Balloon safety! Should they be certified?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North of Antartica
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balloon safety! Should they be certified?
Balloon safety! Should they be certified?
the coroners court in session for the NZ ballon crash and fire which took 11 lives in 2012. I would like to pose the question:
Should hot air balloons be certified? If they did not have 'Grandad rights' and were instead a new invention, not previously seen before, would todays certification rules prohibit certification and commercial operations.
Lets review some issues.
Single lifting source (envelope ) no redundancy for rupture or failure.
Single burner, no redundancy.
Highly explosive and flammable fuel source (Propane)
Open basket with no energy absorbing seats or restraints for passengers/crew
No control of direction of travel except prevailing wind at various altitudes. theres many more problems with balloon's but I think those above are the major flaws.
So if this design were proposed as a new form of commercial passenger carrying aircraft, would it be deemed safe? Has the age for balloons passed?
the coroners court in session for the NZ ballon crash and fire which took 11 lives in 2012. I would like to pose the question:
Should hot air balloons be certified? If they did not have 'Grandad rights' and were instead a new invention, not previously seen before, would todays certification rules prohibit certification and commercial operations.
Lets review some issues.
Single lifting source (envelope ) no redundancy for rupture or failure.
Single burner, no redundancy.
Highly explosive and flammable fuel source (Propane)
Open basket with no energy absorbing seats or restraints for passengers/crew
No control of direction of travel except prevailing wind at various altitudes. theres many more problems with balloon's but I think those above are the major flaws.
So if this design were proposed as a new form of commercial passenger carrying aircraft, would it be deemed safe? Has the age for balloons passed?
Last edited by Heli-phile; 16th May 2014 at 01:13. Reason: reposted as moderators deemed it was in wrong category and then closed further comments??
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ballooning will automatically incur ever more intensive regulation, as long as idiots in charge of them continue to take risks with passengers lives. This is the history of aviation. Pilot crashes, kills serious numbers of pax; coroner decides pilot error was the problem; pax relatives sue for tens/hundreds of millions; insurance companies pay out, insurance premiums increase. Aviation regulator then increases the amount of regulation and rules to the nth degree in knee-jerk response to general anger. Thus it ever was, and thus it ever will be.
Safety is not something you have in mind when you take to the air in private and small aircraft. Ask your life insurance company how they stand when you commence flying in private and small aircraft. Show me the very few that don't cancel your life insurance on the spot. Ballooning is risky, and so is any flying in private and small aircraft. People do it for excitement and fun. Take away the risk and you'll lose half the clientele.
Safety is not something you have in mind when you take to the air in private and small aircraft. Ask your life insurance company how they stand when you commence flying in private and small aircraft. Show me the very few that don't cancel your life insurance on the spot. Ballooning is risky, and so is any flying in private and small aircraft. People do it for excitement and fun. Take away the risk and you'll lose half the clientele.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commercial balloons are regulated by EASA.
And rightly so; I recall at one of the workshops about Part M a balloon operator protesting that it was ridiculous that he should be subjected to the same regulations as a B747 operator; you know, all those inspections, procedures, forms, error investigations, etc etc.
The EASA representative asked him why his customers were less entitled to expect that when they buy a ticket/ride the Government will ensure their safety than an airline passenger.
Answer came there none.
I don't keep especially up-to-date with balloon regulation, but EASA OPS (965/2012) and subsequent amendments, especially EC 379/2014 are, I think, the places to find out more.
And rightly so; I recall at one of the workshops about Part M a balloon operator protesting that it was ridiculous that he should be subjected to the same regulations as a B747 operator; you know, all those inspections, procedures, forms, error investigations, etc etc.
The EASA representative asked him why his customers were less entitled to expect that when they buy a ticket/ride the Government will ensure their safety than an airline passenger.
Answer came there none.
I don't keep especially up-to-date with balloon regulation, but EASA OPS (965/2012) and subsequent amendments, especially EC 379/2014 are, I think, the places to find out more.
Last edited by Capot; 15th May 2014 at 09:13.
Ballooning will automatically incur ever more intensive regulation, as long as idiots in charge of them continue to take risks with passengers lives. This is the history of aviation. Pilot crashes, kills serious numbers of pax; coroner decides pilot error was the problem; pax relatives sue for tens/hundreds of millions; insurance companies pay out, insurance premiums increase. Aviation regulator then increases the amount of regulation and rules to the nth degree in knee-jerk response to general anger. Thus it ever was, and thus it ever will be.
Safety is not something you have in mind when you take to the air in private and small aircraft. Ask your life insurance company how they stand when you commence flying in private and small aircraft. Show me the very few that don't cancel your life insurance on the spot. Ballooning is risky, and so is any flying in private and small aircraft. People do it for excitement and fun. Take away the risk and you'll lose half the clientele.
Safety is not something you have in mind when you take to the air in private and small aircraft. Ask your life insurance company how they stand when you commence flying in private and small aircraft. Show me the very few that don't cancel your life insurance on the spot. Ballooning is risky, and so is any flying in private and small aircraft. People do it for excitement and fun. Take away the risk and you'll lose half the clientele.
You speak for yourself.
Instead of regulating balloons, why not regulate Power Lines i.e. have them marked with large orange discs ? (seem to recall seeing that in Alaska ? )
'course, the huffy fluffies will then say that the discs are despoiling the countryside.
If you don't like ballooning, stay at home in bed. ( note: - more people die at home in bed then in balloons.)
'course, the huffy fluffies will then say that the discs are despoiling the countryside.
If you don't like ballooning, stay at home in bed. ( note: - more people die at home in bed then in balloons.)
Lets review some issues.
Single lifting source (envelope ) no redundancy for rupture or failure.
Single burner, no redundancy.
Highly explosive and flammable fuel source (Propane)
Open basket with no energy absorbing seats or restraints for passengers/crew
No control of direction of travel except prevailing wind at various altitudes. theres many more problems with balloon's but I think those above are the major flaws.
Single lifting source (envelope ) no redundancy for rupture or failure.
Single burner, no redundancy.
Highly explosive and flammable fuel source (Propane)
Open basket with no energy absorbing seats or restraints for passengers/crew
No control of direction of travel except prevailing wind at various altitudes. theres many more problems with balloon's but I think those above are the major flaws.
"The basic design and safety of the balloon were adequate and improvements in the design would not have altered the outcome of this accident. "
Originally Posted by Heli-Phile
Lets review some issues.
Single lifting source (envelope ) no redundancy for rupture or failure.
Single burner, no redundancy.
Highly explosive and flammable fuel source (Propane)
Open basket with no energy absorbing seats or restraints for passengers/crew
No control of direction of travel except prevailing wind at various altitudes. theres many more problems with balloon's but I think those above are the major flaws.
Single lifting source (envelope ) no redundancy for rupture or failure.
Single burner, no redundancy.
Highly explosive and flammable fuel source (Propane)
Open basket with no energy absorbing seats or restraints for passengers/crew
No control of direction of travel except prevailing wind at various altitudes. theres many more problems with balloon's but I think those above are the major flaws.
- No redundancy for structural failure of the wing;
- one engine without fallback alternative;
- highly explosive and flammable fuel source (make Your pick between Avgas, Mogas or whatever);
- seat belts, yes, but no energy-absorbing structure features like on a car;
- in case of engine failure, landing is compulsory within the gliding range.
People boarding a balloon, just like doing anything else, do so in full knowledge of the risk they are about to incur. Let them, I say.
I've thought since this accident in Masterton, NZ (and the recent rather distressing apparent similar one in the States) that some kind of glassfibre or similar containment device or guard for the propane bottles/hoses would be a good idea...prevent them coming into direct contact with wires and other nastys (more wires, I guess), should there be an unexpected wind shift, or the pilot fail to see the wires.
Then you just have a snared balloon to contend with, rather than an unsurvivable fire.
Then you just have a snared balloon to contend with, rather than an unsurvivable fire.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.K
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or you could just turn the tank off prior to wire contact (like you are supposed to do) and rip out rather than burn - and guess what , that is what you are supposed to do as well ........
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You might think that's a daft thing to say but if you're reading this you probably are doing so from an educated and knowledgeable viewpoint. As someone once said - and I've no idea who it was but they knew what they were talking about - never underestimate the stupidity of the general public.
There is a particular circumstance in New Zealand. Here there is a universal accident compensation scheme, and NO right to sue for accidental injury. (Let us not debate the rights and wrongs of this arrangement: it's been around for 40 odd years, and successive neo-Liberal/Libertarian governments have not abolished it. They have, though, unwound a whole set of government regulations, in many areas, in favour of industry self-regulation.) An unintended consequence is that NZ is now the home of adventure sports, because there are no accident insurance premiums to pay. This could have an effect on safety standards, but I do not know whether or not it has (there have been a couple of bungy accidents of a startling kind, but they might well have happened under a right-to-sue regime as well.)
Hot air ballooning is NOT sold as an adventure sport: the image is one of tranquillity, and indeed very tranquil they look on a still, sunny morning when we see them from our window. Less tranquil is the one that overflew the city a few years ago, at low level: but the pilot in that case was officially castigated.
What people do for private jollies is up to them, but people who pay for a commercially-offered experience have a right to an appropriate level of safety, and an appropriate disclosure of risk. If you look at a bungy jump, or a jet-boat ride, or white-water rafting, you are not going to think that this is as safe as a drive to the shops (and if you have a clue, you know that is not totally safe, either.) But a balloon flight doesn't look like, nor is it sold as, an extreme sport. So it's reasonable to ask if safety, which can only be guaranteed by regulation, is at an appropriate level. Whether it is or not, I don't know.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does NZ not require a commercial pilots license 
In the USA:
The FAA controls ballooning and anyone who flys passengers for hire must have in his/her possession an FAA commercial Balloon Pilots License.
Hot air balloons being used to carry passengers for hire must have an Annual Inspection at a Certified FAA Balloon Repair Station or every 100 hours of flight operation, which ever comes first. The inspection must be signed off in the Hot Air Balloon Log Book
Each balloon being used to fly passengers must have the following paperwork on board current FAA Airworthiness certificate, current balloon registration and current flight manual.
The balloon pilot must also undergo a bi-annual flight review every two years and log at least 3 takeoffs and landings to full stop every 90 days to stay current to fly passengers for hire.
In the USA:
The FAA controls ballooning and anyone who flys passengers for hire must have in his/her possession an FAA commercial Balloon Pilots License.
Hot air balloons being used to carry passengers for hire must have an Annual Inspection at a Certified FAA Balloon Repair Station or every 100 hours of flight operation, which ever comes first. The inspection must be signed off in the Hot Air Balloon Log Book
Each balloon being used to fly passengers must have the following paperwork on board current FAA Airworthiness certificate, current balloon registration and current flight manual.
The balloon pilot must also undergo a bi-annual flight review every two years and log at least 3 takeoffs and landings to full stop every 90 days to stay current to fly passengers for hire.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TW - Balloons ARE regulated in the USA.
Heli-phile: What other regulations do you think are needed? Where is Part 31 lacking?
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And rightly so; I recall at one of the workshops about Part M a balloon operator protesting that it was ridiculous that he should be subjected to the same regulations as a B747 operator; you know, all those inspections, procedures, forms, error investigations, etc etc
The entire focus of EASA has been the creation of additional requirements that many, for example in the balloon world were not previously required to meet and in smaller organisations simply add to cost and box ticking.
I see absolutely no evidence that the imposition of CAT level standards on balloons has increased their safety.
