Super-Maule wrote:

by jomac

the driver of the yellow supercub is a superb pilot

?
Just stirring the pot. This is not keeping a low profile. I hope they don't close Mile High before wolf/elk season.

jomac wrote:holy cow, did i say "superb" ? how about tons better than average....he lives close by, and visits mile-high weekly...and dont worry about it being closed during elk/wolf season either...i wager that bird will be gone before this weekend given the caliber of individual involved...to me, keeping a "low profile" is sittin' home on the couch...remember, pay your money and take your chances and don't cry about it, especially if someone, or you, happens to make a mistake. 'tis still a free country, and be damn glad we have got Idaho to enjoy. [
[

the driver of the yellow supercub is a superb pilot

I'm going to chime in and back Jomac's comments. I was going to stay quite because I too know the pilot involved at the Mile Hi incident (Mr. Gregory [name is already public knowledge]).

Not only does Mr. Gregory frequent Mile Hi often, Mile Hi is a few ridges over from his cabin in the backcountry that he pretty much have has to fly in and out of (short challenging strip also). And I know he fly's in that area (Idaho Backcountry) about every day for at least 20 years I've known him. So I believe it's safe to say that Mr. Gregory is a pretty good pilot (YES, superb!). And if you knew Mr. Gregory, you would know that he would like to have had this incident stay low key and out of the public eye. But thanks to some witnesses and the internet, word and pictures got out.

So just like mentioned earlier, crap can and more than likely will happen to you and me the more you use your aircraft at these challenging strips. It can happen to any of us. And to think of it. If Mr. Gregory happens to be with you if and when you mess up. He's the type of guy that will help you out in a heartbeat and NOT the type of person running/flying to the nearest internet connection to show and tell the world what they saw today.

And by the way.......... one of our own BCP members (another Superb Cub pilot and I know he wanted to keep that low profile too) last year flipped his Cub at a challenging strip down in Nevada and as I remember, not one of us gave him crap for that and no one cried foul about the possibility of Nevada closing down the forest/land to all aircraft landings.

Just my 2 cents

Mike, according to Wikipedia, Johnson Creek "is managed by the Idaho Division of Aeronautics of the Idaho Transportation Department" not the Forest Sevice. If the Forest Service ran the place it would probably been shut down years ago just like all the four wheeling roads around here. My point being that if we can be a benefit and not a burden, it might go a long way to keeping the area open.

PS: I'm not complaining about the accident. S*#@t Happens.

What? "If you dance, eventually you will pay the piper?"
That why I just sit in my easy chair and take pot shots on the internet at those who have finally had that "Fickle finger of fate" tap them on the shoulder-or shoved way up their 'tail feathers' .....
After all, I haven't crashed my recliner yet.....
So I consider myself to be a damn good judge from afar......

Just sayin'
lc

Littlecub wrote:What? "If you dance, eventually you will pay the piper?"
That why I just sit in my easy chair and take pot shots on the internet at those who have finally had that "Fickle finger of fate" tap them on the shoulder-or shoved way up their 'tail feathers' .....
After all, I haven't crashed my recliner yet.....
So I consider myself to be a damn good judge from afar......

Just sayin'
lc

During the recent hurricane media coverage I heard the phrase "they are endangering first responders". This was in reference to people standing out in the open watching the waves come in etc., after a mandatory evac was ordered, and the POSSIBILITY they might need rescue. Most of us could be tarred with this brush, and I'm not real sure what the defense is. I mean even though I didn't have a problem on those gravel bars yesterday, some could say I "endangered first responders" if I had had a problem, I guess I should have just stayed home?

We need a snappy response that is media worthy to deal with that nanny state mentality. Mine, until I come up with a better one, is, "I pay my taxes, and the first responders are damn lucky to have jobs and should feel honored to rescue my ass instead of bitching about it!" Yeah, that would work real well

How about "They knew the job was dangerous when they took it!"

courierguy wrote:During the recent hurricane media coverage I heard the phrase "they are endangering first responders". This was in reference to people standing out in the open watching the waves come in etc., after a mandatory evac was ordered, and the POSSIBILITY they might need rescue. Most of us could be tarred with this brush, and I'm not real sure what the defense is. I mean even though I didn't have a problem on those gravel bars yesterday, some could say I "endangered first responders" if I had had a problem, I guess I should have just stayed home?

We need a snappy response that is media worthy to deal with that nanny state mentality. Mine, until I come up with a better one, is, "I pay my taxes, and the first responders are damn lucky to have jobs and should feel honored to rescue my ass instead of bitching about it!" Yeah, that would work real well

This calls for one of my overlong responses but I'm trying to cut back. Superb thought Courierguy. Giant subject.

Jaerl wrote:Mike, according to Wikipedia, Johnson Creek "is managed by the Idaho Division of Aeronautics of the Idaho Transportation Department" not the Forest Sevice. If the Forest Service ran the place it would probably been shut down years ago just like all the four wheeling roads around here. My point being that if we can be a benefit and not a burden, it might go a long way to keeping the area open.

PS: I'm not complaining about the accident. S*#@t Happens.

Jaerl,

The ACCIDENT, and the topic of this discussion, is Mile Hi, not Johnson Creek.

MTV

Really, the ACCIDENT was at Mile High? That could explain the title of this thread.

Wasn't it you who said "The Frank Church Wilderness is federally owned, not state owned and is managed by the US Forest Service." I was just pointing out that you were WRONG! Idaho manages these strips.

http://idahoaviation.com/idahoAirstripNetwork.php


PS: MTV,

The ACCIDENT, and the topic of this discussion, is Mile Hi, not the Frank Church Wilderness.

Jaerl

Jaerl,

Uh, take a look at this web link, to your favorite information source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Church%E2%80%

Virtually ALL those airstrips lie within and are MANAGED by the US Forest Service. The Idaho Airmen's Association, a great outfit, by the way, doesn't have anything to do with ownership or management of the Frank Church Wilderness. They do a great job in advocating with the actual land owner--the US Forest Service-- to keep these strips open.

Most of those strips were there before the wilderness designation, which is the only reason they're still there--you can't even use a chain saw legally in wilderness areas in the lower 48, let alone land an airplane there. Earlier in this thread, if you'd take the time to read it all, you'd find a copy of the enabling legislation, which essentially says aircraft access will continue in the Frank.

But, the federal government owns the land and manages it, via the US Forest Service, though a couple of the Idaho backcountry strips are privately owned.

MTV

Wasn't there legislation in the last few years stating that none of the strips could be closed without the approval of the state of Idaho?

I believe I said The "Idaho Division of Aeronautics of the Idaho Transportation Department" managed the strips, not the Idaho Airman's Association. The link I posted refers to the strips I was talking about. If you feel you need to bitch at me, why don't you PM me so these guys can be spared the petty bullshit?

Bonanza Man wrote:Wasn't there legislation in the last few years stating that none of the strips could be closed without the approval of the state of Idaho?

The Colorado river is open to rafters but they limit the number of rafters that can use it. Not sure if you put your name on a list and wait your turn or there is a lotery. They did that cus soo many folks were rafting that it was in their opinion too much impact.

When it gets to the point that hundreds are flying into Frank Church each morning, can the Forest Service keep the srips open as per law but limit the number using them by limited permit?

Tim

I was wrong and MTV was right. I found this in a Forest Service report. Apparently they manage these four strips including Mile High:

"The four airstrips referred to, Dewey Moore, Mile-Hi, Simmonds and Vines, have been managed since 1984 "

Jaerl wrote:I was wrong and MTV was right. I found this in a Forest Service report. Apparently they manage these four strips including Mile High:

have been managed since 1984 for "emergency use only," as prescribed by the 1984 FC-RONR Wilderness Management Plan. That Plan called for no maintenance of these four airstrips."

That clause alone scares me...

qmdv wrote:

Bonanza Man wrote:Wasn't there legislation in the last few years stating that none of the strips could be closed without the approval of the state of Idaho?

The Colorado river is open to rafters but they limit the number of rafters that can use it. Not sure if you put your name on a list and wait your turn or there is a lotery. They did that cus soo many folks were rafting that it was in their opinion too much impact.

When it gets to the point that hundreds are flying into Frank Church each morning, can the Forest Service keep the srips open as per law but limit the number using them by limited permit?

Tim

Undoubtedly, In MT Schafer Meadows already has a limit. About 550 ops per year.

Moose Creek also has a limit; I don't remember the number but every year we come very close to it.

Stol wrote:

Jaerl wrote: I found this in a Forest Service report. Apparently they manage these four strips including Mile High:

have been managed since 1984 for "emergency use only," as prescribed by the 1984 FC-RONR Wilderness Management Plan. That Plan called for no maintenance of these four airstrips."

That clause alone scares me...

Y'all need to read Coming into the Country by John McPhee. http://www.amazon.com/Coming-into-Count ... 0374522871

The initial chapters are about the massive land grab after the Native Claims Settlement Act of 1974 in Alaska. It will make you think things. It will make your heart bleed. The folks who were there at the time haven't forgotten. Unspeakable.

Land grab? Uh, McPhee did a great job articulating the complaints of a group of people in Alaska no doubt, and that is a GREAT book.

But, land grab?

I would respectfully point out that the federal government BOUGHT ALL of Alaska from Russia.

At statehood, the State of Alaska was authorized a large allotment of land. Unfortunately, the State took their time in the land selection process, and in the meantime, to permit the oil companies and the state and feds to get at the oil under Prudhoe Bay, the politicians had to settle Alaska Native claims, which they did with ANCSA. ANCSA contained, in part, the requirement for additional lands to be set aside as National Parks, Refuges, and Monuments. None of those acts of CONGRESS (a Congress that contained representatives of EVERY state) changed the State of Alaska's allotment of land, except that the Native Corporations and the conservation areas were withdrawn, in many cases before the State had got around to making its selections.

Since the State of AK had waited to make it's selections, others selected first. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the State of Alaska STILL hasn't completed all it's selections.

The point, however is that there was no "land grab" by the federal government. The State of Alaska wanted that oil under Prudhoe Bay as bad as the feds did. It might be argued that they sold their soul to get it, but Alaska has prospered since largely due to that very oil.

The bitching will continue forever about ANCSA and ANILCA, no doubt. In fact, many Alaska Natives argue that they got screwed in the whole ANCSA process, and in fact, they may well have. There's no doubt that large portions of the state has been reserved as conservation areas, but it should also be noted, for example, that the Congress also placed very specific provisions in most of the enabling legislation that differs GREATLY from Lower48 conservation areas (an example is that aircraft landings are permitted in virtually ALL AK conservation areas, including big W wilderness areas).

And, in fact, you'll find that many of those who are the loudest about this "land grab" actually benefit significantly from federal lands. There is still a great deal of rancor in Alaska about all this, and many differing opinions.

I don't pretend to DEFEND those Acts of Congress. In many ways, I too believe those Acts (ANCSA and ANILCA) were seriously flawed. But the point is, it was the Congress AND the State of Alaska who created that mess called ANCSA, in a big hurry to get to that oil. And, ANCSA contained the D 2 provisions which then created ANILCA. The rest is history, and it's not a real pretty history, in many ways.

MTV

How is Mile High doing?

Tim