by Mary Woodhouse
A recent conversation on the balloon Internet line dealt with how many fuel tanks are approved for use in a given balloon. As with many of these types of questions, opinions varied not only among balloonists but among FAA officials. Having battled this issue with the FAA and through the entire appeals process, I may have an answer. Or maybe not, depending on how you read the results.
The particular balloon at issue went through a process which, at the time, was not all that unusual. Manufactured in England, it was shipped to the U.S. without fuel tanks. In those days, Worthington tanks were used and since they are manufactured in the U.S. it seemed logical to ship it without tanks and install them here. The factory issued a Certificate of Export that stated that the balloon was to be equipped in order to meet its Type Certificate Data Sheet to be airworthy. Logically, you would assume that would include adding fuel tanks. The FAA may not agree with your logic.
The distributor who ordered the balloon installed two master tanks and issued a Form 337, Major Alteration or Repair. Whether that was on the advice of an FAA inspector or the distributor did it on the basis of "When it doubt, cover it with a 337" isn't clear. The balloon was shipped to the owner with the 337.
Years down the road, the balloon is sold but the 337 doesn't stay with the maintenance records. Many annuals later, the balloon is involved in an accident that results in an investigation and the 337 surfaces.
Six tanks were on board at the time of the accident. Four were strapped in place and the pilot said he placed two tanks from another brand of balloon in the basket that morning when he did a passenger change but did not remove the two empty tanks. Despite this admission and further acknowledgment that he had altered the fuel system after the annual, the pilot was never cited for any violation. I, on the other hand, was cited since I had performed the annual which included inspection of six tanks though not the six involved in the accident. The pilot brought the balloon in with four tanks installed and two spare tanks
Our friends at the Scottsdale Flight Standards District Office argued, among other things, that the balloona 104,000 cubic-foot modelwas only approved for two tanks. Their position was based on the 337 issued at the time the balloon was imported.
I argued that the balloon was approved for use with four tanks based on the following:
1. The Certificate of Export stated that the balloon must be fully equipped to be airworthy. Fuel tanks are required in order to fly.
2. Since the Type Certificate Data Sheet did not specify the number of tanks permitted, there was no limit.
3 . The Flight Manual states that a balloon with double burners (this one was so equipped) was to have four fuel tanks configured in a certain way.
4. The FARs required that an aircraft carry sufficient fuel to reach its destination plus one-half hour flight time. A 104 could not meet that requirement with only two tanks on board. Therefore, it could not be considered airworthy in that condition.
5. The 337 was unnecessary and needed to be disregarded. The balloon was not being altered by the installation of the two fuel tanks; its manufacture was simply being completed in accordance with the Certificate of Export.
Are you surprised they didn't accept this line of reasoning? Then you'll be even more surprised at the administrative law judge's position.
He ruled that the balloon was not approved to have any tanks at all! That it was airworthy without tanks! I pointed out that the Type Certificate Data Sheet required the use of propane for the balloon and that, surely, one would be expected to carry the propane in something. It fell on deaf ears. I appealed.
The NTSB restored my faith that there is some logic in the legal system when it reversed the judge's ruling saying that "fuel tanks are necessary for the operation of a hot air balloon" and that the FAA "failed to establish the number of fuel tanks authorized by the balloon's type design."
So there you have it. Or maybe you don't. The Type Certificate Data Sheet is not the be all and end all for determining airworthiness. If it were, the Board would have accepted that failure to limit the number of tanks on the TCDS meant any number was allowed. Fortunately, when this company, Cameron, began manufacturing in the U.S. the TCDS was issued stating that any number of tanks may be carried so that problem should not surface again for owners of that brand. Not all TCDSs carry the same statement.
Through its ruling, the NTSB also is claiming that a form 337 is not the be all and end all in determining airworthy. If it were, the Board would have accepted the argument that the 337 meant only two tanks were approved. Though the opinion doesn't specifically state this, by its ruling the Board seemed to have accepted my logic that at least four tanks were permitted and perhaps six.
So how many tanks are you permitted to have in your balloon? Other than my own case, I have not found any ruling from the NTSB on the subject. My best advice is to fly with only the number of tanks in your balloon that came from the factory unless you fly a Cameron which permits you to add them indiscriminately. If you want to add more for a record flight or long distance flight, talk to your local FAA inspector or one in the area where you will be doing the flight. And rest assured, you will likely get two different answers.