NZ has a CPL ( Balloon ) for which a minimum of 50 hours experience is required.

I assume that the same rules as to Hire and Reward, when carrying passengers who have paid for the ride, apply as for any other "aircraft".

In a fixed wing aircraft one is also "supposed" to follow prescribed actions in the event of an engine failure, too, like turning off the fuel, issuing a "Mayday" call, changing the transponder code, flying at the best glide speed, picking a field etc.etc. Yeah! Right! I was recently passenger in a microlight that suffered an engine failure and we had time to do NONE of that, just get the bugger down and keep it in one piece - which the pilot did successfully I'm happy to say !

How long did the NZ balloon pilot have to plan his contact with the wires, turn off the tank, blah blah blah ??

Here is the accident summary. (Link to download full report on that page.)

Turning off the gas at the cylinder/s wouldn't have made much difference in this case; electrical arcing ruptured one of them.

Hence my thought a few posts above to have some kind of guard fitted.

None of which can guarantee safety if a pilot carelessly or deliberately places his vehicle in harms way, of course.

I've been a DER for over 25 years (FAA, and EASA since it was formed). I've seen volumes of new regulations, interpretations, Advisory Circulars, etc. over that time. Without exception, they have added to the time, cost, and manpower required to certify an aircraft or aircraft change.

Maybe 5% have had any effect on safety, and not all were for the better.:eek: In fact the greater the safety improvement a change will provide, the longer it takes and the harder it is to certify :mad:

Adding new regulations is almost never the answer.
BTW, I don't think it makes much difference what sort of flying machine you're on, if you hit power lines your chance of having a good day are not in your favor :ugh:

If they were safe enough in 1999 they are safe enough in 2014.