improvement plan for lakeland dusters-aviation

Introduction to the Recommendation for Adopting the Nozzle Wind Deflector

Tag Ashby, Lauren Gilkey, Maria Hassett, Jennifer Kiesewetter, and Sarah Thompson

1

A Recommendation for Implementing Use of the Nozzle Wind Deflector at

Lakeland Dusters-Aviation Introduction to the Recommendation for Adopting the Nozzle Wind Deflector

This report details an improvement plan for Lakeland Dusters-Aviation. In the following pages, we will provide a recommendation that the company implement use of a newly developed nozzle wind deflector in its crop dusting operations. The report will cover: ● a discussion of spray drift ● an explanation of the recommended solution: the nozzle wind deflector ● the patents, permits, and personnel required for Lakeland Dusters-Aviation to implement

use of the nozzle wind deflector ● the production and installation costs to Lakeland Dusters-Aviation

We will also provide a suggested schedule, budget, and cost-benefit analysis at the end of the report to help illustrate the financial and temporal costs involved.

Please note that due to limitations on our time and budget, we were unable to test the nozzle wind deflector with a variety of materials, in different weather conditions, or at full capacity (meaning all eighty-two nozzles on a plane would have a deflector). These time and budget constraints have limited the extent of our cost-benefit analysis, which only shows the numerical relationship between use of the deflector and pilot labor costs. As we continue testing the deflector, we will be able to provide numerical relationships between use of the deflector and reduced material and fuel usage that explicitly show the savings Lakeland Dusters-Aviation will experience with adopting the device. We conducted research for our report in-text, online, and through personal interviews. To gain an understanding of the crop dusting process, the function of the nozzle wind deflector, and patenting and licensing, we conducted an interview with you, as well as the following individuals: ● Reid Potter, General Manager at Lakeland Dusters-Aviation ● Terry Kwast, the engineer involved in manufacturing the prototype of the nozzle wind

deflector ● Tim Sherman, Director of Customer Service at the patent-licensing company, Lambert

and Lambert ● Tiffany Mair, a librarian in the government publication section at the California State

Library Patent and Trademark Resource Center

An Introduction to the Nozzle Wind Deflector


2

In synthesizing the information gathered from these sources, we have compiled an improvement plan that we hope you can adopt, to save time and money in the crop dusting operations at Lakeland Dusters-Aviation. A Brief Discussion of Spray Drift

As you know, crop dusters can encounter a problem known as spray drift in windy conditions. It can result in health and environmental issues including respiratory problems, soil contamination, and water pollution (Elgethun, Horel, & Carozza, 2006). Spray drift is not only harmful to people and nature; it also negatively affects crop dusting companies. Less of the targeted area is covered during flight, wasting both time and pesticides and resulting in financial consequences (Deveau & Callow, 2011).

To address the problem, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has tried to impose

regulations on crop dusting operations. One of the first attempts was to prohibit aerial spraying when wind exceeded a certain speed. This regulation, however, was strongly opposed by farming organizations nationwide.

The EPA has also tried implementing zero-drift policies. These policies were opposed as

well, due to the fact that they are nearly impossible to meet. The idea of zero-drift would reduce farmers’ ability to spray crops with pesticides needed to support food production (CropLife America, 2013). An Introduction to the Nozzle Wind Deflector

The only way to increase accuracy, solve spray drift, and help companies continue crop dusting, regardless of weather conditions, is to implement use of the nozzle wind deflector, developed by Lauren Gilkey in January of 2012. Introducing use of the device to Lakeland Dusters-Aviation will make the crop dusting process more safe and efficient for your company, even in poor weather conditions.

An Introduction to the Nozzle Wind Deflector


3

The nozzle wind deflector is a stainless steel cylinder that attaches to the CP11TT nozzle. The device prevents wind from affecting the material released from a crop duster before it establishes a pattern and reaches its optimal spread. Figure 1. Photograph of the Nozzle Wind Deflector Attached to a CP11TT Nozzle

Figure 1 shows the nozzle wind deflector surrounding the CP11TT nozzle (L. Gilkey, 2013).

When used, the deflector can save Lakeland Dusters-Aviation materials, fuel, and flight time. Tests of the prototype showed that with the deflector, the range of spray increased thirteen inches in width and twenty-eight inches in length (see Figure 2). In addition to helping cover a greater target area, the deflector reduces spray drift. When tested in the presence of seven to ten mile-per-hour winds, the deflector kept the spray pattern of materials in a straight line. Without the deflector, the spray pattern was shifted to the left two and one half inches (L. Gilkey, 2013).

A Discussion of the Permits and Personnel Required to Implement Use of the Nozzle Wind Deflector


4

Figure 2 shows the increase in spray range and accuracy when the wind deflector is used: Figure 2. Illustration of Test Results of the Nozzle Wind Deflector

Crop dusters are able to cover a significantly greater surface area with more accuracy when using the deflector. Range of spray increases thirteen inches in width and twenty-eight inches in length. (L. Gilkey, 2013). A Discussion of the Permits and Personnel Required to Implement Use of the Nozzle Wind Deflector

Implementing use of the nozzle wind deflector at Lakeland Dusters-Aviation first requires that Gilkey pursue a patent for the device. According to Tiffany Mair (2013), a librarian in the government publication section at the California State Library, Gilkey should file an application with the United States’ Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for a utility patent.

The patent process involves a patent search, followed by the inventor submitting an

application to the USPTO (Mair, 2013). Because Gilkey has already confirmed that the nozzle wind deflector is indeed new and unique as required by patent law (Foster & Shook, 1993, p. 28), she can proceed to the next step. It usually takes the USPTO three months to respond to an application. However, response time cannot exceed six months (Mair, 2013).

After the USPTO approves the patent application for the nozzle wind deflector, Gilkey

and Lakeland Dusters-Aviation can enter into a nonexclusive patent-licensing agreement.

A Recommended Budget and Schedule for Implementing the Nozzle Wind Deflector


5

According to Tim Sherman (2013), Director of Customer Service at Lambert and Lambert, a patent-licensing company, the agreement is made between an inventor and company to allow that company to make and sell an invention. Nonexclusive means that Gilkey will retain ownership of the idea and that the terms and conditions of manufacturing and use can be negotiated (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2013).

Negotiating a contract can take up to six months, depending on the invention and parties

involved (Sherman, 2013). Establishing the agreement involves granting rights to the invention, determining royalties for the licensor, and deciding terms and conditions (Poltorak & Lerner, 2004, p. 17-20). Once the patent licensing agreement is complete, Lakeland Dusters-Aviation has the right to manufacture and use the nozzle wind deflector in its crop dusting operations.

The nozzle wind deflector will take about twenty minutes to manufacture. Production

requires the use of several different pieces of equipment: a drill press, a metal lathe, a wire welder, a chop saw, and stainless steel tubing. It will take five people to mass-produce the deflector; one person is needed to operate each piece of machinery to produce the piece efficiently.

After production, the deflector will attach to the front of the CP11TT nozzle currently

used on crop dusting planes. Installation will take approximately two hours and is the last step before the planes are ready for use. Only two people are needed to install the deflectors; the ground crew and mechanics at Lakeland Dusters-Aviation would be responsible for installation on the CP11TT nozzles (Kwast, 2013).

A Recommended Budget and Schedule for Implementing Use of the Nozzle Wind Deflector

It will cost $820 for eighty-two nozzle wind deflectors, enough to cover all the nozzles on one plane. Table 1 details the budget required to implement use of the nozzle wind deflector at Lakeland Dusters-Aviation:

Table 1. Recommended Budget for Implementing Use of the Nozzle Wind Deflector

Item Price Quantity needed per plane Total

Deflector (cost of plastic and labor)

$10 per deflector1 82 $820

A Recommended Budget and Schedule for Implementing the Nozzle Wind Deflector


6

Item Price Quantity needed per plane Total

Labor cost of attaching deflector to nozzle

$12.50 per hour2 2 hrs, 2 people3 $50

Labor cost of installing deflector and nozzle on plane

$12.50 per hour2 2 hrs, 2 people3 $50

Total Cost = $920 per year, per plane

Table 1 provides a breakdown of resource costs. 1 (L. Gilkey, 2013), 2 (B. Gilkey, 2013), 3 (Kwast, 2013)

Included in the cost of the nozzle wind deflector is labor, manufacturing, and materials. Once produced, it will take two people two hours to screw the deflector onto the original CP11TT nozzle. It will take an additional two hours to install the CP11TT nozzle and deflector on the plane. At $12.50 per hour, the total cost will be $100 for the four hours of labor. The cost of the equipment and installation for one airplane is $920.00. This will be an annual cost to the company. With six planes, Lakeland Dusters-Aviation’s grand total will be $5,520.00 each year (Potter, 2013; B. Gilkey, 2013; Kwast, 2013).

Lakeland Dusters-Aviation will make up this cost in savings from reduced usage of both fuel and materials. Apart from the financial savings, Lakeland Dusters-Aviation will also improve flight safety. Using the nozzle wind deflector will increase spray patterns thirteen inches in width and twenty-eight inches in length. Due to the increased range of spray that the nozzle wind deflector permits, planes simultaneously spraying a field can fly farther apart (L. Gilkey, 2013).

Apart from the budget, we would also like to recommend a schedule for adopting the nozzle wind deflector at Lakeland Dusters-Aviation. Table 2 provides an estimated schedule, based on the assumption that it will take the longest amount of time possible for each objective. Therefore, it is likely that this project will take less time than outlined.

The Cost-Benefit Analysis


7

Table 2. Possible Schedule for Project Completion

Date Person Responsible Objective Time Required

June 1, 2014 Terry Kwast Manufacture mold 1-2 weeks

December 1, 2013 Lauren Gilkey, Lakeland Dusters-Aviation

Negotiate patent-license agreement

up to 6 months

June 15, 2014 Terry Kwast Produce 492 nozzle wind deflectors

2-3 weeks

July 6, 2014 Ground crew at Lakeland Dusters-Aviation

Install nozzle wind deflectors; planes are operational

1 day

Table 2 outlines a suggested schedule for completing the recommendation. The Cost-Benefit Analysis

For our cost-benefit analysis, we examined the relationship between the cost of using the nozzle wind deflector and the flight time/pilot labor costs saved at Lakeland Dusters-Aviation. As you know, it currently takes Lakeland Dusters-Aviation forty-one passes at 143 miles per hour to spray 160 acres of crops with an herbicide (B. Gilkey, 2013).

When the nozzle wind deflector is used, flight speed increases to 150 miles per hour. This seven mile per hour increase in speed will result in thirty hours of flight time saved, per pilot, per year, making Lakeland Dusters-Aviation’s operations more efficient. With six pilots, the company will save 180 hours of flight time annually. At a wage of fifteen dollars per hour, the thirty hours of saved flight time results in a $2,700 reduction in pilot labor expenses. Compared to the $5,520 worth of deflectors, the cost of using the deflectors is not directly offset by the savings in labor expenses and you will spend more money than you will save. However, the reduction in the cost of labor is only one aspect of implementing the nozzle wind deflector.

The Cost-Benefit Analysis


8

Table 3 provides a visual representation of the cost benefit analysis: Table 3. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Pilot Labor Costs

Flight Speed (mph)

Flight time

(hrs)/160 acre plot

Acreage flown per year

# of flights per year

Total flight time (hrs)

Pilot wage ($/hr)

Labor cost/plane

143 .275 730,0001 45631 1254 151 $18,810

150 .268 730,000 4563 1224 15 $18,360

Difference in labor expenses/plane = $450

Total savings in labor expenses (6 planes) = $2700

Table 3 provides a comparison of pilot labor expenses between crop dusting with and without the nozzle wind deflector. 1 (B. Gilkey, 2013) While there is a significant cost to manufacture and install the nozzle wind deflectors, that cost will be offset by efficiency, environmental, and safety benefits. Please refer to Figure 2 to see how implementing use of the nozzle wind deflector will improve the spray range of crop dusters at Lakeland Dusters-Aviation. Because the range of spray is wider when using the deflector, Lakeland Dusters-Aviation will be able to cover a field in fewer passes, meaning less flight time and lower fuel costs.

The nozzle wind deflector also prevents wind from affecting the spray pattern, reducing

spray drift and allowing for more accurate distribution. This means that Lakeland Dusters-Aviation will use less material for each flight and will avoid environmental issues associated with spray drift. Last, using the deflector will improve flight safety. Because of the increased range of spray, pilots spraying one field simultaneously will be able to fly farther apart.

Conclusion to the Recommendation for Adopting the Nozzle Wind Deflector


9

Conclusion to the Recommendation for Adopting the Nozzle Wind Deflector In conclusion, through the interviews and research we conducted during the quarter, we found that spray drift is a problem that presents a challenge to crop dusting companies across the nation. Spray drift contributes to health and environmental problems and results in the waste of a company’s time and resources. We believe that Lakeland Dusters-Aviation can mitigate these risks and costs with use of the nozzle wind deflector, developed by Lauren Gilkey in January of 2012.

Experimental tests conducted by Kwast and Gilkey demonstrated that the device has a better, more accurate spray range than the CP11TT nozzle alone. Implementation of the nozzle wind deflector at Lakeland Dusters-Aviation means less flight time, materials, and overall cost to the company. The nozzle wind deflector also makes crop dusting more environmentally-friendly and creates safer flying conditions.

Therefore, we recommend that you enter a patent-license agreement with us to allow Lakeland Dusters-Aviation to adopt use of the deflector. In doing so, you will be able to improve the efficiency and safety of Lakeland Dusters-Aviation’s crop dusting operations for the company, employees, and environment.

References


References

CropLife America. (2013). Pesticide spray drift. Retrieved from http://www.croplifeamerica.

org/pesticide-issues/spray-drift Deveau, J. & Callow, K. (2011). Pesticide spray drift. Retrieved from Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs website: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/

english/crops/resource/spraydrift.htm Elgethun, K., Horel, S., & Carozza, S. (2006). Pesticide exposure assessment for a population-

based case-control study of childhood cancers. Epidemiology, 17. Foster, F. H. & Shook, R. L. (1993). Patents, copyrights, and trademarks: The total guide

to protecting the rights to your invention, product, or trademark…now better than ever (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Gilkey, Brent. Personal interview. 3 February 2013. Gilkey, Lauren. Personal interview. 2 February, 2013. Kwast, Terry. Personal interview. 3 February 2013. Mair, Tiffany. Personal interview. 30 January 2013.

Natural Agricultural Aviation Association. (2012). Facts about the aerial application industry.

Retrieved from http://www.agaviation.org/content/facts-about-aerial-application-industry Poltorak, A. I., & Lerner, P. J. (2004). Essentials of licensing intellectual property.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Potter, Reid. Personal interview. 13 October 2012.

References


Sherman, Tim. Personal interview. 31 January 2013. World Intellectual Property Organization. (2013). Licensing and technology transfer.

Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/patent-law/en/developments/licensing.html

improvement plan for lakeland dusters-aviation

Business