5 Flights to Make Before You Die

"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".

2) Over Washington DC and the Mall -- legally.

Eh... being a born and raised Washingtonian, yeah I think this would
be cool... but right now I'd just happily settle for a single River
Visual Approach into DCA... Which is still feasible.

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.

Jay Honeck wrote:
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.

So what would the odds be of being caught if you just flew the canyon
like you were entitled to, then disappeared into the canyons in Utah?
An older airplane, or an experimental with the small numbers would be
pretty much impossible to read the tail number even with binoculars.
tom

With regard to the Grand Canyon, I must admit I am of mixed opinions
because I am a pilot, but also spent summers out there (in the early
90's) in college working with the National Park Service Resources
Management office, and specifically also the pilot who is the NPS
point person on this issue. The NPS pilot who worked on this project
is one of us (ie a general aviation pilot who flew for the park and
also owns a 172), and you can meet him at the NPS stand in the Federal
Pavillion at OSH, he has been coming to OSH for quite a few years now
and can explain all the history behind this far better than can I.
It is VERY controversial.
The air tour business had gotten so busy, and so intrusive (to MANY
people) that the Park Service had to intervene with the help of the
FAA, and in response to the dramatic increase in air tour business
over the Canyon. Some structure had to be placed to bring order to the
business, and hence we have the regulations as we see them now. The
corridors that you see on the Grand Canyon special use VFR map (which
looks like a detailed sectional or terminal area chart) is in response
to the HUGE number of complaints about how the air tour business was
conducting itself, it was essentially a free for all. They were not
really aimed at us, the occasional VFR pilot flying a Cessna, but we
get lumped in as well. If you spend any time beneath any of the VFR
corridors, you quickly get a sense of how busy it really is. A
constant stream of Jet Rangers, Twin Otters, and other aircraft flying
the tours that quickly makes the noise issue very paramount. The VFR
routes over the canyon bring some structure to the mess, and was
really needed as the traffic count was climbing quite dramatically. It
would be the same if there were no Ripon-Fisk arrival at OSH, so one
could very reasonably argue that it is a safety issue as well.
The wreckage of the Connie and DC-4 (if I remember correctly) at the
bottom of the canyon can attest to that.
Flying below the rim is spectacular, but not for the faint of heart.
It is basically an inverted mountain, so all the warnings and
recommendations for flying to the back-country strips in Idaho or
flying over the mountains out west would apply in spades at Grand
Canyon. So going for a spin down in the canyon might be fun, and you
probably would get away with it (no radar), but wouldn't necessarily
be smart.
I used to hike extensively in the Canyon, and I can say that even
though I am a pilot, there is something to say about visiting a
national park and NOT having the noise of the constant stream of Jet
Rangers and Twin Otters flying overhead. That means ALOT to ALOT of
people. I wouldn't be so quick to label them "noise nazi's" when you
are talking about one of the crown jewel national parks in our
country. It's not like the dimwit who builds his house next to the
airport that has been there for many years (a problem I encounter at
my local airport C29, and they ARE noise nazi's!).
So that is my perspective, both as a pilot and someone who worked at
Grand Canyon.
If you want to learn more, meet me at the Federal Pavillion in July at
OSH.

-Ryan in Madison

Tom,

So what would the odds be of being caught if you just flew the canyon
like you were entitled to, then disappeared into the canyons in Utah?


Real high. That place is full of park rangers.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:
Tom,


So what would the odds be of being caught if you just flew the canyon
like you were entitled to, then disappeared into the canyons in Utah?



Real high. That place is full of park rangers.

A little duct tape to the N numbers will help here.