Texas Hot Air Balloon Crash
As I read the news, the DWI conviction was in 2000. Is it not possible that someone cleaned up their act?
On the other hand, there were BBB complaints in Missouri circa 2008.
The current year is 2016.
Are you presuming that this gent took his customers into the air whilst pissed/buzzed/drinking? Do you have any evidence to support this?
On the other hand, there were BBB complaints in Missouri circa 2008.
The current year is 2016.
Are you presuming that this gent took his customers into the air whilst pissed/buzzed/drinking? Do you have any evidence to support this?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Silicon Hills
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DWI in 1990, twice in 2002, and again in 2010. Pot with intent in 2000, in prision for 1.5 years, parole revoked in 2010 for fourth DWI and back to prison for a stretch. Also a poor record with the Better Business Bureau in Missouri.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...131_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...131_story.html
Join Date: May 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Multiple media reports (accurate or not) have said the pilot frequently canceled or rescheduled flights. A passenger texted a friend the night before, saying he and his wife had been rescheduled about a dozen times, so he was skeptical the flight would proceed that day either. Yelp comments reportedly expressed similar experiences.
That may mean the pilot was very safety-conscious, and wouldn't proceed with a flight unless weather conditions were safe, etc., even if it meant incurring the wrath of some customers.
Or he was very safety-conscious, and would not proceed unless he believed the pilot was in condition to operate the flight safely.
Or something else, or a combination -
That may mean the pilot was very safety-conscious, and wouldn't proceed with a flight unless weather conditions were safe, etc., even if it meant incurring the wrath of some customers.
Or he was very safety-conscious, and would not proceed unless he believed the pilot was in condition to operate the flight safely.
Or something else, or a combination -
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I am surprised that someone who could not hold a driver's license due to a drug and alcohol conviction history was legal to be pilot in command of an airborne passenger vehicle for hire.
NTSB Chairman Debbie Hersman sent a prescient letter to the FAA in 2014 recommending increased oversight for commercial balloon operators:
http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-re...14-011-012.pdf
NTSB Chairman Debbie Hersman sent a prescient letter to the FAA in 2014 recommending increased oversight for commercial balloon operators:
Depending on gondola capacity, balloons can carry more than 20 passengers per flight. Given the various safety deficiencies noted in the NTSB’s investigations of the above balloon accidents, the potential for a high number of fatalities in a single air tour balloon accident is of particular concern if air tour balloon operators continue to conduct operations under less stringent regulations and oversight. Although such an accident has yet to occur in the United States, a high-fatality accident occurred in Egypt on February 26, 2013, when a commercial air tour balloon carrying 21 occupants experienced a fire on board, resulting in 19 deaths. Based on the number of recurring accidents in the United States involving similar safety issues, the NTSB believes that air tour balloon operators should be subject to greater regulatory oversight.
...Therefore, the National Transportation Safety Board makes the following recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration:
Amend 14 Code of Federal Regulations Section 91.147 to require commercial balloon operators to obtain and maintain a letter of authorization to conduct air tour flights. (A-14-011)
Through appropriate revisions to FAA Order 1800.56J, “National Flight Standards Work Program Guidelines,” encourage principal operations inspectors to include in their general surveillance activities commercial balloon operators that hold letters of authorization (LOA), especially upon initial issuance of the LOA and then as necessary, particularly if the operator is involved in an accident. (A-14-012)
...Therefore, the National Transportation Safety Board makes the following recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration:
Amend 14 Code of Federal Regulations Section 91.147 to require commercial balloon operators to obtain and maintain a letter of authorization to conduct air tour flights. (A-14-011)
Through appropriate revisions to FAA Order 1800.56J, “National Flight Standards Work Program Guidelines,” encourage principal operations inspectors to include in their general surveillance activities commercial balloon operators that hold letters of authorization (LOA), especially upon initial issuance of the LOA and then as necessary, particularly if the operator is involved in an accident. (A-14-012)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are so many things wrong in this incident that should never have happened, that the lawyers are going to have a field day, and are no doubt cracking the champagne as we speak.
It's not like anyone has ever had a similar balloon crash, and no-one could have foreseen this coming. Dodgy operator, dodgy ballooning, and HT powerlines, what could go wrong?
It's not like anyone has ever had a similar balloon crash, and no-one could have foreseen this coming. Dodgy operator, dodgy ballooning, and HT powerlines, what could go wrong?
the lawyers are going to have a field day
Join Date: May 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re: paying up to the policy limit
1. This happened in Texas. They do things differently there than some other places. Some like that, some don't, but one must take into account.
2. Before the lawyers don their bibs, they'll inquire whether the balloon operator even had liability insurance -- and how much.
3. Does Texas (or the FAA, or anyone) require that a balloon operator company in Texas carry liability insurance? If yes, was anyone responsible for verifying they actually had a current policy? Or its adequacy?
4. Some may recall the massive ammonium nitrate explosion (and anhydrous ammonia leak) in 2013 at the West Fertilizer Company in West, Texas.
15 were killed (mostly first responders, trying to extinguish a fire, at least some were volunteers). Many injuries too, the severity varying.
Extensive damage to the nearby town. Many structures destroyed or badly damaged.
Potentially very large claims, but the company reportedly carried just $1 million in liability insurance (and even that was voluntary, to protect itself). Heck, I have over half that every time I drive to the grocery store.
Texas law reportedly did not require the fertilizer company to have any insurance covering liability to third parties, even though (in its last report to the EPA) the facility had 540,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate on hand, and 110,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia.
See: West Fertilizer Co. was insured for only $1 million, a fraction of the estimated losses | Dallas Morning News
5. As Westhawk noted, the lawyers here surely will seek other pockets, but may not have great success. Nor is it likely to go very far, given the number of victims, at least some with young children (or other relatives) who they were supporting. Can only hope they had sufficient life insurance coverage through their work, or otherwise.
6. BTW, I believe Texas law also has many restrictions on how much a person can recover, and for what. Tort reform and all that.
1. This happened in Texas. They do things differently there than some other places. Some like that, some don't, but one must take into account.
2. Before the lawyers don their bibs, they'll inquire whether the balloon operator even had liability insurance -- and how much.
3. Does Texas (or the FAA, or anyone) require that a balloon operator company in Texas carry liability insurance? If yes, was anyone responsible for verifying they actually had a current policy? Or its adequacy?
4. Some may recall the massive ammonium nitrate explosion (and anhydrous ammonia leak) in 2013 at the West Fertilizer Company in West, Texas.
15 were killed (mostly first responders, trying to extinguish a fire, at least some were volunteers). Many injuries too, the severity varying.
Extensive damage to the nearby town. Many structures destroyed or badly damaged.
Potentially very large claims, but the company reportedly carried just $1 million in liability insurance (and even that was voluntary, to protect itself). Heck, I have over half that every time I drive to the grocery store.
Texas law reportedly did not require the fertilizer company to have any insurance covering liability to third parties, even though (in its last report to the EPA) the facility had 540,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate on hand, and 110,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia.
See: West Fertilizer Co. was insured for only $1 million, a fraction of the estimated losses | Dallas Morning News
5. As Westhawk noted, the lawyers here surely will seek other pockets, but may not have great success. Nor is it likely to go very far, given the number of victims, at least some with young children (or other relatives) who they were supporting. Can only hope they had sufficient life insurance coverage through their work, or otherwise.
6. BTW, I believe Texas law also has many restrictions on how much a person can recover, and for what. Tort reform and all that.
On item 6, Prop 12 was to do with ambulance chasing regarding doctors. Tort is alive and well. Google Thomas J Henry and his TV ads if you don't believe me.
Latest out of West is that the LE officials have reason to believe that it was arson.
Otherwise some very good points on what will or won't induce a flood of litigation.
Latest out of West is that the LE officials have reason to believe that it was arson.
Otherwise some very good points on what will or won't induce a flood of litigation.
Not sure if this duplicates previous links posted but it does contain a detailed timeline of offences of various kinds committed by the pilot, Alfred "Skip" Nichols.
Correction: Hot Air Balloon Crash-Texas-Pilot Timeline story | Fox News
Mind-boggling that this guy was still licensed to fly even a frisbee.
Correction: Hot Air Balloon Crash-Texas-Pilot Timeline story | Fox News
Mind-boggling that this guy was still licensed to fly even a frisbee.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Nothing new that I see in the NTSB preliminary posting. However, often the ID number can be useful in searching for the docket which will contain interviews, diagrams, transcripts and other material related to the investigation. Public access to the accident docket is sometimes announced, other times it seems to quietly appear online.
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.av...0X25341&key=1#
One of the news stories said the balloon pilot used an app called Glympse to relay his position to his partner in the chase vehicle. Looks like one of those free apps from a trendy West Coast startup company that lets you bring your dog to work and may not be here a year from now:
https://www.glympse.com/
NTSB Identification: DCA16MA204
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, July 30, 2016 in Lockhart, TX
Aircraft: KUBICEK BB85, registration: N2469L
Injuries: 16 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators traveled in support of this investigation and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On July 30, 2016, about 0742 central daylight time, a Balony Kubicek BB85Z hot air balloon, registration N2469L, crashed into a field after striking high voltage powerlines near Lockhart, Texas. The 15 passengers and pilot onboard were fatally injured and the balloon was substantially damaged due to impact forces and post-crash fire. The flight was operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a sightseeing passenger flight.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, July 30, 2016 in Lockhart, TX
Aircraft: KUBICEK BB85, registration: N2469L
Injuries: 16 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators traveled in support of this investigation and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On July 30, 2016, about 0742 central daylight time, a Balony Kubicek BB85Z hot air balloon, registration N2469L, crashed into a field after striking high voltage powerlines near Lockhart, Texas. The 15 passengers and pilot onboard were fatally injured and the balloon was substantially damaged due to impact forces and post-crash fire. The flight was operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a sightseeing passenger flight.
One of the news stories said the balloon pilot used an app called Glympse to relay his position to his partner in the chase vehicle. Looks like one of those free apps from a trendy West Coast startup company that lets you bring your dog to work and may not be here a year from now:
https://www.glympse.com/
Can only hope they had sufficient life insurance coverage through their work, or otherwise.
Travel Insurance is designed to get you home so covers local medical and repatriation, in general death cover is low.
Reminder that "Legal liability" insurance, which is carried by most businesses in western world, pays out only after proving in a court of law, that the operator or any business connected to the flight like aircraft manufacturer, was negligent. In a genuine accident such as bird strike or wind sheer no one is liable.
In any event such liability insurance takes years to be processed through courts so should not be relied upon to support your next of kin in the interim.
Automatic accident cover (regardless of cause) per passenger for death or injury is depressingly low.
This link to a website created by a victim.
http://www.hotairballoonaccidents.com/Photos.html
Mickjoebill
Last edited by mickjoebill; 5th Aug 2016 at 22:55.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
From today's Wall Street Journal:
The story notes that the NTSB has not yet made these findings public, and that they are subject to change.
Link to full article (requires subscription)
Federal investigators believe the pilot of a sightseeing balloon that crashed last month killing 16 people sought to quickly descend through a break in clouds, apparently without noticing power lines below, according to two people familiar with the details.
Evidence and interviews gathered by investigators—including a cellphone picture sent by a balloon passenger to someone on the ground minutes before the July 30 crash—indicate that contrary to safety rules, the commercial hot-air balloon was floating above a thick cloud bank with little or no visibility of the Central Texas pastureland beneath, according to a person briefed on the investigation.
The image sent by the passenger showed a single break in the heavily overcast sky, according to this person, with shadows of towers holding up electrical transmission lines discernible in the surrounding cloud layer.
The NTSB has said safety rules restrict such balloons to be aloft only when visibility is at least one mile, and pilots are supposed to stay clear of clouds. The tentative finding of investigators, according to the person who was briefed, is that the balloon got into trouble as the pilot seemingly tried to duck under the cloud cover.
Evidence and interviews gathered by investigators—including a cellphone picture sent by a balloon passenger to someone on the ground minutes before the July 30 crash—indicate that contrary to safety rules, the commercial hot-air balloon was floating above a thick cloud bank with little or no visibility of the Central Texas pastureland beneath, according to a person briefed on the investigation.
The image sent by the passenger showed a single break in the heavily overcast sky, according to this person, with shadows of towers holding up electrical transmission lines discernible in the surrounding cloud layer.
The NTSB has said safety rules restrict such balloons to be aloft only when visibility is at least one mile, and pilots are supposed to stay clear of clouds. The tentative finding of investigators, according to the person who was briefed, is that the balloon got into trouble as the pilot seemingly tried to duck under the cloud cover.
Link to full article (requires subscription)
The NTSB has said safety rules restrict such balloons to be aloft only when visibility is at least one mile, and pilots are supposed to stay clear of clouds.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf 50:
The airspace around Lockhart is Class G below 700 feet, agl. To the east it is Class G below 1,200, agl.
The FAA daytime VFR minimums in Class G is 1 mile and clear of the clouds for all types of aircraft.
That's interesting, since basic VFR is 1000/3 ... is the lesser visibility restriction due to the slow horizontal speed of a balloon? (Anybody know?)
The FAA daytime VFR minimums in Class G is 1 mile and clear of the clouds for all types of aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The LA Times has an article that says the weather was initially clear, but visibility and the ceiling deteriorated rapidly during the ~50 minute flight.
There's a lot of ballooning around here (Northern California wine country). Years ago I watched a balloonist try to inflate his balloon with just the burner- the gas powered fan normally used to do the initial inflation wouldn't start. He set his hair and balloon on fire.
Some years later a friend gave my wife and me a ride in his balloon. It was fun and uneventful, but as an ordinary private pilot I was a little uncomfortable with the idea that every balloon landing is essentially a forced landing- picking the best available place and putting it down.
There's a lot of ballooning around here (Northern California wine country). Years ago I watched a balloonist try to inflate his balloon with just the burner- the gas powered fan normally used to do the initial inflation wouldn't start. He set his hair and balloon on fire.
Some years later a friend gave my wife and me a ride in his balloon. It was fun and uneventful, but as an ordinary private pilot I was a little uncomfortable with the idea that every balloon landing is essentially a forced landing- picking the best available place and putting it down.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Amazing that he could carry people for hire with so little oversight compared to other flight operations. 
Balloon Pilot Who Killed 16 Was on Drugs and Had Five DWI Raps
NTSB Medical report here:
http://dms.ntsb.gov/public/59000-59499/59378/598231.pdf
Balloon Pilot Who Killed 16 Was on Drugs and Had Five DWI Raps
Bloomberg
Alan Levin
December 9, 2016 (Bloomberg) -- The pilot of a hot-air balloon that crashed last summer in Texas, killing himself and 15 sight-seeing passengers, had taken a cocktail of prohibited drugs including the opiate pain-killer oxycodone, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg News.
Alfred "Skip" Nichols was able to continue flying people for hire in spite of being convicted five times for driving while intoxicated and three times for drug offenses. The incident revealed lax regulations on balloon operators and a regulatory loophole that made it difficult to launch an enforcement action against him, according to documents prepared for a National Transportation Safety Board hearing Friday.
The hot-air balloon controlled by Nichols, 49, struck high-power lines near Lockhart, Texas, on July 30 and plunged to the ground, bursting into flames and killing all aboard. The death toll was the highest in a single aviation accident since 50 died in a 2009 commuter plane crash near Buffalo.
Victims, some of whom posted photos on social media minutes prior to the crash, included a professor with the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research and his wife, and a mother and daughter making the Sunday morning flight as part of a Mother’s Day gift.
The NTSB hearing will examine broad safety issues raised by the accident. It will also consider how Nichols, who had served two prison terms for drug and alcohol violations and was also being treated for medical conditions that should have prohibited him from flying, slipped through the cracks and whether additional regulations are needed.
2014 Recommendations
The Federal Aviation Administration, which regulates the industry, has so far declined to add tighter rules on balloon flights, in spite of an NTSB formal recommendation in 2014 to give balloon passengers “a similar level of safety oversight as passengers of air tour airplane and helicopter operations.”
Investigative documents compiled by the NTSB detail Nichols’ multiple health problems and drug prescriptions, and also shine a light on why the FAA said it was unable to take punitive action against him after learning in 2013 of his driving convictions.
The NTSB’s own rules played a role. In addition to its accident investigation duties, the NTSB oversees appeals of FAA enforcement cases, and its rules prohibit the FAA from taking certain actions on infractions more than six months old.
As a result, an FAA special agent investigating the violations notified Nichols in 2013 that the agency wouldn’t pursue any penalty or license suspension related to his convictions. The most recent conviction was in 2010.
Depression, Fibromyalgia
Nichols suffered multiple medical problems including type II diabetes, depression and chronic pain from fibromyalgia. Some of those conditions should have prohibited him from operating an aircraft.
As part of his treatment, he was taking 13 prescription medicines, many of which are also prohibited for pilots at the controls. A toxicology test performed on his body found seven different drugs in his blood and urine that were prohibited by the FAA, including oxycodone and the sedative diazepam, also known as Valium. Such drugs can impair brain function and motor controls, according to the NTSB documents.
While pilots are prohibited from flying after taking those drugs, balloon pilots are exempt from having to receive the periodic medical checkups required for other commercial flight crews. Therefore, the agency was less likely to discover the drug use.
Similarly, the paperwork for those FAA-required medical exams is the chief way for pilots to disclose convictions for driving while impaired.
Medical Exams
Nichols had one such medical exam in 1996 and he didn’t reveal the first of his driving violations, a 1985 infraction in Missouri.
U.S. law requires pilots to notify the FAA of such infractions whether they get an agency-sanctioned medical exam or not. Nichols didn’t do so.
There have been multiple calls on the FAA to improve oversight of balloon operations. The NTSB issued two recommendations to the FAA in 2014 after a series of accidents. An FAA safety examiner wrote a lengthy memo in support of tighter safety controls.
Balloon pilots can get a license to fly people for hire with only 20 hours experience and don’t have to undergo the routine recurrent training required of other commercial pilots, according to the memo.
“The oversight of banner towing operations is of a higher FAA priority than the administration’s oversight of an industry that flies thousands of citizens annually,” the memo said.
Bloomberg
Alan Levin
December 9, 2016 (Bloomberg) -- The pilot of a hot-air balloon that crashed last summer in Texas, killing himself and 15 sight-seeing passengers, had taken a cocktail of prohibited drugs including the opiate pain-killer oxycodone, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg News.
Alfred "Skip" Nichols was able to continue flying people for hire in spite of being convicted five times for driving while intoxicated and three times for drug offenses. The incident revealed lax regulations on balloon operators and a regulatory loophole that made it difficult to launch an enforcement action against him, according to documents prepared for a National Transportation Safety Board hearing Friday.
The hot-air balloon controlled by Nichols, 49, struck high-power lines near Lockhart, Texas, on July 30 and plunged to the ground, bursting into flames and killing all aboard. The death toll was the highest in a single aviation accident since 50 died in a 2009 commuter plane crash near Buffalo.
Victims, some of whom posted photos on social media minutes prior to the crash, included a professor with the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research and his wife, and a mother and daughter making the Sunday morning flight as part of a Mother’s Day gift.
The NTSB hearing will examine broad safety issues raised by the accident. It will also consider how Nichols, who had served two prison terms for drug and alcohol violations and was also being treated for medical conditions that should have prohibited him from flying, slipped through the cracks and whether additional regulations are needed.
2014 Recommendations
The Federal Aviation Administration, which regulates the industry, has so far declined to add tighter rules on balloon flights, in spite of an NTSB formal recommendation in 2014 to give balloon passengers “a similar level of safety oversight as passengers of air tour airplane and helicopter operations.”
Investigative documents compiled by the NTSB detail Nichols’ multiple health problems and drug prescriptions, and also shine a light on why the FAA said it was unable to take punitive action against him after learning in 2013 of his driving convictions.
The NTSB’s own rules played a role. In addition to its accident investigation duties, the NTSB oversees appeals of FAA enforcement cases, and its rules prohibit the FAA from taking certain actions on infractions more than six months old.
As a result, an FAA special agent investigating the violations notified Nichols in 2013 that the agency wouldn’t pursue any penalty or license suspension related to his convictions. The most recent conviction was in 2010.
Depression, Fibromyalgia
Nichols suffered multiple medical problems including type II diabetes, depression and chronic pain from fibromyalgia. Some of those conditions should have prohibited him from operating an aircraft.
As part of his treatment, he was taking 13 prescription medicines, many of which are also prohibited for pilots at the controls. A toxicology test performed on his body found seven different drugs in his blood and urine that were prohibited by the FAA, including oxycodone and the sedative diazepam, also known as Valium. Such drugs can impair brain function and motor controls, according to the NTSB documents.
While pilots are prohibited from flying after taking those drugs, balloon pilots are exempt from having to receive the periodic medical checkups required for other commercial flight crews. Therefore, the agency was less likely to discover the drug use.
Similarly, the paperwork for those FAA-required medical exams is the chief way for pilots to disclose convictions for driving while impaired.
Medical Exams
Nichols had one such medical exam in 1996 and he didn’t reveal the first of his driving violations, a 1985 infraction in Missouri.
U.S. law requires pilots to notify the FAA of such infractions whether they get an agency-sanctioned medical exam or not. Nichols didn’t do so.
There have been multiple calls on the FAA to improve oversight of balloon operations. The NTSB issued two recommendations to the FAA in 2014 after a series of accidents. An FAA safety examiner wrote a lengthy memo in support of tighter safety controls.
Balloon pilots can get a license to fly people for hire with only 20 hours experience and don’t have to undergo the routine recurrent training required of other commercial pilots, according to the memo.
“The oversight of banner towing operations is of a higher FAA priority than the administration’s oversight of an industry that flies thousands of citizens annually,” the memo said.
NTSB Medical report here:
http://dms.ntsb.gov/public/59000-59499/59378/598231.pdf
Join Date: May 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AP also reporting were concerns regarding suitability of weather that morning:
Note: This seems consistent with Carbon Bootprint's post on 8th Aug 2016, 18:16
Experts also testified that Alfred "Skip" Nichols, who was killed along with 15 passengers, went up in the balloon despite knowing that the weather wasn't good.
* * * *
Nichols flew on a day when the cloud ceiling was 700 feet and the forecast didn't call for the sky to clear.
"When this accident pilot received a weather briefing, the weather briefer said,
'Yeah, those clouds may be a problem for you. don't know how long you plan to stay, but .'
and then the pilot replied, 'Well, we just fly in between them. We find a hole and we go,'" said NTSB board member Robert Sumwalt.
Several experts testified that they would not have flown in that weather.
"Going in and out of the clouds really is not an option and it's not a very comfortable feeling as a pilot being up there and being faced with that type of choice," said Scott Appelman, owner of Rainbow Ryders Hot Air Balloon Ride Company, one of the largest hot air balloon operators in the United States.
* * * *
Nichols flew on a day when the cloud ceiling was 700 feet and the forecast didn't call for the sky to clear.
"When this accident pilot received a weather briefing, the weather briefer said,
'Yeah, those clouds may be a problem for you. don't know how long you plan to stay, but .'
and then the pilot replied, 'Well, we just fly in between them. We find a hole and we go,'" said NTSB board member Robert Sumwalt.
Several experts testified that they would not have flown in that weather.
"Going in and out of the clouds really is not an option and it's not a very comfortable feeling as a pilot being up there and being faced with that type of choice," said Scott Appelman, owner of Rainbow Ryders Hot Air Balloon Ride Company, one of the largest hot air balloon operators in the United States.
Last edited by Passenger 389; 10th Dec 2016 at 02:30. Reason: to acknowledge Carbon Bootprint's earlier post
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I previously said, the lawyers are going to have a field day here. If these following statements are true ...
... then there is a case to be made that the FAA has failed in its duty of care to protect aviation passengers from rogue balloon flyer/balloon flying operations.
A lengthy memo from a safety examiner regarding the need to tighten ballooning regulations, plus two recommendations from the NTSB that have essentially been ignored, are the smoking guns the lawyers will seize on.
After all, there is no reason why ballooning operators or balloon pilots should not be subject to the same rigorous regulations as airlines and pilots.
IMO, balloon operators need to have very substantial flying skills, and tight regulations imposed upon them, because not only are they are playing in airspace, they have minimal control over their flight direction.
As a previous poster has noted, each balloon landing is little more than a controlled crash, and injuries from normal landings are not uncommon.
FAA - Litigation and adjudication procedures
There have been multiple calls on the FAA to improve oversight of balloon operations. The NTSB issued two recommendations to the FAA in 2014 after a series of accidents. An FAA safety examiner wrote a lengthy memo in support of tighter safety controls.
A lengthy memo from a safety examiner regarding the need to tighten ballooning regulations, plus two recommendations from the NTSB that have essentially been ignored, are the smoking guns the lawyers will seize on.
After all, there is no reason why ballooning operators or balloon pilots should not be subject to the same rigorous regulations as airlines and pilots.
IMO, balloon operators need to have very substantial flying skills, and tight regulations imposed upon them, because not only are they are playing in airspace, they have minimal control over their flight direction.
As a previous poster has noted, each balloon landing is little more than a controlled crash, and injuries from normal landings are not uncommon.
FAA - Litigation and adjudication procedures
Join Date: May 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On 10th Dec, 2016, at 03:49, OneTrack posted:
While it may seem unfair, United States government entities enjoy sovereign immunity and therefore are immune from liability unless the federal government has expressly waived its immunity (and the US Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that all such waivers must be construed very narrowly by the courts).
Examples of such waivers include the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
The decisions at issue here (including the FAA's decision not to take any action) likely are within the "discretionary function" exception to liability -- ie, claims based upon the performance, or the failure to perform, a "discretionary function or duty" -- hence the FAA and its employees, and the United States government, will be immune from liability.
If others know more about this topic, please correct me if I'm mistaken.
As I previously said, the lawyers are going to have a field day here. If these following statements are true ... * * * * ... then there is a case to be made that the FAA has failed in its duty of care to protect aviation passengers from rogue balloon flyer/balloon flying operations.
Examples of such waivers include the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
The decisions at issue here (including the FAA's decision not to take any action) likely are within the "discretionary function" exception to liability -- ie, claims based upon the performance, or the failure to perform, a "discretionary function or duty" -- hence the FAA and its employees, and the United States government, will be immune from liability.
If others know more about this topic, please correct me if I'm mistaken.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick Google search tells me quite a number of aggrieved people and organisations are suing the FAA, for various reasons.
On the website below, there are outlined, some positions where the FTCA is not applicable, thus allowing the FAA to be sued.
Suing the Government for Negligence: The Federal Tort Claims Act | Nolo.com
The defence of the FAA may be that it is still working on tightening the ballooning regulations.
However, they would have to provide evidence of this - and any evidence found, where the FAA declined to act on recommendations for tightening of safety regulations around ballooning operations, would be disastrous for them.
If those previously-mentioned report and recommendations regarding improved ballooning safety have been found to be pigeonholed, rather than acted upon, then that would leave the FAA open to successful claims of negligence.
However, time is running out for any of the relations/descendants of the ballooning victims. The law says any claim must be filed withing two years of the "arise" (of the claimable event).
Whether the timing of the "arising" of the event is regarded as the crash date - or whether it is when the NTSB accident final report is handed down, I am not qualified to answer.
On the website below, there are outlined, some positions where the FTCA is not applicable, thus allowing the FAA to be sued.
Suing the Government for Negligence: The Federal Tort Claims Act | Nolo.com
The defence of the FAA may be that it is still working on tightening the ballooning regulations.
However, they would have to provide evidence of this - and any evidence found, where the FAA declined to act on recommendations for tightening of safety regulations around ballooning operations, would be disastrous for them.
If those previously-mentioned report and recommendations regarding improved ballooning safety have been found to be pigeonholed, rather than acted upon, then that would leave the FAA open to successful claims of negligence.
However, time is running out for any of the relations/descendants of the ballooning victims. The law says any claim must be filed withing two years of the "arise" (of the claimable event).
Whether the timing of the "arising" of the event is regarded as the crash date - or whether it is when the NTSB accident final report is handed down, I am not qualified to answer.