5 Flights to Make Before You Die

It's
very sad, IMHO, as many thousands of people have had their Grand
Canyon experience drastically diminished so that a far smaller number
of people can quietly hike into it.

I don't know that that's a bad thing. Such (quiet natural) areas should
exist.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

It's
very sad, IMHO, as many thousands of people have had their Grand
Canyon experience drastically diminished so that a far smaller number
of people can quietly hike into it.

I don't know that that's a bad thing. Such (quiet natural) areas should
exist.

I have mixed emotions on this issue. I agree that places of solitude
should exist, but at what cost?

So few people are able to physically hike down into the canyon, yet
tens of thousands can (and do) fly over the canyon each year. This
majority has had their Grand Canyon experience drastically diminished
(by restrictive overflight laws) in favor of the minority's "right"
to silence.

Do the needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I have mixed emotions on this issue. I agree that places of solitude
should exist, but at what cost?

Or perhaps... "at who's cost?"

Do the needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few?

No.

Think about why.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
It's
very sad, IMHO, as many thousands of people have had their Grand
Canyon experience drastically diminished so that a far smaller number
of people can quietly hike into it.

I don't know that that's a bad thing. Such (quiet natural) areas should
exist.

I have mixed emotions on this issue. I agree that places of solitude
should exist, but at what cost?

So few people are able to physically hike down into the canyon, yet
tens of thousands can (and do) fly over the canyon each year. This
majority has had their Grand Canyon experience drastically diminished
(by restrictive overflight laws) in favor of the minority's "right"
to silence.

Do the needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few?

I suspect it's more a matter of non pilots making the rules, or a small
group of people going to the wall for "perfect preservation". If I was king
it would be a matter of operational hours. Flights down the canyon are a
national resource just as silence and serenity are. Opening the skys to
flights for 4 to 6 hours a day wouldn't harm anyone but the most selfish.

In article ,
"Maxwell" wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
It's
very sad, IMHO, as many thousands of people have had their Grand
Canyon experience drastically diminished so that a far smaller number
of people can quietly hike into it.

I don't know that that's a bad thing. Such (quiet natural) areas should
exist.

I have mixed emotions on this issue. I agree that places of solitude
should exist, but at what cost?

So few people are able to physically hike down into the canyon, yet
tens of thousands can (and do) fly over the canyon each year. This
majority has had their Grand Canyon experience drastically diminished
(by restrictive overflight laws) in favor of the minority's "right"
to silence.

Do the needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few?

I suspect it's more a matter of non pilots making the rules, or a small
group of people going to the wall for "perfect preservation". If I was king
it would be a matter of operational hours. Flights down the canyon are a
national resource just as silence and serenity are. Opening the skys to
flights for 4 to 6 hours a day wouldn't harm anyone but the most selfish.

It is all a matter of the "greens" exercising their power over us who
are "priviliged".

Jay Honeck wrote
I have mixed emotions [about allowing flight below the rim of the Grand
Canyon].
I agree that places of solitude should exist, but at what cost?

How about allowing flight through the canyon (in one direction) one day per
week or per month -- whatever -- rather than never?

How about allowing flight through the canyon (in one direction) one day per
week or per month -- whatever -- rather than never?

A wonderful compromise, logical and workable.

Which therefore means it has ZERO chance of being adopted by anyone in
our bureacracy.

Banning flight into the canyon has nothing to do with common sense.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Banning flight into the canyon has nothing to do with common sense.

Yes it does. You just don't like it.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

It seems to me, the whole arguement about flights in the canyon is about
noise. Come up with an air vehicle that doesn't make any noise, and the
flight ban goes away.

john smith wrote:

It seems to me, the whole arguement about flights in the canyon is about
noise. Come up with an air vehicle that doesn't make any noise, and the
flight ban goes away.

I haven't looked into it, but what are the restrictions -- if any --
for gliders, hang gliders and paragliders, in/near the Grand Canyon?

--Sylvain