ation.’ Either the individual never masters the
maneuver and gets ultimately into trouble, or he
gradually unconsciously discovers the proper
means of accomplishing the maneuver.

The situation is analogous to the old-time teach-
ing by many that the rudder was the control that,
turned the plane (although in practice most of
those teaching this performed coordinated turns,
zealous students would at times be found rudder-
ing the planes around—especially under tight
circumstances).

The solution rests in good initial flight train-
ing, plus periodic proficiency training. Even
seasoned old hands should cross-check each other
from time to time.

5. Other

The remaining pilot factors were concerned
with such things as allowing the plane to run
out of fuel through carelessness, attempting to
take-off heavily loaded with the carburetor heat
on resulting in inadequate take-off power for the

‘length of the strip, carelessness in taxiing result-
ing in collision with some object, propping an
unattended improperly tied-down craft (which
on starting runs amuck), attempting take-off un-
der adverse load and field conditions with the
propeller in high pitch, attempting take-off’s and
landings in the dark, attempting exuberant low
level aerobatic maneuver following completion of
spray job, attempting “spray formation” flying
and becoming caught in the vortex of a colleague’s
craft, and attempting to fly too slow.

In many of these cases the pilots stated that
they had.been in a rush and simply made mis-
takes. The National Pilots Association slogan
“J# you are in a hurry you are in danger”, con-
tinues to be validated.

In some cases, preoccupation with financial
-worries was felt to have produced forgetfulness.

In certain instances, a certain amount of cele-
bration the night before the day of flight, re-
sulted in fatigue, complicated by hangover effects,
certainly an adverse circumstances to safe flight.
‘An aerial applicator pilot at work must be quick
and alert, and should avoid celebrations on the
eve of flights, In this respect, the occupation of
these pilots differs from desk occupations. The
desk worker can physically appear at work after
a night of partying (although he may be very
uncomfortable internally) and somehow get
through the day. The ag pilot can’t coast through
the day—he’s got to deliver—with a sharp eye and

with sharp reflexes. It will pay many times over
not to fly if one doesn’t feel well—regardless of
the reason for the indisposition.

We should note here that several instances of
collisions between two taxiing aircraft, or land-
ing aircraft, or one landing and one departing
aircraft, occurred during 1963. Vigilance dur-
ing these operations is of the utmost importance,
especially in planes with poor visibility features.

Interestingly, aerial applicator activities en-
compass the spread of many kinds of chemicals
and objects, including, along the. Gulf Coast, ir-
radiated screw worm larvae. This work is vital
to the Gulf Coast economy. Some cases of sus-
ceptibility of certain pilots to become allergic
to certain dusts generated by these insects has
come to our attention, Dr Robert Dille and I
of CARI, together with Dr. Harry Gibbons of
the Southwest Region, Dr. Peter Siegel of the

Aeromedical Certification Division, and certain -

Aviation Medical Examiners, have been studying
certain of these cases which have taken on the
clinical picture of acute asthmatic attacks (some
occurring during flight necessitating forced
landing). We are seeking means of testing for
individual sensitivity to screw worm fly dust and
of preventing in-flight exposure to this substance.

The aerial applicators’ world is diverse, com-
plex, and challenging for all concerned.

Aircraft:

Due to the hard-hitting, rapid-paced, nature
of aerial applicator work, and to the fact that
certain flights must be made on very short notice,
we note that at times corners are prone to be cut
which can very likely result in accidents.

Not infrequently marauding insects determine
the moment in time of undertaking to spray in
what might be thought of as defensive warfare.
This is the worst type of situation, since such
short notice for preparation prevails, and so many
farmers want immediate action within a short
span of time. .

Anticipation and a continued state of prepared- .

ness are wise characteristics of the aerial appli- _

cator operator. The accident factors attributable
to the aircraft appear as follows.

Aerial applicator aircraft are, in general, de-
signed especially for maneuverability and load
carrying capabilities. The new generation agri-
cultural aircraft, with their crashworthy struc-
ture, their considerably delethalized cockpits,





winds. Almost never does an’ aerial applicator
pilot get caught in instrument flight~conditions.

Some aerial applicators, for example the U.S.
Forest. Service’s fire-fighters, must undertake
sudden activities under very adverse circum-
stances. Fortunately, their chemicals (for ex-
ample, borate compounds) are relatively nontoxic.
Recently, 2 CARI team of scientists has worked
with the U.S. Forest Service pilots in Montana,
in an effort to pin-point the specific effects of
fatigue itself on flight proficiency. Details will
be reported later, but one observation is the in-
creased roughness on the controls and sloppiness
of maneuvers which accompanies the development
of marked fatigue.

For each accident which occured in 1963, there
were probably more than a dozen near-accidents,
which by the merest margin escaped becoming
statistics. Herein lies our fertile ground for
safety improvement. Prevent the recurrence of
near-accidents! When one has a close call due
to pilot factors—hold off flying until the factor
is remedied. If rest is the problem, then get
some rest.

If an aircraft. is developing a mechanical de-
ficiency hazardous to flight—stop—and rectify the
deficiency. Actually, an operator should reward
an alert pilot who calls a potential defect to the
attention of the mechanic. The psychology of
this approach will benefit all concerned in the
long run.

The operator and the pilot (and if possible the
ground personnel) should know the nature of
the specific chemicals they use, the preventive
techniques in working with the chemicals (gloves,
respirator, etc.) the symptoms produced by body
absorption, and the emergency treatment in case
of contamination.

For example, poisoning by the organic. phos-
phates produces a tendency to sweat more than
one should, an increased flow of saliva, an upset
stomach with nauseous feelings and vomiting,
increased tear formation in the eyes, intestinal
cramps, diarrhea, difficulty in breathing (a later
stage of the poisoning), difficulty in focusing
the eyes on objects and seeing clearly (especially
in the distance), irritability, headaches, muscle
tremors and a generally bad feeling.

One may experience any or all of the above
symptoms, and death can follow. Atropine can
be given for emergency, and later, symptomatic
treatment, and a “new drug” (actually known

and used in other countries, notably Japan, for
many years), named Protopam, marketed by
Campbell Pharmaceuticals, 121 East 24th Street,
New York, New York, can be used as primary
therapy. A doctor should administer the atropine
and Protopam treatments. ~ :

Some pilots have felt that they have built up a
resistance to the organic phosphates (parathion,
etc.). Possibly, a slight resistance can ‘be de-
veloped, but no real resistance can occur.

If one feels the symptoms of organic phosphate
poisoning developing, one should knock off for
several days and clear his system of the compond.
A low blood cholinesterase is clear evidence that
the body contains too much of the organic phos-
phates, since these inactivate the blood cholines-
terase (as well as affect other parts of the body)
and, thus, tell us of their presence.

Each operator should touch base with a nearby
doctor (possibly an Aviation Medical Examiner)
who can be aware ahead of time that he may be
called upon to treat.a possible poison case. This
is good and responsible planning.

Among the other chemicals are the chlorinated
hydrocarbons (which can cause nervous tensions,
anxieties, nausea, dizziness, headache, giddiness
and muscular tremors), and the dinitrophenolic
compounds (cause sweating, thirst, euphoria, and
later fatigue—note: if alcohol is consumed the
combined effects can speed the onset of symptoms
of blushing, a feeling of heat, rapid breathing
and a dropping blood pressure).

In all cases of skin contamination, the first
principle of treatment is removal of the chemicals
with water. Plenty of soap should be used, and
denatured alcohol should be swabbed on an
rubbed off of the area. Keep denatured alcohol
(or isopropyl alcohol) handy. Use rubber gloves,
boots, and aprons when mixing and loading chem-
icals. Wear a respirator when dealing with the
more toxic chemicals.

It appears that aerial application is here to
stay. Lets strive through planning, preparation,
preventive medicine and proficiency, to achieve
the top safety record commensurate with our
potentialities and wherewithal.

Note to Physicians and First-Aid Personnel
As a final note, we can observe that a number
of the victims of aerial applicator accidents suc-
cumb to what is termed “shock”. Shock is a
a condition which can develop some hours after an



their shoulder harnesses, and their slow-flight
characteristics, are a tribute to the engineering
accomplishments of today’s manufacturers. These
aircraft are paving the way for similar safety
achievements in the future light aircraft not in-
tended for aerial applicator use. The record
shows that these new generation aircraft are en-
abling the pilots to survive (frequently with no
or only minor injuries) some severe impacts
which would surely be fatal in non-aerial appli-
cator aircraft.

1, Engine or Propeller Failure:

Twenty eight cases of engine failure neces-
sitated forced landings. This group does not
include improper fuel management which we
have classified under “pilot factors”.

The successful accomplishment of many of the
forced landings after low altitude engine failures
is a tribute to the skill of the pilots in general
engaged in aerial applicator work.

Operator “human factor” maintenance errors
included such items as an improperly installed
propeller which lost a blade in Arizona and the
failure to tighten certain spark plugs resulting
in a power loss in South Carolina. Other
causes of power failure included several cases
of water contamination of the fuel (the fuel
was improperly stored by the operator and the
pilots neglected to drain the sumps), some in-
stances of protracted general neglect of the en-
gines, an instance of maintenance inattention to
a deteriorating fuel selector valve, and improper
maintenance of failing magnetos.

Four cases of broken crank shafts, three cases
of “swallowed” exhaust valves, and several in-
stances of bearing failure or gear fracture (espe-
cially in helicopters), point up the demanding
nature of aerial applicator activities upon the
machinery.

Other failures included an instance of a stuck
carburetor float and some. instances of detona-
tion arid backfiring with engine stoppage. Some-
times the real reason for engine failure remains
obscure.

2. Airframe Failure:

In an interesting accident in California, the
main wing spar failed during flight and the
wings folded over the fuselage. The impact was
quite hard but the pilot survived. Many modifi-
eations had been made to the craft (within the
then approved techniques) including a marked
increase in horsepower and hopper capacity, and

apparently under the rugged conditions of aerial
applicator work, the spar reached its limits.

Two instances of horizontal stabilizer failure
(both survived) occurred, the failures apparently
assisted by the corrosive nature of certain chem-
icals. :

3. Chemical Ducting Failure:

In July of 1963 near Caldwell, Idaho, a con-
nector hose came loose shortly after take-off and
sprayed a mixture containing parathion in the
pilot’s face. His body become saturated and
he lost control of the plane which crashed. His
hard hat made a deep dent in the instrument
panel. He suffered no fractures and was for-
tunate in crashing near a water canal. He im-
mediately jumped in, disrobed, and washed off
the chemicals. His quick action resulted in no
serious poison effects.

Sometimes the ducting failure occurs after an
accident, and in September of 1963 near Lambert,
Mississippi, a pilot was splashed with a defoliant
during and after an accident. The chemical
effects of the defoliant almost resulted in his
death, for his blood pressure fell to 50 mm mer-
cury and it took six hours treatment in a hos-
pital to get him stabilized and on his way to re-
covery.

Outside Force:

Under this heading we place those things which
were not reasonably under the pilots control,
the operators control, or due to the aircraft.

In July of 1963, a sudden high velocity wind
caught an aircraft on landing and caused an ac-
cident. At least two, and possibly more, whirl-
winds caused accidents. A sudden downdraft
caused a heavily loaded plane on take-off to
have an accident. In September near Sunflower,
Mississippi, a cow walked in front of an aircraft
attempting to take off and caused an accident.

In previous years, children have thrown fruit
in the path of aerial applicator aircraft causing
accidents, and hard-shelled beetles have broken
the goggles of pilots in two cases necessitating
forced landings.

General Statement:

Aerial applicator activities are a safe or as
dangerous from the aeromedical standpoint as
those engaged in them care to determine.

It is fortunate that most of these activities take
place in the spring, summer and early fall
months, and are conducted in relatively calm


WIND

To fly a ground track which is a perfect circle around the pylon, remaining at all times
the same distance from the pylon, the angle of bank will have to be varied when there

is a wind.

Place an “X” on the above circle where you
believe the steepest angle of bank should occur.

7 6723295



PROTECTING THE AG

Stanley R. Mohler, M.D.
Charles R. Harper, M.D.

Approved by

Pomnsas Lo Marder

Curer, ArromepicaL EpucaTion
Division

September 1966

FEDERAL AVIATION AG
Office of Aviation Medicine

PILOT

ENCY

AM 66-30

Released by

Z wo

P. V. Smeg, M.D.
Feprrat Air Surceon



individual has survived the initial accident. The
initial accident may have involved any one of
the following: the absorption by the body of
toxic substances, the crushing of muscles or or-
gans by impact forces, internal or external hem-
orrhage, or severe burns secondary to fire.

Following conventional approaches to accident
victim therapy, certain individuals appear to re-
spond, but, after a period of a few hours, begin
to manifest the following symptoms of the
shock syndrome:

1. Pallor of the Skin (this is due to collapse
of the veins) ;

2, Tachycardia (fast heart rate is due to low
pulse pressure—the margin between systolic and
diastolic blood pressure—and represents an at-
tempt to move more blood through the circulation
per unit time) ;

8. Cold Skin (this is due to the slow filling of
the capillary bed due to sympathetic nervous
system activity) ;

4, Sweating Skin (excessive sweating results
from increased activity in the sympathetic nerv-
ous system) ;

5. Oliguria (the low blood pressure results in
less urine formation).

There is some strong indication at present that
the treatment of shock with noradrenalin as is
now generally accomplished, is perhaps unwise.
This is because the noradrenalin has the capa-
bility of constructing the venous side of the
capillary bed, as well as the arteriolar side, pro-
ducing still greater losses of fluid into the tissues
from the blood.

The Civil Aeromedical Research Institute and
the University of Oklahoma School of Medicine,
in a cooperative FAA-University undertaking,

have just completed a five day “Shock Seminar”
(November 16-21), where forty scientists con-
ducted experiments at CARI on the specific ther-
apy of shock. Each scientist was able to ob-
serve the other’s technique and many points were
resolved which otherwise would have remained
disputed. Some of the most noted physicians,
surgeons, physiologists and pharmacologists in
the U.S. and Canada participated in this ex-
perimental program which is aimed at enabling
physicians ultimately to provide more effective
tréatment to injured survivors of aerial appli-
cator accidents (and other types of accidents).

The results of the symposium will be made
universally available to physicians. The utility
of using adrenergic blocking agents (opposite in
effect to noradrenalin) together with blood,
plasma, dextran, or other plasma expanders, will
be reported. The new drug, dibenzyline, is a
blocking agent specifically studied. Its promising
beneficial effects are that it increases the total
blood flow to the organs where the blood is
needed, it shifts fluid from the pulmonary circula-
tion (which otherwise is in danger of being over-
loaded with water which causes lung congestion)
to the systemic circulation, it results in the re-
establishment of urine formation, and it effects
a sensitive blood pressure response which gives
the physician a good index of the adequacy of the
circulating blood volume. Noradrenalin masks
this latter effect, and the physician is often
hard-pressed to know whether his intravenous
fluid infusions are too little, enough, or too much.
CARI personnel can provide further medical in-
formation on these new advances in improving
accident survival. The full report is available:
J. Okla State itedical Assoc. 59:8, August 1966,
pp. 407-485.


Pilot Factors
1, Stalls out of Turn:

Nine accidents involved stalls out of turns.
Most of the pilots who fell victim to this pitfall
were experienced, with several thousand hours
flight time, much of which was in aerial applica-
tion.

Attempting to hurry the turn to start another
swath appears to be a significant factor here,
complicated by fatigue in several cases (producing
sloppy flying).

2. Collisions with Objects:

In 22 cases, wires, trees, and other objects
were struck. Interviews with surviving pilots
indicate that in a number of cases fatigue played
a key role in the impairment of their flight pro-
ficiency.

In one case, occuring in June of 1963 near
Olathe, Colorado, where the pilot flew into a
tree during a pull-up, the pilot had been flagging
earlier and by accident was exposed to drifting
parathion. He experienced certain symptoms, in
cluding headaches, and was ill enough to require
atropine therapy. This accident points up the
fact that these chemicals can adversely affect
the proficiency of a pilot, a circumstance which
can become clearly apparent under the close-
quarters flight conditions of aerial application.

The combined effects on pilot proficiency of
fatigue and certain potent chemicals, can be quite
detrimental to flight proficiency. Interviews ap-
pear to indicate that these two factors, alone or
together, continued to affect the aerial applicator
safety record during 1963,

3. Exercise of Judgment in ‘Take-off and Landing

Areas:

Nine pilots in the group failed to become air-
borne, or ran off of their landing area, because
their selected ground sites were marginal or in-
adequate under the circumstances of the at-
tempted flights. In the cases of the take-off acci-
dents, the gross-weights were usually too high for
the field lengths, ground texture, or air density.
Rising air temperature during the day was a
factor in several cases. In landing accidents, the
available width or length of the terrain was too
limited in several cases (occasionally complicated
by cross-winds or tail-winds). Once again, in
tight operational situations, where peak pilot
proficiency is required, fatigue, accidental toxic
effects, and certain other factors, seem to make
the difference between a successful ground/air or

air/ground transition and an unsuccessful tran-
sition. Additionally, these factors adversely af-
fect pilot judgment in these matters.

4. Proficiency:

Four accidents were defintely attributable to a
lack of proficiency in flight techniques.

Most aerial applicators appear to have ob-
tained between 2,000 and 6,000 flight hours, and
to have learned through various combinations of
training and experience how to perform ade-
quately their low level maneuvers.

Some, however, especially the low-time pilots
and the pilots who have perpetuated bad flight
habits, represent “accidents waiting to happen.”

Mr. Joe Fallin of the FAA Academy at Okla-
homa City, has pointed out that a large number
of pilots are mistaught concerning the proper
means of accomplishing a given ground track in
turns under wind-drift conditions ( a key maneu-
ver in aerial application). Accidents continue to
occur where the plane drifts into objects while
on a down-wind turn.

The last page of this paper presents this ex-
ample which we at CARI have administered to
many pilot groups consisting of all categories
of pilots.

Ninety percent of the pilots in all groups ex-
cept professional pylon race and stunt pilots place
the X at the 6:00 point on the circle. This in-
cludes most instructors. The result is that many
pilots are deliberately waiting to place their craft
in its steepest banked turn until the 6:00 point
is reached. This means that they are drifted
away from the pylon (the pylon may be real or
imaginary) prior to reaching the 6:00 point (due
to the fast ground speed at the 9:00 downwind
point), necessitating an even steeper bank to get
back on their intended ground track.

Actually, the steepest bank should occur at
the 9:00 point, and as the plane swings around on
its proper ground track, wind correction angle
is fed in to maintain the track. The 6:00 point
should encompass the maximum wind correction.
angle. An identical WCA and bank is at 12:00.
There is no wind correction at 9:00 or 3:00.

We call this “making the mental image match
the maneuver”, and find that in many cases the
instructors will actually perform the maneuver
correctly (steepest bank at 9:00), but explain it
to the student incorrectly (steepest bank at 6:00).
The result is that the student puts forth his best
effort to do the maneuver according to the explan-


PROTECTING THE AG PILOT

So long as certain insects have a greater capa-
city per unit time than do humans to create pop-
ulation explosions, we'll find ourselves in compe-
tition with these tiny rapacious fellow earthlings
for available agricultural products.

Additionally, man will wage widespread winged
warfare against specific chitinous culprits, so
long as aerial applicator techniques remain su-
perior in efficiency and effectiveness to ground
applicator techniques.

Man’s weapons in this warfare are chemicals,
the most potent falling within the chlorinated
hydrocarbon and organic phosphate pesticide
categories.

Sometimes, just as is the case of conventional
warfare, we find that an enthusiastic warrior
wounds himself rather than his foe. Let us look
at a case in point.

Near Paris, Texas, in August of 1963, a very
experienced aerial applicator pilot crashed while
at work. A thorough investigation revealed that
the pilot was not feeling well on the morning of
the flight, and had a headache. Four days earlier,
he had accidentally spilled parathion on his
clothes while pouring the concentrate from a 55
gallon drum. He neither changed clothes nor
washed the skin where it was touched by the
chemicals, but continued to work the rest of the
day (although a fellow worker encouraged him
to take these precautionary steps).

In the next two to three days after getting
the chemical on his skin, the pilot, who usually
was good-natured and outgoing, became irritable
and introverted. It was under these circum-
stances that he undertook flight on the fourth
day. The accident occurred when the plane
stalled out of a turn following completion of five
swath runs.

“Impaired physical efficiency of the pilot
caused by exposure to toxic material” is listed in
the Probable Cause ledger for this accident by
the Civil Aeronautics Board (Docket 2-2515).

What is the magnitude of the role played by

the impairment of pilot proficiency under the
circumstances of aerial applicator activities? We
note that more than half of the aerial applicator
operations last year were concerned with pesti-
cides. Also, from the best figures we can glean
concerning total active aerial applicator aircraft
in the world, it appears that there are 16,000
airplanes involved (6,000 are estimated to be in
Russia and its allied countries, with a similar
number in the U.S.).

It is clear, then, that a little carelessness across-
the-board, in the handling of the chemicals men-
tioned above, can have a general adverse impact
upon the safety statistics. All of us would prefer
to avoid a bad safety record.

Let’s see what the accident statistics in aerial
applicator operations show us. A detailed review
of 118 aerial applicator accidents which were
pulled in no particular sequence from our 1963
files containing reports of 304 accidents (of which
24 involved fatalities) has been accomplished.

Fach of these 113 accidents has been placed in
one of three categories, depending upon where
the major responsibility was felt to rest with
respect to arranging the circumstances leading
to the respective accident.

Major Responsibility for Accident Number Percent
Pilot Factors 15 66%
Aircraft 33 29
Outside Force 5 5

Ts © 100%

We recognize that for various reasons certain
contributory factors in given accidents may never
come to light. In general, though, it appears
that the investigators accomplished a creditable
job, especially in the cases where the pilots were
able to give detailed accounts. Incidentally, one
gets the distinct impression that aerial applicator
pilots, as a group quite seasoned, are very cooper-
ative and candid in reconstructing the events sur-
rounding their accidents. Certainly they are as
concerned as anyone in preventing recurrences.



Qualified requestors may obtain Aviation Medical Reports from Defense Documentation
Center. The general public may purchase from Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific
and Technical Information, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Springfield, Va. 22151