ELOM:2023:017 | Ballooning after damage caused by fallen camera pole| North Holland

Decision in Aviation Case | 18-07-2023

PPS Decision

in the case against the pilot in command of a hot air balloon.

Reason for the investigation

The investigation was launched following a report from the regional police about a dangerous situation involving a hot air balloon.   

Suspected offence

Violation of Article 3.8(1) of the Aviation Act (use of a non-airworthy aircraft) and Article 5.3 of the Aviation Act (participating in air traffic in such a way that persons or property are or may be endangered as a result).

Facts and circumstances

Based on the aviation police report, it can be established that on [date in the year] 2022 at a park in [locality], a hot air balloon, which was being filled with air at the time, rolled over due to a sudden gust of wind and knocked over a camera pole. A young child managed to avoid the toppling camera pole just in time. The hot air balloon was damaged by the contact with the camera pole. The suspect left with the balloon as pilot-in-command after this occurrence.

A bystander had filmed the occurrence with a mobile phone. Based on those images, the balloon appeared to have sustained significant damage. However, the criminal investigation revealed that the damage was only to the lettering. The results of the investigation did not indicate that the airworthiness of the balloon or the safety of flight operations had otherwise been compromised.

The suspect stated that the course of events that day had been a bit chaotic  and that things did not go as usual. He stated that he was hired as a freelancer by balloon companies to carry out balloon flights. This flight was carrying seven or eight passengers. The flights normally start two hours before sunset and the suspect was present with the crew an hour before the start to prepare in peace and quiet. However, the crew was caught in a traffic jam and therefore arrived later than planned. As a result, the preparation and flight started later than the suspect considered desirable. The suspect did all the preparation work and kept a close eye on the weather. He noted that the wind was rising as time passed and the balloon began to roll more and more as a result. The suspect heard that a camera pole had been hit and presumably damaged. Before the balloon launch, the suspect did an inspection round to check the balloon for damage. He saw that there was only damage to the lettering of the advertisement on the balloon. Moreover, the damage was below the balloon's middle line. He therefore concluded that the damage would not endanger the flight (which turned out to be correct). The suspect instructed the crew, who remained on the ground, to contact the local authority regarding the damage to the camera pole. The insurance company covered the damage - calculated at about €11,500.

The suspect did not learn until later that a child had been endangered by the toppling of the camera pole. The suspect stated he was very shocked by that. In hindsight, he is also uncomfortable with the fact that the later start of the balloon flight resulted in flying during the last hour of the daylight period. He said he has learnt from this occurrence that he needs to be more assertive about his own thoughts about the flight, as he is ultimately responsible for safe ballooning. When determining the time it takes to get to the start area, he will consider more carefully the possibility of traffic jams and delays that affecting himself or the crew. And all possible space will be created if there are any obstacles on the starting area. He plans to make arrangements with the operator on that subject.

Decision

As outlined above, it cannot be demonstrated that a flight was carried out with a non-airworthy balloon, or that the suspect participated in air traffic in such a way that it caused (potential) danger to persons or property. The case against the suspect was therefore dismissed.

For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that the damage to the camera pole has been compensated and that the suspect has not only fully acknowledged that things went wrong but that he has learned lessons from this. The aviation prosecutor endorsed the lessons learned by the suspect from the occurrence and supported his plan to reach agreements with the operator on this. The aviation prosecutor informed the operator of this in writing.