Ted Cruz proposes new medical regs on balloon pilots

Lindberg said:
Seventy fatal balloon crashes in fifty years. Some fraction of those were commercial ops. And maybe some smaller fraction were related to the pilots health. And some fraction of those, might maybe have been prevented by the proposed regulation of it was followed 100%.

That's not worth the cost of the government ink to print the regulation, let alone the costs of enforcing it. There's a good reason the FAA opposed amending the regs.


http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ho...ooning-fatalities-are-rare-stats-show-n102116
Click to expand...
Very few people steal aircraft. Does that mean it shouldn't be against the law? We are talking about a sensible regulation of including commercial balloon transport in an already existing regulation structure for commercial air travel. Who are you trying to protect? If this regulation existed, it is pretty certain that this particular pilot would not have been eligible to pilot that balloon. Instead, he killed 16 people. That is not an insignificant number.
 
comanchepilot said:
@Lindbergh THIS is why . . .
Click to expand...
John221us said:
Very few people steal aircraft. Does that mean it shouldn't be against the law? We are talking about a sensible regulation of including commercial balloon transport in an already existing regulation structure for commercial air travel. Who are you trying to protect? If this regulation existed, it is pretty certain that this particular pilot would not have been eligible to pilot that balloon. Instead, he killed 16 people. That is not an insignificant number.
Click to expand...
It's already illegal to pilot a balloon while high on drugs. So this particular pilot already wasn't eligible to pilot that balloon. And yet, he killed six people. We're all aware that there are ATPs who are addicts and have flown drunk or high, despite that being against regs. This is an even blacker swan than that, and the risk is teeninsy. How much of your money are you willing to spend to reduce seventy crashes in fifty years to sixty crashes in fifty years?
 
Lindberg said:
It's already illegal to pilot a balloon while high on drugs. So this particular pilot already wasn't eligible to pilot that balloon. And yet, he killed six people. We're all aware that there are ATPs who are addicts and have flown drunk or high, despite that being against regs. This is an even blacker swan than that, and the risk is teeninsy. How much of your money are you willing to spend to reduce seventy crashes in fifty years to sixty crashes in fifty years?
Click to expand...
I think requiring a second class medical (paid for by the pilot) would have prevented this pilot from obtaining this position (four DUIs). On going drug testing might have caught what he apparently regularly had in his system. It isn't reducing 70 crashes in 50 years. There are 16 (not 6) preventable deaths. It is pretty cold to put a value on that, but the insurance industry would put it at at least $16M. You aren't going to convince me that the commercial balloon industry shouldn't be regulated in line with other commercial transport. The public expects that. I am part of that public.
 
Lindberg said:
It's already illegal to pilot a balloon while high on drugs. So this particular pilot already wasn't eligible to pilot that balloon. And yet, he killed six people. We're all aware that there are ATPs who are addicts and have flown drunk or high, despite that being against regs. This is an even blacker swan than that, and the risk is teeninsy. How much of your money are you willing to spend to reduce seventy crashes in fifty years to sixty crashes in fifty years?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure, but maybe, just perhaps if he had to adhere to drug testing this may not have happened??
If not by deterrent, but by just plain being caught??

Don't understand your point.
 
Again more extreme, knee jerk, overly ideological anti government anti regulation think.

Just because you can always come up with examples of seemingly silly rules doesn't make rules unnecessary.

Just because people break rules or sometimes get away with breaking rules, doesn't make them unnecessary.

And finally, I'm also tired of arguments that forget that two wrongs don't make a right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I disagree that this is knee jerk, anti government think. Some might argue that making a regulation after a single incident that the regulation may or may not have prevented is a knee jerk reaction. I just think that many of us resist the notion that every bad thing that happens requires the government to take more control of our activities to "keep us safe". There are many costs to making and enforcing new regulations(not all of them monetary). The proposed legislation is not limited to commercial operators, instead, it will likely affect anyone who operates a balloon. This was definitely a tragedy, but do we have any confidence that the regulations that arise from it will be simple, minimal and logical? I know that I don't.
 
If these regs don't satisfy you as common sense - treating commercial balloon operators like other aircraft operators, I'm not sure what will. I guarantee 90% of the public would be dismayed to learn the current state of affairs and this accident. Even the normally libertarian bunch of aviators here seemed shocked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
If these regs don't satisfy you as common sense - treating commercial balloon operators like other aircraft operators, I'm not sure what will. I guarantee 90% of the public would be dismayed to learn the current state of affairs and this accident. Even the normally libertarian bunch of aviators here seemed shocked.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The way I read the linked article, this is not just about commercial balloon operators (which would make sense, btw...), it is about putting "balloon pilots on par with other types of pilots" which, to me means, all balloon pilots will feel the effects of this.

I don't doubt that "90% of the public would be dismayed". I operated a floatplane in Alaska when 9/11 happened. I was discussing being grounded after the attack with some friends. Their reaction was: "You mean you can just take that plane up any time you want and fly wherever? Who controls that? Don't you need permission? What if you wanted to just fly it into the top floors of the Sheraton Hotel?" etc...
 
edo2000 said:
The way I read the linked article, this is not just about commercial balloon operators (which would make sense, btw...), it is about putting "balloon pilots on par with other types of pilots" which, to me means, all balloon pilots will feel the effects of this.

I don't doubt that "90% of the public would be dismayed". I operated a floatplane in Alaska when 9/11 happened. I was discussing being grounded after the attack with some friends. Their reaction was: "You mean you can just take that plane up any time you want and fly wherever? Who controls that? Don't you need permission? What if you wanted to just fly it into the top floors of the Sheraton Hotel?" etc...
Click to expand...

Good point about the public. But more reason to regulate sensibly asap before misinformed public opinion starts to regulate for us via congress.

I bet most pilots would be dismayed that someone could take up 16 paying passengers in a huge balloon with no medical... that's really more to the point. Personally I think all part 91 under say 6k pounds should be just a simple medical self certification.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
I'm not sure what will. I guarantee 90% of the public would be dismayed to learn the current state of affairs
Click to expand...
So what? 90% of the public is clueless about most things they have an opinion on. And costly regulations shouldn't be in place because they make people feel good, they should be put in place because they efficiently and effectively solve a problem. "Common sense" is the worst reason ever to pass a law.
 
Lindberg said:
So what? 90% of the public is clueless about most things they have an opinion on. And costly regulations shouldn't be in place because they make people feel good, they should be put in place because they efficiently and effectively solve a problem. "Common sense" is the worst reason ever to pass a law.
Click to expand...

Read my follow up post. It's stupid to require a medical for part 91 4 seaters (basic med counts) but a commercial balloon that can carry 4x the passengers, charge and hold out is exempted. That's common sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I know a father & 2 sons who are all commercially licensed balloon pilots. The dad had PPL/IFR and flew his company King Air so he had a medical. Neither son had any other tickets and neither ever had a medical certificate and they gave rides (for fees) all the time. The younger son had some medical issues which would have prevented him getting a medical IIRC. None are any longer active.

I have to admit, when I first learned a commercial balloon or glider pilot was required to hold a medical, I was surprised.
 
So, I guess my main thought about any potential regulation of balloon operators, is where do you draw the line on number of passengers before a medical is needed? Not that's it's likely a large problem (since we're talking about such a low number of incidents/fatalities overall anyway), but if a private balloon pilot flies 10 people, who each pay their pro-rata share, he's technically not operating "commercially" unless he's holding out, etc. So what makes anyone think requiring a medical will ensure that all who are flying balloons with a large number of passengers will be encompassed in said-regulation? I don't imagine there are too many balloons out there with baskets that hold more than 5-6 people, and probably even fewer of those being operated non-commercially, but it has the potential to skirt the regulations unless there's an arbitrary limit on the number of passengers a non-commercial operator can carry.
 
You draw the line at commercial operator. Simple.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
You draw the line at commercial operator. Simple.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yes, I 100% agree with this. There is an expectation of safety, when a service is for hire. If you are going up in a friend's balloon for free, then that is between you and your friend.
 
There is a balloon operator about two miles away from me. They landed in my backyard once, and not on purpose. They came close to colliding with my house. If you ever want to really wake up, have the burner go off right outside one of your open windows. And yes I got a bottle of bubbly. However, that reminded me they are just big gas bags (hot air), with an open flame, and it they can't tell where or when they are going down, I don't want to be in one.
 
Last edited:
What I am concerned about having medical regulations implemented for balloon pilots is that who knows, this might lead to a requirement for medicals for pilot operations which currently do not require medicals such as sport pilots, glider pilots, and maybe even ultralight pilots.

How likely would it happen for other pilot operations currently not requiring medicals? Probably not a high chance, but I don't know really. But it still could happen.
 
edo2000 said:
The way I read the linked article, this is not just about commercial balloon operators (which would make sense, btw...), it is about putting "balloon pilots on par with other types of pilots" which, to me means, all balloon pilots will feel the effects of this.

I don't doubt that "90% of the public would be dismayed". I operated a floatplane in Alaska when 9/11 happened. I was discussing being grounded after the attack with some friends. Their reaction was: "You mean you can just take that plane up any time you want and fly wherever? Who controls that? Don't you need permission? What if you wanted to just fly it into the top floors of the Sheraton Hotel?" etc...
Click to expand...
Some people I've talked to can't believe I can fly right over NYC and don't even have to talk to anyone, much less get "permission."
 
GRG55 said:
Me too!
But these days there are so many things I find shocking.
And this is one of the most pressing issues facing the nation, I'm sure we would all agree.
(Oops. That might get me a ban hammer)

Click to expand...
Your winnings, sir...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top