The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is investigating an incident that took place on Thursday involving a United Airlines Boeing 737 MAX that made an emergency landing after its windshield cracked at 36,000 feet. NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said Tuesday the board is reviewing a report from WindBorne Systems, which believes one of its weather balloons may have been struck by the aircraft. The jet, operating as Flight 1093, was en route from Denver to Los Angeles with 134 passengers and six crew members when it diverted safely to Salt Lake City.
Yes, I think this was a WindBorne balloon. We learned about UA1093 and the potential that it was related to one of our balloons at 11pm PT on Sunday and immediately looked into it. At 6am PT, we sent our preliminary investigation to both NTSB and FAA, and are working with both of… https://t.co/TDtyt08fMe
— John Dean (@johndeanl) October 21, 2025
Homendy told Reuters the incident “in the wrong situation could have been really devastating for the aircraft and those on board.”
The event initially raised speculation that the damage might have come from space debris, but WindBorne said late Monday that it believes a weather balloon was responsible. The company noted it has conducted more than 4,000 weather balloon launches and files notice for every flight with the FAA. “We are working closely with the FAA on this matter,” WindBorne said in its statement.
According to WindBorne, new safety measures are being implemented to minimize the time its weather balloons spend between 30,000 and 40,000 feet, a common cruising window for airliners. The company also plans to use live flight data to help its balloons autonomously avoid aircraft and is developing new hardware to reduce potential impact forces.
Homendy said the NTSB will continue evaluating technologies that provide real-time awareness of airborne objects as part of the ongoing investigation.
In this era of deny, deflect, and blame-shift, it’s very refreshing to see a company own up to a situation, even when it’s not really their fault. Bravo.
Surely these things are mandated to carry ADSB ? So much fuss about drones, yet the FAA lets these things enter airways with little oversight ? Obviously a complete ban on such over FL100 (weather) balloons is called for until the safety of passengers can be improved ?! Seriously the FAA is dropping the ball more often than not lately. I am voting for ChatGPT to take over, surely it would not do worse ?!
So you really think the FAA has control over the float path of these balloons? These balloons provide the data that enables forecasts of the weather, winds aloft, SIGMETS, etc. and passengers are far safer for that. Why limit the ban to FL100? A balloon can impact an airplane below 10,000 ft. too.
I expect the FAA to honour its duty, which is separation of traffic. This could have ended badly, its a warning and i expect better from the FAA than to behave like ostriches (again). There isinnovation everywhere insociety, but aviation is stuck in the50’s in many areas, and it often shows in accidents and incidents. It needs to re-assess its role. This is just another symptom of an agency zoomed in on the rear-view mirror.
Between 900 and 1,300 locations around the globe do routine releases of weather balloons, two or four times daily, usually an hour before the 0000 UTC and 1200 UTC weather updates. Some facilities will also do occasional supplementary special releases. The U.S. releases about 210 per day. By international agreements, almost all the data are shared with all nations. Although these balloons have been launched since the 1930s, so far there has been only one fatal accident. In 1970, an Antonov 24 operating Aeroflot Flight 1661 suffered a loss of control after striking a radiosonde in flight resulting in the death of all 45 people on board. Instead of banning them it might be more useful to analyze why they have been so safe and the circumstances behind the encounter with United 1093 and THEN act rationally.
I said ban until equipped with ADSB and separation issue sorted. Thats the thing : complacency and thinking it worked in 1930 it has to be OK in 2025. Thats not rational and hence the result. I cannot believe you are attempting to rationalize this near crash. If the FAA knowingly dismisses active separation and feels ‘big sky’ is ‘good enough’, then why does it get tax dollars at all ? Full disclosure are you making money of these aerial mines ?
You are imposing a fix without knowing the cause. Somehow balloons and airplanes managed to keep out of each other’s way without ADS-B. An analysis of the operation would reveal how. I seriously doubt it was sheer luck. It would be irresponsible to impose a recurring cost burden of a disposable ADS-B unit on the thousands of balloons that go up everyday just because that’s the only solution you can think of, not to mention you’d start running out of vehicle ID numbers.
Addendum: You don’t know what worked in the 1930s or in 2024, but you’ve assumed it isn’t working in 2025. And no, I don’t make any money on anything to do with balloons or weather forecasting or ADS-B equipment. I’m just an aerospace engineer who wouldn’t propose a solution without first understanding the details of the systems involved their interactions and the implications and impacts a VALID solution could have on all components.
Well the cost of adsb was never an issue when imposed om aviation. Again : the FAA is responsible for separation, no ifs or buts. Adsb and gps can be installed for less than 100 if bought in bulk, what’s the value of a full airliner ? Honestly it amazes me that there is even discussion about this. Again my demand for full disclosure : do you have any interest in that business ? Is the financial margin driving your argument ?
True, the FAA is responsible for separation, but you don’t know how they’ve been doing it and have assumed they are using a big-sky theory that failed, and have based your proposed solution on that dubious foundation. That, and thinking that adding $100 on a whim to each balloon launch is a trivial burden on the meteorology industry. Who needs the NTSB to investigate when there’s you!
FYI, WindBorneWX has said they intend to use ADS-B data to detect airplanes in the vicinity of their balloons and move conflicting balloons out of the way but don’t say how. Their balloons have no lateral propulsion or maneuverability but do have altitude control.
Each ADS-B unit has a unique ICAO ID issued to it. It is a 24-bit address, so 6 hexadecimal characters. The weather balloons and their payloads are usually not recovered, having often drifted into inaccessible areas. With drones and homebuilts coming on line rapidly in large numbers, each with its ADS-B unit, how soon will the ICAO run out of IDs if a new ADS-B unit has to be issued with each replacement balloon, about 2,200 per day.
You can demand all you want… it was rude enough to imply that anyone with a different opinion is unethical, likely driven by a financial interest in the subject; ad hominem to say the least. Still, I answered, not that you can verify anything. Demanding a second time goes beyond the pale.
Still you dodge the ethical question, so that says a lot about you too. The adsb code matter is your latest excuse now i have debunked yr other arguments ?! Surely you can apply yr intellect at finding solutions rather than problems. After all its safety we are after (well, and money maybe, still no clarity on that from your angle). The proof is in that accident : the status quo is not safe enough, not for me. Its people like me and all others on this forum who are adamant on pushing the safety boundary by exchanging ideas and informing other and their representatives - that the sky becomes that bit safer. Imho the FAA needs some prodding from time to time. I hope the NTSB feels the same way about this,lets wait and see, and pray these ballons do not take down an airliner in the meantime.
What part of that didn’t you comprehend?
Excuse me now while I go and argue with Alice and the Mad Hatter; will be much more productive.
P.S.: Here’s a tip from Arthur Conan Doyle/Sherlock Holmes:
“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly [subconsciously] one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
By pretending competence you may convince yourself that you’re pushing the safety boundary. You’re not, you’re pushing something that is not competently sourced. And every once in a while our intrepid representatives in Congress suddenly listen and actually run with an idea—good, bad or ugly. Remember: Little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Your greed and faith in big sky vs my competence ? Oh yeah, and 1 nearly dpwned airliner that you brush of easily. I hope our argument will be settled by safety improvements rather than dead bodies. But thats just me…