You've gotta be kidding me...

[dmccormack]

Requested vs. prohibited though. They can report all they want, but it's not a bust. Good relations, no. A bust, no.

There's a local airport (which will remain unnamed) that harbors pilots (who will remain unnamed) who routinely break all manner of rules (low level buzzing etc, etc)

The answer to every inquiry?

"Wasn't me and it wasn't my airplane."


VERY hard to prove unless you have video with N number clearly visible and the pilot's face as he waves....

 

[alaskaflyer]

I have. They don't really listen to me.

C'mon, I support the Native Americans! I gave at the casino.

Ed, they are busy reconquering your state. I guess they aren't listening to you

 

[alaskaflyer]

One of my favorites is the 5 nm* radius R-space just SW of KFLG Flagstaff. Ostensibly it is to avoid overflight of ordnance storage bunkers but 5 miles? From 5 nm and 1,000 agl I have an unobstructed view and could be an explosive hole within seconds if I so choose.

*I don't remember if it's 5 nm or smaller. I only remember it is redicously small.

It's much smaller, and it is my understanding that it is a weather balloon tether.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Grand Canyon has such a high minimum altitude that you might as well forget going there. National parks have an almost-mandatory 2000'agl requirement.

Dave, I flew a O-300-powered 172 over the grand canyon on one of the hottest days of June, perfectly legally, and several other times to boot. If you've ever been there you would know that it would be worth going even if you were at 15K (maybe you have been there I don't know but that statement seemed strange to me.)

 

[silver-eagle]

Fortune smiled on me one commercial flight when we flew over it at 34K+. Even at that altitude, it was quite impressive.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

at 15K (maybe you have been there I don't know but that statement seemed strange to me.)

I was there, and felt like I was miles away. Wait, I was! I wanted to get UUPP to it, see it close!

 

[etsisk]

Flame me all ya want, but there are some pretty sorry responses in this thread. Disappointingly sorry responses.

Some of y'all need to get over yourselves and realize that "we" aren't the only people around here... We just act like it. How about a little respect for folks, even if they aren't just like you? What's it cost ya to stay a few miles away from there? Nothing. It costs nothing.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Flame me all ya want, but there are some pretty sorry responses in this thread. Disappointingly sorry responses.

Some of y'all need to get over yourselves and realize that "we" aren't the only people around here... We just act like it. How about a little respect for folks, even if they aren't just like you? What's it cost ya to stay a few miles away from there? Nothing. It costs nothing.

Tom,

Right on - I had already heard of the June thing at Devil's Tower, and now I see that the "restriction" (not really) is 3nm in June and 2nm the rest of the year. I have no problems staying a bit away - I do have problems with "For reasons of national welfare." Honestly, I'd rather they make it an R-area than feed me bull****.

The casino comment was s'posed to be funny. And I still think it is.

 

[SkyHog]

Flame me all ya want, but there are some pretty sorry responses in this thread. Disappointingly sorry responses.

Some of y'all need to get over yourselves and realize that "we" aren't the only people around here... We just act like it. How about a little respect for folks, even if they aren't just like you? What's it cost ya to stay a few miles away from there? Nothing. It costs nothing.

I look at it as a camel's nose issue. The American Indians are getting their own airspace, whereas other groups do not currently get them. Would you feel the same way if it were the American Boyscouts that got "For reasons of national welfare, avoid overflight" around their yearly campsites? Or a church requesting an avoidance of overflight for national welfare because on Sunday mornings, they don't want people looking up unless they're looking for God?

The American Indians have been given so much, and they constantly stab the American government in the back. I don't know why we still put up with it. For example, I assume it happens everywhere, but here in New Mexico, a treaty was signed with each Indian Reservation that allowed casinos, provided x% was given to the government. Guess how much of that actually gets paid to the government...

Seriously, American Indians have it better than any other group: They don't pay taxes, yet they get the same rights every other American does. I know I never shot a man holding a bow and arrow...why am I paying for their stuff?

 

[docmirror]

I may be one of the only people on this board that has flown THROUGH the Grand Canyon. It was about three weeks before a huge mid-air in the canyon by two sightseeing flights. After that, it was immediately prohibited.

I got some great photos while I was in there!

 

[alaskaflyer]

I may be one of the only people on this board that has flown THROUGH the Grand Canyon. It was about three weeks before a huge mid-air in the canyon by two sightseeing flights. After that, it was immediately prohibited.

I got some great photos while I was in there!

I've flown through it, landed at Phantom Ranch even, but I have connections

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I look at it as a camel's nose issue. The American Indians are getting their own airspace, whereas other groups do not currently get them.

Nick,

I wish you were correct.

This particular one is mostly for the Native Americans but it is actually optional, and most of these areas are over national parks (and this is a national monument as well, not an indian reservation).

On the other hand, there's this:

FDC 3/2122 ZJX FL.. FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ORLANDO, FL. EFFECTIVE 0303182000 UTC (MARCH 18 AT 1500 LOCAL) UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. PURSUANT TO RESTRICTIONS DETAILED IN SECTION 352 OF PUBLIC LAW 108-7, AND 14 CFR SECTION 99.7, SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS. AIRCRAFT FLIGHT OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED AT AND BELOW 3,000 FEET AGL, WITHIN A 3 NAUTICAL MILE RADIUS OF THE DISNEY WORLD THEME PARK (282445N/0813420W OR THE ORLANDO /ORL/ VORTAC 243 DEGREE RADIAL AT 15 NAUTICAL MILES).

So, an actual RESTRICTION over Disney, for completely bogus reasons... That is way worse, IMHO.

 

[SkyHog]

Nick,

I wish you were correct.

This particular one is mostly for the Native Americans but it is actually optional, and most of these areas are over national parks (and this is a national monument as well, not an indian reservation).

On the other hand, there's this:



So, an actual RESTRICTION over Disney, for completely bogus reasons... That is way worse, IMHO.

I completely agree that Disney World's TFR is a travesty. But the Native American Heritage Areas are very important airspace grabs, because it sets a precedence that says that special interest groups are prone to getting airspace set aside for them. I see this as being no different than the dude that ******* because airplanes are making too much noise during his backyard barbecue.

 

[dmccormack]

I see this as being no different than the dude that ******* because airplanes are making too much noise during his backyard barbecue.

This reminds me of a problem that was ingeniously solved back in 1985...

I was an Air Force NCO Command Post Controller in the Niagara Falls Interceptor Wing (the mission was to launch F-4s and shoot down Soviet Bombers flying low over the Great Lakes).

Well, F-4s are loud -- and every weekend when there was lots of flying this guy would call up and complain about the noise over his house. No matter how much explaining, he would call back.

One day the Wing Commander was in the Command Post, and when he called he said, "Let me talk to him."

I overheard as he invited him to lunch.

The CO came back the next day --not only had he taken him to lunch, he took him up in the WSO seat of an F-4!


We never heard from that guy again.

I thought about starting my own complain campaign, since by then I had been in the Air Force 6 years and had yet to fly in an AF aircraft.

Postscript: I flew more in 11 years in the Army as an Armor and Cav officer then I did in 10 years in the AF!

 

[gprellwitz]

Nick, I'm afraid my response to you would need to go in the Spin Zone, and I don't go there. Suffice it to say that I'm having difficulty reconciling what I remember to be your opinions about undocumented aliens with your opinions about the Native Americans. Aren't the "illegal aliens" to us as we are to the Native Americans?

And Kent, I agree with you on the "national welfare" thing. That sounds like one of those catchphrases that can be used to say whatever you want it to without a need to justify your actions. Kind of like "national security" has become.

 

[dmccormack]

Nick, I'm afraid my response to you would need to go in the Spin Zone, and I don't go there. Suffice it to say that I'm having difficulty reconciling what I remember to be your opinions about undocumented aliens with your opinions about the Native Americans. Aren't the "illegal aliens" to us as we are to the Native Americans?

(Oh boy, I KNOW I'm gonna get in trouble, but since you asked...)

The short answer is "No."

Why? The indigenous tribes in North America did not function under 21st Century Laws of Sovereignty.

Modern Nation-States established borders as lines of demarcation between our land and their land -- "Ours/theirs" defined as land belonging to a Nation.

The Various tribes (thousands, actually) had varying claims to different parcels of land, none of it defined, bounded, or surveyed.

Tribalism was superseded by Nationalism several hundred years ago, with all the attendant advantages/disadvantages. With Nationalism comes boundaries, and boundaries imply control.

Except along the large parts of the Southern US border.

 

[gprellwitz]

(Oh boy, I KNOW I'm gonna get in trouble, but since you asked...)

The short answer is "No."

Why? The indigenous tribes in North America did not function under 21st Century Laws of Sovereignty.

Modern Nation-States established borders as lines of demarcation between our land and their land -- "Ours/theirs" defined as land belonging to a Nation.

The Various tribes (thousands, actually) had varying claims to different parcels of land, none of it defined, bounded, or surveyed.

Tribalism was superseded by Nationalism several hundred years ago, with all the attendant advantages/disadvantages. With Nationalism comes boundaries, and boundaries imply control.

Except along the large parts of the Southern US border.

To be honest, it sounds like a combination of "might makes right" and "the winner gets to make the rules." I think it was termed "cultural imperialism." But I really had not intended to start this thread creep. Sorry!

 

[dmccormack]

To be honest, it sounds like a combination of "might makes right" and "the winner gets to make the rules." I think it was termed "cultural imperialism." But I really had not intended to start this thread creep. Sorry!

I know, I know...

But...

Most (not all) of the various conquered tribes overtly or tacitly agreed to the method used for determining the outcome -- warfare.

Colonial Pennsylvania had the most forward and enlightened approach to the tribes -- all land was purchased -- and yet the Pennsylvania backcountry suffered the most during the Seven Years War.

In the Revolution the Iroquois (the Seneca and some Mohawks) supported the British by raiding the NY and Pennsylvania frontier. Washington sent an Army up the Susquehanna and northwest towards Niagara in 1777 and leveled the Seneca villages, scorched-earth style. The Seneca were never again a threat.

Bottom line, they fought, and lost, and -- like it or not -- we all now live within a Federal Republic form of government with boundaries and laws.

Some (many? most?) laws are just plain dumb, some prefer one group or class over another, and some actually protect things that matter.

We shouldn't dismiss out of hand our current system based on some skewed view of history, or ignore activity that is outside those laws to make up for some flawed sense of past injustice.

 

[SkyHog]

Nick, I'm afraid my response to you would need to go in the Spin Zone, and I don't go there. Suffice it to say that I'm having difficulty reconciling what I remember to be your opinions about undocumented aliens with your opinions about the Native Americans. Aren't the "illegal aliens" to us as we are to the Native Americans?

250 years ago, I'd say yes. After 250 years, they really need to get over it already. Beyond that, the American Indians lost the war; we have yet to even start to fight (and never will should the left get its way).

 

[billwil]

Wow, Dan. Who would have known that a CFI could be se eloquent. Mine just grunt and yell at me to, "Keep the nose up!" And, "Not so much back pressure!"

Totally kidding, guys. I love CFI's.

Kidding aside...It seems to me that noise abatement procedures around airports and other populated areas are not only a neighborly thing to do, but actually are good for the pilot as well (as being neighborly helps airports stay put). I think in some cases (which obviously could be debated...just look at this thread), it might be reasonable for us to voluntarily comply with noise abatement requests for areas not around airports. I wish, though, they would just say that rather than all of the garbage that's in that request. C'mon, national welfare?

I guess it all comes down to whether we think that we actually could be a nuisance to normal, rational thinking people (abviously some people will always be put off by aviation...and other things). If so, it would be bad for GA to continually annoy large amounts of these normal, rational thinking people.

Personally, if I were visiting this rock, and planes were flying overhead, I would never see the rock...but that's me, and I've been told I'm not normal or rational. Good day.

 

[dmccormack]

Wow, Dan. Who would have known that a CFI could be se eloquent. Mine just grunt and yell at me to, "Keep the nose up!" And, "Not so much back pressure!"

I can yell with the best of 'em.

For 3 1/2 years I was an Army Officer Candidate School TAC officer -- a DI for Lieutenant wannabes. Get me started and I'll tell you some VERY amusing stories..anyway...that sort of motivation doesn't work in flight training!

I remember reading about a famous equitation trainer from Europe who said, "Only in America will people pay you to yell at them!"

 

[etsisk]

I've said my piece on this - nothing so far has changed my mind and, in fact, my opinion has solidified a bit.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I completely agree that Disney World's TFR is a travesty. But the Native American Heritage Areas are very important airspace grabs, because it sets a precedence that says that special interest groups are prone to getting airspace set aside for them.

Thing is, I don't think this is completely about Native Americans. It's a national monument. Mount Rushmore and several other things close by also have restrictions (blue line with blue dots inside) and Mount Rushmore is just a bunch of white guys who rock. (Ha! I kill me. )

Frankly, after reading the history (restriction was put in place as a concession to get a new airport built!) I really don't have much of a problem with anything except for the "national welfare" wording. Just sounds too much like the rest of our fear-mongering government.

 

[SkyHog]

One of these things is not like the other...one of these things just doesn't belong....

 

[etsisk]

I think some folks have got their own agenda here.

 

[rmciottijr]

You can't fly over it but you can climb on it.



Adventure on the Sides of Devils Tower!! Live Out Your Cliffhanger Dreams and Fantasies!! No One Too Young or Too Old!! YOU Can Receive a Full Day of High Quality Instruction and Rock Climbing With Our Lodge's Resident Expert Guides.If You Have Never Climbed Before, this is a Wonderful Opportunity for a Positive,Hands-On Introduction to the Rock Climbing World. Beginner-to-Experienced Climbers Will Enjoy and Benefit From Our Custom Instruction, Designed to Take YOU to YOUR Next Level of Climbing and Adventure!!

 

[alaskaflyer]

As I said before there are climbing restrictions too.

 

[EdFred]

I think some folks have got their own agenda here.

Liberals generally do.

 

[etsisk]

It's NOT the "liberals" that I'm talking about, Ed. And that oughta be pretty obvious.

 

[Everskyward]

The climbing restrictions are voluntary and only in June. I think it's a nice thing that most climbers respect the restrictions.

What is the June Voluntary Closure? American Indians have regarded the Tower as a sacred site long before climbers found their way to the area. American Indian people have expressed concerns over recreational climbing at Devils Tower. Some perceive climbing on the Tower as a desecration to their sacred site. It appears to many American Indians that climbers and hikers do not respect their culture by the very act of climbing on or near the Tower. [FONT=verdana,sans-serif]A key element of the 1995 Climbing Management Plan and 2006 update is the June Voluntary Climbing Closure. The National Park Service has decided to advocate this closure in order to promote understanding and encourage respect for the culture of American Indian tribes who are closely affiliated with the Tower as a sacred site. June is a culturally significant time when many (not all) ceremonies traditionally occur. Although voluntary, this closure has been very successful - resulting in an 80% reduction in the number of climbers during June.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]During June, the NPS asks climbers to voluntarily refrain from climbing on the Tower and hikers to voluntarily refrain from scrambling within the inside of the Tower Trail Loop. Please strongly consider the closure when planning a climbing trip to Devils Tower. Alternative climbing areas are located within 100 miles of Devils Tower National Monument. The Access Fund fully supports the voluntary closure and the Climbing Management Plan at Devils Tower.[/FONT]

http://www.nps.gov/deto/faqs.htm

 

[EdFred]

It's NOT the "liberals" that I'm talking about, Ed. And that oughta be pretty obvious.

I see a bunch of kowtowing to special interest minorities, not exacty a conservative bastion. And a couple peope who fee guilty that many moons ago some Indians got pushed around. Sorry, but I, nor my ancestors were here 250 years ago. Well, actually that's not true I am part Potawatomi - but you don't see me asking for a restriction for the purposes of "national welfare" to be established where I last took a dump or some other idiotic reason. Separation of church and state and al that jazz, yet we have "restricted areas" around a big rock because a minority whined about it.

 

[SkyHog]

I see a bunch of kowtowing to special interest minorities, not exacty a conservative bastion. And a couple peope who fee guilty that many moons ago some Indians got pushed around. Sorry, but I, nor my ancestors were here 250 years ago. Well, actually that's not true I am part Potawatomi - but you don't see me asking for a restriction for the purposes of "national welfare" to be established where I last took a dump or some other idiotic reason. Separation of church and state and al that jazz, yet we have "restricted areas" around a big rock because a minority whined about it.

Right, and of course, rather than actually discuss it, its easier to just say "Wow, now my opinion has been firmed in place."

This is one of the few times you actually see decent counter arguments that aren't personally directed, Tom. This is like the debater's dream, no one's getting personal, and IMHO, there's some really good points being made about Indians being given too much.

 

[alaskaflyer]

I see a bunch of kowtowing to special interest minorities, not exacty a conservative bastion. And a couple peope who fee guilty that many moons ago some Indians got pushed around. Sorry, but I, nor my ancestors were here 250 years ago. Well, actually that's not true I am part Potawatomi - but you don't see me asking for a restriction for the purposes of "national welfare" to be established where I last took a dump or some other idiotic reason. Separation of church and state and al that jazz, yet we have "restricted areas" around a big rock because a minority whined about it.

So, a "special interest minority", say...GA pilots....want to go do something that everyone else can't do, and the heck with everyone else. That's OK? Only the minorities that you don't belong to are being catered to in a negative fashion, but if it involves your special interest group, then it is reasonable discourse and compromise, no doubt. Just wanted to make sure I read the code correctly.

 

[EdFred]

So, a "special interest minority", say...GA pilots....want to go do something that everyone else can't do, and the heck with everyone else. That's OK? Only the minorities that you don't belong to are being catered to in a negative fashion, but if it involves your special interest group, then it is reasonable discourse and compromise, no doubt. Just wanted to make sure I read the code correctly.

Last time I checked the majority of people in this country are more than welcome to pursue getting their private (or higher) certificate. Try again.

 

[dmccormack]

So, a "special interest minority", say...GA pilots....want to go do something that everyone else can't do, and the heck with everyone else. That's OK? Only the minorities that you don't belong to are being catered to in a negative fashion, but if it involves your special interest group, then it is reasonable discourse and compromise, no doubt. Just wanted to make sure I read the code correctly.

The operative difference is forbidding a "generally accepted activity" because it may "offend."

People generally accept the ubiquity of aircraft overhead. There are limits to that toleration -- loudness, lowness, activity, and frequency are all limited.

It is in aviation's best interest to avoid forcing rule and law making, whenever practical.

In this particular case (Devil's Tower and other such landmarks) IF it is the case that aircraft are to avoid overflight due to "National Welfare" concerns, it is absolutely a legitimate question to ask what is meant by that phrase, who made the determination, and to question the validity of the rule if it appears to be frivolous.

IF it is the case that the area is protected to appease a particular group, we should be concerned about precedent -- and not just for Indian tribes (The Disney park, for example).

 

[alaskaflyer]

The operative difference is forbidding a "generally accepted activity" because it may "offend."

People generally accept the ubiquity of aircraft overhead. There are limits to that toleration -- loudness, lowness, activity, and frequency are all limited.

.

What, precisely, is being forbidden in this case?

 

[alaskaflyer]

Last time I checked the majority of people in this country are more than welcome to pursue getting their private (or higher) certificate. Try again.

Last time I checked anyone can bring the FAA to the table for negotiation, including native American groups.

This decision wasn't made in a vacuum, and as someone noted above it got a new airport built, which might not have been the case if the critics had chimed in differently during the EIS (or EA nor sure in this case) process.

 

[SkyHog]

What, precisely, is being forbidden in this case?

The problem is that we are avoiding NSAs voluntarily because of what they mean. By avoiding overflight, we are doing the right thing because we are not interfering with something that the government has determined is very important to our own security. That is the point behind a warning of national warfare.

BUT....national welfare has nothing to do with a group of people who are already given so many rights they don't even have to worry about buying a house in their lifetime a nice, clean area for them to "smoke'em da peace pipe" and look at a chunk of rock in peace.

To be honest, if the sectional was changed to the blue line with dots that requests voluntarily to avoid 2000ft above because it is a national refuge of some sort, I'd have no problem with that. But National Welfare? Its abusing a term that we should be taking very seriously.

 

[alaskaflyer]

That is the point behind a warning of national warfare.

...But National Welfare? Its abusing a term that we should be taking very seriously.

Says who? Tell me where "national welfare" is defined as a term. If you can then I will believe you. Here is how "welfare" is defined in the dictionary:

1. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
2. Prosperity.
3. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.

I think you all are taking the phrase too seriously. You've drank the koolaid.

 

[dmccormack]

BUT....national welfare has nothing to do with a group of people who are already given so many rights they don't even have to worry about buying a house in their lifetime a nice, clean area for them to "smoke'em da peace pipe" and look at a chunk of rock in peace.

To be honest, if the sectional was changed to the blue line with dots that requests voluntarily to avoid 2000ft above because it is a national refuge of some sort, I'd have no problem with that. But National Welfare? Its abusing a term that we should be taking very seriously.

I agree with the latter part of your argument, but the former only weakens it.

Of all people with a historical grudge, the plight of Native Americans is most compelling. I've lived in New York city, and let me tell you -- "da ghetto" is downright Nirvana compared to most reservations.