Blog

UAV to Spray Pesticide

UAVs to Spray Pesticide on Crops

UAV spraying is effective tool for applying pesticides on crops. UAVs especially shine when fields are flooded with water, making entry of motorized vehicle to the field impractical or when treating crops that grow in steep hills.

UAV pesticide spraying is becoming increasingly available for specialty crops and row-crop production. Recently, UAV manufacturers such as DJI have started offering high payload rotor UAVs that include sprayers.

Spraying with UAVs is a unique practice since it is conducted autonomously. UAV sprayers are equipped with almost all the parts of any other sprayer: a tank, a pump to push liquid through the hoses to the nozzles, filters and a pressure gauge. But there are limitations, mostly on the size of these components because of the power required to keep the UAV sprayer in flight mode for a reasonable time.

UAVs carry unique characteristics when applying liquid products. First, the application is different from ground-based machines but not the same as typical aerial applications completed with helicopters or crop dusters. These small UAVs are typically flown 3 to 10 feet above the crop or target area with their rotors creating turbulence or what we call vortices. While the turbulence created by the rotors can help spray droplets penetrate into a crop canopy and provide good coverage on the top and bottom of leaves, these vortices cause drift concerns. Research is being conducted to determine spray deposition, coverage and drift from UAV sprayers in comparison to other methods used for pesticide application. Unique features for UAV sprayers include vertical or altitude adjustments for topography or height, autonomous swath control, and safety.

UAV Drone

In general, spray UAVs for applying products to row-crops will have 4 to 5-gallon tanks with a spray width between ranging 10 and 15 feet. The application rate will be 1 to 2 gallons per acre or set in accordance with product labels. Today, multi-rotor UAVs have a flight time of around 15 – 20 minutes allowing a tank to be dispersed before needing to land to refill plus change out batteries for the next flight. Most manufacturers provide estimates on application rates in minutes per acre with most UAVs spraying an acre within 3 to 4 minutes.

UAVs can be used to clean up fields, spray drowned out spots, control resistant weed escapes, or other small areas within a field versus using a high-clearance sprayer.

Today, the mapping process is more accurate and efficient given the development of AI representing an essential step forward in technology.

Companies developing and testing these systems have been successful in applying to the FAA for an exemption under Section 333 resulting in the FAA potentially issuing a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA for Certificate of Authorization) to facilitate testing in the United States.

Farmers and ranchers can purchase spray UAVs today but, at a minimum, you will need following three licenses to operate:

  1. Private Pesticide Applicator License in Ohio
  2. Part 107 Certificate through the FAA
  3. Part 137 Certificate through the FAA

Further, owners are required to register their UAVs (any UAV between 0.55 and 55 pounds) with the FAA:

However, if the UAV weighs over 55 pounds it must be registered with the FAA under Rule 47.

Yamaha RMAX and FAZER

  • 2- or 4-stroke gas engine depending upon model
  • 6.3, 4.2, or 8.5 on-board storage (2 tanks) depending upon model
  • 0.3 to 0.5 gpm discharge rate
  • Granular material application option
  • Legal in CA to apply crop protection products. Purchase service from Yamaha.

DJI AGRASMG

  • Electric with 8 rotors
  • 2.6 gallon tank
  • Spray Width = 4 – 6 m spray width
  • 4 nozzle boom

Hylio AgroUAV

  • Electric with 8 rotors
  • 4.5- gallon tank
  • Typically 1 gpm
  • 15-foot spray width
  • 6-nozzle boom

While there is still work on application quality, spray UAVs provide unique capabilities over manned aircraft and ground spraying equipment. To learn how we can help you register your UAV then contact the Dunaway Law Group at 480-389-6529 or click HERE.

Terminate an Easement

Can an Easement be Legally Terminated

Can an easement be terminated? An easement is a right cross over someone else’s property. To answer the question, yes. In Arizona, you can terminate an easement in one of four basic ways.  

These are four basic ways to terminate an easement.

  • Expiration of an Easement: In Arizona, an easement can be terminated by the expiration of an agreed upon time event. on I agreement my abandonment via the doctrine of merger some easements are granted for a finite period of time when the time. Is not The easement is set to expire easements of this sort are said to terminate by expiration because they are granted. 10 years at the end of the 10 year period easement will terminate.
  • Agreement to Terminate an Easement: In Arizona, some easements are terminated by agreement of the owner of the easement. Termination by Agreement happens when the owner expressly conveys the easement back to the grantor. For example, if Simon owns an easement over Garfunkel’s land, and Garfunkel requests that Simon release the easement, Simon may then execute the termination agreement and convey the easement back to Garfunkel. Once this agreement is signed by Simon, then the easement in Arizona land will terminate.
Old abandoned building and rail.
  • Abandonment of an Easement: In Arizona, an easement can be terminated when the owner abandons his right to the easement. Usually mere nonuse of an easement is not enough to qualify for termination. In Arizona, an easement may be terminated by abandonment only if the owner makes a clear, unequivocal, decisive act to abandon the easement.

What is a decisive act to abandon? A decisive act to abandon an Arizona easement could include creating a new alternate road to enter the property or putting fending/wall or some other time of barrier across the easement.

  • Merger of Easement and Land: In Arizona, an easement may be terminated by the doctrine of merger. Under the doctrine of merger, if one party acquires the property subject to and benefited by an easement. The easement will have been said to merge with the other rights held by the owner.

This makes sense,  because an easement is the right to cross over the property belonging to another person. However, if you own the land the easement will merge into the land because it is impossible to have an easement over your own property. Again, in Arizona, these are the four methods to terminate an easement. Understanding easements and how they affect you can be very confusing and so f you have questions about an easement on your Arizona property then contact the Dunaway Law Group at 480-389-6529 or by sending us a message HERE.

Part 47 Registration

UAV Registration under 14 CFR Part 47

Registration with the FAA is required for all unmanned aircraft flown in the United States. The vast majority of UAVs are registered online with the FAA are small and the application process is quick, easy, and costs just $5.

Registering a UAV over 55 pounds is not quick and not easy and cannot be completed online. So you may want help to complete the Part 47 Application.

UAV Registration under 14 CFR Part 47

Part 47 Registration is required for Unmanned Aircraft that weigh 55 pounds or more.

UAV Drone

Who Must Register their Large UAV:

Excluding unmanned aircraft owned by the U.S. Armed Forces; all people, companies, and government entities that own a UAV over 55 pounds must be registered in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 47 or Part 48.

Registering a New- Aircraft Under Part 47

What is considered a “new” UAV? A new UAV is defined as one that came to the owner essentially new in-the-box from the manufacturer or retailer and has never been registered.  

The UAV owner must provide the following:

  1. A completed Aircraft Registration Application: For an original Aircraft Registration Application, AC Form 8050-1 must be used.

    Applicant is an LLC- When a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) is the applicant to register a UAV it must provide pertinent information regarding the organization.
  2. A Notarized Affidavit:
    a) Establishes the required description of the UAV providing the following:
    • Full Legal Name of UAV Manufacturer or Builder,
    • UAV Model Designation,
    • UAV Serial Number,
    • Class (Airplane, Airship, Rotorcraft, Glider, Hybrid Lift, Ornithopter),
    • UAV Maximum Takeoff Weight (including all items on board or attached),
    • Number of Engines; Engine Types- Electric, Turbo – Fan/Prop/Shaft/Jet.
  3. Proof of Ownership: The applicant must show ownership of the UAV by providing an aircraft bill of sale, or an equal transfer of ownership document for each change of ownership from the UAV manufacturer, builder, or retail vendor to the owner making application for registration.

    a) Registration in a Foreign Country: The rule 47 applicant must establish that the UAV is not already registered in another country. If the UAV was purchased from a seller located in another, country is considered an import. If the UAV has not been registered anywhere and was purchased new off-the-shelf from the manufacturer or a retail vendor, include a statement that you bought it. If the UAV was registered or operated in another country, then additional steps must be taken to verify that the UAV is eligible for a Part 47 Registration.

    b) Affirmed and Notarized: The Part 47 application must be avowed and signed by the UAS owner.

4. An N-number to be assigned to the registered aircraft.

a) Special N-number– Can be reserved in advance by the UAV owner for this registration, this number will be assigned if it is entered on the forms in the indicated blanks. A special N-number may be requested when filing the application and other documents. Include a letter that lists several N-number choices, and the $10.00 special number fee. The first listed number verified as available will be assigned to the aircraft.

b) Random N-number– A random N-number will be assigned at no cost if the indicated blanks on the registration forms are left empty, or a random number is requested.

5. Registration Fee– The registration fee by check or money order made payable to the Federal Aviation Administration. This fee is waived when the applicant is a Federal, State or local government office, agency or institution.

6. Mail Your Part 47 Application: Mail your completed Part 47 application to the FAA, Aircraft Registration Branch.

As you can see, registering a UAV under Part 47 is extremely complicated and time-consuming. If you would like help registering a drone that weighs more than 55 pounds (lbs) then contact drone attorney Clint Dunaway at office@dunawaylg.com or by phone at 480-389-6529.


Registering a Used or Previously Registered UAV Under Part 47:

What is the definition of “used”? A used or previously registered UAV is defined as having been registered or operated as a civil, public, or military aircraft under the laws of the U.S. or another country.

When applying for the new application of a used UAV the application must provide the following information:

  1. A completed Aircraft Registration Application: A completed Part 47 application will include; an original Aircraft Registration Application, AC Form 8050-1.

    When a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) is an applicant to register a used UAV, it must provide specific information regarding its organization, how management authority is held, and how it meets the definition of U.S. citizen for aircraft registration.
  2. Notarized Affidavit:
    a) Establishes the required description of the UAV providing the following:
    • Full Legal Name of the UAV Manufacturer or Builder
    • UAV Model Designation,
    • UAV Serial Number,
    • Class (Airplane, Airship, Rotorcraft, Glider, Hybrid Lift, Ornithopter),
    • UAV Maximum Takeoff Weight (including all items on board or attached),
    • Number of Engines,
    • Engine Type (Electric, Turbo – Fan/Prop/Shaft/Jet).

b) Establishes the ownership of the UAV by the applicant:

4.    Proof of Ownership: Ownership may be established by filing, with the affidavit, an aircraft bill of sale, or an equal transfer of ownership document for each change in ownership from the last U.S. registered, foreign, or military owner through any intervening owners to the owner making application for registration.

If a bill of sale or other transfer document is unobtainable, there are other options for showing the transfer of ownership.

a) Establishes that the UAV isn’t registered in another country.

When a used UAV is purchased from a seller located in another country, it is considered an import. This requires a statement from the Civil Aviation Authority of the exporting country confirming their registration for this UAV or UAV has ended or that a registration was never issued in that country.

b) Includes the following statement above the signatures,

“I affirm the information and statements provided herein are correct, the aircraft is not registered under the laws of any foreign country, and I am the owner.”

5.   Obtain an N-number– An N-number to be assigned to the used UAV being registered.

When a U.S. used or registered UAV or UAV is sold to another U.S. owner, it already has an assigned N-number. The new owner should show the assigned N-number in the indicated blanks on the application and bill of sale forms. The aircraft will then be registered and a registration certificate issued using this N-number.

If a special N-number was reserved or is desired for use on this UAV or UAV, include a letter requesting the assignment of the desired N-number. Use the special N-number link above for more information about requesting or changing N-numbers.

A random N-number will be assigned at no cost to an unregistered import or former military aircraft if the indicated blanks on the registration forms are left empty, or a random number is requested.

6.    Registration Fee– The Part 47 registration fee must be paid check or money order to the Federal Aviation Administration. Multiple fees may be consolidated into a single payment. Registration and N-number fees are waived when the applicant is a Federal, State or local government office, agency or institution.

7.    Mail Your Application– Send your Registration documents to the FAA, Aircraft Registration Branch.

As you can see, registering a UAV under Part 47 is extremely complicated and time-consuming. If you would like help registering a drone that weighs more than 55 pounds (lbs) then contact drone attorney Clint Dunaway at office@dunawaylg.com or by phone at 480-389-6529.

Selling/Purchasing a Used or Previously Registered UAV:

  • Selling a Used or previously registered UAV: The seller should execute a bill of sale transferring all or a specific portion of their right, title and interest in the UAV to the purchaser. Provide the original signed bill of sale to the purchaser. Use the aircraft description shown on the registration certificate or the Search Aircraft Registration Information website to correctly describe the UAV on the bill of sale.
  • Retaining Important Documents– When selling a UAV under Part 47, the seller should retain their Certificate of Aircraft Registration, AC Form 8050-3, complete the applicable items on the reverse side, and return it to the FAA.
  • Submitting Part 47 Documents– The purchaser should forward the bill of sale with the seller’s original signature, a completed Aircraft Registration Application, AC Form 8050-1, and registration fee to the FAA.

As you can see, registering a UAV under Part 47 is extremely complicated and time-consuming. If you would like help registering a drone that weighs more than 55 pounds (lbs) then contact drone attorney Clint Dunaway at office@dunawaylg.com or by phone at 480-389-6529.

Disputes of Real Estate Ownership

Arizona state law and Arizona case law are clear that eviction cases, also known as, Forcible Entry and/or Forcible detainers) are designed to only address the issue of possession and not any issues addressing the ownership of the property involved. The limited scope of a forcible entry and detainer action has been strictly defined by Arizona statute. A.R.S. § 12-1177(A) states in relevant part:

On the trial of an action of Forcible Entry or Forcible Detainer, the only issue shall be the right of actual possession and the merits of title shall not be inquired into.

Evidence offered to the Superior Court to show anything other than who is entitled to possess the property will be excluded from an eviction hearing. So, if a defendant wants to make a claim for ownership of the rental property then they must file a quiet title action and not raise the issue during an eviction hearing.

Proof of Ownership 

The Superior Court’s inquiry into property ownership is limited to the extent that Plaintiff holds title to the property in dispute. If the Plaintiff/Landlord’s name appears on the trustees’s deed then the Court should not inquire into ownership any further.

The issuance of the Trustee’s Deed to Plaintiff is conclusive evidence that all statutory requirements for the Trustee’s Sale were satisfied and that Plaintiff has the right to possession of the Property.

A.R.S. § 33-811(B) further provides:

…the Trustee’s deed shall raise the presumption of compliance with the requirements of this chapter relating to the exercise of the power of sale and the sale of the trust property, including recording, mailing, publishing, and posting of the notice of sale and the conduct of the sale.

The Courts have held that litigation as to the validity of title “would convert a forcible detainer action into a quiet title action and defeat its purpose as a summary remedy.” Curtis v. Morris, 186 Ariz. 534, 535, 925 P.2d 259, 260 (1996).

For example, in Merrifield v. Merrifield, 95 Ariz. 152, 154, 388 P.2d 153, 155 (1963), the plaintiff held title to property pursuant to quitclaim deed which was valid on its face. The lower court nonetheless inquired into the merits of that title and refused to find the defendant guilty of forcible entry and detainer. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling because plaintiff was entitled to possession as the title holder and pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1177, the trial court was prohibited from considering the merits of the plaintiff’s title. Accordingly, any evidence offered by Defendants to raise extrinsic issues or disprove Plaintiff’s title must be excluded.

In another case demonstrating the Superior Courts inability to inquire into ownership in a forcible detainer (see Olds Bros. Lumber Co. v. Rushing, 64 Ariz. 199, 167 P.2d 394 (1946)), the Arizona Supreme Court stated: “[T]he statutes of this state make that very plain and indicate quite clearly that the right to actual possession is the only issue to be determined in such an action.” Id. at 204, 397. The Court also discussed the legislative intent in limiting the scope of a forcible entry and detainer action stating:

The object of a forcible entry and detainer action is to afford a summary, speedy and adequate remedy for obtaining possession of premises withheld by tenants, and for this reason this objective would be entirely frustrated if the defendant were permitted to deny his landlord’s title, or to interpose customary and usual defenses permissible in the ordinary action at law. And for the same reason, the merits of the title may not be inquired into in such an action, for if the merits of the title and other defenses above enumerated were permitted and the court heard testimony concerning them, then other and secondary issues would be presented to the court and the action would not afford a summary, speedy and adequate remedy for obtaining possession of the premises.

Id. at 204-05, 397. Because the trustee’s deed is conclusive evidence of Plaintiff’s title under A.R.S. § 33-811(B), and because the court is prohibited from inquiring into the merits of that title under A.R.S. § 12-1177(A), judgment must be rendered in favor of Plaintiff regardless of any defense of ownership the Defendants may raise.

Ownership Disputes and Eviction in the Justice Court

The ownership of property and their interaction with evictions can become very complex. The above article discusses issues of ownership disputes and evictions in the Superior Court, however, the rules that apply to ownership disputes and evictions in the Justice Court (where most evictions take place) are completely different. Follow this link to read about a blog post I wrote that discusses ownership disputes and evictions in the Justice Court.

If you need help from an Arizona real estate attorney then contact Clint Dunaway at clint@dunawaylg.com or 480-389-6529.

In Arizona, residential eviction cases are usually brought in the Justice Court system. A Judge (also known as a Justice of the Peace in the Justice Court system) has the authority to evict tenants for a myriad of reasons. They can evict for; nonpayment of rent, material breach of lease agreement, wrongful holdover, etc. However, a Justice Court judge cannot make decisions or even hear arguments over ownership of the property in an eviction case.

A.R.S. § 22-201(D) addresses this issue:

Justices of the peace have jurisdiction to try the right to possession of real property when title or ownership is not a subject of inquiry in the action. If in any such action the title or ownership of real property becomes an issue, the justice shall so certify in the court record, at once stop further proceedings in the action and forward all papers together with a certified copy of the court record in the action to the Superior Court, where the action shall be docketed and determined as though originally brought in the Superior Court.

A.R.S. § 22-201(F) adds further clarification:

In actions between landlord and tenant for possession of leased premises, the title to the property leased shall not be raised nor made an issue.

This means that if a Defendant/Tenant tells the Justice Court Judge they have an ownership interest in the property then the hearing will immediately be stopped and the matter forwarded on to the Superior Court.

Occasionally when a case is sent to the Superior Court a landlord will respond, “but my tenant doesn’t own the property! It’s mine! They’re just lying! Why is the judge believing them? What could have been done to prevent this?”

While the landlords’ frustration is understandable it’s important to remember that the Justice Court judge is just following the law. Just because a Justice Court Judge moves a case into the Superior Court does not mean they believe the tenant. Additionally, it does not mean that the tenant did something right or that we made some kind of a mistake. It simply means the Judge is following the law.

Learn about what happens when an eviction case is sent to the Arizona Superior Court because the tenant claims an ownership interest. If you need help from an Arizona real estate attorney then contact the Dunaway Law Group at clint@dunawaylg.com or 480-389-6529.

Law Enforcement Assistance for the FAA

Goal of FAA Partnership with Local Law Enforcement Agencies:

The FAA values its partnerships with law enforcement agencies (LEAs). By working together, the LEAs can help protect the safety of people on airplanes and on the ground from unsafe and unauthorized unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), “drones”.

LEAs are often in the best position to acquire and make initial requests to identify and preserve electronic or video evidence, or obtain legal process for securing this evidence.

UAS Compliance with Airspace Requirements
As an aircraft, UAS operations must comply with all applicable airspace requirements prescribed by the FAA regulations. It is important that UAS operators and LEAs are familiar with the airspace restrictions relevant to their operations and their enforcement area of responsibility.

FAA’s Primary Focus:
While the FAA’s primary focus is on educating the public, they do take civil administrative enforcement action against uas pilots who operate in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger life or property. The FAA recognizes LEAs are often in the best position to deter, detect, immediately investigate, and, as appropriate, pursue enforcement actions in response to unauthorized or unsafe UAS operators.

While the FAA must exercise caution not to mix criminal law enforcement with the FAA’s civil administrative safety enforcement function, the public interest is best served by coordinating and fostering mutual understanding and cooperation between governmental entities with enforcement responsibilities.

Overview:
The increasing number of cases of unsafe and unauthorized operation of uas is a serious concern for the FAA and many of its interagency partners. To assist LEA;

  1. The legal framework that serves as the basis for FAA legal enforcement action against uas operators for unauthorized and or unsafe uas operations.
  2. Guidance to help Lea deter, detect, and investigate unauthorized and or unsafe uas operations.

Basic Legal Mandates:
The FAA’s safety mandate under 49 U.S.C. 40103 requires it to regulate aircraft operations conducted in the National Airspace System (NAS), which include UAS operations, to protect persons and property on the ground, and to prevent collisions between aircraft or between aircraft and other objects. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 44701(a) requires the agency to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.

An Unmanned Aircraft is Still an Aircraft:
An unmanned aircraft is an “aircraft” as defined in the FAA authorizing statutes, and is therefore subject to regulation by the FAA. The FAA has promulgated regulations that apply to the operation of all aircraft, whether manned or unmanned, irrespective of the altitude at which the aircraft is operating.

Further, state and local governments are enacting their own laws regarding the operation of UAS, which may mean UAS operations may also violate state and local laws specific to UAS operations, as well as broadly applicable laws such as assault, criminal trespass, or injuries to persons or property.

The Role of  Law Enforcement:
The two most critical elements for the FAA to successfully address and unsafe or unauthorized uas operations are 1) Identification of the operator and 2) notification of the event to the FAA. Often the FAA aviation safety inspectors, the agency’s principal field personnel responsible for investigating unauthorized and/or unsafe activities are unable to immediately travel to the location of an incident. 

Although the FAA retains the responsibility for enforcing the FAA’s regulations, LEAs are also currently detering, detecting, investigating, and, as appropriate, pursuing enforcement actions under their existing authorities to stop unauthorized UAS operations. While the FAA must exercise caution not to mix criminal law enforcement with the FAA civil administrative safety enforcement function, the public interest is best served by coordinating and fostering mutual understanding and cooperation between governmental entities with enforcement responsibilities.

D-R-O-N-E
Although certainly not an exhaustive list, law enforcement officials, first responders, etc. can provide assistance to the FAA and deter unsafe and unauthorized UAS operations by taking the actions outlined in the acronym D-R-O-N-E. .

Direct::
Direct attention outward and upward, attempt to locate and identify individuals operating the UAS. Look at windows, balconies, and rooftops. Local law enforcement is in the best position to locate the suspected operator of the aircraft, and any participants or personnel supporting the operations.

Report
Report the incident to the FAA Regional Operations Center. Follow-up assistance can be attained through FAA Law Enforcement Assistance Program special agents. Immediate notification of an incident, accident, or other suspected violation to one in the FAA ROCs, located around the country, is invaluable to the timely initiation of the FAA investigation.

Observe
Observe the UAS while maintaining visibility of the device. Look for damaged property or injured individuals. Local law enforcement is in the best position to identify potential witnesses and conduct initial interviews, documenting what they observed while the event is still fresh in their minds. Additionally, capturing the names and contact information of witnesses to provide the FAA will also be extremely helpful.

Notice:
Notice the features of the UAV. Look to identify the type of device, whether it is fixed wing or multi-rotor, its size, shape, color, what type of video equipment it may have, and the activity of the device. Pictures or video of the UAV’s poor behavior are helpful in determining the time of day and locations plus any damage or injuries that may have occurred.

Execute
Execute appropriate action. Follow your policies and procedures for handling an investigation and securing a safe environment for the public and first responders. It must be noted, any investigations conducted by LEAs should be in accordance with local or state authorities, as the FAA’s statutes and regulations do not permit their as a basis for LEAs to conduct investigations

Summary:
State and local officials are urged to use their governmental units legal resources, and their own management chain, to develop acceptable protocols for dealing with these instances. However, with appropriate data collection during first responses, and early reporting to the FAA, federal, state, and local agencies will be in the best position to collect and share information of interest to each jurisdiction.

If you need help from an UAS attorney then contact the Dunaway Law Group at 480-389-6529 or by email at office@dunawaylg.com.