OT, but the response from Windborne and its CEO makes me think it would be a great place to work.
UA 1093
41–50 of 117 posts
Re: UA 1093
#42It is surprising that weather balloons don't have ADS-B out (or did this ballon have that and something about the system didn't work?). If it did work, ADS-B would have made this collision very avoidable.
Google's late great balloon project wasn't about weather but it did regularly show up on ADS-B
Re: UA 1093
#43It is surprising that weather balloons don't have ADS-B out (or did this ballon have that and something about the system didn't work?). If it did work, ADS-B would have made this collision very avoidable.
Even a radar reflector would have helped a lot. ADS-B is off-limits for balloons, ultralights, hang-gliders, etc, and it seems like now that radio beacons can be manufactured very cheap & low power all those non-commercial aerial vehicles should be equipped.
Off limits? What's the reason? Why not ADS-B everything in the air and let the computers sort it out?
Re: UA 1093
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is we don't have a garbage collection method to get rid of counterproductive or even insane regulations, so they build up into a choking plaque over time.
https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_agency_rules_repealed_under_... You can argue that is not effective enough perhaps, but the mechanism itself exists.
It needs to be much stronger than the ability to pass new regulations, but it's much weaker instead.
Re: UA 1093
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is we don't have a garbage collection method to get rid of counterproductive or even insane regulations, so they build up into a choking plaque over time.
https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_agency_rules_repealed_under_... You can argue that is not effective enough perhaps, but the mechanism itself exists.
[deleted]
Re: UA 1093
#46> We have been coordinating with the FAA for the entire history of the company and file NOTAMs (aviation alerts) for every balloon we launch. At this point, I'm pretty confident that NOTAMs exist as a way relegate all liability to pilots. Really it's 14 CFR 91.103, which opens with "Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight", that all…
NOTAM system is archaic and basically useless for this kind of thing. It's a blob of text which will not be specific, memorable, and actionable for an airline pilot, who is on their jetway at FL036 -- an altitude and speed where "see and avoid" doesn't really apply for a bunch of reasons -- and depending on ATC to route them around hazards.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/31058/are-weath...
There REALLY needs to be a unified ATC system that incorporates NOTAMS, traffic, and live position of whatever unmanned stuff is moving around. We have most of the tech deployed already. We have to integrate it.
Re: UA 1093
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone arguing against government regulation as a whole is completely delusional. Companies can't be trusted to regulate themselves.
The problem is we don't have a garbage collection method to get rid of counterproductive or even insane regulations, so they build up into a choking plaque over time.
There is a mechanism for this, internationally usually named some variant of a Law Commission [0]. The idea is to look for laws that are technically in effect but can rarely or never be applied. For example, the UK Law Commission boasts a repeal of 3000+ acts in its time [1], such as repealing rules for conducting slave trades that were made obsolete in the 1800s but not repealed at the time.
In addition to the sibling comment's mention of the Congressional Review Act for agency oversight, there is a US Office of the Law Revision Counsel [2]. It has an official website [3] which is beautifully old-fashioned, but looks to be purely a resource for accessing the letter of the law and doesn't recount its volume of repeals in the same way.
None of this matters if the insane or counterproductive regulations are deliberate and desirable for the current lawmakers, of course.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_commission [1] https://lawcom.gov.uk/repeals/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Law_Revision_Cou... [3] https://uscode.house.gov/
Re: UA 1093
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_agency_rules_repealed_under_... You can argue that is not effective enough perhaps, but the mechanism itself exists.
It needs to be much stronger than the ability to pass new regulations, but it's much weaker instead.
Is that really true?
An agency can remove a regulation it created. Congress (via the linked law) can also remove a regulation. Congress can also create regulations via legislation (though they typically don't go to that level of detail).
And we have to remember, at one point, every regulation that exists was created to solve a problem / prevent a harm. The cost of removing that regulation prematurely is reintroducing that problem / harm.
Re: UA 1093
#49The unfortunate irony is not lost on me that Windbourne's H1 is "record breaking Weather Balloons".
I don't think any company would want this record. I am very glad the pilot and the souls on board are safe.
Re: UA 1093
#50Who would have believed, what was suspected of being a mysterious malevolence coming from outer space, was just a quaint weather balloon all along! Somehow that rings some faint bell but can't quite put my finger on it...
Give me... sugar. More. More.