hotrod180 wrote:

BDJ238 wrote:.......From what I heard through the grape vine, the Toilet Company had just dropped them off, the incident occurred, the individual driving the truck heard the racket and turned around before leaving the area. ........

After reading this again, I will revise my opinion that it was a greenie plot and admit that maybe it was just an idiot honeywagon driver.
This is just as believable after seeing how non-aviators often park their cars around my home airport- blocking hangar doors, blocking or crowding taxiways, etc.. Actually, some of the aviators don't do too well at this either.

Ok, with that background, why do you feel it's logical to assume the worst of any other group, such as environmentalists? Ever think you might be painting them with too broad a brush and getting a false image because of it?

Lord knows I won't change your mind...but your initial assessment was completely, 100%, fantastically wrong, based on NO credible evidence or data...just your preconceived prejudices against folks who you see as different from you. If I recall, you compared the porta-johns to claymore mines...

Environmental sabotage does exist, but it's a FANTASTICALLY fractional part of environmentalism as a whole, and almost universally shunned by organized environmental groups, or individuals who are environmentally active.

It's a bit like lumping all pilots into the category of the jackass that caused a mid-air at High Sierra a couple years ago...if they're a pilot they must be loose cannons who do what ever they want regardless of the hazards to others...while stoned, of course.

Prejudice sums it up: Believing the worst of a person without any corroborating evidence because of their affiliation with an organization, religion, political group, demographic, or race.

Hammer wrote:....your initial assessment was completely, 100%, fantastically wrong, based on NO credible evidence or data...just your preconceived prejudices against folks who you see as different from you. .....

So you KNOW for a fact that I was wrong?
If so, you must be the individual who placed the outhouses or had them placed.
Otherwise, for all you know, I was 100% fantastically correct-- even if my conclusion was based on preconceived prejudices instead of credible evidence.
Remember....just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that they're NOT all out to get me.

G44
I drive a cub and a 180. The cub driver in me requires a jab at the Husky guys every chance I get, because they always are waiting for me at whatever strip we are going to.
DENNY

Mountain Doctor wrote:

contactflying wrote:Some might ask why some old pilot always lands on the numbers, even though there is lots of runway? You never know everything. The tactical situation is always fluid.

I agree most of the time but...

As is often the case in aviation, there are sometimes extenuating circumstances.

I was flying the Maule into an easy 1,000' grass strip last year. I needed about half of that to stop comfortably but still was aiming to put it down on the first 20' of runway.

I put it where I wanted, but missed a signpost that was buried in tumbleweeds right at the threshold.

I scolded myself for that. There was no need to touchdown in the first 20', and if I aimed 100-200 feet down I'd have still stopped with half the runway to spare and would have not risked hitting the hidden sign.

Just one example.

Sometimes the middle of the strip is appropiate. Maybe there are other obstacles. Maybe there is mud or something you don't want to taxi through. Maybe there is a bend in the strip. Or a deer at the threshold you can just fly over.

Or...maybe there's a red approach light..... I have a "souvenir" one, I paid $150.00 for, when all was said and done, by landing in the gravel before the asphalt, at an airport that will remain unnamed, so I could take the first turnoff. The gravel before the asphalt was just short enough to be a fun challenge, and I nailed it just where I wanted to, easily making the very first taxi way at the end (start) of the runway. Who knew they would put red lights there?!

I think that the overall feelings against environmentalist groups stems not only from some of the acts that some have done, but more so because in the end, they are not our friends when it comes to backcountry flying. They don’t want us there and actively work against our access. Here is an article from their website regarding the BLM “giving in to the demands of the Utah Backcountry Pilots” when the Mexican Mountain strip was improved a few years ago.

So while the toilet incident may not have been a diabolical plot against pilots, in the end, they aren’t our friends either.

https://suwa.org/naturally-reclaimed-ai ... -improved/

If you don’t take the time to go to the link, here is the one sentence from it that you need to read.

“However, the Mexican Mountain airstrip is in a WSA and should not be maintained for recreational fixed-wing aircraft use.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I flew Conoco Phillips that crossed E-W 1/8 mile S of Majors AFB (GVT). Tower always let me land on the displaced threshold of 35 and turn off at the civilian FBO on the very S end of the field.

hotrod180 wrote:

BDJ238 wrote:.......From what I heard through the grape vine, the Toilet Company had just dropped them off, the incident occurred, the individual driving the truck heard the racket and turned around before leaving the area. ........

After reading this again, I will revise my opinion that it was a greenie plot and admit that maybe it was just an idiot honeywagon driver.
This is just as believable after seeing how non-aviators often park their cars around my home airport- blocking hangar doors, blocking or crowding taxiways, etc.. Actually, some of the aviators don't do too well at this either.

This is a pet peeve of mine. Makes me nuts.

To clear up a few speculation items:
The pilot is a friend of mine. This was one of the his early backcountry flights and was with the aircraft owner/Instructor. From what I know they had landed at several other backcountry strips through out the day already. They came in through the canyon for a standard backcountry landing.

Post Incident:
They were able to temp repair the aircraft and one time flight it back to Aviat. The mfg had to replace the entire wing, but they did not have a prop strike or anything else for that matter. I stopped in to check out the factory on a cross-country flight and had a good laugh with the mechanics about the incident. Every one is always giving the guy a hard time with the large number of puns that can be inferred from the incident. The aircraft is back out flying the backcountry again now and if you fly in Utah you might see them out and about.

Grassstrippilot wrote:I think that the overall feelings against environmentalist groups stems not only from some of the acts that some have done, but more so because in the end, they are not our friends when it comes to backcountry flying. They don’t want us there and actively work against our access. Here is an article from their website regarding the BLM “giving in to the demands of the Utah Backcountry Pilots” when the Mexican Mountain strip was improved a few years ago.

So while the toilet incident may not have been a diabolical plot against pilots, in the end, they aren’t our friends either.

https://suwa.org/naturally-reclaimed-ai ... -improved/

If you don’t take the time to go to the link, here is the one sentence from it that you need to read.

“However, the Mexican Mountain airstrip is in a WSA and should not be maintained for recreational fixed-wing aircraft use.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a lot more complicated than that, Grassstrip. Without environmental movements in the past we would have precious few backcountry areas to fly into today. Any idea how many hydropower plants would be built on the Seleway and Middle/Main Salmon if it wasn't protected by environmental regulation? It's a mystery to me that a group of people like backcountry pilots are so vehemently anti-environmental. Or maybe it's just that the anti's post more, I don't know.

I'll fight to keep backcountry airstrips open, but that doesn't mean that the people who want them closed are my enemy. We BOTH want to be there, right? We probably have more in common than we have differences. By treating them as people with similar interests but different opinions you can actually change some minds. Treat them as your enemy and all you do is intrench them. The fact that there are some radicalized and intractable dickheads on one side of the debate doesn't mean it's beneficial to mirror them.

People are going to have different opinions on how land should be managed, and given how fantastically overpopulated the world is, lots of opinions are going to weigh in. I support pro backcountry aviation interests, and I support environmental interests. I don't see a dichotomy in that. Both groups want to have wild places to go to. I'm pro wilderness, whether I can land in it or not.

Pilots who go out from one of the Johnson Creek fly-ins and bag all the Big 4 airstrips in a morning so they can put it on Utube make an excellent argument for closing them. The strips were grandfathered in as wilderness trail heads, not aerial skateparks, and while the bag-fest is going on, there is really no wilderness experience for anyone else in the drainage. The attitude of "I'm entitled to do this regardless of how it affects anyone else" is exactly the catalyst for the passage of behavior-restricting legislation. We are often (not always) our own worst enemies when it comes to maintaining access.

Personally I'd much rather try to build on common interests than fixate on differences. Someone wants Mexican Mountain closed to aircraft? OK, they're entitled to that opinion, and we might basically agree on everything other than that one point...as a friend I have a chance of changing their minds, as an enemy I don't.

Assuming the worst of someone because they have a different opinion is not only illogical, it's counterproductive.

agreed

Same story different hobby. Much like the nailboards in the mud holes on offroad trails. It's as simple as a person forcing their opinion on you by injuring you or your property. Oblivious to the actual problems they attack the drug user instead of the dealer. I just can't muster any sympathy for a cause when the whole thing is hypocritical. They drive oil and gas cars around,chunk trash in dumpsters and live in huge airconditioned houses but are so radical that they are willing to harm others?
I have no respect for that. I do have respect for the guy that loves nature,loves flying like a bird and combines the two into a constructive hobby. I have more respect for the guy that goes in with a trash bag and leaves with other people's trash.

Hammer, very well said. I support both responsible backcountry aviation interests as well as the efforts of SUWA to protect public lands. I realize there are occasional conflicting opinions but both groups should be pro wilderness and preservation. They don’t need to be mutually exclusive. IMO, it’s okay to support the broad efforts SUWA and oppose their efforts to close Mexican Mountain.

UT180 wrote:Hammer, very well said. I support both responsible backcountry aviation interests as well as the efforts of SUWA to protect public lands. I realize there are occasional conflicting opinions but both groups should be pro wilderness and preservation. They don’t need to be mutually exclusive. IMO, it’s okay to support the broad efforts SUWA and oppose their efforts to close Mexican Mountain.

Agreed 100%

I appreciate your attitude Hammer. Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s the common mentality amongst environmentalists. By and large, their mindset of protecting lands is either no one can use it or the land can only be used the way they see fit or in line with their view of how it should be used. Until they adopt a more inclusive attitude towards land management, they will continue to foster a confrontational atmosphere. I wholly agree it would be better if they adopted the view point of “Hey, let’s create a common sense land management plan that meets the needs of ALL users of public land, recognizing that everyone from the minimalist hiker to the ATV rider to the aviation enthusiast all have a right to access to public land.” But that isn’t their mindset. And I point them out as the side that needs to change because you don’t see pilots or ATV riders trying to curtail the activities or access to the environmentalists.

Anyway, just my opinion. I wish more people, especially on the environmentalist side, had your view point because I think it would be more productive. Issues like this, in my opinion, have to be approached with an open mind and an inclusive attitude.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Grassstrippilot wrote:I appreciate your attitude Hammer. Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s the common mentality amongst environmentalists. By and large, their mindset of protecting lands is either no one can use it or the land can only be used the way they see fit or in line with their view of how it should be used. Until they adopt a more inclusive attitude towards land management, they will continue to foster a confrontational atmosphere.

Grassstrippilot, unfortunately, I can't argue with this, but I wish it were different. Personally, there was a time when I despised the term environmentalist. Now I find myself embracing it. Why... because I love the outdoors and have a passion for protecting it. I also believe in responsible access and use. I just don't see those in conflict. The environmental movement (and even SUWA) will be defined by those who take part. If there was a reasonable part of SUWA that wanted to protect public lands but supported responsible use, they too would moderate. And for the preservation of backcountry aviation (and the preservation of wilderness experience we are looking for), that would be a good thing.

I don't live there anymore but wouldn't allowing grazing and some reasonable road building help fight wildfires? My friend Dave Trujillo, NMARNG and San Pedro forest engineer, was an environmentalist who thought so.

Personally I am a proud member and donor to both the Backcountry Aviation Foundation and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and I personally see no contradiction. Our current system of public lands is truly a marvel and unique in the world, but it needs folks who care about both access and preservation to speak up.

Careful about throwing out assumptions about all environmentalists, there's lots of us here, and sharing drinks with you around the campfire at night.

Brad

Guess a low pass would have been a good idea.
Looks like he didnt even try to do anything, i pay a little more attention when i land off airport, or on a backcountry airport

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esvCCgaRDPs

Tom wrote:Guess a low pass would have been a good idea.
Looks like he didnt even try to do anything, i pay a little more attention when i land off airport, or on a backcountry airport

I learn from others mistakes when possible. Good vid for low time pilots!

Durango Skywagon wrote:
Careful about throwing out assumptions about all environmentalists...

Brad

I didn’t say “all”. But the agenda the environmentalist organizations pursue show that the moderates aren’t calling the shots. This is too bad because like was said above, good land use/management and conservation shouldn’t be exclusive of each other. Mutual respect and acceptance of each other’s method of experiencing nature would go a long way. One is no more valid or right than another’s. I imagine a lot more good would be accomplished with this mindset.

Hope to see you around the fire sometime.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk