Bonanza Man wrote:It still doesn't matter. The primary purpose of insurance is to cover your stupidity. Always has been.

[/quote]Perhaps someone can share a personal experience about if their insurance assisted with recovery costs when they landed in an area legally off-limits and then damaged their plane (or became stuck )[/quote]

Some years ago, an acquaintance of mine mistakenly landed at a BC lodge, instead of the FS strip a couple of miles up river. Realizing his error too late, the pilot first attempted to abort, then landed long and ground looped (with minor damage) to avoid trees at the end of the rwy. The lodge owner was enraged at the trespass, and refused permission to allow repairs and a take off. The 180 had to be helicoptered out to a nearby strip, where it was repaired and flown out. The bill was $8K. His insurance company refused to pay because the strip was private, he did not have permission to land, and it was not an emergency. Did I mention that this pilot was and still is, an insurance agent?

Try calling your local state senator, even if this is a Forest Service (federal) issue. These State and Federal land management agencies are very intertwined and no bureaucrat likes getting a call from a senator. I've been working an issue here at this particular gov't land management agency and things get done when that happens. It's a pain in the ass talking to senators and the like as well. It involves a lot of disclosure forms and other paperwork.

Career bureaucrats also have only one thing one their mind, and that's keeping their career. That's one of the reasons they're so attracted to government work, it's generally pretty secure. If they feel like someone in power (not you) could make their career slightly less secure, they pay attention. Not always, but it's what I've observed here.

Keep your eyes open for the Public Notices that are required for things like this. Go to the meetings and (politely) express your displeasure. Don't try and use the vernacular though. Trying to throw in bureaucrat land management terms like "best management practices" when you don't know their true meaning just makes you look like a dumbass. This is where belonging to an organization helps alot. Meetings, public notices, and hearings are hard to keep track off as an individual. Sending an agency representative carries more weight.

Lastly, keep in mind that these are people who are managing PUBLIC land and you are part of the public. You have a say in this stuff by law. If enough people come out against something, they'll probably drop it. The trick is just applying pressure without coming off as an unreasonable jerk or lone yahoo.

delete

If you plan to camp, fish, or hunt utilizing these airstrips that is probably fine. Just to land there to say you have been there, or making several landings at these airstips is not keeping a low profile, and will probably agitate the Forest Service even more.

James, I couldn't agree with you more on this issue...It's something that all BC pilots should be cognizant of...Thanks for bringing it up as a good reminder to all of us...

And I'm not an Idahoen, but, I really appreciate what the Idaho Div of Aeronautics does for all of us BC pilots...

It's more screwed up than ever, but we can help. This from an IAA member from AZ.

Dad was at Moose Creek over the weekend and the head "forest planner" for the ranger district at Moose Creek was present and Dad spoke to her and length and came away frustrated. Moose Creek is discouraging camping in the designated camp grounds because of several "dangerous" trees that present hazards to campers if they fall. Since they have been flagged by the feds as "dangerous" the forest service believes they are now liable if one was to fall and injure a camper. They encouraged dad to camp across the runway where there are no facilities or fire rings if he comes back in the near future. She also stated it was not in the forest service budget to remove the trees at this time. What a bunch of BS. The wrong people are running the show and do not seem interested in getting input or utilizing the volunteer resources from the people that use it the most."


CALL JOE HUDSON:
Nez Perce
National Forest
104 Airport Road
Grangeville ID 83530
(208) 983-1950

Moose Creek Ranger District
Joe Hudson
208 926-4258
[email protected]

Let him know that you have volunteers ready to go take the dangerous trees out. You do!

Ken Jackson

james wrote:Big Creek Four?

“Big Creek Four” Dewey Moore, Simonds, and Mile High Airstips were recently closed. So today, I then called the Idaho Department of Aeronautics for clarification. These back country airstrips located within the Frank Church Wilderness Area are not closed. In addition, there are no NOTAMS or markings indicating these airstrips are closed.
…there is currently an effort to have these particular airstips listed as hazardous instead of emergency use only. He also stated that these airstrips were in existence prior to the Wilderness Area designation in 1980.
It appears that Mr. Joe Harper of the USFS may have been incorrect in his statements, and exceeded his authority in his June 19, 2009 e-mail, . As a back country pilot, I can only suggest to keep the use of these airstrips to a minimum. If you plan to camp, fish, or hunt utilizing these airstips that is probably fine. Just to land there to say you have been there, or making several landings at these airstips is not keeping a low profile, and will probably agitate the Forest Service even more.

Thanks for listening, “my two cents”.

James

James, thank you for taking initiative and getting information from a real source. Of course, there is always room for interpretation, and this is one of those situations. I'll try and clarify;

The current Management Plan for the Frank Church Wilderness lists the BC4 (you forgot to mention Vines) airstrips as "Emergency Use Only". The Idaho Division of Aeronautics, with strong support from the Idaho Aviation Association, is trying to get them to categorize them as "hazardous". However, the state of Idaho does not have authority other than advisory. The FS need only take their comments into the record.

In my view, according to the powers vested to the FS by the management plan, Ranger Harper IS well within his authority. So, again in my opinion, it is not Harper that is in error, it is the management plan itself that usurps the specific language of the Central Idaho Wilderness Act (CIWA). Harper's statement, which you provided, is exceedingly clear about what "the plan" requires. He simply wants to implement it. That's his job. It's the plan that's wrong.


And, seventyZ, I pushed the button that says "reply with quote". This is what I got. Can we avoid the snarky messages this time?

Kenny: I would like to know which BC Lodge this unfortunate incident took place at. One reason is to make sure others don't land there, AND even more important, make sure that we do not patronize this place. The owner's attitude seems a bit harsh from what few details are available.

On the FS "not budgeting for tree removal" at the other strip, I guess I am a little slow to understand. A competent tree faller with a chain saw is pretty inexpensive to fall a tree especially if there are no buildings, planes, or anything else that could be damaged. In fact, for the creation of firewood, many of us own chain saws and have the ability to gather firewood. Where am I going wrong on this??

FloatFlyer wrote:Kenny: I would like to know which BC Lodge this unfortunate incident took place at. One reason is to make sure others don't land there, AND even more important, make sure that we do not patronize this place. The owner's attitude seems a bit harsh from what few details are available.

On the FS "not budgeting for tree removal" at the other strip, I guess I am a little slow to understand. A competent tree faller with a chain saw is pretty inexpensive to fall a tree especially if there are no buildings, planes, or anything else that could be damaged. In fact, for the creation of firewood, many of us own chain saws and have the ability to gather firewood. Where am I going wrong on this??

Hi, FloatFlyer,

It is a private lodge in the back country, a private retreat for the owner. There is no patronage to be had there. Nonetheless, it was an extremely harsh reaction to a navigation error by a pilot unfamiliar with the area, though certainly within the property owners rights. The pilot has always owned up to the error and never complained about the $. Good stories are hard to come by and are often priceless

As for the trees at Moose Creek; it is within the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness area (one of many appealing features) and thus chainsaws are prohibited. There have been offers to fall and buck them by hand, for fire wood, which was strongly refused. There are some restrictions, but nothing that cannot be worked out. So, you are not "wrong" just on the wrong end of the authority ladder, as we all are.

The Ranger identified about 100 trees as "hazardous", and tagged them with little blue medallians nailed to the tree bases. I took some photos, but didn't have time to catalog them. I came back a week later to do that and the tags were all gone, and nobody there could tell me which trees had been tagged.

This is a mature stand of mixed conifers. This is what they do when they live long enough to get old; they fall over. In order to protect the users of this facility (in continual use for more than 60 years), one only needs to do what is done on every other FS camp site. MANAGE IT! DON'T CLOSE IT!!

From an IAN Steering Committee member regarding a meeting held on July 10:

"The Big Creek Four issue has been resolved following a meeting with the
Forest Service in McCall today. The Joe Harper email is rescinded. We
are working on a joint statement that will be released next week. Thank
you for your support."

I landed at my place of residence, which at the time was a un patented mining claim under the auspices of the BLM. It was a dirt road and on final caught a tail wind, flipped the plane over for a total loss.
The insurance company paid in full, no questions asked.

Walt

rugersbro wrote:I landed at my place of residence, which at the time was a un patented mining claim under the auspices of the BLM. It was a dirt road and on final caught a tail wind, flipped the plane over for a total loss.
The insurance company paid in full, no questions asked.

Walt

So it wasn't a public and charted airstrip limited to "emergency only" operations? Meaningful differences, in my view.

It really isn't. Read your insurance policy. Unless you have the worlds worst insurance company it will say nothing about where you can or cannot land.

Kenny wrote:And, seventyZ, I pushed the button that says "reply with quote". This is what I got. Can we avoid the snarky messages this time?

There was nothing snarky about the image I posted. The autoquote button is not exactly intuitive, yet a picture says it all. If you're still having trouble quoting I suggest you brush up on BBCode usage. Sloppy use of quoting can make it appear as if someone else's words are yours, or vice versa.

Bonanza Man wrote:It really isn't. Read your insurance policy. Unless you have the worlds worst insurance company it will say nothing about where you can or cannot land.

BM, we are not having the same conversation, apparently. I did not say that my insurance company can tell me "where I can and cannot land". I said that my insurance company can easily deny a claim if:

"EXCLUSIONS
This policy does not apply:
1. To any insured while the aircraft is in flight with the knowledge and consent of such insured or of any executive officer, partner, or managing agent of such Insured for any unlawful purpose."

If the managing agency is writing up violations for non-emergency landings at "emergency only" strips, I'm thinking that the insurance can find a way to walk, whether I am piloting or not, so long as I knew about the "unlawful purpose". That's just my opinion of my own policy and what may constitute an unlawful purpose to my insurance company.

I get mine from Old Republic, through AOPA. You may want to avoid them if you believe they are dictating where I may and may not land. Cheers.

I understand what you're saying but that's not unlawful. A similar situation would be if you came to land at an airport with a runway that was notam'd closed due to construction. Since you were diligent you got a preflight, where the runway closure notam was included, but you get to your destination and thru whatever brain fart you land on the closed runway and tear the airplane up. You're covered. You made a mistake, you didn't do anything unlawful.

Well, that's a scenario I hadn't thought of, but similar to an eariler post about landing on a BLM road. Not sure it applies; the strips are not notamd, they are catagorized. Interesting.

Here is the resolution worked out over the past week. This is a bog win for BC aviation! JV DeThomas is Administrator of the Idaho Division of Aeronautics. We owe him, and the members of the IAN committee, and the IAA for this outcome. We will keep the FS honest and engaged.

The recent controversy over the so-called Big Creek Four airstrips (Mile
Hi, Simonds, Vines and Dewey Moore) has been resolved. On July 10,
members of the aviation community met with Payette National Forest
officials to discuss concerns regarding the May, 2009, Errata to the
Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness Management Plan and a
subsequent proposal from Payette officials. The Errata clarified and
corrected parts of the plan. Of particular concern to IAA members was
the clarification of how the Big Creek Four were to be managed. The
Errata states that management of these "landing strips will continue to
be consistent with the use for emergencies only. Forests will work with
the Idaho Division of Aeronautics to determine the appropriate level of
maintenance for these landing strips to ensure their availability for
emergency use and develop management plans to implement any future
actions." The Errata also removed the definition of "Emergency Use
Only" from the plan. Both the Errata and updated Management Plan are
available through links on the Salmon-Challis national Forest web site
<http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/sc/>.

The aviation community became particularly concerned when it learned
that Payette officials were considering taking down N-numbers and
sending letters to aircraft owners who landed at these four airstrips
for non-emergency purposes. This will not occur, and Payette officials
apologized for proposing to do this. Instead, the Division of
Aeronautics will be working with Payette officials to propose to the
public the reclassification of these airstrips as "Hazardous" to match
the airstrip classification that the Idaho Airstrip Network Steering
Committee as agreed to.

So for now, use of these four airstrips is status quo. But aviation
officials ask that you keep in mind, these airstrips have hazardous
conditions and require skills and equipment beyond what is normally
anticipated for general aviation.

JV DeThomas

I read that Forest Service Supports Backcountry Strips today on avweb I don't know how this all fits in.

TrevDog wrote:I read that Forest Service Supports Backcountry Strips today on avweb I don't know how this all fits in.

I have a copy of the letter from Chief Abigail Kimball and would be happy to post it here if only I knew how to post a pdf.

KJ