Project completed for ENGL 310: Corporate Communications

1. 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

2. An Introduction to the Nozzle Wind Deflector
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
Tag Ashby, Lauren Gilkey, Maria Hassett, Jennifer Kiesewetter,
and Sarah Thompson
2
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.

3. An Introduction to the Nozzle Wind Deflector
The nozzle wind deflector is a stainless steel cylinder that attaches to the CP11TT nozzle.
Tag Ashby, Lauren Gilkey, Maria Hassett, Jennifer Kiesewetter,
and Sarah Thompson
3
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).

4. A Discussion of the Permits and Personnel Required
to Implement Use of the Nozzle Wind Deflector
Tag Ashby, Lauren Gilkey, Maria Hassett, Jennifer Kiesewetter,
and Sarah Thompson
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.

5. A Recommended Budget and Schedule for
Implementing the Nozzle Wind Deflector
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).
Tag Ashby, Lauren Gilkey, Maria Hassett, Jennifer Kiesewetter,
and Sarah Thompson
5
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

6. A Recommended Budget and Schedule for
Implementing the Nozzle Wind Deflector
Tag Ashby, Lauren Gilkey, Maria Hassett, Jennifer Kiesewetter,
and Sarah Thompson
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.

7. The Cost-Benefit Analysis
Tag Ashby, Lauren Gilkey, Maria Hassett, Jennifer Kiesewetter,
and Sarah Thompson
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.

8. The Cost-Benefit Analysis
Tag Ashby, Lauren Gilkey, Maria Hassett, Jennifer Kiesewetter,
and Sarah Thompson
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.

9. Conclusion to the Recommendation for
Adopting the Nozzle Wind Deflector
Tag Ashby, Lauren Gilkey, Maria Hassett, Jennifer Kiesewetter,
and Sarah Thompson
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.

10. References
References
CropLife America. (2013). Pesticide spray drift. Retrieved from http://www.croplifeamerica.
Tag Ashby, Lauren Gilkey, Maria Hassett, Jennifer Kiesewetter,
and Sarah Thompson
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.

11. 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
Tag Ashby, Lauren Gilkey, Maria Hassett, Jennifer Kiesewetter,
and Sarah Thompson