www.balloonlife.com

02.2001

20

Prior to the advent of powered aircraft
there were nogovernment regulationsfor
LTA flight. But withthe arrival of World
War I and the resurgence of LTA military
applications, a formal syllabus was devel-
oped forthe training ofballoon pilots.
Still there was no civilian counterpart.
Until 1962, one could simply walk
into anFAA office, fill out the application
andbingoyouwereaballoonpilot.As
one retired FAA official said, “You didn’t
evenhave toknow how tospellballoon,
let alone how to flyone!”
From1962-1974onehadtohave
eight hours of instruction loggedto show
youcouldcontroloneofthesethings.
And,itrequiredathirdclassmedical
certificate. Then, in 1974, the presentre-
quirements to obtain aballoon rating came
intoforce.
In 1974 the FAA says that there were
582 registered balloons(gas and hotair)
and3,187“active”pilots.Theballoon
count is probably accurate, thepilot count
isladen with“barroom certificates” of a
bye-gone era.
Ed Yost flew the first modern hot air
flight inOctober,1960. Inthewinter of
1962, Yost, Don Piccard,and Tracy Barnes
flew in the first balloon race at the St. Paul
Winter Carnival.Hot air ballooningwas
at the dawn of a new age. One without any
foundation.
Therewere no books on flying hot air
balloons,notrainingsyllabus,noflight
schoolsforballooning, andfew,ifany-
body, who knewanything about teaching.
Manyof the long time pilotsfeaturedin
Balloonmeister storieshaverelatedthat
the person teaching them wasonlya few
hours ahead intheir own learning curve.
WillHays,whowrotetheoriginal
bible for balloonists in the 1970s,Balloon
Digest, tells howhis own flight check was
conductedbysomeonewhosaid,“Do
what you are supposed to do.” Hays, who

had been active in powered aviation, saw
a need to teach FAA examiners how bal-
loons operated. He conducted several fly-
ing safety seminars for FAA personnel in
the early1970s.
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. By1980 Hays’ bookhad become
long in the tooth. The body of knowledge
forballooningwassmall.Balloon“in-
structors” for the most part were still just
ahead of their students.
A small cadre of poweredflightpi-
lotshadmigratedintoballooning.They
were appalled by the lack of instructional
qualityand the dearth ofeducational in-
formation available. The fixed wing com-
munityhadformalinstructionsyllabuii,
detailed record keeping, and a more “pro-
fessional” attitude.
Withtheranksofballoonistsgrow-
ingrapidly itwas feltthat thequalityof
instruction had to be improved orballoon-
istswouldbekillingthemselvesdueto
inadequate training.
By1979theBalloonFederationof
America was convinced that a petition to
the FAAshould be put forward requesting
a flightinstructor ratingfor ballooning.
Combined with higher pilot hour require-
ments,a safer and sounder balloon com-
munitywould evolve, they resolved.
In a letter dated March 24, 1980, the
Balloon Federation of America petitioned
theFederalAviationAdministrationto
amendcertainsectionsof Part61of the
Federal Aviation Regulations.
The petitioner’s proposals wouldin-
creasetheflightexperiencerequiredof
applicants for private and commercial pi-
lot certificates with a lighter-than-air free
balloon(hotair)rating.Thepetitioner
alsorequestedthattheFAAestablisha
hot airballoon rating to be placed on flight
instructorcertificatesandestablishre-

quirementstoobtain that rating.
In part, the BFA requested thattime
foraprivateratingbeincreasedto15
hours including 8 hours and 8 flights with
a balloon flight instructor. Also proposed
was an increasefor acommercial rating to
75 hours, of which 50 hours and 50 flights
be in a hot air balloon and 15 hours and 15
flightswithaballoonflightinstructor.
The petitionfurther requestedthatahot
air balloon Flight Instructor ratingbe in-
stitutedandprivilegeofacommercial
LTApilottogiveflightinstructionbe
eliminated.
The FAAdeniedthepetitionciting
that based on available data they were not
able toidentify asignificanttrendin the
balloonaccidentratethatwouldjustify
adopting the petitioner’s proposals.
The FAAalso conducted an economic
reviewoftheproposal.Thereviewwas
basedonballoonaccidentdataobtained
fromtheNTSB(NationalTransportation
SafetyBoard) for the years1974 through
1980 and on the growth rate of the number
oflighter-than-airpilot certificates issued
in the years 1976 through 1980. These data,
adjusted foreconomic factors and increases
inpilotcertification, werethenprojected
for the period of 1983-1992. The projected
costs reflectedthe added costs that would
be imposed on the lighter-than-air aviation
community by the proposed changes. The
monetarybenefitsrealizedfromprevent-
ingallrelevantaccidentswerealsopro-
jected for the period of 1983 through 1992.
Theresultsofthis economic review indi-
catedtotheFAAthattheadditionalre-
quirementsproposedforlighter-than-air
pilotcertificationwouldhaveanegative
benefit/cost impact.
TheFAAreceived69comments
whenthepetitionwaspublishedinthe
Federal Register. 26commentsfavoring
theBFApositionindicatedthathigher
minimum experience requirements and a

Evolution of Balloon
Instructing

by Tom Hamilton

21

www.balloonlife.com

02.2001

balloon flight instructor rating would en-
hance safety. They were alsogenerallyof
the opinion that thepresent system re-
sulted inpoorinstruction being given
which, in turn, brings an increase in the
accident rate.Those favoring the BFA
petition did not provide additional evi-
dence to support their position.
22 comments were in partial agree-
ment withthe BFAproposaland differed
mainlywithregard to the proposed flight
time requirements.
Ofthe 21opposed tothepetitiontheir
comments included: that it would be det-
rimental to the growth of ballooning by
making it too costly for many persons to
obtain alighter-than-airpilot certifica-
tion; 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.
TheFAA concluded that the peti-
tioner did notshow thatits requestwas in
the public interestor thatsafety would be
enhanced. In February of 1982 the peti-
tion was denied.
In the mid-eighties a new threat to
ballooningappeared—insurance.Bal-
looning was down to one or two insurance
companies.It was felt by some that if
ballooning did not improve its image re-
garding safetythat there wouldnotbe any
insurancecompaniesleftto insurethe
sport. The perceptionat thattime was that
thequalityof instructionwasgoingdown.
Roger Barker, BFA Board member
fromthe West Coastatthe time,told
Balloon Life that a meeting was held in
Denver,Colorado. Thepurpose was to
develop a safety program that would sat-
isfy the insurance companies in the short
term. From thismeetingBarbara 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.
TheBalloonFederationofAmerica’s
EducationCommittee developed aFlight
Instructor’s Manualand started a BFA
FlightInstructor Rating, a voluntary pro-
gram. The BFA also wrote a letter to the
FAA asking for a flight instructor rating
for balloons.
In theearly eighties theFAA had
begun an internal review of Part 61. In
1987 that review process became more

formal and thegovernmentcontracted
with Booz-Allen to conduct a Pilot and
FlightInstructorJob TaskAnalysis.Input
from various aviation organizations was
solicited.
Aballooning accident ofafriend
caused Kurt Gottschalk to become more
involvedwithballooningsafety. He spear-
headed Aloft ’89, a national symposium
on ballooning that brought together bal-
loon pilots, manufacturers, BFA, FAA,
andNationalTransportationSafetyBoard.
The meeting took place just outside of
Washington, D.C.
Lonny Regan, then Chairman of the
BFASafetyCommittee, wasinvolvedwith
the panel discussionon Part 61. With ap-
proximately 400 people in attendance a
strawvotewas takenbya showonhandsof
thosewho opposedan instructor ratingfor
balloonsand those in favor. Eight people
raised their hand in opposition. The rest,
about400 attendees, were for the rating.
In 1988Regan was asked bythe FAA
tochair a committee of ballooniststo help
withthe regulatoryreview. Due to lack of
fundingfrom the FAAthe pilotcommittee
he had gathered from aroundthe U.S. met
once inAlbuquerque inJanuary, 1989.An
Instructorgroupmet duringAloft’89. The
committeeagreedthatprofessionalism,
safety,andbetterqualitypilotsandinstruc-
torswere the most important goals.
Because of Regan’sexperience,BFA
President Jacques Soukup asked him to
draftthe BFA’spositionon the instructor
rating and other revisions to Part 61. For
Reganthispositionwasnota comfortable
one.
“I wanted to be as fair as possible to
the entireballooning community,” said
Rega n.Hewrotearticlesinthe
organization’s publications. From4300
members he only received 17 letters.
The FAA moved on toPhase 2 of the
regulatory review with four public hear-
ingsheldinSeptemberandOctober,1989.
Only three people representing balloon-
ing spoke at the meeting in Los Angeles.
Brent Stockwell, who supported an in-
structorrating, acrop dusterwho had
recently become a balloon pilot,and Geoff
Woodhouse who had recently resigned as
Chairman of the BFA Government Rela-
tions Committeein a dispute ver the idea
of an instructor rating. Woodhouse spoke
against the rating.
At the final public hearing in Wash-

ington,LonnyRegan,withJacques
Soukup,presented theBFA’sformalopin-
ion. The BFA recommended that an in-
structorrating for balloons becreated.
The BFAalsorecommendedthatthe pilot
time for both private and commercial rat-
ing be raised and that a 100 hour mini-
mum pilot in command time be required
for an instructor rating.
From 1989 the debate raged over the
need for a formal instructor rating. Bow-
ing to the outcry fromits membership
againstan instructorratingthe BFABoard
in April of 1993 voted to oppose such a
rating.
The BFA then attempted to use its
contacts within the FAA to keep the in-
structor rating out of the NPRM.
In 1995 the NPRM for FAR Part 61
was issued including a balloon pilot in-
structorrating.Theoverwhemling re-
sponsebytheballooncommunictyagainst
this certificate caused the FAA to with-
draw it from the final rule.
The bodyof information available
aboutballooning,the qualityof theequip-
ment, and the quality of the training have
improved dramatically. Thenumber of
balloonists andballoonsoperating has
grown,although it is now tapering off.
The fatal and serious injury accident rate
has not increased.
What has evolved over the past 40
years is a different form of aviation from
the others. Along the way ballooninghas
matured. Training and educational mate-
rialshave beendeveloped and continue to
evolve. The FAAhaschangedthe written
exams, updated the Practical Test Stan-
dards,and becomemore involved with
ballooning. Pilots and crews taketheir
task more seriouslyand demand thatoth-
ers dothe same. Continuing education
through safety seminars has become an
annual rite of spring.
Balloonsare notcomplicated aircraft
to fly.Thatis reflectedin theFAA’s
decision notto changetheflight hour
requirements in the proposed rules. To-
day we havebettertrained pilots. The
marketforcesin ballooninghave contrib-
uted to this and will continue to improve
flying skills.
Two components of a good pilotare
skillandjudgement.Forballooning,judge-
ment is by far the more important of the
two.