This seems close to a worst case scenario for this failure mode, and everyone is still OK. I consider that good engineering.
But still, in light of this I think we can do better. I think it's possible to operate the way we do and have a the mass distributed such that the only damage is ever cosmetic. We follow FAA 101 regulations on this but I want to have better internal impact modeling as well.
If that means that either you can’t release balloons or the aircraft can’t fly, then that’s a discussion that we should have about which we value more.
When I buy a ticket to fly on a aircraft, I do not want to know that I’ll probably survive if my plane hits a weather balloon, I want to know that my plane won’t hit a weather balloon.
I understand there are all sorts of inherent risks in aviation, and that if I want to fly, I must accept those risks. But hitting a balloon is not an inherent risk of flying, it’s a risk imposed on by others.
Also for larger balloons, any trailing antenna must break if subjected to an impact force of 50lbs, or the antenna must have colored streamers every 50ft.
The ideal measurement would be some sort of crash testing. eg: The payload is accelerated at some standard velocity towards some standard target that represents the weakest part of an airplane (either cockpit glass or leading edge of a wing) and must not damage the target beyond some threshold. But that seems like it would be expensive, since every change in payload would require re-testing. Limits on sectional density seem like a good compromise.
1. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F...
And yes, this is good engineering, but through decades of learning crowdfunded with tax dollars.
You can argue that is not effective enough perhaps, but the mechanism itself exists.
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.
A good example is the state franchise laws against car manufacturers owning dealerships. Why can't Toyota sell me a car directly? Direct manufacturer sales seem to work fine in other contexts (e.g. Ikea). In Europe they're moving more and more direct sales. There's no good reason to keep them here in the US, but the dealership owners who benefit from these laws are the only people impacted directly enough to bother hiring lobbyists.
It would be comforting to believe so, but that requires ignoring every aspect of human nature.
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/
Half the legislature campaigns on not doing anything if they get elected, though, and when they get elected, you get... Well, you get a lot of different things, most of them awful.
It's building on quicksand, but it's certainly not unprecedented.
Government regulators have failed, but at least the company is making an effort to prevent this from happening again.
Once pilot got some light shrapnel and the airplane successfully landed with zero deaths. This is such a rare collision that people attributed it to SPACE DEBRIS initially.
The only fix I'd like to see the government make is allowing lightweight objects to broadcast transponder data. Even if they don't do that, another 50 years will probably pass before the next collision of this type.
Will air travel become safer because we don't know where they are?
1. See § 87.107: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2024-title47-vol5/pd...
There are ADS-B transmitters that weigh 50 grams and would require 60 grams of batteries to power them for 8 hours, so payload limitations are not an issue for WindBorne.[1]
The CEO of WindBorne replied to a comment about the inability to use ADS-B on weather balloons saying, "Yea, the FAA does a lot and I think overall they do a great job, but I wish there was better systems for communications here."[2] So I'm reasonably confident that my understanding is correct.
1. https://uavionix.com/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2025/07/...
It's much, much lighter than a radar reflector, which aircraft weather radar displays aren't even designed to display.