If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Grand Canyon overflight proposal
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" |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Grand Canyon overflight proposal
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Grand Canyon overflight proposal
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Grand Canyon overflight proposal
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Grand Canyon overflight proposal
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 | |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Grand Canyon overflight proposal
On 2006-04-21, Jay Honeck wrote:
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. 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!) -- Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid. Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Grand Canyon overflight proposal
As a guy who has hiked out of the canyon with a 65 year old with pace
maker (11 hours), I personally know it can be done. On the other hand a chance to see this wonder of the world from the sky would add a whole new dimension to the Grand Canyon experience. I don't understand why the park system can't offer a limited number of permits only to be used on say a thursday or tuesday, or a day that is commonly a slow and low attendance day. This way planes don't fly everyday and trips, up or down can be scheduled to avoid the problem. Lou |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Grand Canyon overflight proposal
As a guy who has hiked out of the canyon with a 65 year old with pace
maker (11 hours), I personally know it can be done. On the other hand a chance to see this wonder of the world from the sky would add a whole new dimension to the Grand Canyon experience. I don't understand why the park system can't offer a limited number of permits only to be used on say a thursday or tuesday, or a day that is commonly a slow and low attendance day. This way planes don't fly everyday and trips, up or down can be scheduled to avoid the problem. 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? I've also flown over the canyon (while stuck inside the VERY specific -- and annoying -- GPS corridors and altitudes that we are now restricted to flying in), and it was the most breath-taking experience of my flying life. There is simply nothing else to compare it to. The fact that a special interest group is trying to restrict our freedoms -- again -- is what I find disgusting. Every day, it seems, tiny, vocal minorities are capturing the ears of elected representatives, and quietly slipping through new, more restrictive laws. This is NOT just an aviation thing -- it's EVERYWHERE. 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 overflight canyon experience should be a mandatory, "do before you die" thing for EVERY American, and to even talk about banning it is wrong. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Grand Canyon overflight proposal
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Washington DC ADIZ Proposal | Scott | Soaring | 1 | November 4th 05 04:18 PM |
Washington DC airspace closing for good? | tony roberts | Piloting | 153 | August 11th 05 12:56 AM |
POINTER to proposal in us.config | Henrietta K Thomas | Military Aviation | 0 | January 14th 04 08:37 AM |
POINTER to proposal in us.config | Henrietta K Thomas | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 14th 04 08:37 AM |
Re-Engine B-52 proposal. (I love this debate) | CFA3 | Military Aviation | 17 | July 13th 03 08:53 PM |