International Aeronauts League

[balpub]

We had a call from a woman in the NTSB office is Los Angeles who is doing some research on balloon accidents. She is focusing on balloon ride operations. In our conversations, we got the impression that her intention is to develop rational criteria for investigaging balloon accidents. She agreed with us when we said most NTSB reports are either just plain wrong, missing the real cause of an accident, or partially wrong. In a subsequent e-mail, she spoke of making recommendations to the FAA if they (the NTSB) determine regulatory change is indicated, which is not what we had discussed on the phone. She has asked for further information which could only be gathered with the assistance of balloon organizations, clubs, etc.

Having spent hundreds of uncompensated hours in the last three years getting rid of regulations in California that were unfair and burdensome to ballooning, I can't say I'm in favor of any process that would result in new legislation, however I wonder what, if anything, other balloonists have to say on this issue.

Looking forward to your responses,

Christine Kalakuka

[kevin Cloney]

Recently the ABQ FAA cancelled AAAA's fact finding wavier of 91.119 as a result of an occurance in Los Lunas, NM. I'm not at liberty to talk too much as to what is being done but the battle has just begun. I would be careful as to how much I would provide to anyone as this issue will be the demise of our sport if we do not join together.

Kevin Cloney
04~06 AAAA president

[ksrich343]

My knowledge of the NTSB is that they do not make regulations, instead they try to promote safety and prevent accidents from occuring. It seems if someone is finally interested in paying attention to us, then we should be supportive of it.

[Guest]

I fully support further regulation of commercial ride operations in balloons 105,000 cu.ft. and larger. A recent study of accident statistics reveals that your odds of being involved in a balloon accident are increased as envelope size increases. There is ample recent evidence on NTSB.GOV that safety standards are lapse in large balloon operations.

To me there is a huge gap in safety standards between other facets of commercial aviation and balloons. For example, if Joe Blow wanted to go out and buy a light airplane that carried 10-12 passengers for site-seeing trips, he would be unable to conduct those flights until he applied for and received a part 135 certificate. That would require him to develop operations specifications that would be laid out in a manual which would have to be approved by the FAA. His pilots would also need more flight time than just commercial minimums as well as a check ride every 6 months. If this new company were to have an accident, incident, fail an inspection, etc. then the FAA would evaluate whether or not they would continue to hold their certificate. In the balloon world, a newly certified commercial pilot may go out and purchase a 10-12 passenger balloon and conduct operations with minimal scrutiny from the FAA. His only recurrent training is the BFR every two years. The reality of the situation is the insurance companies require more hours for these types of operations and they are in effect regulating the industry. However, one simply has to excercise the option of not carrying insurance to skirt this issue. Even some of the large ride companies in the US who are fully insured and employ highly skilled high hour pilots are not subject to enforcement by the FAA. What I have seen happen in past accidents is the individual pilot is blamed for the accident and nothing happens to the operator (assuming they aren't the owner as well). The company continues to operate with other pilots even though poor maintenance or pressure to fly may have been a contributing factor. Since there is no operating certificate for commercial balloon operators then the FAA has no recourse other than against the pilot. I'm not advocating the over regulation of ballooning just a higher standard for those serious ride operators who fly over 105,000 cu.ft. IMHO the unsuspecting public deserves better.

[Guest]

Sorry, I forgot to sign my name to my above post...Lance Terry

[AirTorg]

I agree with you Lance though I think it should be balloons larger than 105. There are too many pilots that use 105's for sport and occasional rides. I would hate to see them end up in regulation that they don't belong in.


Matt

[Lance Terry]

The problem I see is that the 100,000 cu.ft. range is frequently abused by the ride operator. I can't tell you the number of times I have seen an overloaded 105 struggle aloft with fare-paying passengers.

[cheerspilot]

[Lance Terry]

Of course people takeoff overloaded in small balloons and will continue to do so. However, if you are running a professional ride operation then the safety standards need to be higher and enforced more closely IMHO. This is the way of the FAA. They do not watch private pilots as closely as those who are marketing their skills as pilots to the general public. It would be an impossible task due to the sheer numbers alone. They spend a majority of their time watching those who operate for hire. Accident statistics in balloons point to a problem with the larger balloon operators. Sure there will still be small balloons having accidents but something needs to be done to change the FAA's current SOP with balloons.

[cheerspilot]

[Lance Terry]

The only practical way I can see to do this would be to have a higher minimum hours requirement with a tougher standard for commercial certification. Not altogether a bad idea, though I'm sure some would disagree. The FAA already has requirements for aircraft maintainence that should be enforced through annual inspections.

Dave[/quote]

I disagree...IMHO you should have a seperate set of rules governing the serious ride operators who fly over 105K balloons. These rules would have tighter standards in areas such as maintenance, aircraft certification, pilot certification and recurrency, weather mins, etc. This would be similar to 135 operator certificates that you see in the fixed and rotor wing world. Let those who fly below 105k stay under part 91. This would set tougher standards on those who fly a majority of fare-paying pax.

[Guest]

Dave[/quote]

...These rules would have tighter standards in areas such as maintenance, aircraft certification, pilot certification and recurrency, weather mins, etc. This would be similar to 135 operator certificates that you see in the fixed and rotor wing world. Let those who fly below 105k stay under part 91. This would set tougher standards on those who fly a majority of fare-paying pax.[/quote]

From personal experience (crewing for ride operators) I would have to agree that tougher standards should be put into place. The problem I see is in enforcing those tougher standards. Take weather minimums for example, how would they enforce them? Would the ride operator be required to document weather conditions at the launch site prior to his decission to launch? Or will the weather conditions from the nearest weather reporting facilty be used?

[Guest]

dl_phillips was the guest that posted the previous message.

[Lance Terry]

The FAA cannot be omnipresent however, as is in the case of fixed wing part 135 operators weather minimums are part of their operations specifications. The ops specs must be adhered to at all times or they risk losing their part 135 certificate. So they may choose to fly when the weather is below their authorized mins. but if an incident or accident occurs or an FAA inspector observes them flying in those below min conditions then they risk losing their certificate and thus their livelihood.

[Guest]

I remeber seeing a similar post a while back. I will search for it and post its address later.