A SOUTH-WEST Victorian drone-spraying business was convicted and fined $15,000 in the Colac Magistrates’ Court recently as a result of charges being served relating to drift from aerial spraying via a drone.

Agriculture Victoria manager of regulatory operations Daniel Bode said remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) technology was becoming an increasingly important part of chemical users’ toolkits.

“As use of these chemical application technologies increase, it’s important for people to understand they carry similar risks to other application methods,” Mr Bode said.

‘The regulatory frameworks that are in place, including licensing requirements and restrictions on when and how these sprayers can be used, are there to help operators manage that risk.”

Magistrate Gerard Bryant stressed that where modern technology such as drone spraying was used, wind speed must be very closely monitored and that readings must account for complex terrain.

His Honour said a clear message needed to be sent regarding the importance of due diligence and careful decision-making when applying agricultural chemicals and noted the high maximum penalties applicable to the offences.

The conviction and fine relate to the aerial spraying undertaken by the company at a property in Barongarook in May 2024.

Following the spraying, Agriculture Victoria investigated reports of grass along a neighbouring property’s boundary fence turning yellow.

Around 4ha of land was damaged, resulting in around $26,000 in costs to resow, replacement hay, seed and fertiliser costs and loss of income.

An incident report concluded the spray drift occurred from chemical application due to factors including wind speed, holdfast rate, release height, droplet size, and manual flight.

As a result, the spraying affected plants or stock outside the target area.

‘The risk of spray drift from an RPA or drone may be less than from a traditional aerial application method like fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters, but the data modelling suggests it is still more than from ground-based spray units,” Mr Bode said.

‘The outcome of this case highlights the importance of understanding the requirements when operating remotely piloted aircraft.

“Just like in any other spraying activity, chemical users need to closely monitor the weather and stop when conditions fall outside the legal range.”

For more information about your obligations when applying chemicals from an RPA, visit Licences for aerial spraying of agricultural chemicals.

Source: Victorian Government