Does the government have the right to destroy whatever it wants in the air? Could this club sue for the cost of the balloon?
https://www.icao.int/Meetings/anconf12/Document%20Archive/an...
Appendix 4 - Unmanned free balloons
2.1 An unmanned free balloon shall not be operated without appropriate authorization from the State from which the launch is made.
2.2 An unmanned free balloon, other than a light balloon used exclusively for meteorological purposes and operated in the manner prescribed by the appropriate authority, shall not be operated across the territory of another State without appropriate authorization from the other State concerned.
2.3 The authorization referred to in 2.2 shall be obtained prior to the launching of the balloon if there is reasonable expectation, when planning the operation, that the balloon may drift into airspace over the territory of another State. Such authorization may be obtained for a series of balloon flights or for a particular type of recurring flight, e.g. atmospheric research balloon flights.
2.4 An unmanned free balloon shall be operated in accordance with conditions specified by the State of Registry and the State(s) expected to be overflown.
---
Section 2.2 and 2.3 is applicable here. That they didn't know, and the government didn't know, and this wasn't a exclusively used as a weather balloon... there are possibly some things that the hobbyists did that may not have been completely within the bounds of the treaty.
There are also things like:
FAA guidance - https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html...
Given the geopolitical moment, I'm inclined to think it might work out for the best if that were so.
Not that today's neocon China hawks are any more in the habit of listening to reason than they were when they were the neocon Iraq hawks of a couple of decades ago, but anything that gives everyone else another reason not to listen to their incessant warmongering is in my view entirely welcome.
While this is applicable for balloons with a larger payload (that the size of the balloon was specifically under to be unregulated) ... https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html...
Post the balloon flight on flight progress strips along the planned trajectory and revise routing as tracking/position reports require.
Radar flight follow balloons to the extent that equipment capabilities permit. If radar flight following is not possible, tracking should be attempted by communication with the “chase plane,” telephone contact with the operator, pilot, or ground observation reports.
Provide traffic advisories to all affected aircraft during initial contact specifying the balloon's known or estimated position, direction of movement, and altitude as “unknown” or “reported,” as appropriate.
Unless ATC requires otherwise, operators of unmanned free balloons are required to monitor the course of the balloon and record its position at least every two hours. As required in 14 CFR Section 101.39a, balloon position reports are not forwarded by the operator unless requested by ATC.
UNMANNED FREE BALLOON OVER (name of location),
or
ESTIMATED OVER (name of location), MOVING
(direction of movement).
LAST REPORTED ALTITUDE AT (altitude as reported by the operator or determined from pilot report),
or
ALTITUDE UNKNOWN.
If this was followed, and someone could say "there's a balloon near this location which is similar to the last reported location of Northern Illinois Bottlecap Balloon Brigade balloon 12345" this probably wouldn't have happened.
As it is, they're getting into the airspace used by airliners at a time when peoples' hackles are raised with unknown balloons.
As it is, this still falls under the Chicago Convention.
> 2.2 An unmanned free balloon, other than a light balloon used exclusively for meteorological purposes and operated in the manner prescribed by the appropriate authority, shall not be operated across the territory of another State without appropriate authorization from the other State concerned.
> 2.3 The authorization referred to in 2.2 shall be obtained prior to the launching of the balloon if there is reasonable expectation, when planning the operation, that the balloon may drift into airspace over the territory of another State. Such authorization may be obtained for a series of balloon flights or for a particular type of recurring flight, e.g. atmospheric research balloon flights.
This is not exclusively a meteorological balloon. It is not getting authorization from the airspace it drifts into. That is not being done prior to a launch and as it travels.
And so, the question that I'll ask - "did the people launching balloon obtain permission to launch from the United States and prior permission for countries that it passed over?"
This isn't exclusively a weather balloon - which has a different carve out for permissions.
But it is an aircraft that traveled internationally and through the airspace of multiple different countries.
I assume the reason nobody seems to be eager to claim these downed balloons is fear of their liability for flying unregistered, transponder-less hazards to other flights.
It's hard to argue that if the government can't identify something operating in controlled airspace that it can't take measures pretty solidly in the realm of "national defense," up to and including blowing it up.
The president can't be sued over official actions. Your suit would just be thrown out.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/sec...
There's no reasonable expectation of recovery when you launch a balloon calibrated to go globe-trotting.
It's basically no different than the person who abandoned a mattress at my apartment block's dumpster. It's littering. They're giving it away, they're not expecting to be able to come back for it later.
Furthermore, nobody has a right to unregistered, unmanned, long duration balloon flight. Such a right would only exist if a state constructed it for its citizens. (and it would end at their boundaries)
I think it's cool that in practice people have been able to do so, but it seems the cool times are coming to an end.
Plus, who wouldn't be proud to be able to claim "I launched something that was shot down by an F-22!"?
The Supreme Court is not going to intervene here in matters of military discretion, and no one is going to be able to sue here over this.
Hashtag-its-complicated.
To a first approximation: no. The US scrambling a fighter to blast a plane full of people out of the sky would be a huge mess and incur significant lawsuits.
Refining the approximation: militaries accepts the burden of responsibility to protect their people from threats, including airborne threats. Airborne threats are already traveling with significant potential (and often kinetic) energies so they are default-threatening. So militaries have wide discretion to presume an aircraft with no transponder is hostile and respond appropriately. A lawsuit on that topic would land somewhere between "no compensation" and "Sorry kids; Uncle Sam had to blow up your project to protect mom and apple pie; here's the money for the cost of the mylar and radio parts."
At the boundary-limit of the responsibilities, you can find disasters like the tragedy of Korean Airlines (KAL) flight 007, where Soviet planes failed to establish contact with a commercial airliner and shot it out of the sky.
Almost certainly not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...
That doesn't mean that they would win such a lawsuit, however.
Cops regularly get qualified immunity for absolutely egregious conduct. The military is not going to get successfully sued for shooting down a $12 balloon while acting in good faith on national security duties.
Again, you may want to carefully read the article you linked, and linked articles within such as the one on the Federal Tort Claims Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act
The decision here would be "there's no clearly established law that the US can't shoot down a balloon with an F-22" on qualified immunity grounds.
Oh yeah?! Him and what army?!
> The U.S. Army.
Oh that's a good army.
Even if they aren't, you just need permission from whoever controls your airspace (call them 20 minutes ahead of time) and only launch if there is very good visibility around the ascent path.