Backcountry Pilot

[twheel offline]

Steve Durtschi, president of the Utah Back Country Pilots Association asked me to post this message for him.


This thread was recently brought to my attention and I would like to take a moment to clarify the position of Utah Back Country Pilots concerning landing on closed runways.

UBCP has not and does not condone landing on public land that is restricted to aviation nor on private land with out permission.

Currently there are no open back country airstrips in Utah's National Parks, National Recreation Areas or National Wildlife Refuges. There seems to be some confusion about landing strips in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area like Zahn Bay. Some may believe that UBCP endorses these landing strips as open because they appear in our Utah Landing Strip Data Base. When we added Zahn Bay (also known as Zahn's Camp) to the Utah Airstrip Database on June 15, 2005 the following preceded the landing strip data: "This strip is in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and on the San Juan River. Currently there is no permission from the park service to land here." Our wording and our position on using the airstrip and others in the Rec. Area has not changed since then.

The airstrip database on our website (www.utahbackcountrypilots.org) is available for anyone to access. Its purpose reflects UBCP's core agenda; that is to disseminate safety related information. It has been compiled through hundreds of hours of work on the part of many volunteers but we recognize that it is not complete. Every landing strip in the data base contains the following warning:

[This database] "is by no means presented here as an complete or accurate compilation of any or all Utah strips...Please do not view this database as a navigation tool or an invitation to visit these airstrips and least of all as a tour guidebook." The data base is an effort to catalog all landing strips in the state and was not meant as an invitation to land or an endorsement of the legality of any landing strip.

We decided to list all back country airstrips in the state, even those in areas closed to aviation, for two reasons. First, as any one who has spent much time flying over the incredibly rugged canyon country can tell you, in some areas the available spots to make an emergency landing are few are far between. Even an overgrown airstrip that has not been used in 30 years would look attractive compared to the surrounding sandstone spires in the event of an emergency. Second, the airstrips are physical features that are visible from the air. Not listing them in the database would not prevent pilots from seeing them when flying overhead. By listing them and listing some information about them such as they fact that an airstrip is in a National Park we hope that pilots will not be tempted to land at the airstrip that they may have otherwise thought they had “discovered.”

All of the work done by Utah Back Country Pilots has been on a volunteer basis. The database, website, airstrip maintenance, meetings with land managers, presentations to land managers, official fillings and trips to DC to testify in front of congress have all been done by volunteers who spend their own money to help protect and promote safe back country aviation. We welcome all to participate. As errors or omissions are realized in the data base, we will make every effort to correct them. There is a "contact us" feature on the UBCP website and we ask those with pertinent information to help so that we can make the data we provide as accurate as possible.

We encourage pilots to visit the Utah back country and ask that they research the legality of a proposed destination as part of the pre-flight planning process.



Sincerely,



Steve Durtschi, Pres.,

Utah Back Country Pilots

[Zzz]

I don't understand why he needs a proxy to post that.

[twheel offline]

I don't understand why he needs a proxy to post that.

Sorry. He dosn't have an account and just asked me to post it for him. I'm on the board with him. Thanks.

[Hammer offline]

It's ironic and unfortunate that UBCP is getting any heat from this...had I been smart enough to check their web site while planning my next stop I would have seen Zahn's Camp was closed before I ever left Moab.

I for one am really glad UBCP and other organizations like them exist. If a few idiots (such as myself) gather half the information they need for a flight, that's hardly UBCP's responsibility.

[twheel offline]

It's ironic and unfortunate that UBCP is getting any heat from this...had I been smart enough to check their web site while planning my next stop I would have seen Zahn's Camp was closed before I ever left Moab.

I for one am really glad UBCP and other organizations like them exist. If a few idiots (such as myself) gather half the information they need for a flight, that's hardly UBCP's responsibility.

I think if we started comparing all the stupid things each of us has done as a pilot at one point, we'd need a new forum. I don't think the Backcountrypilot.org server would be able to keep up.

[punkin170b offline]

Thanks for posting that, RJ (twheel).

Also thanks for your comments, Hammer.

I am also on the board with RJ and Steve. Steve is not an internet enthusiast. He doesn't even own a cell phone or pager... imagine that! Although he can be hard to track down at times, it is actually an "endearing characteristic" to those of us who know him. I envy his sanctity, most of the time. Steve would never have seen this thread, and in turn, never would have rebutted the irresponsible words of several previous posters. The UBCP website has been put together by others in the organization because we felt it was a good idea to disemminate as much information about UT airstrips as we could gather in the interest of safety.

Matt

[Zzz]

Steve is not an internet enthusiast.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be a dick about it. I just always find it funny when people have others post in their stead. It's not like an account costs anything.

I'll add something of actual substance besides Moderator Kitteh....

Anytime one gets into the game of providing "beta" or information that can be considered briefing data to the public, there is a responsibility on the part of both parties to 1) provide clear and accurate information, and 2) regard the information as a briefing and not irreproachable fact.

This is the reason myself and any others who provide information-sharing resources try to be overly blatant in presenting the fact that we're not responsible for the accuracy of the data, or what you do with the data.

Richard[once&ftr] criticizes the UBCP for what amounts to semantics of terminology. In their airstrip database, lists Zahn Bay and Zahn Upper. There is no "Zahn's Camp" (we're already into the realm of details and semantics by using multiple names for multiple similar-sounding airstrips.) Each airport has a field for "Useable?" This seems to be the term that requires interpretation.

After this discussion, we can easily see that "useable" is meant to convey the condition of the airstrip surface, not the legality of using the strip, as is stated in the description of the airstrip: "Currently there is no permission from the park service to land here." The news item on the UBCP homepage though is quite clear about the fact that no Glen Canyon airstrips are permitted for use.

Perhaps some clearer terminology is warranted, i.e. "Aircraft use currently prohibited."

I totally agree with Durtschi that even prohibited airstrips should be listed in the database so that there is no question about their status.

It's obvious that the UBCP is a champion of pilots in both maintaining usage privileges, as well as being an source for information about the strips, and we should applaud them for their efforts, as they will likely be the interest group that works to get prohibited airstrips back into use, should an effort be mounted.

I think there's an older thread about rights and privileges and the NPS buried somewhere in here. If I remember it got pretty heated. What a classic....

[a64pilot offline]

I think I can understand what I think his position is. He wants to clarify and or defend his position, but doesn't want to get into some kind of internet arguments. He may not be familiar with the process etc., and besides we have all seen the outhouse lawyer types that are simply much more elegant with the written word and just love to bait an honest person.
I applaud him for feeling strongly enough about something to enter into a position he obviously wouldn't normally.
Whether it be flying, dirt bikes, shooting sports, hunting or anything outside of the normal urban activites, we who participate in "fringe" activities have to more and more defend our privlidges. Funny how what our grandfathers considered rights aren't considered that anymore.
Steve, even though we sometimes get our collective heads up our fore point of contact, your among friends. I think we would greately appreciate your presence here should you chose to participate.
Shoot, I might even learn something.

[RockyTFS offline]

After this discussion, we can easily see that "useable" is meant to convey the condition of the airstrip surface, not the legality of using the strip, as is stated in the description of the airstrip: "Currently there is no permission from the park service to land here." The news item on the UBCP homepage though is quite clear about the fact that no Glen Canyon airstrips are permitted for use.

Perhaps some clearer terminology is warranted, i.e. "Aircraft use currently prohibited."
....

I totally agree. I have spent considerable time perusing the UBCP database, even landed at some of them, and found it all too easy to fall into the trap of selecting an interesting looking strip based on the "usable" criteria without realizing it wasn't legal to land there. The information is there, it just isn't as prominent as it could be. Perhaps the "usable" field, which is in bold green and therefore jumps out at a glance, could be modified to include info like: " Yes - Private" or: :" Yes - Closed". Another option is would be to bold and color the Closed or Private - Prior Pemission Required in the comments field. Perhaps you have to bold the entire field, though, I can't remember....I've imported most of these into Google earth then used that format to make a similar database of Idaho strips, but I'm still learning the coding.

At any rate: "Caveat Emptor!

Rocky

[onceAndFutr_alaskaflyer offline]

I think there's an older thread about rights and privileges and the NPS buried somewhere in here. If I remember it got pretty heated. What a classic....

Good gawd. I want the last ten minutes of my life back

[GeorgeM offline]

Are the pickets just at the end or throughout the airstrip? This spring, white stakes showed up on both ends of Dirty Devil. I assumed someone was just marking the ends, but now the pickets described in this thread have me wondering who put them at Dirty Devil.

George

[Hammer offline]

George,
The pickets go from one end of the strip to the other, alternating port and starboard of the center line. They are definitely not threshold markers, unless your flying a vtol aircraft.