Last week, InTheCapital, an online news outlet, published an article on various industries’ drones advocacy efforts that misstated NAAA is lobbying against drones and inaccurately reported that the association spent $106,000 last year to oppose UAVs. The reporter was referring to data obtained from lobbying reports NAAA is required to submit to Congress. The truth—that we made the reporter’s editor aware of—is NAAA spent that amount on a whole host of government relations issues impacting the aerial application industry. Moreover, NAAA does not oppose UAVs but rather insists they be safely integrated in the same low-level airspace aerial applicators operate in by being equipped with strobes and ADS-B Out technology. Apprised of the facts, the editor adjusted the online article and inserted an editor’s note making NAAA’s position known, thereby properly putting us back on the high ground on this issue.
The full letter to the editor is as follows:
From: Jay Calleja
To: Brian Warmoth, Managing Editor
RE: Errors in drones lobbying article
Dear Mr. Warmoth:
In her May 13 article for InTheCapital, Hollywood and Farmers Team Up to Lobby for Drones, Tess VandenDolder was way off base in her “reporting” of the National Agricultural Aviation Association’s position on UAVs and our lobbying activities in that regard. To report that NAAA spent $106,000 last year to lobby against drones is false and misleading, and the galling thing is the facts were staring Ms. VandenDolder in the face. Ms. VandenDolder’s article bears striking resemblance to a Bloomberg piece her article links to, Filmmakers to Farmers Seeking Drone Bonanza in Washington. Had she read and subsequently repurposed Bloomberg’s article more carefully, Ms. VandenDolder would have noted that the $106,000 NAAA spent in 2013 was devoted to lobbying for a variety of issues, including but not limited to the safe integration of UAVs into the National Airspace. In addition, even a cursory look at NAAA’s website would have shown the range of policy issues that affect aerial applicators (a.k.a. crop dusters).
To add insult to injury, Ms. VandenDolder appears to doubt the sincerity of NAAA’s safety concerns, inferring that the real reason for our “objections” is “the fact that drone technology could replace the use of crop dusters all together.” Setting aside that claim for a moment, for the record, NAAA does not object to the use of UAVs for commercial activities so long as their presence does not jeopardize the safety of manned aircraft, particularly in the low-level airspace in which aerial applicators operate. We are confident that the appropriate balance will be struck, but until suitable regulations are in place the unregulated use of UAVs by farmers and other businesses is akin to the Wild West. Again, had Ms. VandenDolder made a quick visit to NAAA’s website, www.agaviation.org, or heaven forbid, called us, the sincerity of our industry’s safety concerns would have become clear. The second article on our homepage is titled, Protecting Ag Pilots from the Threat of UAVs.
We are disappointed in the level of slipshod reporting Ms. VandenDolder demonstrated in this case. For her and InTheCapital’s sake, I hope it is not indicative of her overall reportorial abilities. In the future, we suggest that she contact us if she would like to learn more about why safe integration of UAVs is so important. This literally is a life-and-death matter for our members. As such, we take it very seriously.
Sincerely,
Jay Calleja
Manager of Communications
National Agricultural Aviation Association
