Choosing Your Landing Site
Editor: The article in the May issue of Balloon Life, "Choose your landing site carefully," is interesting but it fails to fully communicate just how badly the system is rigged against the pilot.

My brother, Phil, was the "Cory" referred to in the article. You might be interested in the facts behind that case, even though it happened over ten years ago. Particularly since it is still being used as a precedent in other cases.

It was stated that his landing site was "inappropriate" because of light standards and cars in the parking lot. At the time Phil had two poster board size photos taken by the professional aerial photographer of the landing site both from a straight down perspective and from an angle similar to which the balloon would be approaching. Additionally he went to the landing site and took photos from the ground facing in all direction and had these photos blown up to 8 X 10. All the photos showed that there were no light poles and that the parking lot was surrounded on three sides by fallow farmland and that the only structure within a quarter mile was a medical building adjoining the parking lot which was at the opposite end of the lot. The flight was on a Sunday so the office was closed and there were no vehicles in the lot. He also had an FAA designated examiner who was an eyewitness to the landing testify that there were no light standards or cars in the lot and that in his opinion the landing site was suitable and that low flight in approach to the landing was appropriate and prudent. The alternative to landing at that site would have been the illegal penetration of Luke Air Force Base airspace.

In spite of photographic evidence and sworn testimony by an expert witness the judge concluded that there were light poles. This "judge" was, in fact, an "Administrative Law Judge" and was in no way connected to any branch of the judicial system. He was, in fact, an employee of the NTSB. So, the same guy passing judgement on you is on the same payroll as the guy prosecuting you. They are blind to photos. If their fellow employee says there were light standards then, by God, there must have been light standards. Photos and witness be damned. The next appeal would have been to a "real" judge, however, at this point a great deal of money had been spent and they had agreed to reduce the sanction to a 60 day suspension. So, Phil took the suspension during the Summer when it’s not flyable in Phoenix anyway. Now they are using his case to nail other people.

All you have to do is remember what they did to Bob Hoover to realize exactly what these people are capable of doing. It doesn’t really matter how carefully you select your landing site. If they say it’s not appropriate, then that automatically makes it not appropriate. The site Phil landed in was as appropriate a place to land a balloon as any site any of us have ever landed in. The only thing that made it inappropriate was that there was someone there who was willing to lie to make his case. It could happen to any one of us.

Doug Cory
Sedona, Arizona