Legal? - SPOT Helium Balloon Race

On Mar 2, 12:27*pm, "Paul Remde" wrote:
Hi,

This was a crazy idea I had that my son thought would be a lot of fun. *The
question is whether or not it is legal or advisable.

I assume you paid for the free replacement contract and want to see
how effective it is

If I was going to launch the balloons I'd rather not have anything
traceable to me attached to them.

I've been startled by party balloons when flying power planes in the
Phoenix area. They wouldn't hurt if I hit one. I don't relish the
idea of getting a spot through the prop or windshield.

My take - don't do it. If you have to do it, don't do it anywhere I
could be flying.

Andy

Andy wrote:
On Mar 2, 12:27*pm, "Paul Remde" wrote:
Hi,

This was a crazy idea I had that my son thought would be a lot of fun.
*The
question is whether or not it is legal or advisable.

I assume you paid for the free replacement contract and want to see
how effective it is

If I was going to launch the balloons I'd rather not have anything
traceable to me attached to them.

Why not? Last I checked, balloon launchers had an equal right to use the
public airspace as anyone else. (In the U.S. part 101 contains the
regulations pertinent to safe operations of balloons.)

I've been startled by party balloons when flying power planes in the
Phoenix area. They wouldn't hurt if I hit one. I don't relish the
idea of getting a spot through the prop or windshield.

I hate to break it to you, but you are more likely to run into a bird than
a balloon of any sort. Or even another manned aircraft.

My take - don't do it. If you have to do it, don't do it anywhere I
could be flying.

Just to be clear - if the risk of using a public commons is too great for
you, you always have the option of not using it. If free balloons bother
you that much, don't fly.

Sorry to break the news to you but, that winds aloft information you
get on your pilot breifing is typically generated by the NWS launching
2 weather balloons every day from 66 locations in the US.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/abr/?n=wxballoonfacts.php

Brian

I wrote:
(In the U.S. part 101 contains the
regulations pertinent to safe operations of balloons.)

Correction - "... regulations pertinent to legal operations of balloons."

On Mar 2, 4:24*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Why not? Last I checked, balloon launchers had an equal right to use the
public airspace as anyone else. (In the U.S. part 101 contains the
regulations pertinent to safe operations of balloons.)

The operation described by the OP does not appear to be compliant with
101 subpart D. Perhaps he left out all the details that would make it
compliant. Perhaps he'd post again telling us how he intends to
comply.

I've been startled by party balloons when flying power planes in the
Phoenix area. *They wouldn't hurt if I hit one. *I don't relish the
idea of getting a spot through the prop or windshield.

I hate to break it to you, but you are more likely to run into a bird than
a balloon of any sort. Or even another manned aircraft.

Maybe that's because unmanned balloon operations are regulated by 101
subpart D. The flight of birds is, to the best of my knowledge,
unregulated.

Just to be clear - if the risk of using a public commons is too great for
you, you always have the option of not using it. If free balloons bother
you that much, don't fly.

I have never, while flying, seen an unmanned free ballon legally
operating inder 101 subpart D. The risk of meeting one does not
bother me.

Andy

Andy wrote:
On Mar 2, 4:24*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Why not? Last I checked, balloon launchers had an equal right to use
the public airspace as anyone else. (In the U.S. part 101 contains
the regulations pertinent to safe operations of balloons.)

The operation described by the OP does not appear to be compliant with
101 subpart D. Perhaps he left out all the details that would make it
compliant. Perhaps he'd post again telling us how he intends to
comply.

I believe you've misread the regulations by not reading 101.1. That is
where it states:

"This part prescribes rules governing the operation in the United States,
of the following:
....
(4) Except as provided for in 101.7, any unmanned free balloon that ...
"

So the "applicability" in 101.1 specifies the criteria that must be met
for _any_ of the remainder of Part 101 to be applicable.

Now in 101.31 in "Subpart D" it states "This subpart applies to the
operation of unmanned free balloons." But that subpart _isn't_ applicable
if the conditions in 101.1 aren't met. (Because it is a _subpart_.) If it
were applicable, then according to 101.33(d), anyone releasing something
as small as a helium party balloon in a town would be in violation of the
FARs.

When properly read, according to 101.1 any unmanned free balloon under 4
lbs of payload that presents suitably large surface areas is not subject
to any Subparts of Part 101.

I've been startled by party balloons when flying power planes in
the Phoenix area. *They wouldn't hurt if I hit one. *I don't relish
the idea of getting a spot through the prop or windshield.

I hate to break it to you, but you are more likely to run into a bird
than a balloon of any sort. Or even another manned aircraft.

Maybe that's because unmanned balloon operations are regulated by 101
subpart D. The flight of birds is, to the best of my knowledge,
unregulated.

A SPOT weighs 209g. It has a density less than water (it's designed to
float.) Might dent the prop or crack the windshield, but can't see it
causing a serious hazard. (You can save the prop from significant damage
but shutting off the engine and gliding. ;-))

And as I said, Subpart D of Part 101 isn't applicable to all unmanned
balloon operations. Small balloons meeting the criteria of 101.1(4) are
not covered by Part 101. The balloon the OP proposes could no doubt be
easily made to comply. And since the OP is a pilot would no doubt perform
the operation as safely as feasible.

On Mar 2, 11:18*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
I believe you've misread the regulations by not reading 101.1. That is
where it states:

True, I missed that. It would appear that only 101.7 is applicable
given the mass of SPOT. That looks like an FAA wild card to be played
anytime they want.

Andy

Thank you everyone for the interesting and informative posts.

While it may be legal and would be safe 99.999% of the time, I think I'll
scrap the idea. I would never want it to cause any issues.

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Andy wrote:
On Mar 2, 4:24 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Why not? Last I checked, balloon launchers had an equal right to use
the public airspace as anyone else. (In the U.S. part 101 contains
the regulations pertinent to safe operations of balloons.)

The operation described by the OP does not appear to be compliant with
101 subpart D. Perhaps he left out all the details that would make it
compliant. Perhaps he'd post again telling us how he intends to
comply.

I believe you've misread the regulations by not reading 101.1. That is
where it states:

"This part prescribes rules governing the operation in the United States,
of the following:
...
(4) Except as provided for in 101.7, any unmanned free balloon that ...
"

So the "applicability" in 101.1 specifies the criteria that must be met
for _any_ of the remainder of Part 101 to be applicable.

Now in 101.31 in "Subpart D" it states "This subpart applies to the
operation of unmanned free balloons." But that subpart _isn't_ applicable
if the conditions in 101.1 aren't met. (Because it is a _subpart_.) If it
were applicable, then according to 101.33(d), anyone releasing something
as small as a helium party balloon in a town would be in violation of the
FARs.

When properly read, according to 101.1 any unmanned free balloon under 4
lbs of payload that presents suitably large surface areas is not subject
to any Subparts of Part 101.

I've been startled by party balloons when flying power planes in
the Phoenix area. They wouldn't hurt if I hit one. I don't relish
the idea of getting a spot through the prop or windshield.

I hate to break it to you, but you are more likely to run into a bird
than a balloon of any sort. Or even another manned aircraft.

Maybe that's because unmanned balloon operations are regulated by 101
subpart D. The flight of birds is, to the best of my knowledge,
unregulated.

A SPOT weighs 209g. It has a density less than water (it's designed to
float.) Might dent the prop or crack the windshield, but can't see it
causing a serious hazard. (You can save the prop from significant damage
but shutting off the engine and gliding. ;-))

And as I said, Subpart D of Part 101 isn't applicable to all unmanned
balloon operations. Small balloons meeting the criteria of 101.1(4) are
not covered by Part 101. The balloon the OP proposes could no doubt be
easily made to comply. And since the OP is a pilot would no doubt perform
the operation as safely as feasible.

On Mar 3, 8:09*am, "Paul Remde" wrote:
Thank you everyone for the interesting and informative posts.

While it may be legal and would be safe 99.999% of the time, I think I'll
scrap the idea. *I would never want it to cause any issues.

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message

.. .



Andy wrote:
On Mar 2, 4:24 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Why not? Last I checked, balloon launchers had an equal right to use
the public airspace as anyone else. (In the U.S. part 101 contains
the regulations pertinent to safe operations of balloons.)

The operation described by the OP does not appear to be compliant with
101 subpart D. *Perhaps he left out all the details that would make it
compliant. *Perhaps he'd post again telling us how he intends to
comply.

I believe you've misread the regulations by not reading 101.1. That is
where it states:

"This part prescribes rules governing the operation in the United States,
of the following:
...
(4) Except as provided for in 101.7, any unmanned free balloon that ...
"

So the "applicability" in 101.1 specifies the criteria that must be met
for _any_ of the remainder of Part 101 to be applicable.

Now in 101.31 in "Subpart D" it states "This subpart applies to the
operation of unmanned free balloons." But that subpart _isn't_ applicable
if the conditions in 101.1 aren't met. (Because it is a _subpart_.) If it
were applicable, then according to 101.33(d), anyone releasing something
as small as a helium party balloon in a town would be in violation of the
FARs.

When properly read, according to 101.1 any unmanned free balloon under 4
lbs of payload that presents suitably large surface areas is not subject
to any Subparts of Part 101.

I've been startled by party balloons when flying power planes in
the Phoenix area. They wouldn't hurt if I hit one. I don't relish
the idea of getting a spot through the prop or windshield.

I hate to break it to you, but you are more likely to run into a bird
than a balloon of any sort. Or even another manned aircraft.

Maybe that's because unmanned balloon operations are regulated by 101
subpart D. The flight of birds is, to the best of my knowledge,
unregulated.

A SPOT weighs 209g. It has a density less than water (it's designed to
float.) Might dent the prop or crack the windshield, but can't see it
causing a serious hazard. (You can save the prop from significant damage
but shutting off the engine and gliding. ;-))

And as I said, Subpart D of Part 101 isn't applicable to all unmanned
balloon operations. Small balloons meeting the criteria of 101.1(4) are
not covered by Part 101. The balloon the OP proposes could no doubt be
easily made to comply. And since the OP is a pilot would no doubt perform
the operation as safely as feasible.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is a bit off topic, but I found this neat project while googling
for balloon info yesterday.

http://www.members.shaw.ca/sonde/

These guys launched an RC glider to 65k' via a balloon. Cool Stuff!

Pete

vontresc wrote:


This is a bit off topic, but I found this neat project while googling
for balloon info yesterday.

http://www.members.shaw.ca/sonde/

These guys launched an RC glider to 65k' via a balloon. Cool Stuff!

What a fascinating project!


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* Sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org