0
RMK

Farmer McNasty – Perris Area Balloon Jump

Recommended Posts

Quote

In this case if safety was an issue I cannot see why the pilot didn't just deflate his balloon and vacate the field as quickly as possible.



That's not a quick process. It can take an hour to deflate, bundle and load the balloon, basket and burner in the back of a truck. If you have a McNasty going ballistic that whole time, it's going to be ugly. He may have weighed that scenario against the extra risk of hopping the fence to the next property, and decided it was worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said, in that case he could have called the cops, told them it was dangerous to take off again, and have them supervise the process. Had injuries or fatalities occurred after the take off, the pilot would be totally responsible.

First rule in any aviation emergency is get back on the ground ASAP.

Leaving the ground with paying punters into a dangerous situation is solely the responsibility of the pilot, despite the fact farmer McNasty is doing a war dance....
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

In this case if safety was an issue I cannot see why the pilot didn't just deflate his balloon and vacate the field as quickly as possible.



That's not a quick process. It can take an hour to deflate, bundle and load the balloon, basket and burner in the back of a truck. If you have a McNasty going ballistic that whole time, it's going to be ugly. He may have weighed that scenario against the extra risk of hopping the fence to the next property, and decided it was worth it.



Funny, I've ground-crewed may balloons. Touchdown to drive-off never took more than 30 minutes - without hurrying - unless there was a long walk involved. Doesn't matter, though. If the pilot decides he needs to stay on the ground, that's the end of it. If McNasty doesn't like it, call the cops and let them explain things to him.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I can't fault the property owner... He may have tons of hazards on the land and doesn't want to spend all afternoon guiding the van to the area, or worrying about passengers breaking their ankles walking off of his land... With lawsuits the way they are, you can't blame him.



I don't blame him. That wasn't my point. What I'm saying is that if taking off presented unacceptable risks, the pilot has the right to tell McNasty he simply isn't re-launching. At that point it would become a matter for the police to sort out if things escalated.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I can't fault the property owner... He may have tons of hazards on the land and doesn't want to spend all afternoon guiding the van to the area, or worrying about passengers breaking their ankles walking off of his land... With lawsuits the way they are, you can't blame him.



I don't blame him. That wasn't my point. What I'm saying is that if taking off presented unacceptable risks, the pilot has the right to tell McNasty he simply isn't re-launching. At that point it would become a matter for the police to sort out if things escalated.


Yes. This isn't about property rights, because the property owner clearly has the upper hand, idt's about making nice with "Farmer Mc'Nasty"

In the OP, he very clearly said he got up in Farmer's face. Bad Form.

Skydivers are their own worst enemies, sometimes! :S
lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

That's not a quick process. It can take an hour to deflate, bundle and load the balloon, basket and burner in the back of a truck. If you have a McNasty going ballistic that whole time, it's going to be ugly. He may have weighed that scenario against the extra risk of hopping the fence to the next property, and decided it was worth it.



Funny, I've ground-crewed may balloons. Touchdown to drive-off never took more than 30 minutes - without hurrying - unless there was a long walk involved. Doesn't matter, though. If the pilot decides he needs to stay on the ground, that's the end of it. If McNasty doesn't like it, call the cops and let them explain things to him.



Well, if you're willing to spend even a half-hour in the presence of an out of control land owner who gets more and more angry because you're not leaving as he demands, then have fun with it. Good luck.

It's kind of funny how you berate others for their "bad attitude", and yet here you are advocating ignoring an angry land owner and just doing what you want anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

That's not a quick process. It can take an hour to deflate, bundle and load the balloon, basket and burner in the back of a truck. If you have a McNasty going ballistic that whole time, it's going to be ugly. He may have weighed that scenario against the extra risk of hopping the fence to the next property, and decided it was worth it.



Funny, I've ground-crewed may balloons. Touchdown to drive-off never took more than 30 minutes - without hurrying - unless there was a long walk involved. Doesn't matter, though. If the pilot decides he needs to stay on the ground, that's the end of it. If McNasty doesn't like it, call the cops and let them explain things to him.


Well, if you're willing to spend even a half-hour in the presence of an out of control land owner who gets more and more angry because you're not leaving as he demands, then have fun with it. Good luck.

It's kind of funny how you berate others for their "bad attitude", and yet here you are advocating ignoring an angry land owner and just doing what you want anyway.


Sorry, no he didn't. He said if the pilot determined it was too risky to take off again, then call the police if necessary so they can sort it out, with the aim of maintaining safety and minimizing conflict.

The idea is to maintain control and be professional, and in this case the balloon operator did not have control of his passengers, and was not prepared for an unappreciative landowner.

Chuck suggested a reasonable procedure by which safety could be maintained even if it conflicted with the wishes of the landowner and, as best as I can see, did not exhibit any atittude at all -- just a proposed solution.

44
B|
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

That's not a quick process. It can take an hour to deflate, bundle and load the balloon, basket and burner in the back of a truck. If you have a McNasty going ballistic that whole time, it's going to be ugly. He may have weighed that scenario against the extra risk of hopping the fence to the next property, and decided it was worth it.



Funny, I've ground-crewed may balloons. Touchdown to drive-off never took more than 30 minutes - without hurrying - unless there was a long walk involved. Doesn't matter, though. If the pilot decides he needs to stay on the ground, that's the end of it. If McNasty doesn't like it, call the cops and let them explain things to him.



Well, if you're willing to spend even a half-hour in the presence of an out of control land owner who gets more and more angry because you're not leaving as he demands, then have fun with it. Good luck.

It's kind of funny how you berate others for their "bad attitude", and yet here you are advocating ignoring an angry land owner and just doing what you want anyway.



I understood from the OP that the farmer departed the scene of his own accord anyway.....so he wasn't a continual presence. It seems the attitude of the OP wasn't helping the situation either.
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

That's not a quick process. It can take an hour to deflate, bundle and load the balloon, basket and burner in the back of a truck. If you have a McNasty going ballistic that whole time, it's going to be ugly. He may have weighed that scenario against the extra risk of hopping the fence to the next property, and decided it was worth it.



Funny, I've ground-crewed may balloons. Touchdown to drive-off never took more than 30 minutes - without hurrying - unless there was a long walk involved. Doesn't matter, though. If the pilot decides he needs to stay on the ground, that's the end of it. If McNasty doesn't like it, call the cops and let them explain things to him.



Well, if you're willing to spend even a half-hour in the presence of an out of control land owner who gets more and more angry because you're not leaving as he demands, then have fun with it. Good luck.

It's kind of funny how you berate others for their "bad attitude", and yet here you are advocating ignoring an angry land owner and just doing what you want anyway.



I didn't advocate ignoring anyone. I'm advocating the pilot in command doing what's necessary in the interest of safety.

Seems to me if the crew started packing up it would be a little tough for McNasty to say they weren't leaving.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Well, how the heck are balloons & balloon companies supposed to operate?

Choose a safe and legal landing area and land there.

>Fundamentally there has to be some agreement whether all balloonists are evil
>and the practice of ballooning must be stopped, if they operate anywhere where there
>is private property, or whether it is "normal" for balloons to land on private property

Neither is true, which is fortunate - if a local vineyard owner (for example) was told "there are balloons (or helicopters, or skydivers) operating near here, and it's normal for them to land in your vineyard" I'd expect them to get shut down pretty fast.

> Just saying that generally, ballooning has been tolerated as an aerial activity, and
>they do need to land on others' property.

On occasion, for an emergency, perhaps. If it's expected, then the landowner has a valid gripe to get that activity shut down.

Imagine if there were an aerospace contractor near a DZ, and occasionally they sent uncontrolled drones flying through the DZ's airport at 5000 feet. Would "well, it happens, live with it" be an acceptable answer to the DZ (or the airport?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Well, how the heck are balloons & balloon companies supposed to operate?

Choose a safe and legal landing area and land there.

>Fundamentally there has to be some agreement whether all balloonists are evil
>and the practice of ballooning must be stopped, if they operate anywhere where there
>is private property, or whether it is "normal" for balloons to land on private property

Neither is true, which is fortunate - if a local vineyard owner (for example) was told "there are balloons (or helicopters, or skydivers) operating near here, and it's normal for them to land in your vineyard" I'd expect them to get shut down pretty fast.

> Just saying that generally, ballooning has been tolerated as an aerial activity, and
>they do need to land on others' property.

On occasion, for an emergency, perhaps. If it's expected, then the landowner has a valid gripe to get that activity shut down.

Imagine if there were an aerospace contractor near a DZ, and occasionally they sent uncontrolled drones flying through the DZ's airport at 5000 feet. Would "well, it happens, live with it" be an acceptable answer to the DZ (or the airport?)



+1

Excellent post, Bill.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


On occasion, for an emergency, perhaps. If it's expected, then the landowner has a valid gripe to get that activity shut down.



Yeah there is an unwritten expectation that while balloons (and gliders, hang gliders, paraglider pilots, and skydivers) do sometimes semi-randomly have to land in someone's private property, nobody should be expected to put up with it too often. But that gets us into the whole skydiver off landing thing, as we tend to end up within say a mile of takeoff from a fixed airport, a much smaller radius of operation than some other air sports.

(A vineyard might not be the best example. With all the metal stakes, I think that would be enough of a deterrent to balloonists etc. ;))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the early to mid 80’s there was a jumper/balloon pilot that launched from the property just east of the ultra light area at Perris. Before he even started carrying jumpers he picked out potential landing areas based on the prevailing winds. He then spent a couple of days contacting property owners. He ended up with several that agreed to let him use their land. All it cost him was couple of free balloon rides.

There is no problem that doesn’t have a solution. ;)

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

but yes he was being an ass.



Sounds like he was not the only one doing that.
" I begin to argue quite harshly with him. "

Quote

In the subsequent lift/land, if anyone had been injured it would not have so simple for him.



False. It would be the pilot that would be in trouble. The land owner would face no repercussions at all. The pilot made the choice to take off... That is all on the pilot.

Quote

Didn't have anything to do with the DZ



Again, FALSE. It is bad PR for the DZ and your attitude didn't help. Wanna bet that the next major issue which side this guy is going to be on while you are back in your own Country?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Well, how the heck are balloons & balloon companies supposed to operate?



Legally and without violating someone else's rights. If you had a pool and I just invited myself over to use it without discussing it with you..... Would you be fine with me just using your pool when I felt like it?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously the difference in the pool case is intention.

Landings by various unpowered aerial fliers are tolerated on some sort of basis of accidental trespass. The nature of their activity means that there's often a very good chance that a trespass will occur... but with no intention of inflicting that on any one particular property owner. So the trespass is "accidental" when it comes to a particular property -- and so there are no legal consequences normally. The trespasser removes themselves & their equipment from the property and pays for any damage. But the trespass is "deliberate" in the sense that somebody's property is likely to get landed on.

It is a curious situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you know in advance that you are highly likely to end up tresspassing on *someone's* property, I'm not sure that your inability to know in advance which *specific* person's property you will tresspass on should give you any sort of excuse. (Just as not knowing in advance which person you will end up shooting with a gun excuses you if you fire into a crowd of people.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Obviously the difference in the pool case is intention.

Landings by various unpowered aerial fliers are tolerated on some sort of basis of accidental trespass. The nature of their activity means that there's often a very good chance that a trespass will occur... but with no intention of inflicting that on any one particular property owner. So the trespass is "accidental" when it comes to a particular property -- and so there are no legal consequences normally. The trespasser removes themselves & their equipment from the property and pays for any damage. But the trespass is "deliberate" in the sense that somebody's property is likely to get landed on.

It is a curious situation.



The balloon pilot did not land on this particular property by accident. He CHOSE to land there. Given that, would you still say he has legal protection from trespass?
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Just as not knowing in advance which person you will end up shooting with a gun excuses you if you fire into a crowd of people



Thar is a truly crappy analogy. Do you think others are unable to understand the issues involved without resorting to such a worthless comparison?
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


The balloon pilot did not land on this particular property by accident. He CHOSE to land there. Given that, would you still say he has legal protection from trespass?



It was a choice, just as a skydiver chooses one field over another, or a glider pilot figures it is time to start looking for a landing site in a given area and not another, and so on.

(Would we skydivers gain greater protection under the law by closing our eyes and randomly thumping in somewhere?)

I don't know the answers, I'm just pointing out the way things have traditionally been done. (... ironically among a community who are arguably some of the worst offenders when it comes to landing on others' property.)

I don't think anyone is saying it isn't trespass, just that one side of the argument would be that there should be no penalty attached -- the landowner can't sue if there are no damages, the landowner can't go out guns blazing, there's no charges laid by the government, etc. If there's a civil case who knows but that's where details and precedent come into play -- with the aviator able to claim that they had to come down somewhere, and couldn't reach an airport.

Even if there's no penalty, the trespasser has certain obligations. Just as the landowner has certain obligations -- they generally cannot impound or steal equipment belonging to the aviator.

Again, I'm no lawyer so can't clarify all the details for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Obviously the difference in the pool case is intentional



The ballon pilot made a concious choice to land in that field. Your counter point is not valid.

This was not an emergency landing, it was intentional and was clearly trespass, my anology is valid.

It should also be noted that a PIC can't create a situation then invoke 'emergency' as protection. For example, I can't pull the mixture on a plane and use that 'engine out' as an excuse to make a landing on a private airport. The ballon pilot did not have an emergency, he intentionally landed there as part of a plan.... Any claim that this is an 'emergency' is false.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


It was a choice, just as a skydiver chooses one field over another, or a glider pilot figures it is time to start looking for a landing site in a given area and not another, and so on.



UP

That is the difference here... Balloons are able to go up and land somewhere further off, skydivers and gliders don't have the ability to create any useful lift.
"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, what can I say, go take it up on a ballooning website and with the FAA.


I had a look at the FAA manual on glider flying, and the section on off-landings doesn't address any legal or land owner issues. So no guidance there.

One UK guide for glider pilots noted to be careful about payments to farmers, because of unrealistic inflationary pressures -- sometimes commercial balloonists with a bunch of passengers would pay more, giving the farmer a reasonable little cut of the action for being part of the whole commercial process.

(In the pool case, you picked MY pool because we're discussing things on the web... you weren't a skydiver who just picked SOMEONE'S pool on the side of town nearest the DZ that you couldn't get back to. Randomness doesn't excuse everything though -- I wouldn't be much happier if you robbed my home randomly, rather than targeting my home due to a grudge.)

As I said, it is all a curious situation.

I'm not saying that situations that involve emergency or precautionary landings negate the act of trespass. It is still trespass. But I'm arguing such situations may act as a defense against consequences of trespass. Take a glider pilot to court, and you might have a lot tougher time suing him than if a power pilot just decided to land in your field for the heck of it. (I have no idea what might actually happen in trespass cases, civil or criminal, in different countries.)

If a balloon takes off in a certain area, it might have a 95% chance of having to land on private property. When is it OK to launch? Below a 50% chance? 5%? Is the act of launching creating a false emergency?

Is an emergency landing one which avoids a bigger emergency? (Better for the balloon pilot to set down now than almost run out of fuel. Or, picking a field intentionally is better than an aviator closing their eyes and creating an emergency where they would crash randomly & unintentionally.)

And then does it matter what the chance is for a given individual? Can you launch with a 95% probability of landing on private land, if you expect a flight of 50 to 100 miles, so the chance of landing on one particular farmer Bob's place is infinitesimally small? But what if Bob lives a few miles downwind of an airport where they regularly do balloon jumps --with the balloon trying to land soon afterwards -- now the chance of balloons landing on his land in particular goes way up. That might get closer to the situation that started the thread.

At least we skydivers have an expectation of trying to land back at the airport. However, with the number of jumps going on, statistically, fields around the airfield are going to get landed on.

Aviation sports haven't clearly sorted the whole situation out. Basically we act as if there are certain limits to property ownership, which of course there are, and in this case, it involves people dropping out of the sky occasionally onto private property.

While a lot of ideas have been brought up in this thread, we really haven't been able to advance the argument very far. Recently it has pretty much been,
"Aviators sometimes land on private property".
"It's wrong to do that!"
"But that's what happens, and usually there are no consequences."
"It's wrong to do that!"
"But that's what happens."
"It's wrong to do that".
And so forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0