Grand Canyon overflight proposal

This makes me wonder how most of the people who hike the Grand Canyon
actually GET to the Grand Canyon.

"Welcome aboard American Airlines. The Captain would like to inform all
passengers who have the Grand Canyon as part of their itinerary, that they
must deboard the aircraft at this time..... y'all like to hike so much, your
Association figures that you'd just as soon walk to Arizona.
Have a nice day."

Jim

The restrictions they have now are pretty liveable. You can fly over
the north part of it, and across it (in one place) above some
altititude. High jets and such aren't restricted. Its just the
helicopter and airplane tour operators that can fly low. And there
aren't that many of those. I say leave it the way it is...

If you want to fly IN a sandstone canyon there are some north of the
Grand Canyon with no restrictions, you can even land in the canyon in a
couple of places. Its really quite good!

Jay Honeck writes:

And I don't understand what the problem is. I've been part-way down
the canyon, and I saw and heard aircraft overhead. What's the big
deal?

As a long time pilot that has always loved airplanes and airplane noise,
and ALWAYS looks up when I hear an airplane overhead (and who works at
Scaled and is around planes all day, every day), the big deal is that
it's really nice to have peace and quiet sometimes, especially in a
"natural" setting. And that's only from a "people-centric" position.

Two weeks ago, I flew my COZY from Tehachapi out to Grand Canyon to do
some hiking. My wife and I (and some friends who flew out in a
Dutchess) hiked down the South Kaibab Trail to the Cedar Ridge stop -
about 1.5 miles into the canyon from the south rim. However much I like
airplanes (and I doubt that there's anyone out there that likes them
more than I do), it was NICE when there was no noise from ANYTHING -
cars, planes, busses, helicopters, etc. We're inundated with noise 24/7
everywhere we go - it's very pleasant to have NONE, especially when
communing with nature.

You might want to take a look at:

http://www.nps.gov/grca/overflights/

to see what's up.

Much of the noise from aircraft in the canyon is actually from
commercial airliners at 30K ft - the tour operators are another
substantial part, but not the largest part. Just moving commercial air
routes 50 miles to either side would eliminate a large portion of the
noise pollution without affecting sightseeing flights, and might be a
perfectly reasonable compromise.

I suggest that you visit Dinosaur National Monument in Colorado - it's
off the commercial air routes by 100 miles, and there's no local airport
within about 50 miles or so. If you hike 2 miles off the access road,
it's amazingly quiet - I've never heard such quiet except in an anechoic
chamber (which is hardly as interesting a place). Being able to hear
the breeze move plants 100 yards away, or hear crickets chirping
hundreds of yards away, or just listen to the blood flow through your
inner ears is a far more pleasant experience than listening to aircraft
fly overhead, however much I love aircraft.

I've also flown over the canyon ....
There is simply nothing else to compare it to.

I agree - it's the most breathtaking thing ever, but if I overfly the
canyon in my 4 seat COZY, I've just ruined the auditory experience of
the canyon for 1000's of hikers and sightseers on the rim. Just because
it's great for me doesn't give me the right to ruin it for many others.

The fact that a special interest group is trying to restrict our
freedoms -- again -- is what I find disgusting.

And the special interest groups that represent aviation are different?
What's disgusting about trying to maintain the natural ambiance of GCNP,
to the extent it's possible? Would you like to build trams down the
river, or a road, maybe, so that everyone can drive down into the
canyon? How about an amusement park at the bottom - I'm sure a lot of
folks would like that, too?

My point stands. Ten times more people fly over the Canyon than will
ever have the chance to hike into it. Are these people somehow less
important? Are they second-class citizens?

First of all, you're just plain wrong. There were more people hiking
down into the canyon on the trail two Sundays ago than could ever have
fit on all the tour flights, and that doesn't count all the folks on all
the other trails, not to mention the 100 times as many people that
WEREN'T hiking down into the canyon, but were up on the rim, doing a rim
walk or rim tour. So if anything, the majority of folks at the canyon
are NOT in aircraft.

But even if your claim were true, there are things that some folks just
don't get to do - we have the technology to get disabled folks to the
top of Mt. Whitney - should we build elevators to the top? Some things
you just leave alone so that you don't ruin it by trying to make it
accessible to everyone.

.... and to even talk about banning it is wrong.

There's the good old American "free speech" attitude - don't allow talk
about things you don't agree with. No reason to hear opposing
positions - having an open mind might actually let in information that
would disabuse you of your biases.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2006

I doubt that you can substantiate that statistic. Even if you could,
what about all the literally hoards of people who are scattered across
the rims of the Canyon, especially but not limited to the visitor
centers on the north and south rims, not to mention the endless
wilderness areas. One doesn't need to be a hiker to enjoy it on the
ground. I have run the river twice, visited the crowded visitors
centers, hiked some canyon trails and been to remote overlooks that
tourists aren't likely to know about. Believe it that there are far more
people on the ground and in the water than there are flying over in GA
aircraft or tour planes. Official estimates are 5 million. This doesn't
include many people like me who enter via remote access. Most of these
people don't want to listen to aircraft noise. Even I, who love flying,
don't want to listen to it when I'm there. You view these people as
"arrogant," a "vocal minority," "sanctimonious, holier-than-thou turds."
Your tone suggests some of these same descriptors. They are just people
trying to enjoy the Canyon in a legitimate way, as you are trying to
enjoy it your way. As much as we don't like it, GA may be the minority
on a lot of issues these days. So please do organize GA to protest the
protests of the non-flying group of Grand Canyon visitors, but you'll
have more credibility without the attitude.

Jay Honeck wrote:


My point stands. Ten times more people fly over the Canyon than will
ever have the chance to hike into it. Are these people somehow less
important? Are they second-class citizens?

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

Ray wrote:
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.

True. I've seen people at the bottom who were so overweight and out of
shape that they wouldn't have been able to squeeze into a 152. It
requires some dedication and persistence to make it to the bottom, but
not a tremendous amount of fitness. I first did it myself when I was
nine years old and had my broken arm in a plaster cast. And during
those years, even without a broken arm, I was always in the bottom 5%
or 10% in everything we did in PE class at school.

You don't have to go all the way to the river to experience the canyon
-- Plateau Point, halfway down, is more accessible, less hot, and has
much better views. Most of the people who are able to walk all the way
across a shopping mall parking lot in the summer could walk to Plateau
Point if they wanted to. And most of the rest could take a mule train.

Obesity epidemic notwithstanding, the majority of Americans are healthy
enough to hike to the bottom of the canyon. It's ridiculous to suggest
that there are more air tourists than those who are ABLE to hike the
canyon, though it's true that the number who actually take the time and
effort to hike is a small fraction of those who are able to do so.

--Rich

by Ray Apr 20, 2006 at 08:33 PM



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.



What???? Sacrilege!!!

As has been established (by AOPA), GA noise must be accepted and even
embraced by all. What "arrogance" for a special interest (Hiking) group
to object to small plane noise. Boyer should immediately "educate" this
socially irresponsible group. If that doesn't work, he should "take them
on." He should enlist the help of Senator John McCain, who has the utmost
respect for Phil's integrity.

While I agree with most of your sentiment, I can't let this pass. I'm
hardly a a hyper-fit Aryan uber-athlete (I'm none of those things) yet
I'm pretty confident I could hike to the bottom of the Grand Canyon
(yes, I have been there so I've got an idea on what it'd be like!)

It is coming back up that is harder.

Ron Lee

"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

While you make some good points, especially regarding balancing rights of
individuals, this the part that doesn't make sense:

"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote in message
...
[...]
it's really nice to have peace and quiet sometimes, especially in a
"natural" setting. And that's only from a "people-centric" position.

[...
First of all, you're just plain wrong. There were more people hiking down
into the canyon on the trail two Sundays ago than could ever have fit on
all the tour flights, and that doesn't count all the folks on all the
other trails, not to mention the 100 times as many people that WEREN'T
hiking down into the canyon, but were up on the rim, doing a rim walk or
rim tour. So if anything, the majority of folks at the canyon are NOT in
aircraft.

We are agreed that the Grand Canyon is innundated with ground-based
visitors. For some reason, we are not in agreement that those ground-based
visitors prevent one from actually experiencing "peace and quiet...in a
'natural' setting".

To me (as I mentioned in a different post), the Grand Canyon is simply not
where you go for "peace and quiet". There are certainly other attributes
that make it a worthwhile attraction, but finding natural peace and quiet
isn't one of them. Want that? Go somewhere else, somewhere that other
people are not naturally inclined to flock to (whether on foot, motor
vehicle, or aircraft).

I do believe that there are reasonable compromises that can (and do, to some
extent) balance the various interests. But to think that an entire group
should be entirely excluded, just because of the *unreasonable* expectations
of another group, is NOT reasonable.

(And, by the way, while it's clear that more people visit by land than by
air, it's not at all clear that more people care about the aircraft noise
than who want to visit by air. That vocal group is likely a small minority
of the total number of visitors).

Pete