Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Fines Canadian $26,500 For 'Unconscionably Stupid' Balloon-Chair Flight (www.cbc.ca)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the balloon-payments dept.

In 2015, 27-year-old Daniel Boria tied over 100 helium balloons to a lawn chair and floated 2.5 miles above Calgary, "getting in the way of commercial aircraft and putting hundreds of lives at risk," reports the CBC. An anonymous reader quotes their report: Boria was ordered to pay $26,500 [USD $18,822] in fines when he was sentenced Friday, after pleading guilty in December to dangerous operation of an aircraft for the 2015 stunt... In handing down the sentence provincial court Judge Bruce Fraser called Boria's stunt "dumb and dangerous" and "unconscionably stupid. There was nothing fantastic, fun or exhilarating about it... There is no precedent for so foolish an escapade"...

On July 5, 2015, Boria tied $13,000 worth of industrial-sized balloons to a Canadian Tire lawn chair and took to the skies to promote his cleaning company, with the plan to parachute into the Calgary Stampede chuckwagon races. Uncooperative weather forced him to bail early, and winds pushed his landing to Ogden Road, where he was arrested by police who had been monitoring Boria since he was spotted above the Stampede grounds... During the time he was in the air, 24 airplanes took off and landed in Calgary.
The judge agreed that $20,000 of the fine should be donated to a charity of Boria's choice, and later Boria "said the stunt was worthwhile and he has no regrets."

65 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. I see what's coming. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    A person can take some off the shelf balloons, affix a solid object, and potentially endanger aircraft.

    I know what comes next: In the interests of national security, the government shall ban all balloons without a license!

    This isn't the US, so they'll at least be polite about it, and not shoot anyone for carrying a balloon of mass destruction.

    1. Re:I see what's coming. by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Since we're about to run out of helium, banning balloons might well mitigate the problem. A good first step.

    2. Re:I see what's coming. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If you let them get away with that the next thing will be socialized medicine with death panels and mandatory gay marriage. And if you let them get away with that you won't be allowed to take nail clippers on a plane.

      Revolt now, before it's too late!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:I see what's coming. by vtcodger · · Score: 5, Informative

      Apparently neither the judge nor the CBC has ever heard of Larry Walters balloon assisted lawnchair flight in 1982. Nor of his several imitators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Walters was fined $4000(US) -- reduced to $1500 on appeal -- for operating an aircraft within an airport traffic area "without establishing and maintaining two-way communications with the control tower." According to Wikipedia "A charge of operating a "civil aircraft for which there is not currently in effect an airworthiness certificate" was dropped, as it was not applicable to his class of aircraft."

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    4. Re:I see what's coming. by slashdime · · Score: 1

      Except this has been done before in the past. In the United States, no less.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      But since life is just one big meme nowadays and every event must be able to be copy-pastad into the same sentence, please proceed with giving us more of your alternative consp^H^H^H^H^H forecasts.

    5. Re:I see what's coming. by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      Didn't happen before, won't happen now. So basically, this is a dumb often repeated joke that proves the opposite of the point it's meant to make.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    6. Re:I see what's coming. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Simplest to just outlaw the private use of helium or hydrogen gas.

    7. Re: I see what's coming. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Beryllium. That's some fun stuff.

    8. Re:I see what's coming. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Who needs a damn wall. They can lay cable underground to detect seismic disturbance in the landscape that is sensitive enough to detect human traffic and is sophisticated enough to differentiate from wildlife. Drones to fly over with detection systems to verify and track movement of intruders until response teams can interdict. This is the fucking 21st century, enough with the concrete.

    9. Re:I see what's coming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, let's outlaw hydrogen, especially when combined with that dangerous oxidizer, oxygen. Dihydrogen monoxide kills thousands of people every year!

      Captcha; pre-empt.

    10. Re:I see what's coming. by Sir+Lurkalot · · Score: 1

      Darwin's take on this...

      http://www.darwinawards.com/st...

    11. Re:I see what's coming. by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

      Helium balloons also have another use the government would not like: you can take a few of them and inhale the gas and die. It's a quick, cheap, effective and painless suicide method.

      We all know how much the government really hates people making their own choice to end things. It is surprising helium balloons aren't already banned.

      Well, when MY life reaches the "game over man, game over!" stage, I have money saved to buy some of these balloons and celebrate myself exiting this existence. Happy Birthday to me. Happy fucking birthday to me.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    12. Re: I see what's coming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Down with your witchcraft. Donald said a wall and a wall it shall be. Probably with gold turrets and adverts its entire length.

    13. Re:I see what's coming. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Save a few bucks and use the industrial helium that has oil, water and who knows what else is in there. You don't want to do a Donald Duck voice trick with that stuff.

    14. Re:I see what's coming. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      No, you can't. The balloon gas you buy in stores is often helium diluted with air to reduce cost, and even if you breathed helium from balloons you'd just pass out - once you are unconscious you can't hold any more balloons. You'd need a mask.

      If you want a painless suicide, there's an easier way. Welding stores sell tanks of pure nitrogen - it's used in some forms of arc welding to prevent the very hot metal from reacting with atmospheric oxygen. Just take a tank of that, improvise a way to hook up an oxygen mask - you can use a diving mask, but you might need to use some tape and sealant to make the incompatible fittings hold together - and you have yourself a comfortable way to resign from life.

    15. Re: I see what's coming. by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      fun stuff

      Especially for me. Sorry about going a little offtopic, but I had a grad school classmate from NYC whose thesis project revolved around Be, and in his oral defense he couldn't stop pronouncing "beryllium ingots" as "balerium ignuts"...

    16. Re:I see what's coming. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I remember the petition. That shit was funny.

    17. Re: I see what's coming. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      The bearings for the horizontal stabilators on the F-15 fighter are a beryllium alloy. I remember coming in to work one day and they had some guys basically sanding the bearings and no one had on any breathing protection. With that stuff it's not if but when you get cancer. I told my boss and then walked away until they had it cleaned up. I know I'll never live to be really old but I'd like an outside shot at making 70.

    18. Re: I see what's coming. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      He did say it was going to be a Beeeeaaauuuuutiful wall, didn't he. I can't help but laugh. And to think it could have been worse.

    19. Re:I see what's coming. by beckett · · Score: 1

      Lawnchair larry did his most notable work in California. this judge presides over a Canadian Court under Candian Law and has to rule on Canadian jurisprudence, and not American folklore.

      Hence the statement it's 'unprecedented", as in there has likely been no comparable case before a Canadian court.

    20. Re: I see what's coming. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I've been working around hazardous materials since the late 70s. It's really amazing how far we've come. I remember washing my hands with trichloroethylene back almost 40 years ago. I used it to clean out the equipment bays and other areas on F15 aircraft with a sprayer. Literally gallons of it at a time. I wore safety glasses and that was it. I was a lot more careful with MEK, that stuff was amazing. The most powerful solvent I ever used. I know a lot of the guys I worked with got cancer and died. Lots of liver cancer, stomach cancer, brain cancer. I made a lot of money, raised two children and have a good retirement but it came with risk. The paint guys are the ones who really got it bad.

    21. Re: I see what's coming. by piojo · · Score: 1

      MEK? I thought xylene was the one that dissolves everything.

      I do know something about solvents, so I'm of course the above is just me being silly. But what about methylene chloride? I thought that dissolved a huge variety of stuff. And I thought MEK was almost as safe as acetone. Not so?

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
  2. Moral of the story by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    Next time do it with drones so you can get a live video feed with 50 angles and control the movement.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  3. Plenty of precedent! by chrylis · · Score: 4, Informative

    Odd that the judge calls this "unprecedented", when there have been multiple similar instances, and Lawn Chair Larry was internationally infamous.

    1. Re:Plenty of precedent! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Not just that:

      "dumb and dangerous" and "unconscionably stupid.

      Well, he's there in her courtroom.

      There was nothing fantastic, fun or exhilarating about it...

      That sounds like a normative claim. I betcha he had lots of fun and excitement.

      There is no precedent for so foolish an escapade"...

      Oh, c'mon - now she's just trying to damage Canada's hard-won reputation. They practically invented "here, hold my beer"! It's as if she doesn't know any actual Canadians.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Plenty of precedent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it seems like the judge was a bit ignorant of some of the facts.

      But, this guy should be in jail. He put the lives of others at risk. He says he has no regrets. That isn't just stupid, it is criminally negligent. He should be in jail.

    3. Re:Plenty of precedent! by eriks · · Score: 1

      Or even better: Danny Deckchair http://www.imdb.com/title/tt03...

    4. Re:Plenty of precedent! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I get the idea that it's being used as a legal term, so the other one outside Canada where there are different aviation regulations didn't apply.

    5. Re:Plenty of precedent! by Megol · · Score: 2

      But, this guy should be in jail. He put the lives of others at risk. He says he has no regrets.

      What do you mean? Everybody who drives a car puts the lives of others at risk, the moment they start up their car
      and drive onto the public street with other cars.

      That's why there's something called a drivers license.

      Don't see very many of them in jail.

      If you go driving without a license or with one but ignoring safety for you and/or others then you are likely to get put in jail.

      So how is this guy and a Lawnchair putting other peoples' lives at any higher risk?

      First: by not having any way to control the flight path - that's the main one, Second: by not informing pilots that he could fly into their path, Third: by not having a license to pilot an aircraft, Fourth: by moving into a dimension (up) where there, unlike ground vehicles, there is only a few dangers (birds) and unlike birds aircraft aren't constructed to survive impacts of a stupid guy in a chair.

    6. Re:Plenty of precedent! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      If you go driving without a license or with one but ignoring safety for you and/or others then you are likely to get put in jail.

      The likelihood of getting caught is pretty low provided you don't do something to attract attention, and the car you're driving is properly registered so it doesn't trigger a red flag when checked. And driving without a license is a fine, not jail, unless the revocation was because of drunk driving or another offence. Judges aren't going to throw people in jail for such minor offenses - that costs money. Fines make money.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re:Plenty of precedent! by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      This. Judge doesn't know about past cases: minor deficiency in trivia knowledge. Boria's lawyer lets the judge get away with it: Professional incompetence.

    8. Re:Plenty of precedent! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      That's why there's something called a drivers license.

      The driver's license doesn't change the risk. The primary purpose of a driver's license is to make sure the local government can identify its citizens. Also, you can be a pedestrian and step into the street without a driver's license, which puts other drivers' at just as much risk as a guy in a lawnchair puts other people in the air at risk.

      If you go driving without a license or with one but ignoring safety for you and/or others then you are likely to get put in jail.

      Nope. Not likely at all, not until After you get in a wreck and somebody is injured, And the assessment shows you were criminally negligent.

      First: by not having any way to control the flight path

      That's putting the guy in the lawnchair at risk, not anybody else

      Second: by not informing pilots that he could fly into their path

      It's the pilots duty to check for things that could fly into their path.

      Third: by not having a license to pilot an aircraft

      "License for piloting a lawnchair" makes about as much sense as suggesting a license for
      being a pedestrian, Or a license for Tubing or navigating a small Canoe, Raft, or Lifeboat, because
      the small craft could pose a risk to one those freighters in the Pacific. A lawnchair is not an aircraft,
      and the person riding it is not a Pilot. See first thing you mentioned: There's no ready means to
      alert the path through the air.

      , Fourth: by moving into a dimension (up) where there, unlike ground vehicles, there is only a few dangers (birds) and unlike birds aircraft aren't constructed to survive impacts of a stupid guy in a chair.

      So why aren't all the birds going to jail?
      This is what you call bad design of aircraft, if they're so ridiculously unsafe that some 200lb guy in a lawnchair poses some theoretical risk.

    9. Re:Plenty of precedent! by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the fact that there have been several precedents for this. They even Mythbustered it once.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    10. Re:Plenty of precedent! by beckett · · Score: 1

      Lawnchair Larry happened in California. This is a Canadian court that rules on Canadian jurisprudence.

    11. Re:Plenty of precedent! by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Well, there's a difference between a system where all the players a) are trained, b) are licensed, c) are insured, and d) are aware that they're assuming risk, and a system where some yahoo goes for a flight, in direct contravention of laws and custom, in a contrivance that is specifically uncontrollable and a hazard to navigation and safety, with the express intent of causing a disturbance.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  4. 5000$ fine and 20000$ donation by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if a forced donation such as this one is still tax-deductible? Seems to me he'll get some tax break from this?

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
    1. Re:5000$ fine and 20000$ donation by beckett · · Score: 3, Informative

      if he gets a donation receipt from the charities, he will be able to claim a tax credit. He chose to split his donation to the veteran's food bank, and the Canadian Legion Poppy fund, also a veteran's organisation.

    2. Re:5000$ fine and 20000$ donation by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      He will get receipts, or how would he prove to the court that he paid?

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    3. Re:5000$ fine and 20000$ donation by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Maybe from this:

      The judge agreed that $20,000 of the fine should be donated to a charity of Boria's choice

    4. Re:5000$ fine and 20000$ donation by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Or cancelled cheque, or tax receipt from the charitable organization (which includes the amount and the charity's tax registration number). However, he doesn't have to show any of this to actually claim the tax deduction - only needs it on hand if he's audited. In Canada you don't file receipts with your tax returns.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    5. Re:5000$ fine and 20000$ donation by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      He should have donated to the "Amateur Aviators of Canada" charity.

  5. One Too Many by turkeydance · · Score: 3, Insightful

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:One Too Many by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      I don't see how, even in German, that "Luft" = "Red".

    2. Re:One Too Many by dougTheRug · · Score: 1

      Same number of syllables, sounds nice.

  6. Or HK$153,880.78 by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    Ever how you slice it, it's advertising expense.

    With a few exceptions, the new normal seems to be there is no such thing as bad press... if you're getting your name out there, it's better than not being talked about.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  7. Slashvertisment by Kitano123 · · Score: 1

    Is this just a thinly veiled slashvertisment for Canadian Tire lawn chairs?

  8. Re:Danny Deckchair by lucm · · Score: 1

    Get real. Nobody ever watches Australian movies, except for Crocodile Dundee and Mad Max.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  9. Balloon hanging by lanceran · · Score: 1

    Next step is obvious. http://imgur.com/a/QmoPg

  10. WKRP in Calgary by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    "...took to the skies to promote his cleaning company, with the plan to parachute into the Calgary Stampede chuckwagon races."

    'As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly!'

  11. Re:Danny Deckchair by lucm · · Score: 1

    Only if being shot in Australia with Australian crew and funded by Australian taxpayers doesn't count. Pacific Rim 2

    That's right, it doesn't count. See Wikipedia:

    Pacific Rim: Uprising is an upcoming American science fiction monster film directed by Steven S. DeKnight and written by DeKnight, Emily Carmichael, Kira Snyder, and T.S. Nowlin from a story by Guillermo del Toro.

    American director, written by four American writers, based on a story by a Mexican. And in the clickable actor names in that Wikipedia entry there's Americans, British, Chinese, Japanese, etc. but no Australian.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  12. Re:Great advertising! by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    He operated a cleaning company. It's likely nothing more than him cleaning houses as a sole proprietorship, which means the materials and fine probably cost him an entire year's profits.

  13. Re:Great advertising! by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    I'd think the fine would be a tax deductible business expense. I know the materials are.

  14. Worth it. by amanaplanacanalpanam · · Score: 1

    n/t

  15. Bright boy. by westlake · · Score: 1

    plan to parachute into the Calgary Stampede chuckwagon races

    The chuckwagon race is the prairie equivalent of the chariot races in Ben Hur. Punishing and occasionally lethal. There is a reason why they call it a Stampede.

  16. Re:Great advertising! by mysidia · · Score: 1

    I don't know about the rules in Canada, but in the US, one of the rules governing the Income Tax is that
    Legally-imposed government fines and penalties are never tax-deductible, regardless if the fine is by the Federal government,
    or if it's the sentence imposed by a court.

  17. Re:Great advertising! by newbie_fantod · · Score: 1, Funny

    Legally-imposed government fines and penalties are never tax-deductible

    Don't mention this to Trump, OK?

  18. lawnchair fight by period3 · · Score: 1

    I read this as "Court Fines Canadian $26,500 For 'Unconscionably Stupid' Balloon-Chair Fight".

    I was disappointed :(
     

    1. Re:lawnchair fight by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      I did the same thing. I had this awesome mental image of two neighbors playing some insanely stupid mix of tanks and mario kart's battle mode. Lawn darts being the weapon of choice.

  19. Re:Great advertising! by Imrik · · Score: 1

    Even if the fine is required to go to a charity?

  20. Re: $26,500 sure would buy ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Note for Americans - "putain" is a street sex worker, often shortened to just "pute".

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  21. Dumb judge by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    He should have made him serve jail time. Wasting all that helium, which we can never get back. Just for wasting all that helium, he should be beaten good.

  22. Re: Great advertising! by thundercattt · · Score: 1

    If the business is fined. He'll bankrupt the business, re-open under another name. Then advertise as the balloon guy "as seen on the web"

  23. Re:Great advertising! by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Even if the fine is required to go to a charity?

    It doesn't matter who the ultimate beneficiary is; The court is directing the funds be forfeited from the defendent, not the defendant voluntarily exercising discretion on their funds to donate to a charity.

  24. Re: Great advertising! by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Of course not. Trump is no fool. He hires people to dodge them for him.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  25. Chief of the Fun Police says... by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

    > There was nothing fantastic, fun or exhilarating about it...

    How would he know? Has he ever tried it? Does he fall asleep on roller coasters, too?