The new 14 CFR Part 1, 61, 141 &143 were published in the Federal Register April 4. The road to this final rule began more than ten years ago. Along the way there have been many arguments and comments on what should or should not be included. While the balloon community considered an instructor certificate the most volatile issue, other aviation segments had their own hot topics.
As expected, the new rule does not contain an instructor rating for balloons. The FAA bought the balloon community's arguments against such a rating. Instead, the government has addressed its desire for better qualified instructors by issuing a new Commercial PTS for balloons, a mandate that did not require public comment.
Now is not the time, however, for ballooning to pat itself on the back for winning this battle. Those who argued both for and against the rating want the same objectiveÑbetter quality instruction. Now is the time to develop better training materials and make those resources available to those who do want to give balloon flight instruction.
The aviation community generally views the new rules favorably. Onerous proposals that were modified or removed include the aforementioned balloon instructor rating, written syllabi for all flight training, instructor record keeping requirements, supervised pilot-in-command, and flight instructor logging of pilot-in-command time.
One specific area of concern for some commentors, including this publication, was the term Balloonport. The FAA accepted the argument that this term should not be used. The FAA comments in the preamble to the new rule that a number of alternatives were offered. Did the FAA use any of them? No. Instead the new rule states that private and commercial applicants be familiar with "airport operations."
Throughout the regulation FAA uses this terminology for each category of aircraft. What does airport operations have to do with ballooning? The objective of the requirement is make sure that applicants are familiar with those operations associated with takeoffs and landings. For balloons this is rarely at airports. This "one size fits all" mentality of the FAA leads to bad regulations and gross misinterpretation later by those who enforce the rules.
Whether it is just lazy rule writing or the desire to make life easier for those who have to enforce the rules, writing blanket regulations do not always make sense. Minimum safe altitudes comes to mind as one rule that really doesn't work for all forms of aviation.
Pilots in southern California are experiencing a bad interpretation of FAR rules today. A Flight Standards District Office is currently applying that part of the FARs that says during an airshow only licensed pilots may be onboard a [balloon]. Forget that there is a separate chapter, 8700, that spells out what can and can not be done at a balloon rally. At a recent event one female pilot had to load ballast into the basket in order to be able to fly safely. Balloon Life is monitoring this situation and will provide a more complete report in a future issue.
Our cover photograph this month is an accident. Gayle Morton, Sunrise, Florida, had a lucky accident, one of those once-in-a-lifetime occurrences. She exposed a roll of film taking pictures of balloons. Then, inadvertently, ran the film through the camera a second time, this time at a local air show featuring the Blue Angels. You can imagine her surprise when she looked at the set of sides after having them developed. The only salvageable shot from a roll of thirty-six exposures graces our cover this month.
The best laid plans often go astray. The May issue is arriving later this month in your mailbox because the move to Seattle has taken more time than originally planned. June appears to be on schedule. I thank you for your patience during the transition. New contact information for Balloon Life may be found in the column to the left.