Burn or Rip?

The current FAA system forces a low experienced, newly rated commercial pilot to certify as an instructor. In many cases, there is no desire to teach, and the instructor portions of the standards are learned only at the rote level. Many say, "But I don't intend to instruct." But they do! And they give FAR Part 61.57 flight reviews; even in the registration line at a balloon rally.

In presenting their arguments for not having an instructor rating some will argue that, "blood is not on the runway. Number of fatalities remain about the same each year, even with growth." Maybe, but the total number of accidents has grown. There are plenty of accidents that take place every year. Many because of flying in marginal weather.

Unfortunately there has not been an instructor rating in the past for balloons that would allow us the opportunity to compare what might have been. The biennial flight review was introduced in the early 1970's to refresh and improve flight skills. After its introduction the accident rate for general aviation went down.

Under the present system we have instructors whose main area of interest in ballooning probably lies in commercial operations, competition, record attempts, or sport flying. If, for instance, they eat and sleep competition, what influence do you think will be imparted on the student?

The instructor is a role model for the new pilot. Those who are teachers have chosen that role for themselves. They have taken the time, energy, and expense to become knowledgeable. They are a more mature person and conscientious in their chosen endeavor.

Teachers are special people. All endeavors, whether math or ballooning, have been achieved because of teachers. That's not to say that if a Certified Instructor Rating is issued that there will not be any bad instructors.

With an instructor rating the balloon community will have a cadre of instructors who will instruct with a conservative attitude. That attitude will be passed along and instilled in the student.

For those who worry that the growth of the sport will be stymied because of the reduced opportunity to get instruction, keep in mind that safety doesn't care about growth. Only that the sport grows safely. A balloon does not belong in every garage.

Growth in ballooning brings additional exposure of the sport to the general population. Lessons learned early become the basis of a pilot's actions later. Accidents and bad landowner relations can quickly cast a black mark on ballooning not easily erased. Competent instructors are a keystone to providing sound basic training that will evolve a more responsible balloon pilot community.

With an instructor rating the balloon CFI will have to renew that rating every 2 years. Recertification means that those individuals will be getting refresher training. Retraining is important because we begin to forget what was learned as soon as the training is over. Human intelligence retention is selective; we retain both skills and knowledge in proportion to their use and apparent importance to our survival. Retraining is important for all of us.

And speaking of training, how about our present Designated Examiners? Some of them are not instructor qualified. Yet, they are giving commercial flight checks (qualifying the pilot as an instructor) and creating new commercial (instructor) pilots.

Balloons have earned their rightful place in aviation. If a Certified Instructor Rating is good enough for airplanes, helicopters, gliders, and gyroplanes it is good enough for balloons.

Here is the point. Folks, if you want to learn to fly, find someone who wants to be called a teacher. You and I have many balloon friends that are record holders, high ranking competitors, manufacturers, tether experts, pay ride millionaires—you've seen the business cards. Seek out the pilot who puts Flight Instructor at the top of his or her credential list. Learn to fly from that pilot.

When the FAA finally gives us our instructor rating, the real instructors will jump on it with enthusiasm. The naysayers weren't teachers anyway.

Before we delve into the motivations of the people who are trying overtly or covertly to ensure that any revision of Part 61 of the FARs includes an LTA Instructor Rating it is important to accept one basic fact of ballooning life. That fact is that to date, no ballooning accident has been investigated where the cause was shown to be inadequate training or training by inadequately qualified instructors. When the BFA (Balloon Federation of America) championed the cause of an instructor rating in 1980 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rejected that petition on the basis that their investigations failed to relate accidents (ergo, safety) with inadequate training. That was the position in 1980 and that is the position today. I challenge and ask all other LTA pilots to challenge the advocates of an instructor rating. Why change a system that appears to be working well and to the overall advantage of the LTA community?

Of the current commercially rated pilots for whom ballooning is principally an avocation but who sell a ride or two and train a crew member once in a while how many will consider the three day refresher course every two years to be worthwhile? I and many others to whom I have spoken over the years feel that the answer would be "very few". People in aviation related industries, balloon dealers and balloon school operators may be the only ones who would find it worth their trouble to comply.

Where will that leave the remainder of the LTA community at biennial flight review time? You've guessed it, trying desperately to line up an appointment with one of the few remaining rated instructors who will hopefully let you into their busy training, instructing and selling schedule!

And all to fix a non-existent problem. The reason we do not need an instructor rating has nothing to do with how easy or difficult it is to get such a rating. It is because the present system is working, and has worked for over 20 years. Accidents are not happening because pilots were badly trained. Powerline contacts continue to be the major killer but is there one pilot out there that was not instructed from flight one on the hazards of powerlines and the correct procedures to follow when contact was unavoidable? Incidents cannot be blamed on bad training. No one is suggesting that there are not bad instructors out there which is why we have designated examiners. Most designated examiners I know will tell you that they can spot an inadequately trained applicant within 15 minutes. And that is what pink slips are for!

Those LTA pilots who feel as I do that the present system is working well and that an instructor rating would (a) have no impact on LTA safety and (b) would adversely affect the sport economically and logistically should lose no time in making their voices heard.

An instructor rating for LTA will have no impact on safety and that is the only criterion that should govern this issue. The system is working—it ain't broke. Leave it alone!

Geoffrey Woodhouse is a former member of the Board of Directors, Balloon Federation of America and Chairman of the Government Liaison Committee of the BFA.