I'd love to see a 24-hour rule for private aircraft at all of the backcountry airstrips inside the wilderness areas. If you land, you don't take off for 24 hours or more. I think that would save the Big Creek 4, and a lot of other airstrips from eventual closure.

DaveID wrote:I saw this in the Idaho Aviation newletter this month, and it just strikes me as laughable. Like, I know you want to shoot the messenger here, but it’s not just me…

The article goes basically, yada yada, we’re getting access to some new airstrips… and then this: “So here is the rub. We are gaining the privilege of these two airstrips because they are access points to the public lands we all own. We are not getting these strips to roll wheels and leave. We are being allowed the privilege to use them with a social contract that they will be used to improve access to public lands. While adding these airstrips to our logbook is probably a worthy goal, it is not an end in itself, and it is certainly not the primary end that motivated land managers to consider opening them. No land use manager looked at these spots and said, “I bet pilots would like to do some touch-and-gos here.” Nor did they say, “What a great location to convert 100LL into noise.”

Anybody who truly knows the backstory to the creation of the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness knows that the wilderness would have never been created without allowing continued access to the existing airstrips. The backstory to the creation of the Frank, is also the creation story for the IAA. IAA was created to preserve our access to the Wilderness airstrips. Without the airstrips, the interior of the wilderness would have been rarely visited. Frank Church himself said as much and had no problem leaving airstrips open for that precise reason. If one looks at the enabling language and supporting correspondence between people like Frank Church and the late Cecil Andrus, it was clear that the airstrips were identified as necessary access points.

Nowhere in the record, however, do any leaders, sponsors, or advocates state that pilots need access to challenging places to land or remote airstrips to test their skills and derring-do. We have been granted access to backcountry airstrips to access the surrounding public land. That is the WHY we have the privilege. If the only landings at these airstrips are pilots who just turn around and take off again, we are not showing land managers that they made the right decision. Pilot abuse of our access privilege is a legitimate threat to both gaining new airstrip access points AND keeping the ones we have. Please consider this when you use any of our backcountry airstrips. If you are only landing and turning around and taking off, you are making it harder for us to convince land managers that we need additional airstrips to provide access. If your low pass with a flight of four results in more complaints than compliments, we will gain no further access. Also, consider being a good advocate: Instead of complaining to land managers about them wanting to kick us off the airstrips now open to access the Wilderness, consider thanking the agencies and personnel involved for maintaining our access.

Whomever the author of that is did a great job...well said.

Hammer wrote:I'd love to see a 24-hour rule for private aircraft at all of the backcountry airstrips inside the wilderness areas. If you land, you don't take off for 24 hours or more. I think that would save the Big Creek 4, and a lot of other airstrips from eventual closure.

I'd rather see responsible use than more rules. I do think if we keep on the current path we'll end up needing permits for each airstrip which will effectively be a 24hr rule.

Some years ago, my Sis took me backpacking for the first time, into the Grand Gulch of southern Utah. Turns out it's an area that is heavily governed by permits--you don't just go in there. So we got our permit, and she asked the ranger how many permits had been issued. We were numbers 14 and 15--and that maxed out the allowed numbers for that weekend.

Why is it heavily governed by permits? Because too many people were doing "unneighborly" things in there--interfering with others' enjoyment of the area. I have no idea what those "unneighborly" things were, but I got a flavor of it, when we encountered another party, on horses, who camped upstream from our camp--and some of their deleterious garbage floated past us.

Whether DaveID's messages were condescending or not (I'm not the grammar police), his point is right on. Someone said "use it or lose it", which is probably true, but it's also true that it has to be used responsibly.

My ol' stepdad, Pop, once told me after one of our heated arguments, him being stepdad and me being about 15 or 16 at the time, "there's the Golden Rule, and here's a corollary: your right to swing your fist stops before it connects with my nose. Don't ever forget that." I wasn't sure I got that at the time, but 60 years later and a lot of life under my belt, I sure do.

In this case, being nice to others in the Frank Church Wilderness will pay some real dividends, I think. If playing nice isn't voluntary, it'll become like the Grand Gulch, governed by permits, with huge penalties if the permits aren't obtained and followed. The government gives, and the government can take away pretty easily.

Cary

You guys are so own!!!

all good points gentlemen.... but also remember those obnoxioius ones are way the exception...most of us are way more respectful than that....

Question? Would a twenty four hour time restriction on landing to take off fix overloaded planes,unqualified pilots from crashing and killing themselves and passengers. Why do we want to impose more rules and restrictions . ( the government that gives rights can quickly take them away) we need to work on that problem .
Is there way to work on back country etiquette that doesn't entail demanding more government regulation. After the tragic accident at the high Sierra fly in everyone worked to promote a safeer fly in. It has been very successful . Let's police ourselves and not cry for fed intervention . If we as aviators talk to each other we can solve our own problems. Then original butt hurt was about go arounds flying to early and multiple landings at one of the busier back country strips. The pilots might not have had evil intentions but we will never know if we don't communicate with said pilots. I still say these are public lands not government land. Study your constitution . Our government representatives are not our masters. They get paid to work for us. If not we should demand a change. I am all about civility and respect just hate seeing issues getting confused.

Well said.

Blown56 wrote:Question? Would a twenty four hour time restriction on landing to take off fix overloaded planes,unqualified pilots from crashing and killing themselves and passengers. Why do we want to impose more rules and restrictions . ( the government that gives rights can quickly take them away) we need to work on that problem .
Is there way to work on back country etiquette that doesn't entail demanding more government regulation. After the tragic accident at the high Sierra fly in everyone worked to promote a safeer fly in. It has been very successful . Let's police ourselves and not cry for fed intervention . If we as aviators talk to each other we can solve our own problems. Then original butt hurt was about go arounds flying to early and multiple landings at one of the busier back country strips. The pilots might not have had evil intentions but we will never know if we don't communicate with said pilots. I still say these are public lands not government land. Study your constitution . Our government representatives are not our masters. They get paid to work for us. If not we should demand a change. I am all about civility and respect just hate seeing issues getting confused.

Oh my god, it really IS laughable. The president of the IAA himself posts video to social media of himself or his party buzzing backcountry strips (I can't remember which, this was a while ago [edit: found the video if you don't believe me]), and then in his own publication just now although not written by him:


Don't be a Bagger
Having flown in Idaho for over 50 years I have noted
significant changes in aviation activity, especially over the
last decade, in the wilderness areas. With the advent of
light, high-powered, high-tech aircraft, it seems like more
pilots are flying into the wilderness not so much to enjoy it,
but to “bag” airstrips for the sake of being able to say, “I
conquered that airstrip by landing there,” much like a
mountain climber would climb Mt. Everest. The purpose of
wilderness airstrips is to provide access to the remote
interior areas of the wilderness to enjoy the recreational
opportunities available to the visitor, and then leave with
no trace. I am a charter member of the Idaho Aviation
Association. Our organization has fought for years to
protect the free access to these airstrips. We have done
this in many ways; from volunteer labor maintaining the
airports, to lobbying Congress to keep them open. With the
increase in pilots flying for just the sake of flying, there has
been pressure by the U.S. Forest Service to either limit or
close some of these remote airstrips. So, my advice is that
if you must “bag” an airstrip, stay there and recreate. Do
not go as a group. Do not fly formations low over the
wilderness, and use your call sign, not the color and type
of your aircraft. Colors do not show up on an ADS-B
display. Let’s all respect the rights of others to enjoy the
wilderness areas of Idaho by being responsible with our
flight etiquette. Don’t be a “Bagger.”

I know, I'm just the butt hurt grumpy old man. But literally every time I've been in the wilderness this year, whether on foot or via plane, I see ridiculous behavior. Flights of five or more - and not just in Indian Creek for the record - seems to be the thing to do now. It's gross and it's not what these airstrips were intended for. And for god's sake quit advertising it on social media.

Popularization usually always ruins a good thing.

DaveID good for you bringing this topic up. I hate to be a hypocrite but I know I have been guilty of the same things that irritate me. That's the nice thing about public forums , we can exchange information and ideas . Maybe even educate one another . If you quiz non pilots about backcountry flying the tragic accidents and deaths always come up. Non aviators don't know what bagging is , they think it's a tasteless joke. So let's speak up and encourage our flying friends to be better pilots. The deaths at JC were not bagging related. You can't legislate stupidity . I bagged mile hi 20 years ago . I asked my wife if she'd like to go camp there she declined. Probably won't go back. Dave you handled buthurt without being offended. Thanks ya old grump.

"Do as I say, not as I do". (or did)
KInda like parenting.

One of the little things that always bugs me every summer is people doing fly-bys at fly-ins.
It's one thing if it's something like a P51, or a Porter, or a Mallard--
but a garden variety 150 or 172? C'mon now.

(that said.... I will admit to having done a few fly-bys myself, in the past )

How do you tell if a C150 or C172 is "doing a fly by" or overflying looking for obstacles or runway condition? Do other aircraft perform that required maneuver in a significantly different way (like by flying full throttle so testosterone is evident)?

Pretty easy to tell a fly-by from an observation pass.
Not too many people eyeball a strip for obstructions at full throttle.