http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2011/110428pilots_urged_to_review_national_forest_planning_rule.html

It sounds like the Forest Service is soliciting commentary on the proposed planning rule. That AOPA article pretty much covers it, but reading some of the comments already submitted, it becomes obvious that this is going to become a shit show of environmental sparring.

Our concern, as supported by groups like The RAF and IAA, is that aircraft get special, historical use status. How this rule factors in with Wilderness use classification, I do not know. Federal land ownership has always confused me. What I do know is that, as usual, unless pilots and those who know as we do that aircraft have a very light footprint, speak up and get on the radar, blanket access rules will eventually pass and force us out. The Frank Church Wilderness of Idaho enjoys a historical protection of aircraft use as part of a specific clause by the late great senator for which it is named, but who are the advocates for aviation today?

Before commenting, I'd make an effort to gather some facts, although that is difficult as the proposal seems very vague. It's times like this when I wish our website was better developed to showcase backcountry aircraft use for those who might research it.

Comment site:
http://www.govcomments.com/ProjectInformation.aspx?a=25&b=20800

Please keep this out of Hot Air by making an effort to avoid partisan politicking, and keeping the topic relegated to backcountry aviation land use. Thanks.

Thanks for posting this. I commented on the rule.

G-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-W-W-W-D thats long! 45 pages if you don't read any of the background info.
My first comment is: Where the Hell can I get the Cliff notes?

Good info on the proposed rule change over the Grand Canyon, and lots of other stuff.

http://www.azpilots.org/Library/Newslet ... %20Apr.pdf

Hafast wrote:Good info on the proposed rule change over the Grand Canyon, and lots of other stuff.

http://www.azpilots.org/Library/Newslet ... %20Apr.pdf

I went to the dog and pony show about "too much noise "over Grand Canyon here in Henderson,NV.-- the tree huggers have the Canyon wired for recordings of everything that fly's -birds ,helicopters-fixed wing etc. The sound of 182 over the Grand Canyon can hardly be heard over the rushing of the mighty Colorado River .The low flying helicopters are noisiest of all aircraft -twin otters of Scenic airlines is in middle . Since fixed wing VFR traffic is 8000 msl or above in west end of Canyon and over 14.5 on east (except corrodiors which are 10+ k) small aircraft present little impact on the whole picture .They like to drive a aircraft out of the Grand Canyon and have a habitat for the spotted owl . I've plotted out there "listening post" and keep the prop pulled back to 2200 rpm and they never hear me. I've seen corporate jets skimming the Canyon walls after taking off from GNC . TOO much money is changing hands to keep aircraft out of Grand Canyon. We won't be affected unless they run the big boys out first and that's not going to happen in our life time.

Zane wrote:http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2011/110428pilots_urged_to_review_national_forest_planning_rule.html

Please keep this out of Hot Air by making an effort to avoid partisan politicking, and keeping the topic relegated to backcountry aviation land use. Thanks.

Zane - So you post a topic about weighing in on the government taking, or not taking a certain action ("regulating land use"), at the urging of one group that is trying to take something away from another group by using government power. But you won't allow any talk of partisanship on this thread, or else the topic suddenly loses legitimacy, and gets kicked to the curb (i.e., banished to Hot Air).

(by the way, your putting every topic that is political in nature into a forum called "Hot Air" is your way of saying that political talk is nothing but hot air. It certainly is popular in some circles to trash political talk as nothing but hot air ... but the next time you get mad at something that the government did to you, or took away from you, or to/from someone else you care about, then "political talk" suddenly transforms into "a discussion of right vs. wrong" ... it seems that it all depends upon whose ox is getting gored as to whether something is "merely politics", or not).

I'm sorry to break it to you, but resolving this debate is all about partisan politics. Put this in Hot Air or not - it's your choice. It won't change the dynamic. If you do, then you're simply practicing a form of censorship, and as a result the conversation won't be very enlightening or useful.

If you want to bring up the subject of using government environmental restrictions to stop people from "using" a natural resource, then you can't be intellectually honest and ignore the fact that a certain major unnamed political party virtually always represents the environmentalists (i.e., the "tree huggers" or "enviro-nazis" - those are the terms many of us normally use), and another major unnamed political party generally ignores the the environmentalists and fights for the "resource users" (that would be "us", as non-enviro-nazis). There is no middle, apolitical position or place on which to stand if you're going to get involved in this kind of debate.

We all know well you're trying to avoid BCP becoming an overtly political board, but there's pretty much nothing about aviation that isn't regulated to the hilt by the government, and the government necessarily is a political animal. And "parties" and "partisanship" are how us little guys and gals manage to band together to try and make the government do one thing, or stop doing another thing.

The only way to eliminate parties and partisanship from the debate is to eliminate the ability of the "little people" having any say in what their government does to them. Partisanship may, on its face, seem ugly to many who consider themselves non-partisan, but it beats the hell out of the practical, real world alternatives (which are either dictatorship, or civil war).

Banishing politics from hangar talk is like banishing money from politics. Not gonna happen.

Duane

nmflyguy wrote:

Zane wrote:http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2011/110428pilots_urged_to_review_national_forest_planning_rule.html

Please keep this out of Hot Air by making an effort to avoid partisan politicking, and keeping the topic relegated to backcountry aviation land use. Thanks.

Zane - So you post a topic about weighing in on the government taking, or not taking a certain action ("regulating land use"), at the urging of one group that is trying to take something away from another group by using government power. But you won't allow any talk of partisanship on this thread, or else the topic suddenly loses legitimacy, and gets kicked to the curb (i.e., banished to Hot Air).

(by the way, your putting every topic that is political in nature into a forum called "Hot Air" is your way of saying that political talk is nothing but hot air. It certainly is popular in some circles to trash political talk as nothing but hot air ... but the next time you get mad at something that the government did to you, or took away from you, or to/from someone else you care about, then "political talk" suddenly transforms into "a discussion of right vs. wrong" ... it seems that it all depends upon whose ox is getting gored as to whether something is "merely politics", or not).

I'm sorry to break it to you, but resolving this debate is all about partisan politics. Put this in Hot Air or not - it's your choice. It won't change the dynamic. If you do, then you're simply practicing a form of censorship, and as a result the conversation won't be very enlightening or useful.

If you want to bring up the subject of using government environmental restrictions to stop people from "using" a natural resource, then you can't be intellectually honest and ignore the fact that a certain major unnamed political party virtually always represents the environmentalists (i.e., the "tree huggers" or "enviro-nazis" - those are the terms many of us normally use), and another major unnamed political party generally ignores the the environmentalists and fights for the "resource users" (that would be "us", as non-enviro-nazis). There is no middle, apolitical position or place on which to stand if you're going to get involved in this kind of debate.

We all know well you're trying to avoid BCP becoming an overtly political board, but there's pretty much nothing about aviation that isn't regulated to the hilt by the government, and the government necessarily is a political animal. And "parties" and "partisanship" are how us little guys and gals manage to band together to try and make the government do one thing, or stop doing another thing.

The only way to eliminate parties and partisanship from the debate is to eliminate the ability of the "little people" having any say in what their government does to them. Partisanship may, on its face, seem ugly to many who consider themselves non-partisan, but it beats the hell out of the practical, real world alternatives (which are either dictatorship, or civil war).

Banishing politics from hangar talk is like banishing money from politics. Not gonna happen.

Duane

Agree 100% and that's a very bitter pill to swallow for those who want it both ways...on either side of the isle.

gb

It's a notification to make people aware that such federal planning is taking place, and implore them to weigh in on the government comment board with the voice of pilots. Your political statements here will net you zero, so use all that typing energy you have to say it to the Feds.

Our policy on politics and moderation is clearly stated in the Newbie Guide, which you were required to read prior to registration, so you know exactly where arguing with me about this gets you, but thanks anyway for the dissertation. If you want to unleash your political cannons, start a thread in Hot Air.

Thanks Zane, I appreciate your efforts on threads like this. We all have our opinions, the issues aren't ever black and white, and there are way more than two sides to these issues. Also, minds aren't changed on chat boards like this and much of better land use ideas come from meeting somewhere in the middle.

I'll weigh in on the comment site.

-Brad

Bump with AOPA comment on the rule. Very good.
http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2 ... _id=ebrief

gbflyer wrote:

nmflyguy wrote:

Zane wrote:http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2011/110428pilots_urged_to_review_national_forest_planning_rule.html

Please keep this out of Hot Air by making an effort to avoid partisan politicking, and keeping the topic relegated to backcountry aviation land use. Thanks.

Zane - So you post a topic about weighing in on the government taking, or not taking a certain action ("regulating land use"), at the urging of one group that is trying to take something away from another group by using government power. But you won't allow any talk of partisanship on this thread, or else the topic suddenly loses legitimacy, and gets kicked to the curb (i.e., banished to Hot Air).

(by the way, your putting every topic that is political in nature into a forum called "Hot Air" is your way of saying that political talk is nothing but hot air. It certainly is popular in some circles to trash political talk as nothing but hot air ... but the next time you get mad at something that the government did to you, or took away from you, or to/from someone else you care about, then "political talk" suddenly transforms into "a discussion of right vs. wrong" ... it seems that it all depends upon whose ox is getting gored as to whether something is "merely politics", or not).

I'm sorry to break it to you, but resolving this debate is all about partisan politics. Put this in Hot Air or not - it's your choice. It won't change the dynamic. If you do, then you're simply practicing a form of censorship, and as a result the conversation won't be very enlightening or useful.

If you want to bring up the subject of using government environmental restrictions to stop people from "using" a natural resource, then you can't be intellectually honest and ignore the fact that a certain major unnamed political party virtually always represents the environmentalists (i.e., the "tree huggers" or "enviro-nazis" - those are the terms many of us normally use), and another major unnamed political party generally ignores the the environmentalists and fights for the "resource users" (that would be "us", as non-enviro-nazis). There is no middle, apolitical position or place on which to stand if you're going to get involved in this kind of debate.

We all know well you're trying to avoid BCP becoming an overtly political board, but there's pretty much nothing about aviation that isn't regulated to the hilt by the government, and the government necessarily is a political animal. And "parties" and "partisanship" are how us little guys and gals manage to band together to try and make the government do one thing, or stop doing another thing.

The only way to eliminate parties and partisanship from the debate is to eliminate the ability of the "little people" having any say in what their government does to them. Partisanship may, on its face, seem ugly to many who consider themselves non-partisan, but it beats the hell out of the practical, real world alternatives (which are either dictatorship, or civil war).

Banishing politics from hangar talk is like banishing money from politics. Not gonna happen.

Duane

Agree 100% and that's a very bitter pill to swallow for those who want it both ways...on either side of the isle.

gb

Ditto:
I understand Zanes concerns. This site belongs to Zane. When you are on another mans property you must do as he says or get thrown off the property. Getting thrown off BCP property is way easier than physically being thrown off a piece of dirt.
I don't need to say more y'all know my stand. I have been to the govment comment site and left my input. It is a rigged game, oh well.

"Life is tough, it is tougher when you are stupid" John Wayne

Good day