Zane help me out again and include the two pics I just uploaded and put them here if it doesn't work out for me.

Montana Aeronautics received this yesterday. Every year at the work party we get to schmooze with Deb, the ranger for the Spotted Bear forest, of which all these airstrips are a part. She has always said that if the numbers of operations go over the allowed number, which is 550 I believe, the FS would look into ways to bring the numbers back down. She also said this would be one way to do it. She also seems to me to be one of the good guys when it comes to making sure everybody gets to use the forest and not tilting toward certain groups that want to exclude certain types of people or groups.
One interesting line in her letter is that currently there are no limits to any of the three strips. Schafer has a limit, the other two do not. Also interesting is that as one of the three chairmen of this years Montana Aviation Conference it was my idea that we get Deb to host a concurrent sesssion during the conference. Right now she is scheduled to be here and hosting a session at 10:30 Friday morning, March 6th. I'm sure this will be a part of what she has to say.

I have some knowledge of the workings of Special Use Permits with the USFS, in Alaska. Might be different rules by regions.

We hold a Special Use Permit (SUP) for guided fishing in the Hoonah Region of the Tongass National Forest. We, as a SUP holder, are limited to the numbers of guest days, and are limited to a very minimal and specific number of areas where we can land a wheel plane. We are not authorized to use helicopters, as no EIS has been done on the effects of that (found this out the hard way). On the FAA side of things, we operate Part 91 as the flight is considered an incidental activity. Lodges in AK have been operating legally this way for years.

In contrast, a FAA Certified part 135 Air Taxi operator is not limited to any landing area (read: they can land where they please) and can transport as many passengers as they like. They are not required to hold a Special Use Permit from the USFS. Same goes for personal use.

Same government, same agency, Montana, Alaska, or otherwise.

Best,

gb

gbflyer wrote:I have some knowledge of the workings of Special Use Permits with the USFS, in Alaska. Might be different rules by regions.

We hold a Special Use Permit (SUP) for guided fishing in the Hoonah Region of the Tongass National Forest. We, as a SUP holder, are limited to the numbers of guest days, and are limited to a very minimal and specific number of areas where we can land a wheel plane. We are not authorized to use helicopters, as no EIS has been done on the effects of that (found this out the hard way). On the FAA side of things, we operate Part 91 as the flight is considered an incidental activity. Lodges in AK have been operating legally this way for years.

In contrast, a FAA Certified part 135 Air Taxi operator is not limited to any landing area (read: they can land where they please) and can transport as many passengers as they like. They are not required to hold a Special Use Permit from the USFS. Same goes for personal use.

Same government, same agency, Montana, Alaska, or otherwise.

Best,

gb

They are not required by the FAA to have a SUP, but the FS can require that. And you don't see anybody landing in Yellowstone.

That's correct, every agency, and in fact, different regions of the same agency MAY have different policies on this.

Fish and Wildlife in Alaska requires SUP's for ALL commercial operations, including Air Taxi types. Generally, though, they only get one permit for operation on ALL refuge areas, for example, or at least ones they request.

As noted, the agency may then limit the numbers of operations by the commercial operator.

Be advised that the reason flight operations are so restrictive around the Grand Canyon is that the NPS didn't get on that soon enough. They (with the FAA's blessing) wound up basically prohibiting NON commercial users from flying in much of that park, including overflights, and commercial operators have to be permitted even for overflights.

I think the FS approach in this case makes sense. Otherwise, a couple of commercial operators could really beat those places up with clients, and get us ALL kicked out.

MTV

Bonanza Man wrote:

gbflyer wrote:I have some knowledge of the workings of Special Use Permits with the USFS, in Alaska. Might be different rules by regions.

We hold a Special Use Permit (SUP) for guided fishing in the Hoonah Region of the Tongass National Forest. We, as a SUP holder, are limited to the numbers of guest days, and are limited to a very minimal and specific number of areas where we can land a wheel plane. We are not authorized to use helicopters, as no EIS has been done on the effects of that (found this out the hard way). On the FAA side of things, we operate Part 91 as the flight is considered an incidental activity. Lodges in AK have been operating legally this way for years.

In contrast, a FAA Certified part 135 Air Taxi operator is not limited to any landing area (read: they can land where they please) and can transport as many passengers as they like. They are not required to hold a Special Use Permit from the USFS. Same goes for personal use.

Same government, same agency, Montana, Alaska, or otherwise.

Best,

gb

They are not required by the FAA to have a SUP, but the FS can require that. And you don't see anybody landing in Yellowstone.

I have no doubt that the USFS can require a permit for an Air Taxi operator in Montana, just saying how it is in this region. Oh, and last time I checked, Yellowstone was a National Park. The whole Dept. of Interior/Dept. of Agriculture thing. Big difference.

Luckily in AK, wilderness areas are not off limits to fixed wing aircraft. Thankfully our forefathers had excellent foresight in this regard.

If I lived in MT, I would support the issuance of SUP's for those strips. Might set a precedent and keep them open.

gb

Bonanzaman, there are already commercial raft flights into Schafer and it was always a bit of a sore point that their flights counted towards the total (and I think you're right, it is 550 annually). So those guys must already have a SUP?

I'll be at the conference and getting Deb to discuss this is a great idea. She is one of the good guys - very pro-aviation and that's great because she has three recreational airstrips in her district.

I don't believe anybody has an SUP for these strips because the FS never required one. Talking with Deb over the years and the fact that from about 2002-2006 the numbers were bumping up against the limit she said that if they start going over the limit the FS would start limiting the air taxis. The last couple of years the numbers dropped a little. I'm sure she'll clear up a lot of this at the Conference.