Grand Canyon overflight proposal

I found this on the rec.backcountry group...

The Grand Canyon Hikers and Backpackers Association (GCHBA) supports
implementation of substantial restoration of natural quiet as defined
by the National Park Service and interpreted by the courts.

The GCHBA Board encourages you to submit your comments based on your
own views and concerns about air tours and aircraft noise to the FAA by
April 27, 2006. This is a very important issue that concerns all of us
that love the Canyon. One of the air tour operators has gone so far to
as to propose to the FAA that hiking and camping be banned in the areas
(such as Hermit Basin) where they conduct their tour flights. The tour
operators have flooded the FAA with comments from their customers in
favor of their operations. The new overflight rules can have a large
affect on our enjoyment of the Canyon.

See http://www.gchba.org/overflights.asp for our position statement and
http://www.gchba.org/overflight_submit.asp for a partially pre-filled
form for submission of your comments to the FAA.

Hikers - GCHBA represents the hiking community with members sharing
their experience through the Internet. Hikers are a smaller number than
some other groups involved in the overflights issue, but we are in the
10s-of-thousands each year and this is more than people realize. For
many, their trip to Grand Canyon is the `trip of a lifetime' - the
same as for other visitors. Over the years, the number of individual
backcountry hikers is in the millions.

Aircraft -Our proposal regarding flights over Grand Canyon is simple,
that there should be no aircraft over Grand Canyon except for essential
services (emergencies and other essential operations). Some people seem
to be offended by a proposal that they disagree with. A proposal is
just that: a proposal, not an action, not something to be offended
over. One of the most dangerous places to pass in Grand Canyon is
Crystal Rapid. You row as hard as you can for the north shore, and even
if you row as hard as you can you will never get there. But if you
don't row as hard as you can you may not get to be what we call `ABC,'
Alive Below Crystal. Making any proposal takes courage and involves
risk. GCHBA will sincerely review and consider every proposal.

Specific things we are looking for include: A quiet period in Hermit
Basin because this is a popular and accessible area. Some degree of
adjustment to jetliner routes because the noise model shows all of the
Park is affected now. Compliance reporting - recording tour aircraft
with on-board monitoring will improve the credibility of flight rules.
Sensible implementation of `no flights below the rim' - when we see a
helicopter with a cliff behind it and hear the sound coming back at us
from that cliff, it does not make any sense that this is `no flights
below the rim.'

Quiet - We intuitively understand the spiritual significance when
Native American speakers say that "what happens at Grand Canyon affects
the whole world." People come from all parts of the world to experience
Grand Canyon and they carry that experience back with them to all parts
of the world, and that experience must include natural quiet.

Water - The places in Grand Canyon where there is a good water source
are the most important to us. Every hiker must plan their trip around
where there is reliable water so these are the places that we go to
most often and these are the places that we would most like to see
protected.

Closures - We have heard about areas that have been closed to
flights, and hikers have to accept closures also, and we do. These
closures include road access to trailheads, cultural sites that have
been identified that we avoid, Native American lands where there was
little concern where we went but now we need to educate the hiking
community to respect these boundaries. We all share the obligation for
any type of closure, in the airspace or on the ground, for the future
protection of Grand Canyon.

The GCHBA Board of Directors
http://www.gchba.org

I found this on the rec.backcountry group...
snip
Aircraft -Our proposal regarding flights over Grand Canyon is simple,
that there should be no aircraft over Grand Canyon except for essential
services (emergencies and other essential operations).

I just love these sanctimonious, holier-than-thou turds who feel that
areas like the Grand Canyon should be cordoned off, to only be enjoyed
by the hyper-fit, Aryan uber-athletes among us who are actually able to
hike down into the canyon -- and to hell with the rest of us.

I'd bet there are 1000 people whose only exposure to the grandeur of
the canyon is from the awesome view of an aerial tour, for every 1
person who is able to hike to the bottom of the canyon. Yet that
doesn't seem to bother these folks in the least. They camouflage their
arguments behind Native American spriritual mumbo-jumbo, when it is
clear (to any thinking individual) that these activists simply want to
keep most people away from "their" canyon.

And this isn't just an issue over the Canyon. They have started this
crap over many other national and state parks, such as the Boundary
Waters, Devil's Tower, Yosemite, and even the Mississippi River.

Speak up now, or we risk losing our overflight rights to many of our
nation's most treasured land.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I just love these sanctimonious, holier-than-thou turds who feel that
areas like the Grand Canyon should be cordoned off, to only be enjoyed
by the hyper-fit, Aryan uber-athletes among us who are actually able to
hike down into the canyon -- and to hell with the rest of us.
I'd bet there are 1000 people whose only exposure to the grandeur of
the canyon is from the awesome view of an aerial tour, for every 1
person who is able to hike to the bottom of the canyon.

Actually, I'm quite sympathetic to their views. Your argument works the
same for cars, boom boxes, and winnebegos too, and national parks are
getting so crowded with them that going there is not at all what a
national park is supposed to be about.

I'd love to be able to buzz the canyon, but when I do that, lots of
people have their experience significantly altered. It's like one
cigarette in a restaurant - everyone else's meal is ruined for one
jerk's seven minutes of putatuve pleasure.

I do agree it can go too far, and the Grand Canyon rules could also be
seen (rightfully) as the camel's nose in the tent. But I think it would
behoove us to not behave so arrogantly as to call the others arrogant
for not wanting us to make noise in a national park.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

But I think it would
behoove us to not behave so arrogantly as to call the others arrogant
for not wanting us to make noise in a national park.

whether or not it would behoove us doesn't change the arrogance
of the anit-aircraft crowd.

It's interesting that the desire for natural quiet doesn't recognize
all the sources of "unnatural sound"

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

I seem to remember a Boy Scout lost and injured in a
"wilderness area" near Canada, who nearly died because they
could not get permission to use airplanes for the search and
when he was found, they couldn't bring a rescue helicopter
in to fly him out to a hospital. This was 10 years ago,
maybe a little longer.

No doubt about it, some airplanes are very quiet. You could
fly a motor-glider over the Grand Canyon with the engine off
and restart the engine away from any people and the
enviro-wackos would still complain.

I grew up on a farm with horses. I had a high power rifle
range in the pasture near the barn. The horses paid not
attention to a shot from even a .30/06 unless they were also
physically touched in some way at the sound of the shot.
Even pregnant mares had normal foal.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Bob Noel" wrote in
message
...
| In article
,
| Jose wrote:
|
| But I think it would
| behoove us to not behave so arrogantly as to call the
others arrogant
| for not wanting us to make noise in a national park.
|
| whether or not it would behoove us doesn't change the
arrogance
| of the anit-aircraft crowd.
|
| It's interesting that the desire for natural quiet doesn't
recognize
| all the sources of "unnatural sound"
|
| --
| Bob Noel
| Looking for a sig the
| lawyers will hate
|

It's interesting that the desire for natural quiet doesn't recognize
all the sources of "unnatural sound"

Well, it does. It attacks them one at a time.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
...
It's interesting that the desire for natural quiet doesn't recognize
all the sources of "unnatural sound"

Well, it does. It attacks them one at a time.

So when will those folks get around to trying to ban each other person
hiking, picnicking, camping, etc. next to them?

IMHO, that's what makes this fuss so annoying to me. I perfectly understand
the desire to have peace and quiet. But a popular National Park isn't the
place to find that. Places like Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Yosemite,
etc. are just one step away from being as bad as Disney Land. To argue that
aircraft, of all things, are what are ruining the peaceful experience is
just ridiculous.

Yes, there need to be *some* kind of regulations, as much for air safety as
for noise abatement. But to think that it makes sense to completely ban
aircraft? IMHO, the parks would be more enjoyable to me, on the ground, if
aircraft were permitted, and all the ground-based visitors (except me, of
course) were banned. The airplane noise would bug me a little, but it's all
the people right around me that I find most annoying. They are loud,
intrusive, inconsiderate, and pollute the immediate environment to a much
greater degree than any aircraft might.

Pete

Jay Honeck wrote:
I'd bet there are 1000 people whose only exposure to the grandeur of
the canyon is from the awesome view of an aerial tour, for every 1
person who is able to hike to the bottom of the canyon.

I think this is a bit of an exaggeration. The canyon has been made
extremely accessible - anyone can make it down (and back up), I've even
heard of people doing it in wheelchairs. Plus there's always the option
of getting to the bottom of the canyon on horseback or accessing it by boat.

While I think those who want to ban flights over the Grand Canyon (and
other parks) are being stupid, we do have to acknowledge that the
national parks are more noise sensitive than other areas - not only
because of the visitors seeking to escape the modern world but also
because of the animals in the parks. Sensible compromises should be
worked out to satisfy everyone. When I was recently hiking in the
canyon I found the level of air tours to be pretty acceptable. The
noise was sometimes a little annoying but generally not a problem. In
particular, the fixed wing twin otter's were pretty quiet, but some of
the helicopters were a little loud.

- Ray


--
***************************
Raymond Woo
e-mail: raywoo|at|gmail.com
http://gromit.stanford.edu/ray

The canyon has been made
extremely accessible - anyone can make it down (and back up), I've even
heard of people doing it in wheelchairs.

Not from Vegas. Not everyone is up to driving several days out to the
Canyon. Its a quick site seeing hop from Vegas.

-Robert

Here is my take, having been to the Canyon three times in the last ten
years...

- Ban all private vehicles, as is done in Denali. Air pollution is at an
all time high in national parks such as Yellowstone, GC, Yosemite. Why
is the no-aircraft noise group not up in arms about the harmful
chemical pollution of the air in our national parks?
- The park service just opened more permits for rafters through the
canyon. Given the delicate sites on the river, permits should have
been decreased, using the logic of the no-noise supporters.
- Who is funding the anti-aircraft noise drive? Follow the money.
The outfitters and campgrounds surrounding the park, most likely.
The air charter flights are based miles away, they don't contribute to
the local economy.