4 28 I feel that the ventilation systems in the aircraft I or my company utilize are acceptable to prevent exposure to toxic chemicals. (N=40)

PAGE 75

75 Figure 4 29 I often feel that I know what PPE to use to prevent exposure to toxic chemicals without referring to the chemical label. (N=40) Figure 4 30 The PPE that I use on a regular basis are: (N=40)

PAGE 76

76 Figure 4 31 I fe el that the FAA places too much regulation on aerial applicators. (N=40) Figure 4 32 I have had concerns of being "ramp checked" by an FAA inspector while operating agricultural aircraft. (N=40 )

PAGE 77

77 Figure 4 33 I feel that the FAA places more emphasis o n the safety of other commercial operators than they do on operators of agricultural aircraft. (N=40) Figure 4 34 I would approve of an anonymous incident reporting system which would be used for educational and safety purposes and would not be used for the admission of a violation. (N=40)

PAGE 78

78 Figure 4 35 I feel that the FAA should be more involved in day to day operations and oversight within the aerial applicator. (N=40) Figure 4 36 I am concerned about the consequences of receiving a violation by th e FAA while operating aerial application aircraft. (N=40)

PAGE 79

79 Figure 4 37 I feel that I or my company have more knowledge about the safety of our operation, than that of the FAA. (N=40) Figure 4 38 I feel that accredited schools or colleges who offer an aerial applicator certification program provide superior training in comparison to other methods of certification. (N=40)

PAGE 80

80 Figure 4 39 I feel that I have gained most of my experience and knowledge while performing on the job. (N=40) Figure 4 40 I r egularly attend outside training events that keep me up to date on innovative methods and technologies in my profession. (N=40)

PAGE 81

81 Figure 4 41 I would like to regularly attend re current training on a bi annual basis to keep up with industry standards and new policies. (N=40) Figure 4 42 I feel that the company I work for provides adequate training and materials on a regular basis to allow me to do my job safely. (N=40)

PAGE 82

82 Figure 4 43. I feel that I gain the most training and re currency from the fol lowing sources. (N=40) Table 4 1. Descriptive Statistics for the data collection N Mean Std. Deviation Variance Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Statistic Gender 40 1.0750 .04218 .26675 .071 Age 40 3.6000 .17468 1.10477 1.221 Numbe r of Flight Hours 40 3.6250 .09928 .62788 .394 Number of Flight Hours in Agricultural Aircraft 40 2.6500 .18450 1.16685 1.362 Years in Service as an Aerial Applicator 40 2.6000 .25770 1.62985 2.656 How many pilots are employed by your company? 40 1.1000 .05991 .37893 .144 Does the company who employs you require a background check in their pre employment screening? 40 1.2750 .07150 .45220 .204 I feel that the threat level as it relates to agroterrorism is high among aerial applicators 40 2.6500 .1879 4 1.18862 1.413 I feel that I have been properly educated to deal with the threat of agroterrorism 40 2.2750 .14758 .93336 .871

PAGE 83

83 Table 4 1 Continued I feel confident that I could identify or "stave off" an event related to agroterror ism 40 1.8750 .10245 .64798 .420 I feel that Florida is more susceptible to an agroterrorism attack than other states in the U.S. 40 3.5500 .15587 .98580 .972 I feel that my company has the proper protocols in place to mitigate the threat of agroterror ism 40 1.9500 .10096 .63851 .408 I think that I or my company is susceptible to agroterrorism 40 2.6500 .18099 1.14466 1.310 I think that an act of agroterrorism could happen somewhere in the U.S. 40 1.8250 .12345 .78078 .610 I think that an act of ag roterrorism could happen somewhere in the state of Florida 40 2.0500 .12378 .78283 .613 I feel that the threat level as it relates to bioterrorism is high among aerial applicators 40 2.8750 .19344 1.22344 1.497 I feel that I have been properly educated to deal with the threat of bioterrorism 40 2.3500 .13180 .83359 .695 I feel confident that I could identify or "stave off" an event related to bioterrorism 40 2.1500 .10470 .66216 .438 My profession is more susceptible to bioterrorism, than it is agroter rorism 40 3.5250 .13391 .84694 .717 Bioterrorism and agroterrorism are covered well by "in house" training and trade publications 40 3.0750 .17316 1.09515 1.199 Government agencies, such as the FAA and Department of Homeland Security, provide adequate in formation and advisory circulars on the potential threats associated with bioterrorism and agroterrorism 40 3.5750 .16751 1.05945 1.122 I use the proper Personal Protective Equipment, (PPE), for every job 40 1.6250 .09928 .62788 .394 I have become sick o r disabled from coming into contact with a toxic chemical while working as an aerial pesticide applicator 40 4.1250 .13003 .82236 .676 I feel that the PPE required for each application is acceptable to prevent exposure to toxic chemicals 40 1.8000 .0960 8 .60764 .369 I feel that the ventilation systems in the aircraft I or my company utilize are acceptable to prevent exposure to toxic chemicals 40 2.3000 .13009 .82275 .677 I often feel that I know what PPE to use to prevent exposure to toxic chemicals without referring to the chemical label 40 2.4500 .17153 1.08486 1.177 The PPE that I use on a regular basis are 40 2.5500 .14741 .93233 .869 I feel that the FAA places too much regulation on aerial applicators 40 2.6000 .15106 .95542 .913

PAGE 84

84 Table 4 1 Continued I have had concerns of being "ramp checked" by an FAA inspector while operating agricultural aircraft 40 2.7500 .15504 .98058 .962 I feel that the FAA places more emphasis on the safety of other commercial operators than they do on operat ors of agricultural aircraft 40 2.1750 .15968 1.00989 1.020 I would approve of an anonymous incident reporting system which would be used for educational and safety purposes and would not be used for the admission of a violation 40 1.6750 .15354 .97106 .943 I feel that the FAA should be more involved in day to day operations and oversight with the aerial applicator industry 40 4.0250 .13629 .86194 .743 I am concerned about the consequences of receiving a violation by the FAA while operating aerial app lication aircraft 40 2.0750 .15354 .97106 .943 I feel that I or my company have more knowledge about the safety of our operation, than the FAA 40 1.5250 .10119 .64001 .410 I feel that accredited schools or colleges who offer an aerial applicator certif ication program provide superior training in comparison to other methods of certification 40 3.4000 .15933 1.00766 1.015 I feel that I have gained most of my experience and knowledge while performing on the job 40 1.3000 .09608 .60764 .369 I regularly attend outside training events that keep me up to date on innovative methods and technologies in my profession 40 2.4000 .15933 1.00766 1.015 I would like to regularly attend re current training on a bi annual basis to keep up with industry standards and new policies 40 2.1750 .12345 .78078 .610 I feel that the company I work for provides adequate training and materials on a regular basis to allow me to do my job safely 40 2.1000 .11767 .74421 .554

PAGE 85

85 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS & DISCUSSION Demographics The firs t variable within the demographics section was gender (Figure 4 1) The survey group was co mprised of 93% males and only 7 % female. This result is consistent with the industry, because at this time the workforce predominately consists of males. However, w ith decreasing gender bias and more programs which enlist women, there is a steady increase in the amount of female entrants in this industry. The second variable was age (Figure 4 2) which indicated a fairly normal distribution of survey participants. T he highest reported groups were in the age ranges of 31 40 and >51. Both groups were comprised of 11 people, totaling 56% of the survey population or 22 participants. Twenty five percent of the survey participants were between the ages of 41 50 with the le ast amount indicating 26 30 as their current age 20% The data suggest that many of the current aerial applicators in the state of Florida have been in the industry for some time, therefore representing a very high experience level. The third demographic question was number of flight hours (Figure 4 3) and showed that the greatest number, 70 % of participants, had more than 2 500 flight hours. The second highest group, at 23%, had between 1 001 and 2 500 flight hours. Pilots with 501 to 1 000 hours compris ed 7 % of the survey population, while no one repor ted having less than 500 hours. These results show that the majority o f participants had a high level of experience in aviation. The four th question (Figure 4 4), was a follow up to q uestion 3 and was deri ved to determine the number of flight hours each participant held solely in agricultural aircraft.

PAGE 86

86 The results showed that the highest percentage of participants had a considerable amount of time in agricultural aircraft. The highest group, 33% reported ha ving greater than 2500 hours with the remaining groups having an equal number of people, each representing 22% of the participants. The researcher feels that the results from this question show ed a vast amount of knowledge in industry, wh ich yielded valid perception data The fifth variable (Figure 4 5), asks the participants their number of years in service as an aerial applicator. The highest number of participants indicated that they had only flown 1 5 years and represented 38% of the sample. The remai ning groups were widely distri buted with 6 10 years yielding 22%, 11 15 years, 5%, 16 20 years, 13%, with the remaining group of greater than 20 years service, indicating 22% of the survey population. The results were indicative of the widespread nature o f the aviation industry, since many pilots have moved into other areas of aviation stemming from the after effects of September 11 th 2001. The sixth variable, (Figure 4 6), asks how many pilots are currently employed by the company each participant works for. Ninety two point five percent of the participants answered 1 5, while 5% indicated 6 10. The remaining 2.5% employed between 11 and 15 pilots. Question 7, (Figure 4 7), asked participants to list the current ratings they hold as a commercial pilot. T hirty three percent of the participants held an Air Transport Rating which is the highest level of licensure that may b e obtained through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) All of the participants held a commercial pilot license while 50% were list ed as C ertified Flight Instructors. Thirty five held a Certified Instrume nt Flight

PAGE 87

87 Instructor Rating. Ninety of the survey population held an Aircraft Single Engine Land rating with 80% holding a multi eng ine rating in this category. Thirty five of the par ticipants were rated in helicopters with 10% indicating the y held an instrument rating i n this category of aircraft. Seventy eight of the participants were instrument rated in airplanes. These results indicate that the level of experience in the survey pop ulation is very high. Question 8 (Figure 4 8), sought to measure what type of aircraft the participants currently fly for aerial application s Fifty eight of the population indicated that they fly both reciprocating and turbine powered airplanes with 10% flying reciprocating engine helicopter and 33% flying turbine powered helicopters. Many of the aircraft currently in use are relatively older which accounts for the large number of pilots who are flying reciprocating engine powered airplanes. Mo st of the participants indicated that they flew both, indicating that many companies are utilizing older equipment, while also flying newer turbine powered aircraft for many applications. Question 9 (Figure 4 9), asked the participant to indicate what type of oper ation they typically work for as an aerial applicator. The highest number of participants, 51% indicated that they were independent aerial applicators, while 21% were employed by only one aerial application company. The remaining pilots, 28%, indicated th at they were an aerial application company owner and pilot. These data show that many of the survey participants work wherever they can in order to fly as much as possible. Contract flying is common throughout the entire aviation community and is a means f or pilots to maximize the utilization of their professional knowledge, skills and abilities

PAGE 88

88 Question 10 (Figure 4 10), asked the participant whether or not the company they work for requires a background check in the ir pre employment screening. Seventy five indicated that their respective companies require a background check, with the remaining 25% indicating that they do not. This result is consistent with the industry regulated outside of the major Part 121 and Part 135 carriers. The cost associated wi th background checks for each employ ee may not be a valid expenditure for some operators, however this is an important area of concern to the public. Perceptions on Agroterrrorism Question 11 (Figure 4 11), asks the partici pant their perception of the cu rrent threat level is in regard to agroterrorism and aerial applicators. The participants were given a set of answers ranging from S trong ly A gree to S trongly Disagree. Those who s trongly a gree d indicated that they felt that the threat le vel was extremely h igh as were those who strongly d isagree d indicated it was extremely low. The highe st range of participants chose a gree, 60%, while only 7 .5 % strongly a greed. Twenty percent disagreed, while 10% s tr ongly d isagreed. The remaining 2.5 % had no opinion. The res ults of this question indicate that the ratio of participants who think agroterrorism is a current threat to agricultural aviation is much higher than those who do not. Question 12 (Figure 4 12), asks each participant about their level of education in re gard to dealing with the threat of agroterrorism. Sixty five percent A greed that they have enough education to properly deal with the threat of agroterrorism while 12.5% strongly a greed. Twelve point five percent of t he research population indica ted that t hey d isagreed, while 2.5 % strongly d isagreed. The remaining num ber of participants, 7.5 %, indicated no opinion. The majority of participants felt that they had a high leve l of

PAGE 89

89 educational background in regard to agroterrorism with only a minority of partic ipants indicating that they did not. Question 13 (Figure 4 13), asks the participant how well they agree with the ent related to agroterrorism. Seventy two point five percent of the part icipants agreed that they would be able to perform these functions, while 22 .5 % indicated that they strongly agreed. The remaining 5% of the research participants indicated that they disagreed. The results from this question indicate that aerial applicator pilots feel very confident about their abilities to effectively identify or stop an ag roterrorism event from occurring in the event they were exposed to it. Question 14 (Figure 4 14), asks the participant to indicate how well they agree with Florida bei ng more susceptible to an attack of agroterrorism than other states in the U.S. Sixty five percent of the resear ch population disagreed, while 7.5 % strongly disagreed. Twenty percent agreed, with 2 .5 % indicating that they strongly agree. The remaining 5% h ad no opinion. The results from this question indicate that the majority of aerial appl icators do not perceive Florida to be at a greater risk to agroterrorism than aerial applicators operating in other state s in the U.S. Question 15 (Figure 4 15), asks the partic ipant to r ate the level they perceive their respective company protocols to mitigate th e threat of agroterrorism. Sixty seven point five percent of the participant s agreed that their company had the proper protocols, with 20% strongly agreeing. 2 .5% of the population disagreed with the remaining 10% indicating no opinion. The results of this question infer that the majority

PAGE 90

90 of the survey participants agree that their companies have the proper protocols in place to mitigate the threat of agroterror ism. Question 16 (Figure 4 16), asks the participant to indicate how well they agree that eit her they or their company are susceptible to agroterrorism. The majo rity of research participants 62.5 % indicated that they agreed, while 5 % indicated they str on gly agreed. Seventeen point five percent of the research participants disagreed with 10% strongly disagreeing. The remaining 5% indicated no opinion. This result indicates that most aerial applicators feel that they are under some level of threat in regard to agroterrorism. Question 17, (Figure 4 17), asks the participant to indicate whether or not an attack of agroterrorism could h appen somewhere in the United States Fifty seven point five percent of the participants agreed that they feel an attack could take place, while 32 .5 % indica ted that they strongly agreed. Two point five percent strongly disagreed, while the remaining 7.5 % indicated no opinion. The majority of aerial applicators who were given the survey indicate that they feel an attack could ta ke place, which shows a correlation toward the perception that it is a relevant concern. Question 18 (Figure 4 18), is the final question dealing with agroterrorism individually and asks the participant to indicate whether or no t they agree with the idea t hat an act of agroterrorism could occur somewhere in the s t ate of Florida. Sixty seven point five percent of the research population agreed, while 17.5 % strongly agree d. Two point five percent of the participants either disagreed and strongly disagreed wi th 10% indicating no opinion. This question represents the opinion that Florida is considered to be susceptible to an agroterrorism event.

PAGE 91

91 Bioterrorism Question 19 (Figure 4 19), as ks the participant how high they feel the current threat level is in rega rd to bioterrorism and aerial applicators. The participants were given a set of answers ranging from strongly agree to disagree. Strongly agree indicated that they felt that the threat level was extremely high as where strongly disagree indicated it was e xtremely low. The highest range of participants selected agree, 47.5 %, while only 7 .5 % strongly agreed, 30% disagreed, while 10% strongly disagreed. The remaining 5% had no opinion. The results of this question indicate that the ratio of participants w ho consider bioterrorism a current threat to agricultural aviation is higher than those who do not. Question 20 (Figure 4 20), asks each participant about their level of education in regard to dealing wit h the threat of bioterrorism. Seventy two point five percent agreed that they have enough e ducation to properly address the threat of bioterror ism while 5% strongly agreed. Seventeen point five percent of the research population indicated that they disagreed, with the remaining number of participants, 5%, i ndicating no opinion. The majority of participants felt that they were highly educated in regard to bioterrorism Question 21, (Figure 4 21), asks the participant how well they agree with the n ev ent related to bioterrorism. Eighty five percent of the participants agreed that they would be able to perform these functions, while 5% indicated that they strongly agreed. The remaining 10% of the research participants indicated that they disagreed. The results from this question indicate that aerial applicator pilots feel very confident about their abilities to effectively identify or mitigate the occurrence of a bioterrorism event from happening in the event they were exposed to it.

PAGE 92

92 Question 22 (F igure 4 22), relates to how aerial applicators feel in the comparison of bioterrorism to agroterrorism. They were asked to indicate how strongly the y agreed or disagreed with the susceptibility of bioterrorism being more of a threat than agroterrorism. The majority of participant s disagreed, 60%, w hile 5% strongly disagreed, 17.5 % of the participants agreed, while 17 .5 % had indicated no opinion. The results of this question indicate that aerial applicators do not perceive bioterrorism as more of a threat th an agroterrorism in the agricultural aerial application industry. Question 23 (Figure 4 23), was derived to measure how well both bioterrorism and agroterrorism have been made aware of publications. The majorit y of partic ipants disagreed, 48.7 %, with 2.6 % indicating that they strongly disagreed, 38.5 % of the participants agreed, while 5 .1 % disagreed. The remaining 5 .1 % indicated no opinion. The results of this question indicate that aerial applicators feel that more traini ng is necessary in these two subject areas. Question 24 (Figure 4 24), was the final question in the bioterrorism section and asked participants to rate how well they feel government agencies such as the FAA and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) prov ide information in relation to bioterrorism and agro terrorism. Sixty two point five percent of the research population indicated that the y disagreed, with 10% indicati ng that they strongly disagreed, 10% agreed, with 7 .5 % strongly agreeing. The remaining 1 0% indicated no opinion. The results of this question infer that the level of support via advisory circulars and other government issued documents are insufficient in regard to the dissemination of relevant materials to aerial applicators.

PAGE 93

93 Chemical Exposur e Question 25 (Figure 4 25), begins the chemical exposure section of the survey. It asks if the participant use s the proper PPE for every job. Ninety seven point five percent of the participants ind icated that they did. The remaining 2 .5 % of the particip ants indicated tha t they do not use the proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for each application. The results from this question indicate that the majority of participants take the use o f PPE seriously and regularly follow the proper protocols for c hemical safety Question 26 (Figure 4 26), asks the participant whether or not they have become sick or disabled from coming in contact with a toxic chemical while working as an aerial applicator. The majority of participants, 55%, indicated that they di sagreed, or had not be come sick or disabled, with 32.5 % strongly disagreeing. Only 7.5% indicated that they agreed, while the remaining 5% indicated no opinion. This shows that a high level of the research participants properly use PPE and follow chemical label restrictions for their personal health and well being. Question 27 (Figure 4 27), asks the participant how they perceive the level of PPE required for each application in regard to acceptability. Sixty seven point five percent of the research parti cipants indicated that they agree chemical manufacturers put in place the proper protocols for PPE with respect t o the chemical appli ed, while 27.5% strongly agreed, 2.5 % disagreed with 2 .5 % indicating no opinion. The results of this question infer that ae rial applicators feel that they are properly protected from chemical exposure based on the manufacturers recommendation for required PPE. Question 28 (Figure 4 28), asks the participant to rate how they feel about ventilation systems in the aircraft eith er they or their company utilize for pre venting

PAGE 94

94 chemical exposure. Eighty two point five percent of the research participants indicated that they agree that the ventilation systems are adequate, with 2.5% strongly agreeing. 12.5% of the participants disagr eed, while 2.5% strongly disagreed. This indicates that the ventilation systems in most aircraft used for aerial application in the state of Florida are perceived to be sufficient to protect pilots from chemical exposure. Question 29 (Figure 4 29), asks the participant to rate how often they know the correct PPE to use in order to prevent exposure to toxic chemicals without referring to the chemical label. Seventy percent of the research participants indicated that they agree, while 7.5% indicated that t hey strongly agree. 15% of the survey population disagreed, while the remaining 7.5% strongly disagreed. The results from this question infer that aerial applicators often use the same product for a number of applications, so the y are familiar with label d irections and know the proper PPE to wear during an application. T he final question regarding chem ical exposure, (Figure 4 30), asks the participant to list what types of PPE they use on a regular basis f rom the selected responses. All of the survey popu l ation use gloves regularly. Ninety percent utilize both goggles/safety glass es and long sleeve shirts. Eighty two point five percent use an approved respirator, while 85% use an approved flight/chemical suit. The remaining two categories, long pants and ta ll/knee high socks are utilized 92.5% and 80% of the time respectively. This indicates that aerial applic ators are meeting best practice standar ds and maximizing protection from chemical exposure. Federal Aviation Administration Oversight Question 31, (Fi gure 4 31), begins the section of FAA oversight. It asks how strongly the participants feel about the regulation scrutinized by the FAA on aerial

PAGE 95

95 applicators. The majority of participants, 52.5%, of the research population agree that the FAA places an exce ssive amount of regulation on aerial applicators, while 7.5% strongly agree. Twenty two point five percent disagree, while the remaining 17.5% had no opinion. The response to this question indicates th at the majority of aerial applicators feel the FAA take s excessively conservative measures to regulate the industry Questio n 32 (Figure 4 32), asks if the participant has had concerns with the probability of aircraft. Fifty five percen t of the population agreed that they had con cern while 2.5% strongly agreed, 35% of the research participants disagreed, while 7.5% had no opinion. The results of this question are consistent with industry in regard that the FAA has a high level of jurisdi ction in aviation. There is always a level of concern with compliance since the industry in question is a component of the applicators livelihood. Question 33 (Figure 4 33), asks participants to r ank how they feel the FAA views the safety of other commer cial operators to tha t of agricultural operators. Sixty percent of the research participants agree that the FAA places more emphasis on other commercial opera tions, while 20% strongly agree, 7.5% of the research participants disagree, while 5% strongly dis agree. The remaining 7.5% had no opinion. The results of this question infer that aerial applicators feel as though the FAA places more importance on other commercial operations such as Part 121 or Part 135 operators. With a finite number of FAA inspectors this result was found to be representative of smaller facets of the aviation industry. Question 34 (Figure 4 34), asks the participants to rate how they would agree with the implementation of an anonym ous incident reporting system in their industry.

PAGE 96

96 Th is system would be used for educational and safety purposes and would not be used for the admission of a violation. The majority of participants, 55%, strongly agreed that this would be a useful tool for the aerial application industry, 35% agreed, while o nly 5% disagreed. The remaining 5% had no opinion. This indicates that the majority of participants would agree on the creation and implementation of an anonymous incident reporting system relevant to their industry indicating a premium placed on safety Question 35 (Figure 4 35), asks the participant to rate their agreement with the FAA having more day to day involvement in their operation. The majority of participants, 62.5%, indicated that they disagreed, while 25% strongly disagreed. A minority of pa rticipant s agreed, 5%, with 2.5% strongly agreeing. The remaining 5% had no opinion. This indicates t hat the aerial application industry does not perceive more FAA involvement as a viable solution to the issues confronted by the industry Question 36 (Fi gure 4 36), asks the participant to rank their concern of the consequences of receiving a violation by the FAA while operating ae rial application aircraft. Fifty two point five percent of the research participants agreed that they did have concern, while 2 7.5% indicated that they had strong concerns. 15% disagreed, with the remaining 5% indicating no opinion. The results of this question infer that the majority of aerial applicators are concerned with the consequences of a violation by the FAA. Question 37 (Figure 4 37), is the fin al question of the section and asks the participant to compare the amount of safety knowledge they have with respect to their operati on in comparison to the FAA. Fifty five percent of the participants strongly agreed that they or their company had mor e than adequate knowledge, while 37.5% agreed,

PAGE 97

97 7.5% indicated no opinion. The results from this question indicate that aerial applicators feel as though they have more industry specific knowledge and background in regard to their indu stry than that of the FAA. Training Question 38 (Figure 4 38), begins the final section of the survey and evaluates at training. It asks the research participant to rate their perception of acc redited schools or colleges offer ing aerial application train ing programs in comparison to traditional methods. The majority of participants disagreed, 47.5%, that accredited school or college programs offer superior training while 10% strongly disagreed, 27.5% of the participants agreed, with the remaining 15% indi cating no opinion. The results of this question indicate that the training paradigm with schools who offer aerial application is not as effective as other methods. Question 39 (Figure 4 39), asks the participant to rate their experience gained while on t he job. 75% of the participants strongly agreed, while 22.5% agreed. The remaining 2.5% disagreed. The results of this question are comparable to the other sectors of the aviation industry because it is highly experience based. Many pilots gain their exper ience on the job, after the minimum certification requirements have been met. Question 40 (Figure 4 40), asks the participant to indicate how well outside training events keep them up to date on innovative methods and technologies within the aerial appli cation community. Sixty five percent of the research participant agreed that outside training is effec tive, while 10% strongly agreed, 20% disagreed with 2.5% indicating that they strongly disagree. The remaining 2.5% indicated no opinion. The results of t his question indicate that outside training events are a viable option for aerial

PAGE 98

98 applicators to learn and implement new procedures and products into their respective organizations according to the majority of particpants Question 41, (Figure 4 41), rate s how regularly aerial applicators would like to attend re current training on a bi annual basis in order to stay current with industry standards and new policies. Seventy three percent of the participants indicated that they agree with 10% strongly agree ing, 5% disagreed with 2.5% strongly disagreeing. The remaining 10% of participants chose no opinion. The results of this question show that the aerial application community is very receptive to training and professional development. Question 42, (Figure 4 42), asks the participant to rate how well training materials are disseminated through their respective companies. Eighty percent of the participants agreed that the dissemination of educational materials was effective, with 10% strongly agreeing. 5% dis agreed, while 2.5% strongly disagreed. The remaining 2.5% indicated no opinion. This response infers that the majority of aerial application companies do a favorable job at disseminating relevant materials to their employees. The final question (Figure 4 43), of the survey and seeks to determine the sources of training and re currency materials. Ninety seven and a half percent of the participants indicated that they receive a high level of re currency from on the job training. Sixty two and a half perce nt indicated that they attend outside seminars on a regular basis. Eighty five percent indicated that they utilize professional organizations. Twenty two and a half percent indicated that the FAA publication database was a viable source. Ninety two and a h alf percent of the parti cipants indicated that they utilize both trade publications and their peers for information. Seventy two and a half percent

PAGE 99

99 indicated that they extensively use UF/IFAS extension materials. This question infers that there is a lot of information to be disseminated and that aerial applicator s use the resources available efficiently. General Comment The final component of the survey left room for individual comment s (Appendix C ) It was designed to allow the participant to write freel y about any concerns or general comment about the survey. Two responses were recorded, which both discussed a general concern for the aerial application industry. They foc used more on regulatory issues by inferring that aerial application companies would not be able to operate efficiently or effectively with the implementation of more regulation. They cite the FAA primarily by discussing how regional Flight Standards District O ffices do not have any conformity between regions. They feel as though they have a much higher experience level in the art of applying chemicals by air than that of state or federal agencies. The concerns listed vary, but both of the participants indicated that increases in regulation would cause a disparity in the price of food clothing and other commodities, if aerial applicato rs were over regulated.

PAGE 100

100 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS Aerial applicators perceive the overall key future success of their industry lies within in their hands. The ir mission is a vital co mponent of the pro tection of our nation s resources. Without the industry the economy, food and fiber source other aspects of society would considerably be affected. The industry strives to ensure safety and for that they should be commended. The occurrences of aeri al appl ication incidents are negligible in comparison to the other issues currently face d The industry requires the type of individual who is motiva ted to work individually and who is educated, by experience, to implement the proper procedures in regard to such issues as safety, security and drift. The concer ns that the participants identified are valid issues with agency mandates. The FAA is a highly regarded organization that promotes the longevity of aviatio n, however, they are not well equipped to ensure the proper management of aerial applicators in regard to the issues applicators face in their daily work From the areas of security, certification and regulation enforcement, the results indicate that the FAA provides a valuable service; however it does not h ave the proper workgroups or time to devote the proper level of service to aerial applicators, in regard to consistently implementing and enforcing new regulation. With regard to agroterroris m and bioterrorism, results are consistent with the industry hav ing a high level of intrinsic knowledge about these issues. This high level of knowledge is due to experience, resources and employee to employee contact. The majority of aerial applicators perceive they know enough to identify or of ter rorism; however they also indicated that the threat level with regard to these two areas is considered to be high. The use of educational materials is a very effective tool

PAGE 101

101 for disseminating information in relevant research areas. The researcher believes that the data collected from the study infer s that aerial applicators are very insightful about new trends a nd technology in their indust ry. They consistently seek for res ources and information that assist them with their job for a higher level of efficien cy and safety. These qualities make them very receptive to the implementation of new resources that deal with industry issues. The requirements for continuing education have the potential to create new materials that address agroterrorism and bioterrorism. These tools will provide a higher level of knowledge and conformity throughout the industry. Chemical exposure is another issue that aerial applicators are confronted with on a daily basis. The majority of aerial applicators feel that the ventilation sy stems and use of PPE are effective within the industry for exposure protection The research indicates that they are concerned with pers onal chemical exposure and have a low probability of becoming sick or disabled from the use of their products. Ae rial application has been established in its current status Pilots have proven a high lev el of initiative in their experience and development, which indicate s the industry is healthy and viable. The aviation industry, as a whole, is comprised of a fairly small percentage of professionals. This is conducive for keeping current of trends and issues affecting their industry Alternatively it also makes it difficult, at times to gain the proper perceptions. Fear of reprisal from government or sta te agencies may bias opinion if the issues are introduced without proper industry input The assurance of anonymity is a key factor in gaining the trust of aviation professionals. Since September 11 th 2001, the entire aviation industry has faced a number of perilous events, however they have done an exemplary job of ensuring the

PAGE 102

102 safety of all who use the airspace. Likewise, a erial applicators offer the services and utility to ensure the well being of our food and commodity resources. Without them, it would be difficult to assume a sustainable agriculture with a potential for loss of a viable component of both the luxuries and necessities we are so accustomed to today.

PAGE 103

103 CHAPTER 7 REC OMENDATIONS FOR FUTU RE RESEARCH Aviation i s constantly evolving to stay current with the demands of industry. It is important that all facets of industry look forward to develop a safer and better future The use of Unmanned Aerial V a number of issues, especially w ith their prospective applications in regard to agriculture. They can be flown from confined areas to obtain vast amounts of information. Development is currently underway to develop and perfect the use of sy stems, (LIDAR), to provide the industry with many innovative new technologies. They are capable of an array of applications including geology, agriculture and geography. The use of t his type of aircraft may address many of the concerns that the agriculture industry faces and may prove to be a viable resource.

PAGE 104

104 APPENDIX A REGULATORY TABLE http://pested.ifas.ufl.edu/pdfs/Certification_M anual_9 06_website_version.pdf

PAGE 105

105 APPENDIX B SURVEY Risk and Safety Analysis Survey for Florida Commercial Aerial Application Operations Agricultural & Biological Engineering College of Agricultural and Life Sciences Frazier Rogers H all University of Florida P.O. Box 110570 Gainesville, FL 32611 0570 Ph: (352) 392 1864 UFIRB# 2010 U 1131

PAGE 106

106 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to gain insight into self reported safety and risk factors that pertain to commercial operator s and pilots who fly for agricultural aerial applicator operations. As a commercially rated pilot in both fixed wing and rotor wing aircraft with a total of 5,400 hours flight time, I am interested in obtaining industry data to help better understand defic iencies or areas of concern in the aerial application industry. The benefits of your cooperation are not regulatory in nature, but educational. With a better understanding of issues that may affect your industry, more materials may be developed to implemen t more focused training and programs for The survey focuses on concerns of Agroterrorism, Bioterrorism, Chemical Exposure, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), regulations protocols, and requirements. The answers to the survey will be utilized solely for the purpose of industry research and your answers will remain anonymous, so there is no personal risk associated with your participation. The results will be reviewed only by the researcher and will not be distributed to any third party sources. They will be used to determine areas of concern and will provide the basis of a final report that will address best practices and procedures to serve as suggestions for increased sa fety and efficiency within your industry. There is no compensation for your participation, however your input is greatly appreciated. For information about your rights as a research participant you may contact the iew Board ( IRB ), at ( 352 ) 392 0433. The questionnaire should take about 15 minutes to complete. Please take a few moments to answer the questions to the best of your knowledge. If you feel conflicted or uncomfortable with any question, please feel free to refrain from answering it. Your participation is voluntary and you may revoke your consent without penalty If you would like further information or clarification of any of the material listed within the survey, feel free to contact either myself or Dr. James Leary, drleary@ufl.edu, with your questions or concerns. Once again, I assure you that the responses you provide will not relay any personal information about you or your company and your anonymity is of paramount concern. Thank you for your coo peration and efforts Sincerely, John M. Robbins M.S.A. Ed./Mgmt. Ph.D. Candidate: Agricultural and Biological Engineering University of Florida Tel: (352) 494 1321 E mail: Johnrobb@ufl.edu

PAGE 107

107 PART 1 Demographics Pleas e circle one of the following options for questions 1 6: 1. Gender: Male Female 2. Age: 18 25 26 30 31 40 41 50 > 51 3. Number of Flight Hours: < 500 501 1000 1001 2500 > 2500 4. Number of Flight Hours i n Agricultural Aircraft: < 500 501 1000 1001 2500 > 2500 5. Years in Service as an Aerial Applicator: 1 5 6 10 11 15 16 20 > 20 6. How many pilots are employed by your company? 1 5 6 10 11 15 16 20 > 20 Please check the appropriate responses for questions 7 10: 7. What FAA ratings do you currently possess? (Check all that apply) _____ Air Transport Pilot _____ Aircraft Single Engine Land _____ Commercial Pilot _____ Aircraft Multi Engine Land _____ Certified Flight instructor _____ Rotorcraft Helicopter _____ Certified Instrument Flight Instructor _____ Instrument Airplane _____ Private Pilot _____ Instrument Rotorcraft Helicopter Other:___________ _____________________________________ _____________________ 8. Type of aircraft you primarily fly for the purpose of aerial application: (Check all that apply) _____ Airplane: Reciprocating Engine Powered _____ Airplane: Turbine Engine Powered

PAGE 108

108 _____ Rotorcraft: Reciprocating Engine Powered _____ Rotorcraft: Turbine Engine Powered 9. Which best classifies your role as an aerial applicator? ___ __ Aerial application company o wner _____ Aerial application company owner and pilot _____ Aerial appl icator pilot employed by only one company _____ Independent aerial applicator i.e. (Contract Pilot) 10. Does the company who employ s you require a background check in their pre employment screening? _____ Yes _____ No PART II Perceptions on Agroterroris m Agroterro r ism is the intentional act of mishandling agricultural chemicals, aircraft, implements, or personnel to cause harm to persons or property. The following questions in Part II, are designed to gain perception on how much you agree with each qu estion. Please circle the most appropriate answer for the following questions. The rating scale is as follows: Responses: SA=Strongly Agree, A=Agree, N=No Opinion, D Disagree, SD=Strongly Disagree 11. I feel that the threat level as it relates to agrot errorism is high among aerial applicators. SA A N D SD 12. I feel that I have been properly educated to deal w ith the threat of agroterrorism. SA A N D SD 13. rrorism. SA A N D SD 14 I feel that Florida is more susceptible to an agroterrorism attack than other states in the U.S. SA A N D SD 15. I feel that my company has the proper protocols in place to mitigate the threat of agroterrorism. SA A N D SD

PAGE 109

109 16. I think that I or my company is susceptible to agroterrorism. SA A N D SD 17. I think that an act of agroterrorism could happen somewhere in the U.S. SA A N D SD 18. I think that an act of agroterrorism could happen somewhere in the state of Florida. SA A N D SD PART III Bioterrorism Bioterrorism is defined as an act of any person knowingly or maliciously introducing disease causing agents or organisms to animal, plant or human population, thus threateni ng food and water resources as well as human and animal life. The following questions in Part III, are designed to gain perception on how much you agree with each question. Please circle the most appropriate answer for the following questions. The rating s cale is as follows: Responses: SA=Strongly Agree, A=Agree, N=No Opinion, D Disagree, SD=Strongly Disagree 19. I feel that the threat level as it relates to bioterrorism is high among aerial applicators. SA A N D SD 20. I feel that I have been properly educated to deal w ith the threat of bioterrorism. SA A N D SD 21. SA A N D SD 22. My profession is more susceptible to bioterrorism, than it is agroterrorism. SA A N D SD 23. publications. SA A N D SD

PAGE 110

110 24. Government agencies, such as the FAA and Department of Homeland Security, provide adequate info rmation and advisory circulars on the potential threats associated with bioterrorism and agroterrorism. SA A N D SD PART IV Chemical Exposure Chemical exposure relates to the amount of products regulated by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), or any other potent chemical that you could come into contact with. Ways that the chemical can be absorbed by your body are dermal, inhalation, ocular, or orally. The following questions in Part IV, are designed to gain perception on how much you agree with each question. Please circle the most appropriate answer for the following questions. The rating scale is as follows: Responses: SA=Strongly Agree, A=Agree, N=No Opinion, D Disagree, SD=Strongly Disagree 25. I use the proper Personal Protective Equipment, (PPE), for every job. SA A N D SD 26. I have become sick or disabled from coming in contact with a toxic chemical while working as an aerial pesticide applicator. SA A N D SD 27. I feel that the PPE required for each application is acceptable to prevent exposure to toxic chemicals. SA A N D SD 28. I feel that the ventilation systems in the aircraft I or my company utilize are acceptable to prevent exposure to toxic chemicals. SA A N D SD 29. I often feel that I know what PPE to use to prevent exposure to toxic chemicals without referring to the chemical label. SA A N D SD

PAGE 111

111 Please check or fill in the appropriate responses for question 30 : 30. The PPE that I use on a regular basis are: (Check all that apply) _____ Gloves _____ Long pants _____ Goggles/Safety glasses _____ Tall/Knee high socks _____ Respirator Other:_______________________________ _____ Approved flight/chemical suit ______________________________ ______ _____ Long sleeve shirt ____________________________________ PART V Federal Aviation Administration Oversight The questions in Part V are designed to gain perception on how much the FAA is involved with you or your operation in general. It is in no way an attempt to change regulation, however, your input will be useful in determining how interactions with the FAA affect your operations. Please circle the most appropriate answer for the following questions. The rating scale is as follows: Res ponses: SA=Strongly Agree, A=Agree, N=No Opinion, D Disagree, SD=Strongly Disagree 31. I feel that the FAA places too much regulation on aerial applicators. SA A N D SD 32. erating agricultural aircraft. SA A N D SD 33. I feel that the FAA places more emphasis on the safety of other commercial operators than they do on operators of agricultural aircraft. SA A N D SD 34. I would approve of an anonymous incid ent reporting system which would be used for educational and safety purposes and would not be used for the admission of a violation. SA A N D SD 35. I feel that the FAA should be more involved in day to day operations and oversight within the aer ial applicator industry. SA A N D SD

PAGE 112

112 36. I am concerned about the consequences of receiving a violation by the FAA while operating aerial application aircraft. SA A N D SD 37. I feel that I or my company have more knowledge about the saf ety of our operation, than the FAA. SA A N D SD PART VI Training The questions in part VI have been designed to gain insight into how training is implemented and reinforced within the agricultural aerial application industry. Please circle the most appropriate answer for the following questions. The rating scale is as follows: Responses: SA=Strongly Agree, A=Agree, N=No Opinion, D Disagree, SD=Strongly Disagree 38. I feel that accredited schools or colleges who offer an aerial applicator cer tification program provide superior training in comparison to other methods of certification. SA A N D SD 39. I feel that I have gained most of my experience and knowledge while performing on the job. SA A N D SD 40. I regularly attend o utside training events that keep me up to date on innovative methods and technologies in my profession. SA A N D SD 41. I would like to regularly attend re current training on a bi annual basis to keep up with industry standards and new policies. SA A N D SD 42. I feel that the company I work for provides adequate training and materials on a regular basis to allow me to do my job safely. SA A N D SD

PAGE 113

113 43. I feel that I gain the most training and re currency from the following sources. (Check all that apply) _____ On the job training _____ Other employees or contacts _____ Outside Seminars _____ UF/IFAS Extension Materials _____ Professional Organizations Other__________________________ _____ _____ FAA ___________________________________ _____ Trade Publications ____________________________________

PAGE 114

114 Thank you for your cooperation! Your participation in this que stionnaire is appreciated and the information collected will be used to observe and recommend solutions to issues that have been derived from this research. If you have any further comments I would greatly appreciate your input in the space below: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________ ________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________ __________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ____________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ __________ ____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________ ______________________

PAGE 115

115 APPENDIX C SURVEY COMMENTS The following is a listing of survey comments that were included on the instrument by the participants. "The aerial applicator is a vanishing breed. The FAA, and State Ag Departments put more pressure on the pilots and make it harder to do our job. I have sprayed for 23 years and only in the last 5 have I had any issues with drift. In the past a little drift was acceptable and expected, people used common sense and knew if they moved to a farming area that they WOULD be exposed to farming and Ag Aircraft. Now it's like I shouldn't have sprayed that field. People think there food comes from the grocery store and the cotton clothes on their backs come from the mall. The Ag Pilot will soo n be regulated out of business, and the farming industry will suffer because of it. If you travel to Rice country or to a place that if not for the aircraft, farming would greatly suffer & you will find the attitude of the people and the government to be d ifferent and better. The Ag operators need your help, don't kick us just because you can. Thank you." "It is my opinion based on experience that the majority of all FAA personnel have no working knowledge of aerial application practices. The simple fact is that if every aerial application company had to conform to every FAA regulation or rule (which by the way change with every FSDO. There is no set pattern) 95% of all operations would close due to this. The price of food would rise to a level that would ca use a panic within the public sector. Aerial application is so important to modern farming practices without this option the farmers in this country would be unable to produce on the scale that they are now. It needs to be recognized by the FAA that the ae rial applications are 99% of the time single pilot operations and such these aircraft and systems should be given greater leeway as to field approvals of spray systems, etc. There is a lot wrong with all governernment operations and the FAA is no exception to this rule."

PAGE 116

116 LIST OF REFERENCES Air Tractor. 2010. AT 802F Single Engine Air Tanker Retrieved September 21, 2010 from : http://www.airtractor.com AOPA. (2011). General Aviation Security Interactive Course. R etrieved October 1, 2010 from: http://www.aopa.org/airportwatch/ Biometrics. (2011). Biometrics Reference Room. Retrieved January 15, 2011 from: http://www.biometrics.gov/ReferenceRoom/Default.aspx Braxton, E.G. (2006). Pesticide Applicator Certification and Licensing in Florida. Division of Agricultural Environmental Services. Tallahassee, Florida. Breidenbaugh, M., & Haagsma K. (2008). The US Air Force Aerial Spray Unit: a history of large area disease vector control operations, WWII through Katrina Retrieved October 23, 2010 from : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=the%20us%20air%20force%20aerial% 20spray%20unit%3A%20a%20history%20of%20large%20area%20disease%20ve ctor%20control%20operation CNSS. (2011). N ational Information Assurance (IA) Glossary. Retrieved March 12, 2011 from : http://www.cnss.gov Dean, T.W., (1999). Aerial Application University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricult ural Sciences. Gainesville, Florida. Degraw, J. (2005). Perceptions of Florida Beef Cattle Producers on Preparedness for An Agroterrorism Attack Retrieved January, 12, 2011 from http://etd.fc la.edu/UF/UFE0011863/degraw_j.pdf DHS. (2007). National Strategy for Aviation Security Retrieved January 13, 2011 from: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/laws_hspd_aviati on_security.pdf DOT. (2008 ). Total Domestic/International U.S. Enplanements. Retrieved March 31, 2011 from : http://www.dot.gov EPA. (2009). Pesticide Spray and Dust Drift. Retrieved April 2, 2010 from: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/spraydrift.htm FAA. (2011). Federal Aviation Regulations/Airmans Information Manual. FBI. (2011). Terror Hits Home: The Oklahoma City Bombing Retrieved March 15, 2011 from: http://www.fbi.gov/about us/history/famous cases/oklahoma city bombing FLSART, (2011). About Florida SART. Retrieved March 2, 2011 from: http://www.flsart.org

PAGE 117

117 Ganzel, B. (2007). Retrieved January 12, 2011 from: http://livinghistoryfarm.org/f arminginthe40s/farminginthe1940s.html GAO. (2003). BIOTERRORISM: A Threat to Agriculture and the Food Supply. Retrieved March 22, 2011 from: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04259t.pdf Gay, L., Mills, G.E., & Airasian, P.W. (2006). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications (8 th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Kane, R.M. (2007). Air Transportation (15 th Edition). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishi ng Company. Koblentz, G. (Winter 2003/04). Pathogens as Weapons. International Security, 28(3), 84 122. Lee, R.V., Harbison, R.D., & Draughon, F.A. (2003). Food as a Weapon. Food Protection Trends 23(8), 664 674. Lehtola, C.J., Robbins, J.R, & Brown, C.M. (2005). The Disaster Handbook : Agrochemcials and Security Retrieved February 28, 2010 from: http://disaster.ifas.ufl.edu/agroChemSecurity.htm Leviten, A., & Olexa, M.T. (November 2003). 9/ 11 and Agricultural Security. Florida Bar Journal 77(10), 64 68. Monke, J. (2004). Agroterrorism: Threats and Preparedness. Retrieved September 22, 2011 from: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32521.pdf N AAA. (2011). NAAA History. Retrieved February 28, 2011 from: http://www.agaviation.org NBAA. (2011). Best Practices for Business Aviation Security. Retrieved April 2, 2011 from : http://www.nbaa.org http://www.RussellKeppner.com Overhults, D. G. (2011) Category 11 Applicator Training Manual for Aerial Application of Pesticides. Retrieved January 2, 2011 from: http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Pat/cat11.htm Shariat, S., Mallonee, S., & Stephens S. (1998). Summary of Reportable Injuries in Oklahoma; Oklahoma City B ombing Injuries. Retrieved, March 3, 2011 from : http://www.ok.gov/health/documents/OKC_Bombing.pdf Stewart, S. (2010). General Aviation: A Reminder of Vulnerability. Retrieved April 5, 201 1 from : http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100224_general_aviation_reminder_vulnerability

PAGE 118

118 of Needs. Retrieved April 9, 2011 from : http://honolulu.hawaii.edu TSA. (2001). Title 49 U.S.C. Chapters 401 501. Retrieved April 1, 2011 from: http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/49_USC_Chapters_401_to_501.pdf The Sunshine Project. (2007). Biosafety Archive for Biodefense Public Accountability. Retrieved December 22, 2010 from: http://www.suns hine project.org USDA. (2002 ). Geographic Concentration of Agricultural Production. Retrieved March 4, 2011 from: http://www.usda.gov USGS. (2010). Physical Security Handbook 440: Exterior Protection. Retrieved Septemb er 14, 2010 from : http://www.usgs.gov/usgs manual/handbook/hb/440 2 h/440 2 h.html Webster's Dictionary. (2011). Retrieved March 1, 2011 from: http://www.merriam webster.com

PAGE 119

119 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH John Robbi ns is a Doctor of Philosophy candidate in the D epartment of Agricultural and Biological Engineering at the University of Florida. His research interests include risk ma nagement, safety, and current issues affecting the aviation community. John completed a Bachelor of Arts degree in g eology from the University of Florida, while at the same time flying profe ssionally. He is a commercially rated pilot in both airplanes an d helicopters with a total flight time of 6,000 hours. He has worked professionally for multiple companies to include skydiving operations, air ambulance, biological census collection and airline organizations. In late 2007, he decided to return to the a ca demic sector and received a Master of Science in aeronautical s cience with specializations in education and management from Embry Riddle Aeronautical University After graduating from Embry Riddle he returned to the University of Florida and currently w orks as an adjunct professor and consultant, delivering safety and security seminars to aviation professionals around the country.