Negative Article on Helicopters in the Grand Canyon

[joker]

Why can't I find the original 'negative article' that started all this?! Was it an attachment?

 

Can someone point me to it?

 

Joker

[David Witherspoon]

It's enough to make a person type out a fairly large run on sentence.

You're definitely funnier off the blocks than the TGR boys ... though that's spooky close to their reaction. Guess that means this shtick is getting old.

 

But seriously - after HelliBoy's soapboxing, I figured you guys needed a real live green-blooded noise-hating treehugger to help recruit for HAI.

(Besides, when I speak with the voice of pure reason, even full professors fall asleep in their seats. )

 

rookie - the formality is unnecessary, but if you insist - it's Dr. Witherspoon. Now what was it you said about the "steep price of training"?

 

Witch - embellishments = bad. But unfortunately common.

 

The 40' landing on a ridge was personal experience - prior to that, I didn't believe such things happened. The 20' buzzing was eyewitnessed by a couple of people, including the guy on the receiving end, who I know pretty well. I questioned him closely, since it seemed implausible to me. I don't expect any significant action will be taken as a result, though.

 

The "ops area" is open to skier traffic (backcountry hikers, not resort areas). So there's no clear separation.

 

... and if anybody finds the phantom article, I'd be interested in it too.

[flingwing206]

Dr Witherspoon (or David, as you prefer),

 

Now that you've demonstrated how easy it is to get people's goat here on the forum, perhaps you'd like to engage in some more constructive dialogue.

 

Helicopters are noisy (heck, that, along with vibration, is what makes them fly). However, there is no more evidence to support the assertion that helicopter noise is hurting wildlife than there is evidence that backcountry skiers disturb and hurt wildlife. The difference is that helicopters disturb backcountry skiers.

 

This comes down to the age-old argument of what is the best use of these outdoor spaces, and how easy they should be to access. That is a purely subjective issue. While the extremes are pretty well mapped out, it's the big middle area that causes all the problem.

 

For example, I spent some time guiding in Colorado. When we started our snowcat operation (one cat), both the "skins" group AND the heli-guides were annoyed (the heli-guides understandably so, they soon abandonded their operation). Funny, though - with our few cat trails (transit only), the use of the area by "day" backcountry skiers increased hugely - seems it was a lot easier for them to access the area. Of course this REALLY annoyed the "skins" group - the private playground was now being used by a lot more people.

 

Reading through the articles, position papers, editorials, statements, press releases, ect, I mostly see opinion being stated as fact. Having a helicopter landing 40' away from you is no more dangerous than driving down a 2-lane highway with oncoming traffic. That being said, no helicopter pilot would choose to land that close to a bystander unless there was a compelling reason (perhaps if that person was standing in the only practical LZ... ...perhaps even knowingly...).

 

I'm somewhat baffled by the avalanche concerns. Having spent 22 years in the Rockies dealing with that environment as a ski pro (including as a trainer for the largest professional ski patrol in the USA), might I suggest you review a bit more the actualities of avalanche formation and control. For all I know, you may be a leading expert on avalanches, but neither your posts nor the articles on the various websites support that. If dropping a bomb triggers a slide, that slide was going to go anyway - big difference is that prior to dropping the charge, you can use the helicopter to ensure there is nobody in the area when the controlled slide rumbles.

 

Finally, a request. If you want to enter a dialogue on this helicopter pilots' forum, especially if you are going to flash a Doctor's badge, then let's make it constructive. Educate us with fact, recruit us in your cause, convince us to be allies. While it may seem politically useful to prod people until they say things they may later regret, it is a tactic of the weak, folks who don't actually have facts to back up their assertions (hence a favorite staple of conservative talk radio hosts). If I were to join a discussion on the TTips forum, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't begin by assuming a noticably supercilious tone. By the way, I love trees too, I've even hugged a few (on purpose)!

 

Welcome to the forum!

[vertrefadmin]

I agree with a lot of what FlingWing206 posted.

 

Doctor Witherspoon please educate us on your point of view... but before you do so please realize you are dealing with our livelihood. That is the reason for the heated responses. We have families, mortgages, insurance premiums, car payments... You are dealing with people who work for a living and have sacrificed a lot to get where we are today. If presented to us in a rational, logically manner the majority of us in the helicopter industry are willing to listen to compromise. If it removes our job, that is not a compromise (As asking you to stop your work would not be a compromise to you.)

 

As a Doctor/PHD... an educated man, I would hope your professionalism will be evident in your next posts.

 

-Rey Madrid

[vertrefadmin]

But seriously - after HelliBoy's soapboxing, I figured you guys needed a real live green-blooded noise-hating treehugger to help recruit for HAI.

(Besides, when I speak with the voice of pure reason, even full professors fall asleep in their seats. )

 

rookie - the formality is unnecessary, but if you insist - it's Dr. Witherspoon. Now what was it you said about the "steep price of training"?

 

Doctor Witherspoon,

 

What was your PhD dissertation on?

 

-Rey Madrid

[HelliBoy]

What the good doctor will not tell you (perhaps he doesnt know, even in his infinite wisdom) is that the use of explosive avalanche testing is very highly regulated. WPG does not fly around willy nilly dropping 5 lb. bombs like a bunch of rednecks on the fourth of july. First of all, avalanche testing and avalanche control are two very different things. Avalanche control is done to protect roads and property by starting avalanches on purpose. Avalanche testing is to determine if certain aspects of terrain are safe. If WPG is certain that northeast facing slopes will slide, they will not be shot or skied that day. However, testing will be done on east or north facing slopes to ensure they are stable. The goal is not to cause avalanches, it is to determine if a certain aspect is safe. This information, annother point the Dr. will conveiniently overlook, is also passed onto the Utah Avalanche Center, which is a valuable resource for all backcountry enthusiasts. WPG is alloted a tightly controlled number of these shots per season (around 300) so they cannot pepper the entire backcountry every day as many people believe, and 95% of these shots cause nothing but a grey hole in the snow. A large slide on a popular run doesnt do WPG any good.

As for the buzzing, well, let me know when you come up with a way to see through a ridge. This is never done on purpose and every effort is always made to avoid even being in the vicinity of other users. After all, it looks bad to a client when an irate ski tourer tries to attack a guide or other client (which has happenned). The 40' lz rule is mandated by the FS and is also followed for the above stated reason, WPG would rather ski another slope than have a confrontation in the backcountry. And the pilots didnt get to where they are by not following the FS rules, all of them fly fires for the FS or BLM in the summers.

The issues backcountry skiers have with heli-skiing in the wasatch is not eagles or avalanches or being buzzed...its all about untracked powder. Dave, you need to get over the fact that other people have a right to use public land and WPG provides too valuable a service to the FS and UDOT for your efforts to be successful on anything more than a limited basis.

[Whirlwind]

WPG does not fly around willy nilly dropping 5 lb. bombs like a bunch of rednecks on the fourth of july.

Oh great. Now you're gonna' get the Rednecks all riled up too!

 

Flingwing: Thanks again for your insightful and reasoned reply. I knew we could count on you.

[inverted911]

First let me make it clear that there is nothing I hate more then a tree hugging hippie. As a heli pilot in the Wasatch (CFII) and an avid backcountry skier (150+ days this year and counting) I am sick of this stupid debate. There is plenty of room for everyone in the Wasatch. I see more of airmed and the two TV helicopters then I do powderbirds. I do not heli-ski partly b/c of the money and partly b/c at the end of the days it's a little sweeter to have earned my turns. I have never had a negative encounter with powderbirds simply b/c I choose to skin and ski other places. (If two lanes on the highway are clogged and one is open which would you choose?) So to Witherspoon if you feel like you need to throw elbows and fight for tracked out powder the tram line at snowbird is a lot easier to get to and you just might find some others with oversized ego's to get along with. Also make sure you stay safe out there in the backcountry. You wouldn't want anyone to have their day ruined by a fast low flying EMS helicopter on its way to get your b/c you got hurt or buried!

[Witch]

rookie - the formality is unnecessary, but if you insist - it's Dr. Witherspoon. Now what was it you said about the "steep price of training"?

 

[

 

What kind of Doctor?

[David Witherspoon]

My hat is off to you, PIC flingwing206. Also due respect to PIC vertrefadmin and PIC Witch.

 

Now, in no particular order (and ignoring most of the mud - for now ) ...

 

Badge-flashing is an attempt to bolster one's position with an appeal to (personal) authority. Authority is irrelevant (especially on the anonymous internets! ) - arguments must stand on their own and facts must be referenced, otherwise they're nothing more than personal opinion. Any argument based solely on the authority of flight hours or a PIC badge is not gonna impress me any more than you guys were impressed by an irrelevant Ph.D. that might not exist for all you know. (PIC Rey, PIC Witch - my dissertation had nothing even remotely to do with aircraft nor (more's the pity) snow, if that's what you're getting at.)

 

The flip side of the appeal to authority is the ad hominem, already well-exercised here in its various forms. 'Nuff said on that.

 

 

Regarding avalanches - let me clarify that Wasatch Powderbird Guides (WPG) is permitted by the USFS to do "snow stability testing," not "avalanche control" (apart from when they operate under UDOT or resort direction to do avalanche control for resorts or roads.)

 

 

"If dropping a bomb triggers a slide, that slide was going to go anyway"

 

That's not true (as a guide should know - was that some badge flashing, flingwing? ).

Last year WPG triggered many large slides that ran on a very deep weak layer. Such layers are generally insensitive to the weight of a skier; but skiers were staying off them anyway, because everyone was well aware that IF you triggered a slide, you would die. Backcountry skiers avoid the suspect slopes by skiing lower-angled, more protected, or more stable slopes until the weak layer grows stronger. They gather information about snow stability by skiing less exposed slopes, examining the snowpack, observing signs like natural slides, slides on the slopes they do ski, collapses in the snow underfoot, etc. WPG could also follow this protocol. They choose not to.

 

 

"you can use the helicopter to ensure there is nobody in the area when the controlled slide rumbles."

 

I wish I believed that. WPG's previous owner stated they don't miss seeing more than 10% of the people in an area (it's in the record). It's not unusual to see a dozen people in a drainage with a casual scan from a ridge - so 10% is not "nobody." The number of people hiking in these areas has increased sharply in the last few years, and continues to grow.

 

The larger slides take out mature timber, where it would be impossible to see people. The extent of some of these slides was unexpected - in 2003, one bomb-triggered slide ripped out most of a large side canyon and ran about three miles through stands of timber.

 

 

"Having a helicopter landing 40' away from you is no more dangerous than driving down a 2-lane highway with oncoming traffic."

 

Perhaps so. I like the analogy I used in my letter better: It feels about as safe as standing on the double yellow line with eighteen-wheelers blasting past at 65 mph. The rotor wash was blowing plate-sized chunks of snow past me. I had a few seconds' warning - barely enough to realize what was happening - before the helicopter sat down.

 

Ironically, if they had hovered over me that closely (instead of landing), legal precedent suggests I could have won a case against the pilot and lead guide for violating 14 CFR 91.79 (it was a single-engine helicopter.) The courts are not as sanguine about the safety of close helicopter maneuvers as some pilots seem to be.

 

 

"no helicopter pilot would choose to land that close to a bystander unless there was a compelling reason (perhaps if that person was standing in the only practical LZ... ...perhaps even knowingly...)"

 

You seem to imply that I might have knowingly planned to put myself at risk (as I perceived it) while interfering with WPG's operations. I hope I've misinterpreted you; meaningless name-calling is one thing, but this sounds a bit more serious. Care to clarify?

 

According to documents in the USFS Administrative Record, the pilot and lead guide on board claimed they were aware of my presence, assumed that I wouldn't mind, and chose to land on that spot. The ridge is a heavily used hiking route - there were at least half a dozen people on it at the time. The guide claimed he had spoken to some of them during an earlier landing. The LZs are mostly unmarked and nonobvious. I didn't know it was an LZ. I was aware the helicopter was in the area, but did not expect them to approach closer than a few hundred feet on a flyby. Upon landing, they dropped off two skiers, who proceeded to ski about 2,000 ft down to the road. I was moving along the ridge at a good clip - had they landed ten seconds earlier or later, I would have been >200 feet away.

 

In short - plenty of options and other LZs available (no winds, no clouds, perfect weather), no compelling reason to land there - but a deliberate choice was made to land there.

 

But enough about me. That's all hearsay, I could be making it all up, no witnesses came forward, and who would you prefer to believe anyway? Case closed.

 

 

"If it removes our job, that is not a compromise (As asking you to stop your work would not be a compromise to you.)"

 

WPG flies a couple of helicopters on half the days of their four-month season. I don't know what the demand is for pilots, but I doubt WPG makes a difference. I'm not trying to ban helicopters everywhere, all the time. Nor even heli-skiing everywhere. Most of the heli noise I hear is at 2 am from the medical copter flight path right over my house. The rattling tells me which windows need replacing.

 

As for my job - I bet it's not so different from yours. If this one vanished overnight, I'd have another tomorrow. (If I was stupid enough to ask for it instead taking a month off first. )

 

 

 

"Time to eradicate embellishments, don't you think?"

 

 

 

"They file this lawsuit every year" - Already dealt with.

 

But you might ask, why file a lawsuit at all? Well, the lawsuit has been filed against the USFS because they rammed through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that violated the law. If you're interested in the specifics, I'll post the briefs, pro and con.

 

At least now the USFS has started doing the research they promised to start five years ago, but never did. Research into the factors affecting the reproductive success of Golden Eagles in the Wasatch. Because there's been no research into how Golden Eagles respond to helicopters or people; what we do know is that the reproductive success of GEs in the Wasatch is far below that of other Utah GEs.

... which leads to ...

 

 

"it has been proven that the wasatch golden eagle population is more affected by earthbound recreationalists disturbing their prey than an A-Star"

 

False - no such thing has been investigated, let alone proven. But do us all the favor of posting the evidence; it'll save the USFS a few $100k.

 

 

"or that Powderbirds avalanche testing saves the lives of the people suing them "

 

Again, I'd be interested in the evidence for that. I disagree - and contend that their bombing practices increase risk to hikers. But more importantly - neither I nor the USFS want anyone doing backcountry avalanche control for the safety of hikers. It's the backcountry, not a resort. (FYI, WPG is not being sued - it's the USFS.)

 

 

"... and avalanche control saves millions of dollars in canyon property and keeps UDOT roads open."

 

True but irrelevant. Avalanche control would be done the same way with or without WPG, for nearly the same price, with the same effects.

 

 

"Powderbirds also provides instant emergency avalanche response "

 

The response is not instant - in fact, it's so slow that WPG has never saved the life of a non-client - and almost certainly never will. If you're buried by an avalanche, either your buddies dig you out alive, or you die. That simple. On the other hand, people have been rescued from avalanche burials by other tourers (in separate groups) - because they were there, on the ground, ready to go. LifeFlight responds to all incidents that get called in (avalanche or otherwise) and does the life support & transport anyway.

 

And once more - it's the backcountry. We could make it safer by stationing patrollers on snowmobiles every quarter-mile - but even if we could afford it, it's not the place for it. A snowmobiling lodge was proposed in one of the prime areas. Should it be built because it would increase safety? It probably would work - neither heli skiers nor hikers would go there anymore, so they wouldn't be at risk there.

 

 

"and this season found and rescued a lost 14 year old boy who would otherwise probably have died. "

 

If you're talking about the 16-year old boarder who dug himself a snow cave, slept soundly while ignoring passing snowcats and searchers, then flagged down one of several helos in the morning - I disagree. News.

 

And still - even if there weren't another helicopter on the planet - that wouldn't justify WPG's existence.

 

 

"If WPG is certain that northeast facing slopes will slide, they will not be shot or skied that day."

 

Bologna. Last year's bombing campaign triggered numerous very large avalanches. The avalanche risk was very well understood before WPG dropped their first bomb, and even more obvious after the first few shots, yet they kept right on bombing.

 

 

This information, annother point the Dr. will conveiniently overlook, is also passed onto the Utah Avalanche Center"

 

Tsk tsk. Such aspersions cast on my character. I'm tempted to respond in kind ... but I can't think of anything you've stated that was less than perfectly accurate and objective.

FWIW, the UAC likes the information but I'm sure they'd a fine job without it. The heli-bombing information is a very small part of the picture.

 

 

"WPG is alloted a tightly controlled number of these shots per season (around 300)"

 

The limit was set well above the maximum number of shots WPG had ever used before there were limits. It's a meaningless limit, established for PR purposes.

 

 

"95% of these shots cause nothing but a grey hole in the snow.

 

68% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Is that 95% one of them? (Say "yes.")

 

 

 

"A large slide on a popular run doesnt do WPG any good. "

 

But an eliminated weak layer might make them more comfortable later in the season. Oops - no, that would be avalanche control.

 

 

"As for the buzzing, well, let me know when you come up with a way to see through a ridge. "

 

The most recent buzzings on record involved no ridges - on the contrary, a perfectly clear line of sight. Do most heli pilots really think a ridge is an excuse for buzzing along at treetop level where they know there are hikers?

Get some altitude, then you won't be buzzing anything, whether you see it or not.

 

 

"The 40' lz rule is mandated by the FS "

 

IIRC, there was a 200' or 300' rule that was briefly applied about a decade ago. I don't believe there is any current specific distance rule. Point it out to me if there is.

 

 

"its all about untracked powder. "

 

*Shrug*. I know me, and I know it's not about untracked powder. It is for a minority, but not for me nor most of the people I know.

 

 

"I have never had a negative encounter with powderbirds simply b/c I choose to skin and ski other places."

 

Good for you. I've avoided the helis and skiied the Wildernesses myself. Doesn't work for everybody, and there's more of everybody every year. You, WPG, the USFS and every skier in the Wasatch knows that the majority of the best, safest, and most easily accessed backcountry skiing is in the Northern Powder Circuit.

 

 

"Also make sure you stay safe out there in the backcountry. "

 

Will do. Likewise.

 

 

If you made it this far, you're probably wondering when I'm going to give my side of the story. And you're probably glad that I'm not going to do it now. G'night all.

 

I regret to say that most of my tree-hugging has been unplanned.

[joker]

Now that the bitch slapping has stopped and the thread has developed into a more cordial affair, I think I might pass comment.

 

Fling!, as usual your sentiments ran very similar to a post which I had drafted, but decided not to send. I would also say that 'it takes two to tango', and maybe some of the helicopter members of this forum need to also check their emotions when posting, if they expect a meaningful response.

 

Mr. Witherspoon, would you care to elaborate on FAR 91.79 I might be wrong, but the only possible FAR violation I can find would be FAR 91.119 (d) (OK I admit it...I'm unfamiliar with 91.79)

91.119 (d) (d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph ( or ( c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.

 

I will not comment on the avalanche aspect of this debate. I always chose sun and sea over snow and slopes for my holidays!

 

However, if I may make some general comments.

 

Mr. Witherspoon,

 

I find it difficult to pinpoint the focus of your campaign. Is it to promot safety for the hiking public, protect wildlife, or simply to close down this company, because they're noisy and blew you about a bit? Are you trying to stop their heliskiing ops, or their avalanche testing ops, or both.

 

All things being equal, the heliskiiers have the same right to use the slopes as a hiker. Is it that you are trying to deny them this right, or simply make things safer for everyone.

 

If you are focused on 'safer slopes for all', then surely closing down this operation will not be the solution...another one will simply start up in its place.

 

Instead, I think that a close dialogue and cooperation with this company might be a better solution. With this, the hikers will better understand the operations of the heliskiers. If there can be an agreed code of conduct, surely this is better than simply a witchhunt to close them down. You might find that in the process, the company will agree to helping out the forresty commission in their work, conduct arial searches for lost hikers, submit reports of hazards that they see. The point is, that dialoge could be mutual for both parties.

 

Likewise, I would hope that this company is willing to meet with the hikers and listen to their side of things. Maybe they need to better mark their LZs and educate the hikers on the effects of downwash. Maybe they need to agree to a 'first come, first served' type of arrangement where they don't drop skiiers on an LZ that has hikers within 200'.

 

If the company is repeatedly acting dangerously and recklessly, then they should be punished, otherwise it seems the failure is in the guidelines, codes of conduct, education on both sides, rather than the company.

 

Joker

[flingwing206]

Now THRERE'S the stuff! See, now all I can do is say "whutup with the PIC prefix?", and be glad that most of my rebuttal survived your scrutiny. I admit to not knowing WPG's operating guidelines or practices, hence the ease with which you pinpointed and decimated that particular topic.

 

As far as the LZ event goes, you inferred correctly, I was considering the possibility that you might choose to exercise your rights by knowingly blocking the LZ. It happens in some fashion every day. Your explanation seems the most simple - you didn't expect the helicopter to land, and perhaps the pilot misjudged your pace, or expected you to slow or divert (or perhaps just flat didn't see you until after being committed to landing). This is not an excuse for the pilot, but mistakes or misjudgents do not necessarily show malicious intent. This, of course, is also true on your end - I'm certain that if you knew that helicopter was going to land, you would have waited or diverted. In this case, I'm putting the greater weight of responsibility on the PIC in the aircraft - I'd like to think that I would not get into a situation where I had to dust bystanders.

 

As far as the safety aspect of the landing - it may feel like an 18-wheeler passing a foot from you, but it isn't the same level of risk. (Excellent way to drive your opinion through the imagery though.) Still, it is more hazardous than a helicopter landing 1/2 mile away - I agree completely.

 

I don't have a hat, but I salute you in demonstrating that in fact you are obviously more than capable of holding your own in any debate you choose to engage in. Perhaps there is something we (the PIC's) can do to help you in resolving the issues being faced in the Wasatch. At the very least, we will keep your FAR references in order...

[David Witherspoon]

Thanks, Joker - turns out FAR 91.79 was recodified into 91.119. I don't know if the rewrite makes a legal difference.

 

In the case I recall, it was argued that a hovering single-engine helicopter could lose power, land in an unseemly fashion, and hurl dangerous debris a few hundred feet away. So a judgement was entered against the pilot & law enforcement officer on board for causing a hazard by hovering low near some people. My reference to landing may be obsolete - I recall some wording that exempted landing manuevers.

 

To complicate the legal matter, the WPG permit specifically acknowledges that mountain flying conditions may be difficult, requiring unusual flight patterns for safety's sake. The determination of what is necessary is left up to the pilot.

 

Overcoming that presumption of correctness would require considerable hard evidence and some very expensive lawyers. It's not a tack I want to pursue. Though I must say, recent events have me wondering ...

 

 

The history of this operation and conflict goes back over 30 years (hence the complicated operating scenario). During that time, there have been many face-to-face dialogues between all parties - USFS brass, SOC, WPG, individual hikers, birdwatchers, wildlife scientists, etc. I've been involved in several of them in the last five years. There's not a lot of trust there. Some of the disagreements are probably unbridgeable. Uneasy compromises have been struck, but the situation continues to change.

 

FWIW, in the recent permitting process (2004) SOC proposed an alternative that would restrict (not eliminate) WPG operations; WPG proposed an alternative that would allow them to expand.

 

There are very few hard and fast rules written into the permit, and still fewer provisions for monitoring - the USFS does not want to deal with enforcing rules or monitoring operations. So, for example, the briefly-tried x00 foot standoff distance was dropped, replaced with "be nice if you can" clauses.

 

WPG is well aware that every time they pi- ... er, annoy another hiker, they gain another enemy. So they claim to be very careful to avoid hikers. Flip side of that is they claim to need freedom to fly everywhere, all the time, in order to avoid those hikers. If that permission had been fully granted, it would be very difficult to predictably avoid heli noise in the NPC.

 

As it is, you probably won't get buzzed or get an earful on Sunday or Monday, except in the afternoon, except if the weather deteriorates unexpectedly, except if you're on a slope facing the heliport, and except on those days (max 3, out of a typical 50-60 flying days) where WPG has negotiated an exception day the night before. You'd have better luck forecasting the weather and skiing on no-fly days. Most people don't like skiing in blizzards, though.

 

I have heard reports of WPG clearly avoiding areas with hikers. I have heard reports of hikers deliberately antagonizing WPG guides and clients, usually with the unfriendly wave or a shout. I don't know if speaking with the clients and pointing out a few facts (like, "you coulda hiked to this tracked out slope in under an hour") counts as antagonizing, but that happens too. Legend has it that many years ago, someone stuck a "Heli-Free Wasatch" bumper sticker on a helo. I assume you'd get sent to Gitmo if you did that nowadays. It's been a while since I've heard of a WPG guide antagonizing or physically threatening a hiker - that's an improvement.

 

 

But I really do not understand why the close encounters keep happening. Either (1) they're knowingly buzzing people - very bad form - or (2) they can't see people on the ground - which scares the sh- ... er, which frightens me a great deal.

 

(Re: the relative safety of standing by 18-wheelers vs. helicopters - I'll have to get a second opinion from a trucker's forum. )

 

 

Save Our Canyons represents a wide range of interests. As with any organization, there is some tension among different viewpoints.

 

I don't represent anyone but me; nonetheless, here's a few of the top issues:

 

(1) Safety.

Bombing in such a heavily used backcountry area is inherently dangerous. It should be stopped. It is not necessary for a heli-skiing operation. Other means of gathering snowpack information exist and are routinely used by other heli-skiing operations in lieu of bombing.

 

Related to this point is the fact that the USFS knows almost nothing about the amount and pattern of backcountry skiing that goes on in this area. With that lack of information, they can't evaluate the impacts of the permit they granted.

 

(2) Noise.

The helicopter operation impacts other recreationists with noise, and less frequently, with close approaches that are at least frightening and arguably dangerous.

 

There is a temptation to dismiss "noise" as unworthy of consideration. However, noise concerns recently dropped an FAA airspace redesign dead in its tracks here. Judging by how much people invest in aesthetics - and the National Parks Overflights Act - noise matters.

 

(3) Wildlife impacts.

Particularly on raptors. The Golden Eagles in the Wasatch aren't doing so well. Why? Unknown. Birdwatchers have observed the helicopters spooking the eagles away. If they get spooked often enough, especially during the mating and nest-building phase, they won't nest. If that happens every year - no more eagles. Similar concerns for other raptors.

 

Obviously hikers and climbers can impact wildlife. Fortunately, they don't approach Eagle nests because they're very high up on chossy cliffs far from the roads with no good ski runs above them or even very near them. Few people know exactly where they are. However, as backcountry traffic grows, that may become a problem.

 

Local ski resort operation expansions have resulted in abandoned nest sites.

 

(4) Other assorted people impacts. The local residents and resorts have complained in the past about noise (two dozen overflights at 200' between 9 and 10 am makes a great wakeup call in your million-dollar mountain mansion.) Hikers get displaced - either they give up, or take the longer hike into the Wildernesses (something the USFS has a policy of not encouraging.)

 

The disproportionality of the impacts is an issue: for the comfort of a relatively small number of clients, a very large number of hikers, residents, and others tolerate unpredictable noise, bombing, and crowding.

 

Those clients could hike to the same prime slopes with a couple of hours' effort. The clients are skiing 7000'+ of backcountry slopes in a day - they ain't handicapped. A fit skier can log more vertical in a day in the NPC than the typical WPG client skis. There is no shortage of outfitters and guides who can equip and guide a person to these slopes. The helicopter just gets clients up there faster, with less sweat, and far more noisily.

 

(5) Legal and political ... a whole mess of things related to how (I claim) the USFS has mismanaged the permit and violated its own regulations and procedures in order to permit this operation, and how political dealmaking and backroom pressures have influenced the process. But the USFS's errors and the political landscape are logically a separate matter from whether or not heli-skiing should continue - though inextricably intertwined in reality.

 

 

As for me - I ripped off an old "Heli-Free Wasatch" design for a new round of bumper stickers and caps. (So if you need a cap to tip ... I know of one that look good hanging on the wall by your license.)

 

 

"whutup with the PIC prefix?"

I dunno 'bout you, but I think "Pilot in Command" is a much cooler badge than "Doctor."

(Though I trust you weren't posting while piloting!)

[mechanic]

Me thanks this person is trolling for info and the outcome can't be good. He is not a pilot and knows about FAR's and all the legal problems 30 years back in this area! Maybe its just my military and law enforcement training. I wouldn't give this person anymore info. Maybe he owns one of the million dollar mountain masions he mentions.

 

 

 

.02 cents

[David Witherspoon]

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

 

Nope, don't own one of the mansions, don't want one. Snow removal sucks, the commute is literally life-threatening, the soil is worthless and the gardening season is almost nonexistent, and I'd be handcuffed to such a huge mortgage that I prolly wouldn't have time to surf the internet ...

 

What I do have is over 100 lbs. of USFS documents plus Google. And I've lived here for over a decade & talked to all the old fogeys about this.

 

So I'm not trolling for still more info ... though I never turn information down. If anything, I suppose I'm looking for opinions, viewpoints, ideas, reactions.

 

Your reaction duly noted; thank you.

[mechanic]

I am not paranoid, I live in Texas and don't give a rip about that area personally. You seem to be overly obsessive, 100 lbs of documents! Looking for public opinion. And yes, you are trolling for more info, duly noted. THANKS.... Calling a spade a spade.

[David Witherspoon]

Well, actually, the 100 lbs. of documents (most of the Administrative Record on which the lawsuit will be decided) aren't in my office anymore. Thankfully, the lawyers took them off my hands.

 

If you check the first page of this thread, you'll see where I was summoned from the abyss.

 

Re: paranoia, you'll love this one: I have actually been shadowed by the black helicopters while hiking through the woods. Yep! Los Federales. I swear it's true!

[mechanic]

You guys can read it for yourself.

 

David Witherspoon

 

 

 

Jellohead=IdiotDavid Witherspoon

 

Replies: 169

Views: 2112

Forum: OT: Politics, religion, global warming & other incendiary topics Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 1:06 am Subject: Jellohead=IdiotI still don't get it, do you really think most people feel inferior to people who make more money than they do?

Maybe most people don't, but they should.

You see?? I learn stuff here all the time. ...

[David Witherspoon]

I believe they already know my internet trail; it's not hard to follow.

 

Because I don't hide it.

[67november]

mechanic, this bonehead deserves no attention, i shall no longer deal with this ill informed person who claims to have a docterate in some thing other than B. S. good ridence to bad rubbash.

[Witch]

Really, I am curious of what kind of doctor you are. You mentioned a Phd, so I assume medicine is out of the picture.

 

One of my brother's friends is also a doctor. He works for JPL and is a planetary scientist. Last I heard, he was studying the atmosphere of Saturn between 35,000 and 55,000 meters from some probe data.

 

By the way, what is PIC?

 

Later

[David Witherspoon]

Biology / Population genetics. The dissertation was on the density- and frequency-dependent dynamics of transposable element families in ciliated protozoa, with particular attention to mutation-selection balance.

(Google stalkers: if that doesn't get you to my doorstep - just ask me. )

 

PIC = Pilot in Command, no?

[Gunner]

Can you guys move it over to the justhelicopters forum please?

[Witch]

Have you also looked at bacterial cultures for similar dynamics of_for lack of a better term-predator-prey relationships? We did this in a microboilogy course where we used a benign bacteria, the name escapes me, as the "prey" and introduced Psudomanas, Stapholococcus, Eshericia Coli, and several others to see how the "predator" bacteria would consume the prey and how long it took. It was very interesting. Other experiments also looked at antibiotics and what dosages resulted in LD50 or better without killing other benign bacteria. The results for anti-bacterial soaps was surprising-considering how many soaps there are.

 

But enough about Microbiology. Rotors rule!

 

Later

[joker]

Mechanic at al...

 

Me thanks this person is trolling for info and the outcome can't be good.

 

disagree...I'm afraid.

 

What do we have to hide, that Mr Witherspoon couldn't get by himself?

 

Mr Witherspoon may be the type that is so set in his ways, that whatever stance we take or tactic we play in this forum, we are not going to get him to shift. Or he could be the kind of person that actually may reflect on what sort of responses, opinions and facts he sees in a forum like this and be 'man' enough to alter his position. We don't know. What I do know is that by closing up the inn, he isn't going to go away thinking any more favourably of helicopters and the industry.

 

We have to accept that helicopters do create noise. We have to accept that as pilots we have a responsibility to use these machines in a safe manner. If there are operators disturbing every man and his dog, and operating unsafely it reflects on all of us - but we have to accept it. As with any industry, if we want to avoid becoming overly regulated (as if we aren't already) we must take steps to 'self-regulate' our industry, actions and operations. The first step to that is to own up to our shortcomings and deal with them.

 

What we are trying to convince Mr Witherspoon, is that maybe helicopters aren't the sole creators of noise or disturbers of the wildlife or causers of avalanches. We are trying to say that maybe the graveness that Mr Witherspoon talks is unfounded, blown out of proportion. We are trying to say that there must be a better solution than to go after one company and its operations. Helicopters are here to stay. Closure of one company will not solve the problem. It will simply shift it elsewhere. Remember the NIMBY!

 

Don't read my post as being soft...! I generally disagree with most of the points what Witherspoon stands for. However, as I say to Mr Witherspoon, be open-minded and cooperative, so should we as helicopter pilots. Welcome him into our community...that's the only way we can hope to get movement.

 

Joker