HomeMy WebLinkAboutclaims and factsClaims vs. Facts
SLH has learned from sales brochures, websites and other written material, that our competitor,
The Miami Balloon Company and the manufacturer, Aerophile, have made certain claims that
need to be clarified and in some cases corrected. Attached are documents supporting the facts.
Below are the claims that we would like to address:
I. "Aerophile's balloon product, the AERO 30, is the only tethered balloon in the world
that is certified as aircraft" (Executive Summary in Proposal to RFLI No. 03-04-073)
" ... whose HERO 30 balloon is certified as an aircraft and Lindstrand, whose balloon is
designed as an amusement ride." (Executive Summary in Proposal to RFLI No. 03-04-073)
Lindstrand HiFlyer balloons are certified as aircrafts in England, United Arab Emirates, Israel
and Hungary. Attached is an Aircraft Type Certificate from the United Kingdom Civil Aviation
Authority. Aerophile's AERO 30 balloon was certified under the old Franco-German regulations
LFFB. On September 28th, 2003, the new EASA regulations came into place, CS31TGB.
Although there is a new regulation, Aerophile's certification was grand fathered in and its
compliance with the regulations has not been tested, whereas the HiFIyer underwent the most
rigorous application process. This process has been completed. Lindstrand Technologies Ltd.
received its Approval Certificate (Reference: UK.21G.2089) on March 31, 2004, which is
attached hereto.
Ironically, Aerophile's AERO 30 balloon has been categorized as an Amusement Ride/Balloon
by the Federal Aviation Administration in the waiver letter issued to Jerome E. Libbin in March
2004.
2. The AERO 30 is so designed " ... to allow a balloon to land safely based on its
aeronautical properties in case the cable failed," (Executive Summary in Proposal to RFLI No.
03-04-073)
According to two aeronautical engineers, Mr. Paul Woessner, Executive Director of Embry -
Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida, and Mr. Per Lindstrand, tethered
captive helium balloons are not designed to be flown or landed, and can not be landed safely
due to the fact that the balloons are not equipped with the maneuvering equipment and disposable
ballast required to safely control altitude and ultimately conduct a safe landing. The Lindstrand
HiFlyer is designed that it will never leave its moorings and has never done so. Its safety
system is rated safety category 3, with three levels of redundancy. A Failure Mode Effect
Analysis has been carried out to insure that all possible modes of failure can occur without any
risk to passengers
3. " ..., internal illumination of an AERO 30 .... " (Oral Presentation on March 29, 2004,
to RFLI No. 03-04-073)
Geoff Ludlow, an Aerophile representative that solicited SLH in 2002 and 2003, stated to SLH
that this technology was not available for the Aerophile model. There is uncertainty that
Aerophile's AERO 30 can be illuminated internally, i.e. that projections can be projected onto
the envelope from inside, as none of the currently operating Aerophile balloons utilizes this
feature.
•
•
•
•
Aerial Enterpxises
April 30, 2004
Mark H. Funnen
Sky Lift Holdings, LLC
1109 Ponce de Leon Blvd
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Dear Mr. Funnen:
73 Coquina Ridge Way
Ormond Beach, FL 32174
Safe Landing of
AERO 30 not possible
The purpose of this letter Is to review the technical differences, both in construction and in
the operation of a free flying helium balloon versus a tethered helium aerostat (balloon)
such as the Aerophile and HiFlyer systems.
In the US helium filled free balloons can only be operated under certain conditions govemed
by FAA regulations.
Generally, where there is aeronautical commercial activity, such as "sight seeing rides", the
aircraft (or balloon this case) must be certified by the FAA as airworthy in the `Standard
Category".
For a balloon to be certified by the FAA in the Standard Category it must meet numerous
design criteria that would allow a properly trained and FAA licensed balloon pilot to conduct
safe operation in ali phases of flight.
Generally, tethered aerostats (kite balloons) are not considered as "aircraft" and therefore
do not come under FAA regulations except for certain regulations pertaining to airspace
concerns and then the regulations only speak to marking the mooring lines and the
requirement of strobe lights to be properly positioned on top of the balloon so that other
aircraft can safely see and avoid.
While it is always difficult for the "lay person" to understand just how remote the likely hood
of a tethered aerostat to break free of it mooring, ft remains a constant question in the minds
of the general public. The fact is that should there be some extraordinary force of weather
related circumstance that would be great enough to cause the mooring cable to break and
or fail the reality Is that balloon itself would have also failed, probably much sooner, as the
balloon envelope is the "weak link" in the chain in these types of systems. In fact, they are
designed to fall most designs have sacrificial deflation panels incorporated in the design of
the envelope so that they cannot become a "run away".
However, for argument sake let's Image a sabotage scenario where deliberate human
intervention took place and the aerostat (balloon) was allowed to fly free and address your
question "could this balloon be flown safely?"
The answer is.... No, not safely. The reason is because it Is not equipped with the
maneuvering equipment and disposable ballast required to be safely control altitude and
ultimately conduct a safe landing.
Apr 30 04 05:22p
p. 2
April30, 2004
Page 2
The only way a helium balloon can rise is to have more lift than weight. In as much as the
balloon envelope has a finite maximum volume, it therefore has a maximum theoretical lift.
Depending on how much of load it was lifting when 1t is released from it's mooring would
dictate the balloons' ascent rate. Simply put, the more people (weight) onboard the slower it
would rise the fewer people on board the faster it would rise.
In this scenario we will assume the aerostat/balloon is not dragging a long length of the
cable underneath it to become entangled in other structures. We will further assume all
other conditions such as tall buildings or other obstacle do not pose a threat (not within
1,000 yds of launch pad) that the wind speed and direction is over land (less than 15 kts)
and that it is day light and general weather condition favorable for this flight.
All tethered aerostats have an internal ballonet built into the inside of the bottom of the
envelope. The purpose of the Intranet is to act as a "pressure bladder" into which outside
ambient air is pumped into so the main balloon envelope can be pressurized.
The purpose of the ballonet is to expand and contract inside the main balloon envelope to
match the expansion and contraction of helium that occurs with an increase in both
temperature and altitude. The warmer the temperature gets and the higher the balloon
ascends the more the helium will expand. By incorporating a ballonet in the design of the
envelope the main balloon envelope an be pressurized to a safe level so that overall balloon
shape it is not deformed by the wind when the aerostat is moored. A pressurized balloon
shape has much less drag than one, which is deformed, or acting like a sail, which occurs in
wind speeds over 10-12 knots. Drag converts to weight and limits the total free lift.
Free flying helium balloons do not need a ballonet because once airborne there is no
relative wind acting on the balloon in flight as the balloon moves with the wind.
The fundamental problem with attempting to "free fly" a pressurized moored balloon is two
fold.
First and foremost these types of aerostats are filled with the maximum amount of helium
that the envelope can hold governed by the maximum height of the mooring cable, which, is
normally Tess than 1,000 ft.
As the aerostat ascends to the maximum moored height the helium inside expands and
displaces the ballonet air volume escapes through a pressure relief valve until empty. When
the ballonet is empty the system is at "pressure height."
Once the ballonet is empty any further increase until attitude will create a very unsafe
condition because the helium inside continues to expand. Once the aerostat has reached
"pressure height" any increase in altitude will translate to additional expansion of the helium
and with no where to go will translate to higher loads on the skin and seams of the envelope
which could eventually lead to catastrophic envelope failure.
Most aerostats are equipped with aver pressure relief valves in the top or side of helium cell
portion of the envelope so that should the aerostat rise slightly above "pressure height' the
valve is set to "burp" helium so that envelope skin stresses are not exceeded avoiding
envelope structural failure.
As the over pressure relief valve gives up helium this will translate into both a loss of
pressure but more importantly into is a loss of lift. In as much as this is not a big safety issue
when moored It becomes a very big safety issue if in flight. In free flight above "pressure
height" the pilot would not know how much helium is being released until after the fact when
he/she sees the ascent arrested.
Hpr JU UR Ub:2ep
p.3
April30, 2004
Page 3
Because the pressure relief will stay open until pressure returns to safe pressure range
there is no guarantee that the ascent will stop until the balloon once again rises above the
next step up to a now higher -pressure height. In this condition the pilot is. powerless to
arrest the ascent.
If the envelope has a partial failure and loses enough helium to begin a descent the pilot will
be powerless to stop the descent unless he/she has disposable ballast (sand) to release
over board. The amount ballast required to arrest the descent is directly proportional to the
amount of helium released. if too much ballast is released the balloon will rise again until lift
equals weight or until the balloon reaches pressure height again the whole process starts all
over again.
If too little ballast is released the descent will not be arrested and the balloon will descend
until impact with the ground and or something attached to the ground.
It would not be practical for an operator of a moored aerostat to keep enough disposable
ballast on board to provide adequate safety factors as they would be obliged to load and
unload ballast with each lift of passengers based on gross weight and gross lift for each
moored ascent leaving some theoretical amount of ballast on board making up the
difference between Gross lift and Gross weight "on board'. Even if the operator was willing
to handle and change ballast load with each moored ascent the practice of sending the
system up at maximum load is counter to the dynamics that make the moored system work
in the wind.
A moored aerostat can be safely operated in the wind (up to 20 kts) but it must have excess
positive lift to stay overhead launch pad. The closer the system is to neutral buoyancy the
less wind it can handle as the vertical component of lift can not over come the horizontal
forces of drag created by the wind.
To operate a moored aerostat in a 20 kt wind would require excess positive lift of at lease
15-20% greater than the gross load of passengers. That mean most operators will be forced
to take less passengers during windy periods of the day In order to generate the necessary
free lift.
Since this "break away" scenario is not likely in a light wind condition we will assume for
argument sake is taking place in windy conditions.
Further, assuming the balloon is loaded property for making moored ascents in maximum
ground wind speed we will assume the helium lift is 20% greater than the load when the
release occurs.
I would expect that a helium balloon of the size of either the liiflyer or Aerophile with 20%
greater lift than weight when cut free .would ascend at a rate of at least 1,000 ftlminute
(shape is to fat to go much faster).
For this scenario we will also assume that the operator had filled the helium cell to maximum
helium volume to get the most lift for normal operation. That would mean "pressure height"
is likely to be very to close to maximum altitude moored height (160 meters or 535 ft).
With an ascent rate of 1,000ft/min the pilot would have less than 30 seconds to react and
the relief valve In the helium cell would have to be of sufficient size to allow 20% of the total
helium volume (20,000 cubic ft) to escape before ascending through "pressure height° and
exceeding maximum skin loads.
Apr 30 04 05:22p p.4
April 30, 2004
Page 4
To my knowledge neither system has a pressure relief valve that big therefore the pilot
could not control a runway ascent in windy conditions.
If he/she some how survived the ascent without a catastrophic envelope failure (say the
envelope only ruptured on the bottom half) now the pilot is faced with the fact that in order to
come down he/she must have a controllable way to valve helium in a judicious manner.
To my knowledge neither system is equipped with manual override valve system that the
pilot can confirm Is closed "helium tight" after it has been opened.
Should this unfortunate pilot be lucky enough to initiate descent the next major problem
he/she would face Is that with no ballast to throw overboard prior to touch down the descent
will continue to increase in rate as the balloon descend and the helium contracts and the
balloon loses more tilt.
At time of impact I would expect to see maximum descent rate of approximately 1,000
ftlminute (will act like parachute 12mph) and then add to that the horizontal component of
the 20 kt wind and this is not a safe landing scenario.
While this landing scenario is probably survivable with collateral damage the biggest single
threat will be coming in contact with high power electrical wires.
To avoid that threat a balloon pilot must have positive control of the vertical maneuvering
features of a balloon system, which he/she would clearly not have in this case.
As you can see there are many variables to consider and none add up to being able to
safely fly and land such a system.
In my expert opinion neither the Aerophile or Hiflyer Tethered balloon system can be free
flown safely if it should some how get free of it's mooring with the balloon system intact.
If you have any questions or if anything is unclear please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Paul Woessner II
Consultant
[Click here and type slogcm.1
A.5
Paul Woessner II - Executive Director
of Commercial Airline Pilot Training Program,
Embry -Riddle Aeronautical University
As Executive Director, Woessner has developed and implemented Embry
Riddle's first advanced flight training program at Embry -Riddle Aeronautical
University that is specific to airline training. After almost two years of
development and with the recent acquisition and certification of an MD90 EFD
Level D simulator the Commercial Airline Pilot Training Program (CAPT) is
now offering a true "ab-initio to jet transport type rating program" in a
modern all glass airliner. Before coming to ERAU in 1999, he owned or
managed commercial aviation businesses providing flight training, air
transport services, air charter, commercial contracts and sight-seeing flights.
Mr. Woessner is a licensed commercial pilot with over 5000 hours flying
single engine aircraft, single and multiengine airships, hot air balloons,
helium gas balloons, and ultra light aircraft. He was the first person to win
the World Balloon Championship twice and has set over 16 national
aeronautical records in helium filled airships. Mr. Woessner holds a
Bachelor's degree from Iowa State University. He Is a member of AOPA, the
Balloon Federation of America, and the National Aeronautical Association.
ini. cr�r�-r sus: -ta rr'url: LINU5 I KHNU-UHLLUUNS 01691679991
TO:0013054448418
P:2'2
Mr Mark Scott
Sky.Lift Holdings, LLC
1109 Ponce de Leon
Florida 22134
U.S.A.
3'1 March 2004
Dear Mr Scott
Miami UftIyer
Lindstrand Balloons Ltd
Maesbury Road Os4weRtr ,
Tel: (01691) 67h1a0 8l81Fax: (01691) �67 glandEn9 91
Aerophile's claim that their balloon can operate after a cable break is nonsense. They
carry no ballast and hence they would have no control whatsoever of where the
balloon would land and further the descent rate upon impact would be in excess of
2,00Oft/min which is not survivable. The chances of a cable break must be less than
1.5e-9 which is the norm, for certification of Civil aircraft. There is no backup for a
cable break like there is no back up for the loss of a rotorblade in flight. Nor for a
wing falling off.
Best rega ds
/ .¢-
Per Lindstrand
Managing Director
9-11WK-d004 15: b4 rNUM; L1NLJ5 I KHNU-bMLLUUNn iJ1071D 17771
! U. UYJy JCJJ`Y-TZO'TiQ 1' . ,► • y
Lindstrand Tech., Ltd.
vs.
Aerophile
Mr Mark Scott
SkyLift Moldings, LLC
1109 Ponce de Leon
Florida 22134
U.S.A.
3rd March 2004
Dear Mr Scott
Lindstrand Balloons Ltd
Mae1o'bury Road, Oswestry,
Shropshire SY10 8ZZ, England.
Tel: (01691) 67 18 88 Fax: (01691) 67 99 91
I would like to set out below my comments On the Lindstrand HiFlyer compared with
the Aerophile.
The Lindstrand team has been making balloons and airships uninterrupted since 1976.
LBL,has the highest level of aircraft manufacturing Approval available under CAA,
FAA and EASA.
Aerophile is a two room office in Paris with no facilities and no Approvals. The
entire design and manufacturing is subcontracted to the lowest bidder. Aerophile is a
shell Company with virtually no assets.
The LBL team has manufactured over S,0OO hot air balloons, over 200 gas balloons
and over 100 hot air and gas airships with a perfect safety record.
LBL has a dedicated team of service engineers that can respond immediately to a
client's request.
When the Aerophile balloon tore in Bordeaux, the customer was told i.t would take
seven months to repair it.
The LBL winch is manufactured by David Brown, Textron, one of the largest
engineering companies in the world with a worldwide network. It is an al,l electric
single drum design, completely silent. There has never been a cable replacement due
to wear and tear.
The Aerophile winch is manufactured by various people i.e. the lowest bidder. It is
elcctro-hydraulic so it is noisy and there is cable contact necessitating regular cable
r :ace ent.
wilsort Jones.
WIIIINAViiSOnjort6S.Wrn
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
APR 1. 2004
Southern Region
Air Traffic Division Atlanta, Georgia 30320
Mr. Mark A. Funnen
Sky Litt Holding, LLC
1109 Ponce de Leon Blvd
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Dear Mr. Funnen:
P.O. Box 20636
The enclosed Certificate of Waiver honors your request for a waiver to the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR). Please review the Special Provisions on the reverse side of
the Certificate of Waiver. This waiver is effective for one year; applications for renewal
should be submitted at least 30 days prior to expiration. This waiver is only for those
regulations specifically identified and does not constitute a waiver of any state or local
ordinance.
We reviewed your application dated January 21, 2004, informing us of your intent to
operate an amusement ride at Bayfront Park, Miami, Florida. The amusement ride looks
like and operates similar to a large gas or hot air balloon. It is secured to earth by a
mooring line on a winch drum. It is intended to go up, using infernal gas for lifting, and
down by means of the mooring cable and winch drum system. The body of the
amusement device is like a balloon in appearance. The amusement attraction is
assembled with ropes and a gondola, is 72 feet in diameter, approximately 120 tall with
a useable cable length of 530 feet. This device could penetrate 650 feet into the
airspace. The amusement ride would create a tethered viewing platform over -looking
Biscayne Bay, the City of Miami, and surrounding areas. With the top of the
amusement device at 650 feet above the ground, it would go up and down at some
intervals, driven by the demand for the amusement ride. It would operate when wind
and weather are favorable and during both day and night. Times of operation of the
amusement device is on any given day, seven days per week. Both day and night
operations are intended. The body of this amusement attraction is lighted and readily
visible. The balloon has no rapid deflation device and is retrievable upon demand.
The Federal Aviation Administration has determined not to study this amusement
attraction as an aircraft. To study this device as a building structure would not give
consideration to the potential adverse affect on other users of the airspace. This
amusement attraction has been studied similar to a moored balloon operation, which it
resembles both in appearance and operation.
We have conducted an aeronautical review of your submitted site located at Bayfront
Park, 25.46.25.2 North Latitude, and 80.11.08 West Longitude. This site is located at
the Dolphin VORTAC (DHP) 100-degree radial at 9 nautical miles.
The review indicates that this device, at a maximum altitude of 500 feet Above Ground
Level (AGL) to the top of the balloon envelope, would not adversely impact the
National Airspace System. This would require that the amusement attraction, assembled
with ropes and a gondola of approximately 120 tall with a 380 feet long cable, for a total
height not to exceed 500AGL. The balloon site is within the Miami Class B Surface
Area. The balloon site is 3,350 feet perpendicular to Runway 12 of the Miami Seaplane
Base (X44), and 29,459 feet east-southeast of Runway 27R threshold of the Miami
International Airport (MIA). The balloon site is approximately 972 feet east and 970
feet north of buildings that are of a height greater than the maximum balloon altitude.
This area of the city does have police and general aviation helicopter populations and in
addition has EMS helicopters in the area. Several private use helipads are located in
nearby Miami downtown area. Additionally, commercial seaplane operations are
conducted by Chalk's Ocean Airways at the Miami Seaplane Base located between
Watson Island and Dodge Island.
This letter disposes of the Federal Aviation Administration interest in the matter but
should not be construed as superseding or invalidating any existing rules or regulations
promulgated by any other federal, state, county, or municipal government, which may be
required for this operation.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Patricia Graham at (404)
305-5594.
Sincere]
mcent
cting Nfanager, Airspace Branch
Enclosures
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
CERTIFICATE OF WAIVER OR AUTHORIZATION
ISSUED TO
Mr. Mark A. Funnen
Sky Lift Holding, LLC
ADDRESS
1109 Ponce de Leon Blvd
Coral Gables, FL 33134
This certificate is issued for the operations specifically described hereinafter. No person shall conduct any operation
pursuant to the authority of this certificate except in accordance with the standard and special provisions contained in this
certificate, and such other requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations no specifically waived by this certificate.
OPERATIONS AUTHORIZED
Operation of a moored balloon within 5 miles of the boundary of an airport.
I. Location: Miami, FL, 25.46.25.2 North Latitude, 80.11.08 West Longitude, or the Dolphin VORTAC 100 radial
at 9 nautical miles.
2. Altitude: Surface up to and including 500 feet Above Ground Level.
CFR Part 101.13 (a) (4) is waived to allow operations within live miles of an airport. CFR Part 101.15 is waived NOTAM will be on file.
CFR Pan 101.17 (b) is waived to allow for safe operation of mooring cable without pennants. CFR Part 101.19 is waived so that no rapid
deflation device is used.
CFR Part 101.13 (a) (4) Operating Limitations, Part 101.15 Notice Requirements, Part 101.17 (b) Lighting and
Marking Requirements, and Part I01.19 Rapid Deflation Device.
STANDARD PRO VISIONS
1. A copy of the application made for this certificate shall be attached to and become a part hereof.
2. This certificate shall be presented for inspection upon the request of any authorized representative of the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration, or of any State or municipal official charged with the duty of enforcing local laws or
regulations.
3. The holder of this certificate shall be responsible for the strict observance of the terms and provisions contained herein.
4. This certificate is nontransferable.
Note. -This certificate constitutes a waiver of those Federal rules or regulations specifically referred to above. It does not constitute a waiver of
any State law or local ordinance.
SPECIAL PRO VISIONS
Special Provisions Nos I to 6 inclusive, are set forth on the reverse side hereof.
This certificate is effective from April 15, 2004 to March 31, 2005 inclusive, and is subject to cancellation at
any time upon notice by the Administrator or his authorized representativ
Southern Region
(Region)
BY DIRECTION THE DMINISTRATOR
r/
incent
ignature)
Acting Manager, Airspace Branch
(Date) (Title)
FAA Form 771I-1 (7-74)
L1-mrm-ce,u4 ia:erj rHuri:L NUSIRWND-$ALLOONS 01691679991
TO:0013054448418 P:1/4
Mr Mark Fcinneti
SkyLift Moldings, LLC
1 109 Ponce de Leon.
Florida 22134
iJ.5.A.
21'. April 2004
Dear Mark
Let me clarify the airworthiness position as regards our manned tethered aerostat, the
1 i.iFlyer..
The I-1iFlyer-can be certified as an aircraft or as an amusement ride. If it is an
amusement ride, it will typically come under a State Authority just like any other
amusement ride which is the case with the USA and most of the world outside the
European Union.
The Liridstrand Hi..F'lycr is certified. as an aircraft under CAA Type Certificate B1323
under Designation I,INDSTR.A.ND L.RL 203P Gas Balloon. A copy of the Type Certificateisenclosed, So far, we have certified the HiFlyer as an aircraft in
i Iungary (Budapest), United, Arab Emirates (Dubai, and Abu Dhabi) and in Israel.
FAA has repeatedly stated that the 1-1iFIyer or any other manned tethered aerostat is
riot an aircraft which in the legal sense is entirely correct.
As to State Approval for a i4iFlyer in Miami, this is already done as we operated a -
HiFlyer outside Orlando, So, all the State of Florida Approvals are already achieved.
Since September 28th la.st year, the National Authority for Aircraft Certificatio.n no
longer rests with the individual Country but with EASA which is the EU arm for
Aircraft: Certification.
On the 31. ° March, 2004, Lin.dstrand "Technologies Ltd. achieved full EASA Approval
Reference: U.K.2 ] G.2089. A copy of the Approval Certificate is enclosed.
Per Lindstrand, MSc, PhD (Aero .Eng)
Managing Director