A tobacco budworm pyrethroid resistance management plan was evaluated in a field situation. The plan divided the Heliothis damage season into three parts, early; mid; and late-season. Pyrethroids were used only during the midseason, while alternate insecticides were used during the early- and late-seasons. The insecticides tested were compared to a pyrethroid (cypermethrin) sprayed throughout the season. Acephate + amitraz and endosulfan + amitraz showed the most promise as alternates to pyrethroids early in the season based on insect control and plant damage data. All pyrethroids were similar in activity during the mid-season. Heliothis control was not satisfactory for all the mid-season due to the onset of resistance. The insufficient levels of control by pyrethroids showed the value of resistance monitoring when selecting an insecticide. Compared to cypermethrin only, the addition of amitraz + piperonyl butoxide to cypermethrin during the late-season increased insecticidal activity. Sulprofos, chlorpyrifos + profenofos, methomyl, and endosulfan + acephate + amitraz also worked well during the late-season, compared to the cypermethrin control. Amitraz was also evaluated as a replacement for chlordimeform. Amitraz synergism of pyrethroids was not demonstrated. However, amitraz appeared to synergize the endosulfan + acephate combination early in the season. There was also a positive enhancement of plant quality when amitraz was added to the endosulfan + acephate combination. Overall, the pyrethroid resistance management plan appeared to work. Several insecticides and insecticide + synergist combinations showed promised for inclusion in pyrethroid resistance management programs.