5 ms·

Does the government have the right to destroy whatever it wants in the air? Could this club sue for the cost of the balloon?

ceejayoz 4y ago
> Could this club sue for the cost of the balloon? Almost certainly not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...
- michaelhoffman 4y ago
  If you read the linked article, you will find that the United States has laws that waive sovereign immunity for torts committed by people acting on behalf of the federal government. Which is what I assume would be alleged here. That doesn't mean that they would win such a lawsuit, however.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    They can waive torts, yes. Doing so is a very specific process. 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.
    - michaelhoffman 4y ago
      What do you think the "very specific process" involved for the federal government waiving immunity to tort claims? I assume that is what you mean by "waive torts" which is a phrase that doesn't really make sense. Since it is "very specific", can you describe it? 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        You ask what the procedure is, and then link right to it. Legislation giving citizens the right to sue in certain scenarios. Without the government's OK, no suing the government. 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.
        michaelhoffman 4y ago
        That legislation has already been passed. The Federal Tort Claims Act has been the law of the land for 77 years.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        And qualified immunity in these sorts of scenarios (and much, much more deliberately egregious conduct) has been the reality of the land since 1967.
    - hgsgm 4y ago
      Qualified immunity is for personal liability, not government liability.
    - gnopgnip 4y ago
      Individual government employees are covered by qualified immunity, not their employer
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bdcravens 4y ago
According to the article, the balloon cost $12 (though I'm sure there whatever equipment attached to it was much more)
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  I'm imagining the Commander in Chief having to show up to small claims court because he shot down your $12 balloon with $400,000 worth of ordinance.
  - not2b 4y ago
    No, sovereign immunity.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - apendleton 4y ago
    Minor nit: an "ordinance" is a rule or law; "ordnance" is the stuff that blows up.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      Is it because they shoot their 'i' out?
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > I'm imagining the Commander in Chief having to show up to small claims court because he shot down your $12 balloon with $400,000 worth of ordinance. 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/section-2/clause-3/presidential-immunity-to-criminal-and-civil-suits-civil-cases https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/sec...
pengaru 4y ago
> Does the government have the right o destroy whatever it wants in the air? Could this club sue for the cost of the balloon? 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.
- pc86 4y ago
  Transponders are not required for payloads below approximately 100x the weight of these types of balloons. There is zero liability, but also zero recourse. 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.
throwawaysleep 4y ago
I believe there are rules on flying stuff.
- jabroni_salad 4y ago
  With hobby balloons they are usually small enough to be exempt from FAA 101. 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.
karaterobot 4y ago
I don't think you should be downvoted for asking a question. I'm sure there are legalities we don't understand, so it's legitimate to ask about them. I'd also like to read a response from an informed source.
shadowgovt 4y ago
> Does the government have the right to destroy whatever it wants in the air? 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.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
shagie 4y ago
The key treaty on this is the Chicago Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Convention_on_International_Civil_Aviation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Convention_on_Internat... https://www.icao.int/Meetings/anconf12/Document%20Archive/an02_cons%5B1%5D.pdf 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/chap9_section_6.html https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html...
- throwanem 4y ago
  > there are possibly some things that the hobbyists did that may not have been completely within the bounds of the treaty 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.
- qwery 4y ago
  The story is about US civilians' balloons, launched domestically, being shot down while over the US (I think).
Rimintil 4y ago
Why would someone sue over what is likely less than $100 in total costs? That's silly. You can only recover actual cost. Plus, who wouldn't be proud to be able to claim "I launched something that was shot down by an F-22!"?
CydeWeys 4y ago
It's not quite the right question to ask. The government is going to destroy whatever it wants to in the air, and there's only ever gonna be potential consequences (of a diplomatic nature) if it accidentally results in the injury/death of an innocent party. 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.
tshaddox 4y ago
> Dad, I tried to go to school, but this guy won't let me. Oh yeah?! Him and what army?! > The U.S. Army. Oh that's a good army.
markjenkinswpg 4y ago
Not only does the government have the right to destroy it, but so does anyone else. 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.

ceejayoz 4y ago

> Could this club sue for the cost of the balloon? Almost certainly not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...

michaelhoffman 4y ago
If you read the linked article, you will find that the United States has laws that waive sovereign immunity for torts committed by people acting on behalf of the federal government. Which is what I assume would be alleged here. That doesn't mean that they would win such a lawsuit, however.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  They can waive torts, yes. Doing so is a very specific process. 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.
  - michaelhoffman 4y ago
    What do you think the "very specific process" involved for the federal government waiving immunity to tort claims? I assume that is what you mean by "waive torts" which is a phrase that doesn't really make sense. Since it is "very specific", can you describe it? 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      You ask what the procedure is, and then link right to it. Legislation giving citizens the right to sue in certain scenarios. Without the government's OK, no suing the government. 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.
      - michaelhoffman 4y ago
        That legislation has already been passed. The Federal Tort Claims Act has been the law of the land for 77 years.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        And qualified immunity in these sorts of scenarios (and much, much more deliberately egregious conduct) has been the reality of the land since 1967.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    Qualified immunity is for personal liability, not government liability.
  - gnopgnip 4y ago
    Individual government employees are covered by qualified immunity, not their employer

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bdcravens 4y ago

According to the article, the balloon cost $12 (though I'm sure there whatever equipment attached to it was much more)

Consultant32452 4y ago
I'm imagining the Commander in Chief having to show up to small claims court because he shot down your $12 balloon with $400,000 worth of ordinance.
- not2b 4y ago
  No, sovereign immunity.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- apendleton 4y ago
  Minor nit: an "ordinance" is a rule or law; "ordnance" is the stuff that blows up.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Is it because they shoot their 'i' out?
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > I'm imagining the Commander in Chief having to show up to small claims court because he shot down your $12 balloon with $400,000 worth of ordinance. 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/section-2/clause-3/presidential-immunity-to-criminal-and-civil-suits-civil-cases https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/sec...

pengaru 4y ago

> Does the government have the right o destroy whatever it wants in the air? Could this club sue for the cost of the balloon? 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.

pc86 4y ago
Transponders are not required for payloads below approximately 100x the weight of these types of balloons. There is zero liability, but also zero recourse. 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.

throwawaysleep 4y ago

I believe there are rules on flying stuff.

jabroni_salad 4y ago
With hobby balloons they are usually small enough to be exempt from FAA 101. 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.

karaterobot 4y ago

I don't think you should be downvoted for asking a question. I'm sure there are legalities we don't understand, so it's legitimate to ask about them. I'd also like to read a response from an informed source.

shadowgovt 4y ago

> Does the government have the right to destroy whatever it wants in the air? 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.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

shagie 4y ago

The key treaty on this is the Chicago Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Convention_on_International_Civil_Aviation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Convention_on_Internat... https://www.icao.int/Meetings/anconf12/Document%20Archive/an02_cons%5B1%5D.pdf 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/chap9_section_6.html https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html...

throwanem 4y ago
> there are possibly some things that the hobbyists did that may not have been completely within the bounds of the treaty 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.
qwery 4y ago
The story is about US civilians' balloons, launched domestically, being shot down while over the US (I think).

Rimintil 4y ago

Why would someone sue over what is likely less than $100 in total costs? That's silly. You can only recover actual cost. Plus, who wouldn't be proud to be able to claim "I launched something that was shot down by an F-22!"?

CydeWeys 4y ago

It's not quite the right question to ask. The government is going to destroy whatever it wants to in the air, and there's only ever gonna be potential consequences (of a diplomatic nature) if it accidentally results in the injury/death of an innocent party. 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.

tshaddox 4y ago

> Dad, I tried to go to school, but this guy won't let me. Oh yeah?! Him and what army?! > The U.S. Army. Oh that's a good army.

markjenkinswpg 4y ago

Not only does the government have the right to destroy it, but so does anyone else. 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.