Federal bureaucracy aside, the parade of events leading up to the proposed instructor rating for balloons has evolved over more than 20 years. Balloon Life has spoken with dozens of people in the past few weeks regarding why there has been a perceived need for such a rating. Those interviews, together with more than twenty-five articles in this magazine, mold a story the ending of which will not be known for years to come.
Prior to the advent of powered aircraft there were no flight requirements for LTA flight. But with the arrival of World War I and the resurgence of LTA military applications, a formal syllabus was developed for the training of balloon pilots. Still there was no civilian counterpart.
Until 1962, one could simply walk into an FAA office, fill out the application and bingo you were a balloon pilot. As one retired FAA official said, "You didn't even have to know how to spell balloon, let alone how to fly one!"
From 1962-1974 one had to have eight hours of instruction logged to show you could control one of these things. And, it required a third class medical certificate. Then, in 1974, the present requirements to obtain a balloon rating came into force.
In 1974 the FAA says that there were 582 registered balloons (gas and hot air) and 3,187 "active" pilots. The balloon count is probably accurate, the pilot count is laden with "barroom certificates" of a bye-gone era.
Ed Yost flew the first modern hot air flight in October, 1960. In the winter of 1962, Yost, Don Piccard, and Tracy Barnes flew in the first balloon race at the St. Paul Winter Carnival. Hot air ballooning was at the dawn of a new age. One without any foundation.
There were no books on flying hot air balloons, no training syllabus, no flight schools for ballooning, and few, if anybody, who knew anything about teaching. Many of the long time pilots featured in Balloonmeister stories have related that the person teaching them was only a few hours ahead in their own learning curve.
Will Hays, who wrote the original bible for balloonists in the 1970s, Balloon Digest, tells how his own flight check was conducted by someone who said, "Do what you are supposed to do." Hays, who had been active in powered aviation, saw a need to teach FAA examiners how balloons operated. He conducted several flying safety seminars for FAA personnel in the early 1970s.
By 1978 the FAA was issuing around 300 new balloon licenses a year. By 1982 that number had grown to more than 2,000 a year. By 1980 Hays' book had become long in the tooth. The body of knowledge for ballooning was small. Balloon "instructors" for the most part were still just ahead of their students.
A small cadre of powered flight pilots had migrated into ballooning. They were appalled by the lack of instructional quality and the dearth of educational information available. The fixed wing community had formal instruction syllabuii, detailed record keeping, and a more "professional" attitude.
With the ranks of balloonists growing rapidly it was felt that the quality of instruction had to be improved or balloonists would be killing themselves due to inadequate training.
By 1979 the Balloon Federation of America was convinced that a petition to the FAA should be put forward requesting a flight instructor rating for ballooning. Combined with higher pilot hour requirements, a safer and sounder balloon community would evolve, they resolved.
In a letter dated March 24, 1980, the Balloon Federation of America petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration to amend certain sections of Part 61 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
The petitioner's proposals would increase the flight experience required of applicants for private and commercial pilot certificates with a lighter-than-air free balloon (hot air) rating. The petitioner also requested that the FAA establish a hot air balloon rating to be placed on flight instructor certificates and establish requirements to obtain that rating.
In part, the BFA requested that time for a private rating be increased to 15 hours including 8 hours and 8 flights with a balloon flight instructor. Also proposed was an increase for a commercial rating to 75 hours, of which 50 hours and 50 flights be in a hot air balloon and 15 hours and 15 flights with a balloon flight instructor. The petition further requested that a hot air balloon Flight Instructor rating be instituted and privilege of a commercial LTA pilot to give flight instruction be eliminated.
The FAA denied the petition citing that based on available data they were not able to identify a significant trend in the balloon accident rate that would justify adopting the petitioner's proposals.
The FAA also conducted an economic review of the proposal. The review was based on balloon accident data obtained from the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) for the years 1974 through 1980 and on the growth rate of the number of lighter-than-air pilot certificates issued in the years 1976 through 1980. These data, adjusted for economic factors and increases in pilot certification, were then projected for the period of 1983-1992. The projected costs reflected the added costs that would be imposed on the lighter-than-air aviation community by the proposed changes. The monetary benefits realized from preventing all relevant accidents were also projected for the period of 1983 through 1992. The results of this economic review indicated to the FAA that the additional requirements proposed for lighter-than-air pilot certification would have a negative benefit/cost impact.
The FAA received 69 comments when the petition was published in the Federal Register. 26 comments favoring the BFA position indicated that higher minimum experience requirements and a balloon flight instructor rating would enhance safety. They were also generally of the opinion that the present system resulted in poor instruction being given which, in turn, brings an increase in the accident rate. Those favoring the BFA petition did not provide additional evidence to support their position.
22 comments were in partial agreement with the BFA proposal and differed mainly with regard to the proposed flight time requirements.
Of the 21 opposed to the petition their comments included: that it would be detrimental to the growth of ballooning by making it too costly for many persons to obtain a lighter-than-air pilot certification; would result in financial gain for a few commercial balloonists and reduce competition by restricting "newcomers" to the ranks of professional balloonists; balloon instructors in many geographic areas would be eliminated.
The FAA concluded that the petitioner did not show that its request was in the public interest or that safety would be enhanced. In February of 1982 the petition was denied.
In the mid-eighties a new threat to ballooning appeared—insurance. Ballooning was down to one or two insurance companies. It was felt by some that if ballooning did not improve its image regarding safety that there would not be any insurance companies left to insure the sport. The perception at that time was that the quality of instruction was going down.
Roger Barker, BFA Board member from the West Coast at the time, told Balloon Life that a meeting was held in Denver, Colorado. The purpose was to develop a safety program that would satisfy the insurance companies in the short term. From this meeting Barbara Zodrow developed the Back to Basics eight hour safety seminar core program. The long term fix would be an implementation of flight instructor rating for ballooning.
The Balloon Federation of America's Education Committee developed a Flight Instructor's Manual and started a BFA Flight Instructor Rating, a voluntary program. The BFA also wrote a letter to the FAA asking for a flight instructor rating for balloons.
In the early eighties the FAA had begun an internal review of Part 61. In 1987 that review process became more formal and the government contracted with Booz-Allen to conduct a Pilot and Flight Instructor Job Task Analysis. Input from various aviation organizations was solicited.
A ballooning accident of a friend caused Kurt Gottschalk to become more involved with ballooning safety. He spearheaded Aloft '89, a national symposium on ballooning that brought together balloon pilots, manufacturers, BFA, FAA, and National Transportation Safety Board. The meeting took place just outside of Washington, D.C.
Lonny Regan, then Chairman of the BFA Safety Committee, was involved with the panel discussion on Part 61. With approximately 400 people in attendance a straw vote was taken by a show on hands of those who opposed an instructor rating for balloons and those in favor. Eight people raised their hand in opposition. The rest, about 400 attendees, were for the rating.
In 1988 Regan was asked by the FAA to chair a committee of balloonists to help with the regulatory review. Due to lack of funding from the FAA the pilot committee he had gathered from around the U.S. met once in Albuquerque in January, 1989. An Instructor group met during Aloft '89. The committee agreed that professionalism, safety, and better quality pilots and instructors were the most important goals.
Because of Regan's experience, BFA President Jacques Soukup asked him to draft the BFA's position on the instructor rating and other revisions to Part 61. For Regan this position was not a comfortable one.
"I wanted to be as fair as possible to the entire ballooning community," said Regan. He wrote articles in the organization's publications. From 4300 members he only received 17 letters.
The FAA moved on to Phase 2 of the regulatory review with four public hearings held in September and October, 1989. Only three people representing ballooning spoke at the meeting in Los Angeles. Brent Stockwell, who supported an instructor rating, a crop duster who had recently become a balloon pilot, and Geoff Woodhouse who had recently resigned as Chairman of the BFA Government Relations Committee in a dispute over the idea of an instructor rating. Woodhouse spoke against the rating.
At the final public hearing in Washington, Lonny Regan, with Jacques Soukup, presented the BFA's formal opinion. The BFA recommended that an instructor rating for balloons be created. The BFA also recommended that the pilot time for both private and commercial rating be raised and that a 100 hour minimum pilot in command time be required for an instructor rating.
Since 1989 the debate has raged over the need for a formal instructor rating. Bowing to the outcry from its membership against an instructor rating the BFA Board in April of 1993 voted to oppose such a rating.
The BFA has since reported to its members that it has attempted to use its contacts within the FAA to keep the instructor rating out of the NPRM. According to the NPRM, the FAA stated that because of the time which had elapsed since the public hearings that it invited organizations in february, 1989, including the BFA, to update the information.
In the last 15 years the body of information available about ballooning, the quality of the equipment, and the quality of the training have improved dramatically. The number of balloonists and balloons operating has grown, although it is now tapering off. The fatal and serious injury accident rate has not increased.
Two primary factors have driven the desire for an instructor rating for balloons. First, those who have come from other aviation backgrounds and feel the need to make ballooning more like powered flight.
Second, elements that made ballooning look risky and out of control, including little available information about ballooning, equipment that was still developing, and rapid growth. The quick fix: government control.
What has evolved over the past 15 years is a different form of aviation from the others. Along the way ballooning has matured. Training and educational materials have been developed and continue to evolve. The FAA has changed the written exams, updated the Practical Test Standards, and become more involved with ballooning. Pilots and crews take their task more seriously and demand that others do the same. Continuing education through safety seminars has become an annual rite of spring.
Balloons are not complicated aircraft to fly. That is reflected in the FAA's decision not to change the flight hour requirements in the proposed rules. Today we have better trained pilots. The market forces in ballooning have contributed to this and will continue to improve flying skills.
Two components of a good pilot are skill and judgement. For ballooning, judgement is by far the more important of the two. Based on insurance company accident statistics I do not believe that an instructor rating for balloons will increase the kind of judgement that will reduce the types of accidents that contribute most to claims. Windy landings with paying passengers is driven by greed.
The marketplace has improved education, equipment, and attitudes. If the FAA had accepted the BFA's petition for an instructor rating in 1982 would ballooning be any better off today?