Ah, our beloved Tuweep. I could right a book! In short, we got the legislature to include a $10,000 budget item for a "Northern AZ airstrip insurance" for the Land Commissioner last session. She convinced the governor to veto it! She claims liability is the concern, but it is not, it is simply that they managed to close 42 airstrips on AZ state trust lands from 2004 to 2006 and they'll be darned if they'll let us back in. They have sat across the table from me in front of the House Majority Leader and Senate President and said that if they had there way there would be no one on state trust lands! At least they are honest about that. Sooooo, moving forward, I have placed several FOIA requests and been able to get to some of the truth through researching the department's emails and such. My last request was for emails between them and the state Attorney General, but they claimed attorney/client privilege. I refined my request and they produced over 2500 documents, none of which, except one, had anything to do with my requested information. Ah, but that one document was actually a email from the AG to the land commissioner telling her that Alaska allowed aviation use of state trust lands and that the state was immune under Alaska's Recreational Use Statute. Of course this is the same statute in AZ that we are insisting that the state land department is also immune Anyway, we'll be picking up the battle again as the legislative session opens. This year my rep, last years majority leader, is now the speaker and he has again offered to help. This is really a problem at the administration side of the state government, not the legislative side. With the new governor, who stated in writing to us during his campaign that he'd support equal access to trust lands, this dispute could end this dispute tomorrow. We are hopeful he'll replace the current land commissioner, but he may not. Either way, we'll be asking for a meeting with him early this year and when the land commissioner waves her arms again and says the liability is just too great, we will make our case, once again, that the state is immune under our RUS. If this does not work, I hate to go there, but this one may end up in court. That's big bucks, and I have to say, I've not seen the pilot community willing to cough up the sort of funds it would take. I'm considering a pro-se (representing myself) case and have already written my pleading, but another 12 trips to, and countless hours in Phoenix after already spending hundreds of hours on this over the last three years is not boding well here at home. Either way we must exhaust all administrative options before we'd get standing in the Superior Court. By the way, Tuweep is a good example of why it is far better to become the friends of the land manager rather than adversary.

In reading all the above, it would appear that maybe I have a shot of getting back into the old airport site right outside of West Yellowstone. A 5 minute walk from a great cafe that serves a killer seafood omelet with Hollandaise sauce, point being. Last year I got a friendly talking to by a (and now I'm not sure what he was....) either a park ranger or a forest service ranger? Now this area is NOT in the park, right along a busy highway, and in no way pristine or unspoiled. It is used by snow mobilers, dirt bikes and atvs. Throw in the fact that I am operating a "over the snow vehicle" (splitting hairs pretty fine there, but true) and it may be my way back in there. IF I do it, go back in this winter, I won't ask, but assume the last ranger was in error, unenlightened as it were. I'll be as prepared as possible with hopefully a persuasive argument and documentation to back it up. I'll also, IF I do it again since that talking to, I'll make every effort not to be seen, in other words be sneaky and simply sidestep the entire issue, but ready to defend the landing there, and if nothing else that may be enough to get me out of trouble that next time

Google earth "West Yellowstone, Montana", see that big clear area west of town, south of the "new" strip? THAT'S the old airstrip.....and since the new strip is closed during the winter, their sure isn't any conflict with traffic there. Seeing the sled heads having their way there is what sticks in my craw, hell I just have one with wings. They even let them in the Park!!

You may have no issues or then again the local park law enforcement may choose to charge you with endangering others, a rather subjective accusation that would leave you in a defensive position that may or may not be worth your time or money in the courtroom. If one or two of us pilots do this, it may be a nuisance, but I'll say again, if this is to become our attitude, rather then working with them for a reasonable approach for all users of public lands, they will simply begin making orders under: Title 36:

§261.58 Occupancy and use.
When provided by an order, the following are prohibited:

(a) Camping for a period longer than allowed by the order.

(b) Entering or using a developed recreation site or portion thereof.

(c) Entering or remaining in a campground during night periods prescribed in the order except for persons who are occupying such campgrounds.

(d) Occupying a developed recreation site with prohibited camping equipment prescribed by the order.

(e) Camping.
.
.
.
(v) Hunting or fishing.

(w) Possessing or transporting any motor or mechanical device capable of propelling a watercraft through water by any means.

(x) Using any wheel, roller, or other mechanical device for the overland transportation of any watercraft.

(y) Landing of aircraft, or dropping or picking up any material, supplies, or person by means of an aircraft, including a helicopter.

I would also consider Title 36: Chapter 1, Parks, Forests, and Public Property

PART 2—RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION

§2.17 Aircraft and air delivery.
(a) The following are prohibited:

(1) Operating or using aircraft on lands or waters other than at locations designated pursuant to special regulations.

(2) Where a water surface is designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, operating or using aircraft under power on the water within 500 feet of locations designated as swimming beaches, boat docks, piers, or ramps, except as otherwise designated.

(3) Delivering or retrieving a person or object by parachute, helicopter, or other airborne means, except in emergencies involving public safety or serious property loss, or pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.

(b) The provisions of this section, other than paragraph (c) of this section, shall not be applicable to official business of the Federal government, or emergency rescues in accordance with the directions of the superintendent, or to landings due to circumstances beyond the control of the operator.

(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the owners of a downed aircraft shall remove the aircraft and all component parts thereof in accordance with procedures established by the superintendent. In establishing removal procedures, the superintendent is authorized to: (i) Establish a reasonable date by which aircraft removal operations must be complete; (ii) determine times and means of access to and from the downed aircraft; and (iii) specify the manner or method of removal.

(2) Failure to comply with procedures and conditions established under paragraph (c)(1) of this section is prohibited.

(3) The superintendent may waive the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section or prohibit the removal of downed aircraft, upon a determination that: (i) The removal of downed aircraft would constitute an unacceptable risk to human life; (ii) the removal of a downed aircraft would result in extensive resource damage; or (iii) the removal of a downed aircraft is impracticable or impossible.

(d) The use of aircraft shall be in accordance with regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. Such regulations are adopted as a part of these regulations.

(e) The operation or use of hovercraft is prohibited.

(f) Violation of the terms and conditions of a permit issued in accordance with this section is prohibited and may result in the suspension or revocation of the permit.

In the end guys, we are outnumbered by OHV operators by several thousand to one and these guys do not even have enough clout or money to battle the feds over complete unfettered access to public lands, the very thing we as pilots are expecting of the same feds. Might we have it now? I'd say that's a good debate, but will we have it in the future if we begin landing wherever we like? I'll bet not, and we'll certainly lose the good will we've gained over the past few years with the feds on backcountry aviation. Some of you will say, too bad, it's my land! I'd say yes, and it's also my land, and a whole bunch of other folks land. That's one reason we establish governments, to ensure fair and equal use of public property. So when we start pissing off the other Americans who own the same land, we should not be surprised when they also petition their government to regulate those aviation guys who seem to think they can land wherever they want on our public lands. You get the picture.

By golly...... I can't wait till this summer when all them BCP pilots from all across America come to Idaho after reading this thread. And some complain about overuse at some of the already existing airstrips! Interesting, to say the least.

Have fun with that possible in counter with that Greenie BLM dude or Butchie Forest Service gal! I'll keep things simple and use existing airstrips.

But hey, if it works out great for some of you. That's great! Would love to see cool pics and videos!!

mspenc45 wrote:You may have no issues or then again the local park law enforcement may choose to charge you with endangering others, a rather subjective accusation that would leave you in a defensive position that may or may not be worth your time or money in the courtroom. If one or two of us pilots do this, it may be a nuisance, but I'll say again, if this is to become our attitude, rather then working with them for a reasonable approach for all users of public lands, they will simply begin making orders under: Title 36:

§261.58 Occupancy and use.
When provided by an order, the following are prohibited:

(a) Camping for a period longer than allowed by the order.

(b) Entering or using a developed recreation site or portion thereof.

(c) Entering or remaining in a campground during night periods prescribed in the order except for persons who are occupying such campgrounds.

(d) Occupying a developed recreation site with prohibited camping equipment prescribed by the order.

(e) Camping.
.
.
.
(v) Hunting or fishing.

(w) Possessing or transporting any motor or mechanical device capable of propelling a watercraft through water by any means.

(x) Using any wheel, roller, or other mechanical device for the overland transportation of any watercraft.

(y) Landing of aircraft, or dropping or picking up any material, supplies, or person by means of an aircraft, including a helicopter.

I would also consider Title 36: Chapter 1, Parks, Forests, and Public Property

PART 2—RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION

§2.17 Aircraft and air delivery.
(a) The following are prohibited:

(1) Operating or using aircraft on lands or waters other than at locations designated pursuant to special regulations.

(2) Where a water surface is designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, operating or using aircraft under power on the water within 500 feet of locations designated as swimming beaches, boat docks, piers, or ramps, except as otherwise designated.

(3) Delivering or retrieving a person or object by parachute, helicopter, or other airborne means, except in emergencies involving public safety or serious property loss, or pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.

(b) The provisions of this section, other than paragraph (c) of this section, shall not be applicable to official business of the Federal government, or emergency rescues in accordance with the directions of the superintendent, or to landings due to circumstances beyond the control of the operator.

(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the owners of a downed aircraft shall remove the aircraft and all component parts thereof in accordance with procedures established by the superintendent. In establishing removal procedures, the superintendent is authorized to: (i) Establish a reasonable date by which aircraft removal operations must be complete; (ii) determine times and means of access to and from the downed aircraft; and (iii) specify the manner or method of removal.

(2) Failure to comply with procedures and conditions established under paragraph (c)(1) of this section is prohibited.

(3) The superintendent may waive the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section or prohibit the removal of downed aircraft, upon a determination that: (i) The removal of downed aircraft would constitute an unacceptable risk to human life; (ii) the removal of a downed aircraft would result in extensive resource damage; or (iii) the removal of a downed aircraft is impracticable or impossible.

(d) The use of aircraft shall be in accordance with regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. Such regulations are adopted as a part of these regulations.

(e) The operation or use of hovercraft is prohibited.

(f) Violation of the terms and conditions of a permit issued in accordance with this section is prohibited and may result in the suspension or revocation of the permit.

In the end guys, we are outnumbered by OHV operators by several thousand to one and these guys do not even have enough clout or money to battle the feds over complete unfettered access to public lands, the very thing we as pilots are expecting of the same feds. Might we have it now? I'd say that's a good debate, but will we have it in the future if we begin landing wherever we like? I'll bet not, and we'll certainly lose the good will we've gained over the past few years with the feds on backcountry aviation. Some of you will say, too bad, it's my land! I'd say yes, and it's also my land, and a whole bunch of other folks land. That's one reason we establish governments, to ensure fair and equal use of public property. So when we start pissing off the other Americans who own the same land, we should not be surprised when they also petition their government to regulate those aviation guys who seem to think they can land wherever they want on our public lands. You get the picture.

Time AND money??? Courtroom? Nothing like a dose of reality. Sadly, I feel you're right, though my common sense tells me that landing my 750 lb ski plane at 35 mph while staying 1/4 mile or more from anyone or anything STILL could be construed as "reckless and dangerous" by some ass covering bureaucrat. My backup plan is to land at the regular airport (though closed for the winter, landings there are NOT prohibited, or at least I say they are not) and then cross country ski into town. That actually sounds kind of fun, I'd follow the trail that is a bike path in the summer, maybe a mile or so. I fly with snow shoes of course but not the ski's, yet. Still a PITA compared to the few minute walk from the other airport.

Hello Backcountry Pilots,

Glad to see that this subject got people thinking. By the way who is Mark Spencer? Is he a RAF guy? I saw his name mentioned on previous post. Last week I spoke with an attorney friend about the "aforementioned" US Code. He stated that his research also included conversations with BLM Officials regarding landing on BLM designated land too. The BLM representative would not immediately answer his question, but did get back to him. His answer is that airplanes can land on BLM roads. I'll try to get the specific US Code on that too.

This weekend I cut across a neighbor's adjoining property to access some Forest Service designated property on my ATV. Not only did I run into several small herds of elk, but I scouted an excellent potential runway too.

A lot of FS properties do not have public access because the land is surrounded by private property or impassable terrain features. Ranchers do utilize FS land to graze cattle. These ranchers sometimes have a network of roads or previous logging roads that are potential landing areas.

I fully intend to pursue the concept of landing in these areas legally in accordance with the US Code. The problem is finding a local FS Official that will make a positive decision. In government it's simply easier to just say no. In my case, I'll try the nearby FS Office in Grangeville. Wish me luck. If ranchers and loggers can operate motor vehicles in these areas, they are obviously not "wilderness" or "road-less" areas.

Another issue is flying responsibly. I carry both liability and hull insurance on my airplane. If you bend your airplane in a remote area or airstrip, you better have coverage to have it removed and/or pay for any damages. Make sure your policy covers off-field or unimproved landing operations. After about two to three weeks with your airplane on it's back at Fish Lake, Dewey More or similar the FS or BLM will simply call a helicopter $$$ to have it removed at your expense. In this case insurance is priceless.

Merry Christmas

James



No tell-um Creek

Super-Maule wrote:Hello Backcountry Pilots,

Glad to see that this subject got people thinking. By the way who is Mark Spencer? I saw his name mentioned on previous post. Last week I spoke with an attorney friend about the "aforementioned" US Code. He stated that his research also included conversations with BLM Officials regarding landing on BLM designated land too. The BLM representative would not immediately answer his question, but did get back to him. His answer is that airplanes can land on BLM roads. I'll try to get the specific US Code on that too.

]

Mark Spencer is the RAF Liasion for Arizona. It is well established that you can land on roads on BLM lands. Here in Montana I was contacted by the BLM so we in the MPA could send an email out to our members reminding them that as hunting season was approaching to understand that you can land on roads but not anywhere else on BLM lands. Basically if you are allowed to take your 4 wheeler there you can take your airplane there.

Super-Maule wrote:Hello Backcountry Pilots,

Glad to see that this subject got people thinking. By the way who is Mark Spencer? Is he a RAF guy? I saw his name mentioned on previous post. Last week I spoke with an attorney friend about the "aforementioned" US Code. He stated that his research also included conversations with BLM Officials regarding landing on BLM designated land too. The BLM representative would not immediately answer his question, but did get back to him. His answer is that airplanes can land on BLM roads. I'll try to get the specific US Code on that too.

This weekend I cut across a neighbor's adjoining property to access some Forest Service designated property on my ATV. Not only did I run into several small herds of elk, but I scouted an excellent potential runway too.

A lot of FS properties do not have public access because the land is surrounded by private property or impassable terrain features. Ranchers do utilize FS land to graze cattle. These ranchers sometimes have a network of roads or previous logging roads that are potential landing areas.

I fully intend to pursue the concept of landing in these areas legally in accordance with the US Code. The problem is finding a local FS Official that will make a positive decision. In government it's simply easier to just say no. In my case, I'll try the nearby FS Office in Grangeville. Wish me luck. If ranchers and loggers can operate motor vehicles in these areas, they are obviously not "wilderness" or "road-less" areas.

Another issue is flying responsibly. I carry both liability and hull insurance on my airplane. If you bend your airplane in a remote area or airstrip, you better have coverage to have it removed and/or pay for any damages. Make sure your policy covers off-field or unimproved landing operations. After about two to three weeks with your airplane on it's back at Fish Lake, Dewey More or similar the FS or BLM will simply call a helicopter $$$ to have it removed at your expense. In this case insurance is priceless.

Merry Christmas

James



No tell-um Creek

Hi James, I am the Arizona RAF Liaison and the VP of AZPilots. I also work with the RAF President and others in the RAF in D.C. covering the BLM, USFS as well as the GA caucus in congress. We are near completing a national memo of understanding with both agencies in an attempt to promote a more informed relationship with, and understanding with their folks out in the field. Neither agency has done a great job at sharing aviation policy in a consistent way at the local level. BLM has the most liberal policy of all the federal land managers, but even they have local pockets of agents that don't understand, for example, that aircraft are indeed allowed anywhere an automobile is on BLM land. In AZ and NM we've completely turned around the USFS on aviation in the last 3 years here and have developed nothing short of internal advocates for backcountry on FS lands in region 3. Most FS airstrips were considered closed, removed from sections, etc here back about 20 years ago. 4 of those here in AZ are now re-opened and with the signing of the MOU they will be re-charted! In fact we just finished up and submitted the paperwork to the FAA for the Double Circle Ranch airstrip (see this month's Pilot Getaways Magazine) with the necessary FS signatures on that paperwork. We've earned their trust and respect and it is not uncommon for the local district rangers to even show up and camp out with us at our big backcountry fly in events. This last weekend we were served dutch oven chicken and dumplings by a district ranger who helped us reopen one of these airstrips. You can check out the newly opened AZ airstrips at AZPilots.org or at theRAF.org Hopefully you can see why I'd prefer building friendships rather than adversaries.
Mark Spencer

Hi James, I am the Arizona RAF Liaison and the VP of AZPilots. I also work with the RAF President and others in the RAF in D.C. covering the BLM, USFS as well as the GA caucus in congress. We are near completing a national memo of understanding with both agencies in an attempt to promote a more informed relationship with, and understanding with their folks out in the field. Neither agency has done a great job at sharing aviation policy in a consistent way at the local level. BLM has the most liberal policy of all the federal land managers, but even they have local pockets of agents that don't understand, for example, that aircraft are indeed allowed anywhere an automobile is on BLM land. In AZ and NM we've completely turned around the USFS on aviation in the last 3 years here and have developed nothing short of internal advocates for backcountry on FS lands in region 3. Most FS airstrips were considered closed, removed from sections, etc here back about 20 years ago. 4 of those here in AZ are now re-opened and with the signing of the MOU they will be re-charted! In fact we just finished up and submitted the paperwork to the FAA for the Double Circle Ranch airstrip (see this month's Pilot Getaways Magazine) with the necessary FS signatures on that paperwork. We've earned their trust and respect and it is not uncommon for the local district rangers to even show up and camp out with us at our big backcountry fly in events. This last weekend we were served dutch oven chicken and dumplings by a district ranger who helped us reopen one of these airstrips. You can check out the newly opened AZ airstrips at AZPilots.org or at theRAF.org Hopefully you can see why I'd prefer building friendships rather than adversaries.
Mark Spencer

Hello Mark,

Thank you for your efforts on the behalf of backcountry pilots! I too can be an advocate for backcountry flying via different channels.

Last year however, I got very sideways with a FS employee at the Cold Meadows Airstrip. He wrote me a $275 ticket for "shooting within 150 yards of an administrative area". ie the north end of a wilderness runway. We were merely shooting ground squirrels, and was the only airplane there that particular morning. Anyway I was angry and responded with some inappropriate language. For this I apologize to my fellow backcountry pilots. I did not represent the backcountry pilot community in a positive light.

That said, I do deal with backcountry pilots professionally on a regular basis. This is in the capacity of conducting accident investigations, airport certification, and the reexamination of pilots after accidents where pilot error is a factor. A little advise too, don't document an FAA violation on a public youtube or vimeo video. On a personal level, I am not in favor of these huge fly-ins to include overs use, and the inevitable accidents. These accidents often result in fatalities and property damage.

I think the key to maintaining access to backcountry airstrips is maintaining a low-profile and responsible use. No buzz jobs or impromptu backcountry airshows. Pilots can tend to fly pretty reckless and brave when the go-pro camera is rolling.

I do intend to visit the FS office in nearby Grangeville, Idaho to discuss landing opportunities within the Clearwater National Forest with CFR in hand. Wish me luck. Maybe I will get a positive response from the FS, but this often depends on the attitude of the individual. Again thank you for your efforts.

Merry Christmas,

James
Clear Creek, Idaho


James
Clear Creek, Idaho

I may DRIVE up to West Yellowstone, and raise the subject of a small ski plane landing at the old airport site with the rangers. I will point out, if I do, that I doubt they will be faced with a avalanche of ski planes dropping in nilly willie, even I only get up there once or twice a winter (so many other places to go, so little time)! If nothing else, if they make a convincing argument I'd be in big trouble if I land there, it will dissuade me from doing so Again, a PITA, driving up there, compared to just making the damn landing, such a non event in reality, except for the potential sh*tstorm if someone gets their panties in a bunch.

Maybe I'll fly up to the new strip, ski into town and then talk to them. Climbing the cyclone fence to get out with those square toed XC boots will be tricky. Is that a security violation, climbing OUT of a runway area? I am already very familiar with the security fencing there, after an incident this summer involving my cell phone being on the other side of the locked gate, and no one at the FBO and no way to get into my plane and campsite. It was harder then most to climb over. I refuse to feel like a criminal when this situation arises, I just climb the fence.

Super-Maule wrote:

Hi James, I am the Arizona RAF Liaison and the VP of AZPilots. I also work with the RAF President and others in the RAF in D.C. covering the BLM, USFS as well as the GA caucus in congress. We are near completing a national memo of understanding with both agencies in an attempt to promote a more informed relationship with, and understanding with their folks out in the field. Neither agency has done a great job at sharing aviation policy in a consistent way at the local level. BLM has the most liberal policy of all the federal land managers, but even they have local pockets of agents that don't understand, for example, that aircraft are indeed allowed anywhere an automobile is on BLM land. In AZ and NM we've completely turned around the USFS on aviation in the last 3 years here and have developed nothing short of internal advocates for backcountry on FS lands in region 3. Most FS airstrips were considered closed, removed from sections, etc here back about 20 years ago. 4 of those here in AZ are now re-opened and with the signing of the MOU they will be re-charted! In fact we just finished up and submitted the paperwork to the FAA for the Double Circle Ranch airstrip (see this month's Pilot Getaways Magazine) with the necessary FS signatures on that paperwork. We've earned their trust and respect and it is not uncommon for the local district rangers to even show up and camp out with us at our big backcountry fly in events. This last weekend we were served dutch oven chicken and dumplings by a district ranger who helped us reopen one of these airstrips. You can check out the newly opened AZ airstrips at AZPilots.org or at theRAF.org Hopefully you can see why I'd prefer building friendships rather than adversaries.
Mark Spencer

Hello Mark,

Thank you for your efforts on the behalf of backcountry pilots! I too can be an advocate for backcountry flying via different channels.

Last year however, I got very sideways with a FS employee at the Cold Meadows Airstrip. He wrote me a $275 ticket for "shooting within 150 yards of an administrative area". ie the north end of a wilderness runway. We were merely shooting ground squirrels, and was the only airplane there that particular morning. Anyway I was angry and responded with some inappropriate language. For this I apologize to my fellow backcountry pilots. I did not represent the backcountry pilot community in a positive light.

That said, I do deal with backcountry pilots professionally on a regular basis. This is in the capacity of conducting accident investigations, airport certification, and the reexamination of pilots after accidents where pilot error is a factor. A little advise too, don't document an FAA violation on a public youtube or vimeo video. On a personal level, I am not in favor of these huge fly-ins to include overs use, and the inevitable accidents. These accidents often result in fatalities and property damage.

I think the key to maintaining access to backcountry airstrips is maintaining a low-profile and responsible use. No buzz jobs or impromptu backcountry airshows. Pilots can tend to fly pretty reckless and brave when the go-pro camera is rolling.

I do intend to visit the FS office in nearby Grangeville, Idaho to discuss landing opportunities within the Clearwater National Forest with CFR in hand. Wish me luck. Maybe I will get a positive response from the FS, but this often depends on the attitude of the individual. Again thank you for your efforts.

Merry Christmas,

James
Clear Creek, Idaho


James
Clear Creek, Idaho

Sounds like somebody is more interested in gaining access to public landing areas for himself and a few buddy's, if you ask me. Sure over use sucks. But I don't think any one individual has a right to say there shouldn't be a large fly in at a particular airstrip each summer. That's just too Liberal thinking to me. Just my own opinion

courierguy wrote:I may DRIVE up to West Yellowstone, and raise the subject of a small ski plane landing at the old airport site with the rangers. I will point out, if I do, that I doubt they will be faced with a avalanche of ski planes dropping in nilly willie, even I only get up there once or twice a winter (so many other places to go, so little time)! If nothing else, if they make a convincing argument I'd be in big trouble if I land there, it will dissuade me from doing so Again, a PITA, driving up there, compared to just making the damn landing, such a non event in reality, except for the potential sh*tstorm if someone gets their panties in a bunch.

Maybe I'll fly up to the new strip, ski into town and then talk to them. Climbing the cyclone fence to get out with those square toed XC boots will be tricky. Is that a security violation, climbing OUT of a runway area? I am already very familiar with the security fencing there, after an incident this summer involving my cell phone being on the other side of the locked gate, and no one at the FBO and no way to get into my plane and campsite. It was harder then most to climb over. I refuse to feel like a criminal when this situation arises, I just climb the fence.

If that's in the Caribou Targhee, there's some dickheads and whatever lady dickheads are called. My fellow sledheads and I would be glad to see you land there as all of us motorized users are endangered by the hippies in green fatigues that run the forest service these days.

[/quote]

Sounds like somebody is more interested in gaining access to public landing areas for himself and a few buddy's, if you ask me. Sure over use sucks. But I don't think any one individual has a right to say there shouldn't be a large fly in at a particular airstrip each summer. That's just too Liberal thinking to me. Just my own opinion [/quote]

I did not read that into his post. Just because some of us are not a big fan of huge flyins does not mean that we want to keep all strips for "private" use. If Jame's is working to get some clarification on landing areas, no matter the personal reason, we should all thanks him. When I go fishing, I think it should be me, the bears and whoever I brought in with me. A wilderness trip for me does not include 100 airplanes buzzing around every which direction. With that being said, I would love to make the flight down (and I will one of these years) to hit one of the big fly ins.. be it JC or HS or one of those fly ins.. but for me that is not a wilderness trip, its a trip to hang out with a group of guys, drink some adult beverages and listen to the lies being told around the campfire. I have a few lies to tell myself but most of them have a pretty good bit of truth imbedded in them.

It may be our land but as long as we are paying someone else to manage it we have to follow their rules.
Now if you want to talk about a management change....oh wait. Zane will throw me out for subversive commie talk.

delete

porterjet wrote:It may be our land but as long as we are paying someone else to manage it we have to follow their rules.
Now if you want to talk about a management change....oh wait. Zane will throw me out for subversive commie talk.

It may be "our land" but it is a very limited ownership.
I can't haul in a bulldozer and put in a landing strip any where I choose or lay in some primo single-track any where it looks like fun to ride.
The same way no one can just clear cut the timber or put in a gas well without permits and impact studies.
We have to work within the system to make any long term changes. Most unauthorized uses generally are met with closures that may have not occurred it they had worked with the local agencies. There have been a couple of awesome new single track trails put in locally here with the full cooperation of the NFS.
It is incumbent on us to use "our land" in a responsible fashion.

You hit the nail on the head! I for one would not want to be in the shoes of any of our land managers today. There's more red tape than ever, and while there are certainly some over zealous managers, most are actually trying to do a good job of balancing the ever increasing demands on the lands they manage. Our friend who commented a few posts back about the hippies in green suits would be pleased to know that there are plenty of insiders who are just as upset with those who would seek exclude the public from the lands they manage for us as he is.

This seemed to belong here:

courierguy wrote:

mspenc45 wrote:You may have no issues or then again the local park law enforcement may choose to charge you with endangering others, a rather subjective accusation that would leave you in a defensive position that may or may not be worth your time or money in the courtroom. If one or two of us pilots do this, it may be a nuisance, but I'll say again, if this is to become our attitude, rather then working with them for a reasonable approach for all users of public lands, they will simply begin making orders under: Title 36:

§261.58 Occupancy and use.
When provided by an order, the following are prohibited:

(a) Camping for a period longer than allowed by the order.

(b) Entering or using a developed recreation site or portion thereof.

(c) Entering or remaining in a campground during night periods prescribed in the order except for persons who are occupying such campgrounds.

(d) Occupying a developed recreation site with prohibited camping equipment prescribed by the order.

(e) Camping.
.
.
.
(v) Hunting or fishing.

(w) Possessing or transporting any motor or mechanical device capable of propelling a watercraft through water by any means.

(x) Using any wheel, roller, or other mechanical device for the overland transportation of any watercraft.

(y) Landing of aircraft, or dropping or picking up any material, supplies, or person by means of an aircraft, including a helicopter.

I would also consider Title 36: Chapter 1, Parks, Forests, and Public Property

PART 2—RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION

§2.17 Aircraft and air delivery.
(a) The following are prohibited:

(1) Operating or using aircraft on lands or waters other than at locations designated pursuant to special regulations.

(2) Where a water surface is designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, operating or using aircraft under power on the water within 500 feet of locations designated as swimming beaches, boat docks, piers, or ramps, except as otherwise designated.

(3) Delivering or retrieving a person or object by parachute, helicopter, or other airborne means, except in emergencies involving public safety or serious property loss, or pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.

(b) The provisions of this section, other than paragraph (c) of this section, shall not be applicable to official business of the Federal government, or emergency rescues in accordance with the directions of the superintendent, or to landings due to circumstances beyond the control of the operator.

(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the owners of a downed aircraft shall remove the aircraft and all component parts thereof in accordance with procedures established by the superintendent. In establishing removal procedures, the superintendent is authorized to: (i) Establish a reasonable date by which aircraft removal operations must be complete; (ii) determine times and means of access to and from the downed aircraft; and (iii) specify the manner or method of removal.

(2) Failure to comply with procedures and conditions established under paragraph (c)(1) of this section is prohibited.

(3) The superintendent may waive the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section or prohibit the removal of downed aircraft, upon a determination that: (i) The removal of downed aircraft would constitute an unacceptable risk to human life; (ii) the removal of a downed aircraft would result in extensive resource damage; or (iii) the removal of a downed aircraft is impracticable or impossible.

(d) The use of aircraft shall be in accordance with regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. Such regulations are adopted as a part of these regulations.

(e) The operation or use of hovercraft is prohibited.

(f) Violation of the terms and conditions of a permit issued in accordance with this section is prohibited and may result in the suspension or revocation of the permit.

In the end guys, we are outnumbered by OHV operators by several thousand to one and these guys do not even have enough clout or money to battle the feds over complete unfettered access to public lands, the very thing we as pilots are expecting of the same feds. Might we have it now? I'd say that's a good debate, but will we have it in the future if we begin landing wherever we like? I'll bet not, and we'll certainly lose the good will we've gained over the past few years with the feds on backcountry aviation. Some of you will say, too bad, it's my land! I'd say yes, and it's also my land, and a whole bunch of other folks land. That's one reason we establish governments, to ensure fair and equal use of public property. So when we start pissing off the other Americans who own the same land, we should not be surprised when they also petition their government to regulate those aviation guys who seem to think they can land wherever they want on our public lands. You get the picture.

Time AND money??? Courtroom? Nothing like a dose of reality. Sadly, I feel you're right, though my common sense tells me that landing my 750 lb ski plane at 35 mph while staying 1/4 mile or more from anyone or anything STILL could be construed as "reckless and dangerous" by some ass covering bureaucrat. My backup plan is to land at the regular airport (though closed for the winter, landings there are NOT prohibited, or at least I say they are not) and then cross country ski into town. That actually sounds kind of fun, I'd follow the trail that is a bike path in the summer, maybe a mile or so. I fly with snow shoes of course but not the ski's, yet. Still a PITA compared to the few minute walk from the other airport.

Part 2 of 36 CFR quoted above is not applicable to any other lands than those managed by the National Park Service. The old airstrip outside W.Y. where they hold snowmobile races etc. is not park lands. I didn't even think it was Forest Service-managed land but I'd have to look at a map.

-Former West Yellowstone resident, current Parkie.

Sometimes it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.