We’re pretty sure we advertised and promoted the first paid hot-air balloon ride business in California, the country and the world. We accomplished our first ride to paying customers in 1970 in an AX-4 balloon with 30,000 cubic-foot capacity. We thought we were hot stuff when we “moved up” to 69,000 cubic-foot balloons in which we could carry two passengers each on a normal day.
Years later we got our first 105,000 cubic-foot balloon and started carrying four paying passengers. At that time, it was a big balloon; there were larger balloons around but they were uncommon. When ride operators started using even bigger balloons we considered that option, discussed it with our pilots, and decided we didn’t feel one person (the balloon pilot) should be responsible for more than four people during a flight, so we stuck with the AX-8 size. After 18 years, when we closed the ride portion of our business to concentrate on flight training, balloon rides had become a big, competitive business.
Balloon Life readers who follow the balloon discussion group on the Internet will know that there has been some discussion about balloon ride operators which, at times, has deteriorated into a silly, name-calling brawl with a theme of ride operators vs. sport balloonists (i.e., dirty, money-grubbing, meat-haulers vs. purely-for- pleasure aeronauts), as if they were mutually exclusive. There’s plenty of room in the sky for all balloonists. If there seems to be not enough space on the ground for balloons to land, it may be because of judgment and skill problems, which don’t confine themselves to ride operators or fun flyers.
Some, who consider themselves sport balloonists (“purists”), contend that ride balloon operators are responsible for more accidents and have created more landowner problems than sport balloonists. We don’t know that’s true. Hard facts are unavailable in spite of what some self-proclaimed ballooning experts allege. It is probable that landowners in certain areas with heavy balloon populations are sensitized to balloon landings, but not all landowners dislike balloons; some realize balloon ride companies provide employment and bring additional tourist dollars into the area where they operate. Tourism is a perfectly legitimate industry. Many landowners just plain like balloons. (And some — a small minority, we believe — don’t.) If someone is injured in a balloon, or a balloon causes property damage, there is no difference to media coverage or public perception if it’s a “sport” or commercial balloon.
Ride operators have been accused of flying in marginal weather, bowing to the profit motive. That may be the case, however, a case can also be made that most ride pilots fly more often than sport balloonists, and are, consequently, more skilled; what may be marginal conditions to the occasional pilot in his light, sport balloon may be acceptable conditions to a ride pilot who flies in a heavy ride balloon, and flies more frequently.
Should pilots who fly large passenger balloons be subject to different regulations than pilots who fly smaller balloons that carry fewer passengers? Should a difference be made between pilots who carry paying passengers and those who do not? Should there be separate pilot certificates and regulations?
Several balloonists have suggested that large passenger-carrying balloons should be subject to Federal Aviation Regulation Part 135–Air Taxi Operators and Commercial Operators, rather than Part 91. This is not a well-thought-out recommendation. Balloons are so different from other aircraft (which fly from airports, follow a specific route, and adhere to a schedule, to cite some important differences) that it would be inappropriate if not impossible to try to adapt their rules to balloons. Furthermore, ballooning is exclusively a leisure activity with no dictate to provide a service other than entertainment. Nobody must take a balloon to get somewhere. The spirit of the suggestion, however, that large commercial balloon operations carrying paid passengers should be subject to higher standards than sport balloonists, is not without merit.
A judge in California decreed that a balloon ride company is a “common carrier” and has a duty to use “utmost care and diligence” and the “highest degree of care”, while a private carrier (sport balloonist) is merely held to an ordinary standard of care. Leaving aside the issue that we would hope all balloonists hold themselves to a high standard, who is to decide what constitutes “utmost care and diligence?” The companies themselves? Some care and some don’t; certainly, opinions differ. Who should decide? The FAA? They don’t know much about balloons.
If you believe that ride companies should, in fact, be held to a very high standard of care for their paying passengers, then it follows that certain procedures and practices to establish and maintain higher standards should be put in place.
Here are some ideas that might be worth consideration by ride pilots, ride operators, and manufacturers of large ride balloons.
First a determination must be made of what constitutes a “large ride” balloon. For the purposes of discussion, let’s say it’s a balloon that will carry a pilot and 5 or more passengers.
Pilots of large ride balloons should be required to have a minimum number of hours experience, including experience in large balloons. They should have to have 3 takeoffs and landings within 30 days (rather than 90 normally required) and those should be done in a big balloon. Ride pilots should have annual flight reviews. They should have adequate rest and time off between flights. (When we were doing rides, no pilot was scheduled to fly more than 3 days in a row, and was allowed at least 2 days rest in between.)
Large ride balloons should have more frequent inspections. This could be done several ways; one possibility would be to have a balloon repairman on staff who could perform limited maintenance duties such as small repairs and 50-hour inspections. Large ride companies should have strict “squawk” rules so discrepancies or damage can be corrected or repaired immediately. Ride companies should have a regular program of in-house flight training and safety seminars. Work days should be scheduled carefully so all pilots have adequate rest. Ride balloons should have stated minimum fuel requirements (reserve). Ten plus passenger balloons should have a basket attendant to take care of the passengers. Strict passenger dress codes should be established and observed, and passenger assumption of risk contracts, including dress requirements and landing instructions, should be used.
Ride balloons should not just be larger versions of sport balloons. Ride balloon manufacturers should build baskets with more padding, hold-ons, and roll-over protection. Baskets should have rounded bottom edges to minimize and retard tipping. Pilot and fuel should be separated from passengers. Maximum passenger space should be established to prevent people from being thrown around or out of the basket during landing. Burners should have restricted movement and “dead-man”-type blast valves.
The purpose of proposing more stringent requirements for ride pilots, operators and manufacturers is to acknowledge the custom that someone offering a service to the public has an obligation to take appropriate steps to ensure safety. If, by promoting such a program, balloon rides become safer, then all balloonists will benefit (not to mention future passengers).
The downside? Ride operators might have to raise prices (or make less profit), but there seems to be no shortage of passengers, so a price hike probably wouldn’t hurt, and might even help.
Who should impose safety regulations? How about a national organization of ride pilots and operators who, working with balloon manufacturers, establish safety and quality standards for their own business. If we handle it ourselves, within the balloon community, before the government detects a need for changes, we’ll do a better job and evade heavy-handed, inappropriate regulation.