When Los Angeles Times reporter Nigel Duara was fishing for a third-day lead on the tragic balloon crash in Texas Monday, the graph practically wrote itself:
“The pilot of a hot-air balloon that crashed into a Texas pasture had four convictions for drunken driving on his record, but was not required to submit to the type of Federal Aviation Administration medical check required of pilots of other types of aircraft.”
And there, in 44 words, oozes forth a greasy political football at a time when we least want it in GA, as the FAA contemplates how it will write rules for the just-submitted Third Class medical exemption. Theoretically, it should have nothing to do with the Third Class exemption because the two don’t relate in any way. But theory is just another word for wishful thinking and I wouldn’t be surprised if the FAA used this accident, not to mention the blistering they’ll soon get from Congress, to lard up the Third Class rules with restrictions and conditions that erode the basic intent of the legislation. I’ve never seen a government agency yet that would let a crisis go to waste in furtherance of its own bureaucratic kingdom.
But let’s say I’m clutching my pearls a little too tightly here and there won’t be any impact on the Third Class reform. There are still some delicate issues here. Without actually saying it, the Times lead invites the reader to make the connection that because the pilot had four DUI convictions, that might have been causal in the accident. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t, but as the story discusses below the fold, the larger issue is lack of FAA oversight.
Balloon pilots—even commercial balloon pilots—aren’t required to have any medical at all, although they need the certificates and flight review, just like the rest of us. Furthermore, balloon pilots don’t have to disclose DUI convictions on a certificate application, just drug convictions. (The pilot had one of those, too, according to news reports.)
Is this the proper level of regulation, it’s fair to ask? Yes, with one exception, it probably is, in my opinion. But it’s not likely to stay that way. By the way, under FAR 61.15, balloon pilots, like the rest of us, are required to report DUI convictions to the FAA within 60 days of occurrence. The FAA hasn’t confirmed whether the pilot, Alfred Nichols, did this and if he did do it, how the FAA responded. The obvious regulatory hole is that even us poor sots with Third Class medicals flying for fun will have to answer the DUI question on the medical form every two or three years. Lying about it is a felony and since the FAA routinely checks the National Driver Registry, getting caught is fairly likely. Or at least high risk.
There’s a moral question, too. Should a guy who’s had four DUI convictions, license revocation and a drug conviction be allowed to hold out to the public as a commercial pilot, as Nichols apparently was? My view of DUI is perhaps unreasonably harsh and unyielding because I have been touched by a drunk driver in my life to great personal pain. I have little sympathy. Alcoholism is an addictive disease and needs to be treated. It’s not a personal choice, it’s a condition. But driving drunk is a choice. Anyone can make a mistake and a single DUI, in my view, can be forgiven. But four? Forget it.
America is all about second acts, however, so if a pilot entered a rehab program and could prove he was sober to the FAA on a recurrent basis, then I think the agency could defend maintaining or reissuing a certificate. But for commercial balloon pilots, it may take more oversight than is now being exercised. And by the way, one news report said Nichols had righted himself and had been sober for four years. He had become a “poster boy” for recovering from substance abuse. But did the FAA know this? I assume we’ll find out, but for now, it can’t confirm this because of privacy laws.
The FAA will soon be re-answering why it rejected the NTSB’s recommendation for more oversight of the commercial balloon industry made in 2014. FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said at the time that the balloon industry was too small and that participants understood the risks and could self-regulate. As much as it pains me to say it, I agree and in a follow-up blog I’ll explain the logic.
And we all know this: If this balloon had been carrying four people instead of 16, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion. I’ve done a couple of balloon flights in small baskets and the mere thought of being with 16 people in a hot air balloon gives me the screaming willies. My colleague Mary Grady, who has more balloon experience, says the same thing. Maybe we’re just a couple of Aunt Janes.
