If you are familiar with the language of the Central Idaho Wilderness Act of 1980 (CIWA) you will conclude that the renewed effort by the FS to close the Big Creek Four is illegal. This e-mail from the District Ranger is a declaration of war.

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:19:08 -0600, "Joe Harper" <[email protected]>
said:

We intend to implement the Wilderness Plan consistently and not ignore any issues that compromise the Plan and it's direction.  I would hope the IAN (Idaho Airport Network) would assist in getting the message out to pilots that the Big Creek Four are managed for emergencies only (per the Frank Church Management Plan) and are classified by the IAN as "Hazardous" where use is discouraged.  I think this is where the IAN needs be consistent also in what we have worked so hard to get.

Any non-emergency planes we stumble upon this year at either Dewey Moore, Mile-High, Simonds and Vines,  will have their tail numbers taken down and the owners of the aircraft will be receiving a letter from us.  I talked with Suzanne about this and we agree, citations are not a good education tool and something we don't want to pursue this first year of the Errata. We are putting our money on the IAN and the Division of Aeronautics to assist the FS in backcountry airstrip management, education and enforcement.

====================
Joe Harper, District Ranger
Krassel Ranger District
Payette NF
800 West Lakeside Avenue
McCall, Idaho  83638
phone: (208) 634-0601
fax: (208) 634-0634
email: [email protected]
====================

At what point do Americans need to take back their country?

And just who determines what an emergency is?---let em try. PIC is THE FINAL authority on what consitiutes an emergency.

45romeo wrote:And just who determines what an emergency is?---let em try. PIC is THE FINAL authority on what consitiutes an emergency.

actually, 45R, the language is rather specific. If a pilot makes a pre-determined decision to land at an emergency only strip, he is in violation. In other words, ya can't fake an emergency. "Of course you can" you say. Well i suppose so. But, If you ground loop trying to miss a deer on the runway, "they" will easily figure out that your landing was not an emergency. Thus, your insurance is void. Thus, pilots will stop using the strips. Thus, the FS wins, in contradiction to their own regulations. We get screwed. So, what's next?

WHAT IS NEXT is for ALL of us to join the Idaho Aviation Assoc. (IAA)
They have proven to be the best advocates for keeping strips OPEN in the area.

The important thing is for the out of state pilots to also join.
Reason is that political pressure from out of state folks on their local politicos has proven to be VERY effective.

I used to pay my dues and three others for out of state folks but can no longer afford the other three since losing my job.

The IAA has been directly responsible for keeping open two major strips that I know of personally.
Cabin Creek, for one, it took them years to do it, and it was pressure from people all over the country that did it.
All they had to do was call their politicos and say, "Keep Cabin Creek OPEN" over and over till it worked.

Frank Church allegedly put specific language in the Frank Church Wilderness bill stating that all existing Air Strips were to remain open. This is what I have heard, not what I have read.

I also have heard that the Idaho State Aviation "dept." has the final say on any air strip closure.
That was the key element in keeping Wilson Bar open as well as Cabin Creek.

We just need to somehow determine that the same Idaho State Aviation "dept." still has the same back bone and commitment. I do not know how to do this but some of you might.

Chris C

Good advice, wannabe. Anyone who has an interest in back country aviating should be a member if the IAA

Of course, I am biased, being on the board of directors and the newsletter editor

IAA actually got Cabin Creek back in service twice . First, when we "cajoled" (threatened litigation) the FS to make repairs to the damaged runway; then when we "convinced" them that restoring the limited aircraft parking area to usefulness would be in their best interest You see, they repaired the runway washout with soil taken from the parking area, making parking pretty much impossible. I have to wonder…but somebody thought that was a good management strategy

Senator Church was indeed prescient in the matter of airborne access in the new Wilderness Area. All strips that were in public use at the time of signing the document in 1980 were exempted from regulations that would inhibit their use. As a matter of fact, the Central Idaho Wilderness Act (CIWA) specifically charges the FS with maintaining the strips in the same physical and use condition as they were in 1980. The FS has been trying to circumvent those requirements ever since; using varying tactics, but mostly shrinking budget commitments and, lately, "Revised Management Plan" processes.

IAA has worked closely with the Division of Aeronautics for all of its 20 year history. In fact, many of our past board members and officers came to IAA from the Idaho Transportation Dept, of which Aeronautics is but one division. You are partially correct in thinking that the Division has a place at the table with the Feds on these issues. Language in the CIWA requires Aeronautics to approve any closure or diminishment and they have been aggressive in protecting many threatened strips. But, the Legislature has, for over a decade, denied the Division funding to fulfill its back country mission. Division personnel DO have the commitment to serve the aviation community, they simply do not have the resources to fully do their job. In many cases each year, the IAA provides expertise, funds, materials, and labor for maintenance projects on State owned strips, just like other state organizations help their managers. The problem is not limited to Idaho. Getting cooperation to have work parties on Federally owned strips is not as straightforward, particularly where wilderness regs apply. But, we do make progress on those strips as well. Cabin Creek and Thomas Creek are recent examples, and repairs to Soldier Bar was going to be deferred until next year until IAA got into the discussion.

Rant off! Thank you for keeping your membership current. I can point out that around half of the IAA members are from states other than Idaho! That's great, and allows IAA to carry YOUR voice to the agencies that otherwise would put your concerns in the circular file.

In case anyone would like to follow up on joining the IAA, you can visit their website at http://www.flyidaho.org

Kenny wrote:

45romeo wrote:And just who determines what an emergency is?---let em try. PIC is THE FINAL authority on what consitiutes an emergency.

actually, 45R, the language is rather specific. If a pilot makes a pre-determined decision to land at an emergency only strip, he is in violation. In other words, ya can't fake an emergency. "Of course you can" you say. Well i suppose so. But, If you ground loop trying to miss a deer on the runway, "they" will easily figure out that your landing was not an emergency. Thus, your insurance is void. Thus, pilots will stop using the strips. Thus, the FS wins, in contradiction to their own regulations. We get screwed. So, what's next?

What are you talking about? Where you land is not relevant as far as insurance is concerned.

Bonanza Man wrote:

Kenny wrote:

45romeo wrote:And just who determines what an emergency is?---let em try. PIC is THE FINAL authority on what consitiutes an emergency.

actually, 45R, the language is rather specific. If a pilot makes a pre-determined decision to land at an emergency only strip, he is in violation. In other words, ya can't fake an emergency. "Of course you can" you say. Well i suppose so. But, If you ground loop trying to miss a deer on the runway, "they" will easily figure out that your landing was not an emergency. Thus, your insurance is void. Thus, pilots will stop using the strips. Thus, the FS wins, in contradiction to their own regulations. We get screwed. So, what's next?

What are you talking about? Where you land is not relevant as far as insurance is concerned.

Where you crash is. What I meant to convey was that intentionally landing on an airstrip that is for "emergency use only" will make it easy for the insurance claims adjuster to deny coverage should a pilot have an accident at that strip while landing or departing from the aforementioned strip.

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

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

Unfortunately, every policy has exclusions for intentional stupidity including intentionally violating laws or regulations.

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

Hoo, boy.

Actually, the primary purpose of my insurance coverage to to protect my assets from greedy individuals. Of course, that really has nothing to do with the topic at hand; ie: if I'm paying hull insurance premiums and some district ranger decides to make that coverage invalid by naming a strip "emergency only", I am clearly not getting my money's worth. The insurance angle is a minor part of the bigger problem.

I agree, though, that people who do not carry insurance (or radios) don't concern themselves much about these kinds of agency jurisdiction grabs.

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote:

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

Unfortunately, every policy has exclusions for intentional stupidity including intentionally violating laws or regulations.

In this case, an agency is making that determination, rather than the insurance company, the pilot, or the FAA for that matter.

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote:

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

Unfortunately, every policy has exclusions for intentional stupidity including intentionally violating laws or regulations.

No, they don't. Because then where would it end? You taxied into a taxiway light and dinged the prop. Insurance company says that was stupid and denies coverage. Land on a closed runway and right into a ditch. You missed the notam, that's a mistake. You're covered. My policy, a typical GA type policy, does not have one word of where I can or cannot land or takeoff. In 12 years of ownership I have used many different companies and they're all basically the same. They ask where you're based but that's it. Scan in and post the part of your policy where it says they get to determine your level of block headedness and then maybe they'll deny coverage.

Kenny wrote:

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

Hoo, boy.

Actually, the primary purpose of my insurance coverage to to protect my assets from greedy individuals. Of course, that really has nothing to do with the topic at hand; ie: if I'm paying hull insurance premiums and some district ranger decides to make that coverage invalid by naming a strip "emergency only", I am clearly not getting my money's worth. The insurance angle is a minor part of the bigger problem.

I agree, though, that people who do not carry insurance (or radios) don't concern themselves much about these kinds of agency jurisdiction grabs.

The point is there is no insurance angle at all. Where in your policy does it say you even need to land on a runway at all, much less one that isn't labeled emergency only? My guess is we have a ranger who really doesn't know what he's doing and will be spanked by higher ups when it is brought to their attention. Based on what I've seen so far that process is under way.

[/quote]
The point is there is no insurance angle at all. Where in your policy does it say you even need to land on a runway at all, much less one that isn't labeled emergency only? My guess is we have a ranger who really doesn't know what he's doing and will be spanked by higher ups when it is brought to their attention. Based on what I've seen so far that process is under way.[/quote]

My policy says something like; "in compliance with all regulatory"…blah blah blah. I'm really not interested in reading the policy right now. The original point I tried d to make was that I don't want to have to defend my decisions to an insurance adjuster. That can be very expensive, even if one prevails.

You are correct on your second point; the folks in D.C. know about this already. It is the second go around for this in the last 5 years, however.

A district ranger is a pretty powerful position. One in the local district here said no more wheel planes for Special Use Permit holders, and that was that. In Alaska, I don't think they can kick the personal use folks out, though. Not sure about ID.

gb

Bonanza Man wrote:

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote:

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

Unfortunately, every policy has exclusions for intentional stupidity including intentionally violating laws or regulations.

No, they don't. Because then where would it end? You taxied into a taxiway light and dinged the prop. Insurance company says that was stupid and denies coverage. Land on a closed runway and right into a ditch. You missed the notam, that's a mistake. You're covered.

Hence my use of the word "intentional."

Kenny wrote:

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote:

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

Unfortunately, every policy has exclusions for intentional stupidity including intentionally violating laws or regulations.

In this case, an agency is making that determination, rather than the insurance company, the pilot, or the FAA for that matter.

Well...not sure what your point is here. That is true in a number of situations regardless of what the pilot thinks at the time Much of what we do (except for Bonanza Man apparently) is to ensure that when the crapola hits the fan our insurance will actually pay off, not because we are concerned about an enforcement action from the FAA. In short, i think your concern is a valid one.

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 )

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

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][/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?