Helo Pilot fined for hovering over Mt. Cook

[Weekend_Warrior]

...and no, it's not a late April 1st joke.

Timaru Court: Fine For Helicopter Hover Over Aoraki... | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/kapiti/8528007/Hovering-helicopter-gravely-offensive)

Fair cop, it's illegal so he shouldn't have done it, but the Judge's comments are just typical of PC bullsh.t you get in this country.

[RadioSaigon]

Ha. Concur. It also occurs to me that those same PC dipsticks at the root of this persecution would be the same ones screaming for a helicopter to come hover over the summit of Te Rock and fetch them the day they find themselves in kimshee up there.

Muppets.

If they get lucky on that day, they'll get the pilot with experience of doing it ;-)

[jas24zzk]

At least he still has his ticket.

[Andy_RR]

he needed a more imaginative lawyer. sounds to me there could have been grounds for reasonable doubt about the actual act of hovering and whether it had actually occured...

[empacher48]

I think what is missed here is the actual rule is there is no flying within 2 Nautical Miles of the summit. Doesn't matter if he was hovering or flying along the summit ridge he was still in the wrong.

There are circumstances that are allowed for to break this rule, but it is only for mountain rescue.

[prospector]

I think what is missed here is the actual rule is there is no flying within 2 Nautical Miles of the summit.

The question I would have is why is there this rule? If the reason for the rule is as was stated by the judge then this country really is getting submerged in PC rubbish.

[NZFlyingKiwi]

I think the reason is primarily to prevent the natural beauty of the place as seen from the ground being marred by hundreds of noisy tourist helicopters buzzing around the place, which is fair enough.

[Jack Ranga]

Ahhhh, Kiwi's are coming over here to avoid this sort of thing?

You are in for a rude shock brutha's

[NzCaptainAndrew]

Because working at a servo station/fush n chup shop earns you $20-30AUD per hour.

[empacher48]

NZFlyingKiwi is right on why DOC have the rule, but also as Ngai Tahu have ownership of Aoraki/Mount Cook, they do request that climbers do not stand on the summit, nor aircraft fly in close proximity of the summit as it considered Tapu.

But as a climber, the last thing I want is to climb to the summit of Mount Cook and then have a helicopter try and blow me off the top as it whizzes by. For those who haven't been to the summit, the summit ridge is usually a wind blown ridge about two feet across, which a drop about 6000' down.

[outnabout]

Better have a good read of the Fly Neighbourly recommendations for Uluru or Kakadu (Kakadont?) before thinking Oz is better.

So, they must be coming across the ditch to learn how to play rugby :}

(ducking, running for cover.....)

[Nervous SLF]

IF the NZ All Blacks wanted to learn how to lose then of course they would ask Australia.:)

[Andy_RR]

I think what is missed here is the actual rule is there is no flying within 2 Nautical Miles of the summit. Doesn't matter if he was hovering or flying along the summit ridge he was still in the wrong.


I still don't see how this can be proven from these photos. I mean, is this girl really holding the sun...?

http://amolife.com/image/images/stories/Nature/landscapes/holding_sun_1.jpg

[Weheka]

"I think the reason is primarily to prevent the natural beauty of the place as seen from the ground being marred by hundreds of noisy tourist helicopters buzzing around the place, which is fair enough."

If you can see and hear a helicopter buzzing around Mt Cook at 12000ft from the ground on the East or West coasts then you would have incredible eyesight and hearing. "Hundreds of noisy tourist helicopters"......please....!

[Weheka]

"I think what is missed here is the actual rule is there is no flying within 2 Nautical Miles of the summit. Doesn't matter if he was hovering or flying along the summit ridge he was still in the wrong."

Are you talking two miles out from the summit i.e. At 12000 feet? As you know every day when tourist flights are being conducted, virtually all flights come within two miles of the summit, e.g. Katie's Col to Harper Saddle, but not at 12000 feet generally.

Also, I think you would struggle to find any pilots who have worked in the area for any length of time NOT to have broken that rule on occasion.

[empacher48]

Yes, two miles out at the summit. I am aware the helicopter operators all seem to fly the Katie's Col, Harper Saddle route.

There are those who have broken that rule at some stage and some who bend it. Clarke saddle is just on 1.8 NM from high peak. But there isn't too many problems with operators using it, getting inside half a mile without a valid reason being there (ie the rescues from the summit rocks).

I see this more as a warning shot across the bows of all operators that DOC does mean business. I guess next will be more action in regards to noise complaints in the west coast valleys and the upper Hooker.

[27/09]

I see this more as a warning shot across the bows of all operators that DOC does mean business. I guess next will be more action in regards to noise complaints in the west coast valleys and the upper Hooker.

There could be a counter argument to this. As was suggested to me recently the climbers/trampers "pollute" the visual experience for those people flying over these areas. They leave tracks on the ground and marks in the snow destroying a pristine environment.

Perhaps DOC might like to consider banning climbers and trampers from some areas as well. While trampers complain about the noise of aircraft their actions do far more long lasting damage to the environment than any aircraft passing over head.

Food for thought.

[NZFlyingKiwi]

f you can see and hear a helicopter buzzing around Mt Cook at 12000ft from the ground on the East or West coasts then you would have incredible eyesight and hearing. "Hundreds of noisy tourist helicopters"......please....!

I'm referring to climbers, of which there are quite a few, not people on the east and west coast. This is hardly unusual, there are no shortage of areas of scenic beauty around the world where aircraft operations are heavily restricted to maintain the character of the place - a previous poster asked whether the Maori cultural reasons were the sole reason for the 2nm rule, I was simply answering their question, whether you agree with the justification is quite honestly beyond the scope of the discussion.

[Weheka]

"hundreds of noisy tourist helicopters"

"whether you agree with the justification is quite honestly beyond the scope of the discussion."

"I'm referring to climbers, of which there are quite a few,"

The original discussion was about a helicopter hovering above Mt Cook, and according to the judge how offensive this is to Maori. You (among others) bought climbers into it, and suddenly anyone who disagrees with you is "beyond the scope of the discussion"?

I think the previous poster to yours has bought up quite a good point, and might be worth giving some thought. I don't understand why climbers are so special, or have more rights than anyone else to enjoy our country? Like aviators they are a small group, and like aviators they may be regarded as a bit selfish and precious in their chosen pursuits by the general public.

All that aside, if I happen to be flying over our majestic mountains one day and I spot some climbers spoiling my view of the untouched landscape...I won't be offended. Never have been in the past anyway.

[Oktas8]

Regarding climbers' rights versus aviators' rights...

In general, a climber makes relatively little noise and (in theory) leaves nothing behind except tracks in the snow and minor scratches on rocks. If an impartial observer was sitting on the side of the mountain, how much would he or she see and hear of the interlopers? Not much, in theory.

Contrast that with powered aircraft, both in terms of noise and visual distraction orbiting the mountain.

This argument is why aircraft movements are restricted more perhaps than climbers' actions. For my part I don't mind distinctions based on impartial, measurable, objective criteria.

As to the original issue... apparently the helicopter pilot behaved like a fool. Then he boasted about it on FB. Remind me again why we should sympathise?

[Weheka]

So noise near the mountain is the issue, not someone being actually on the supposed sacred mountain? And of coarse noise quickly becomes no issue when that particular person needs rescuing.

Is that a something like you would hate to have noisy car drive past your house, but you wouldn't mind someone climbing over your fence and camping on your front lawn? Yea I know it's against the law.

It is not a matter of sympathizing with this particular pilot, it's just my opinion in not agreeing with the laws that bought the case to the courts in the first place.

[27/09]

In general, a climber makes relatively little noise and (in theory) leaves nothing behind except tracks in the snow and minor scratches on rocks.

I disagree. The Tongariro Crossing is a good example in the summer. Trampers everywhere in their brightly coloured clothing and the trail where they walk looking like a ginormous ugly snail trail spoiling the view from above.

I made the comment in my earlier post partly tongue in check but also partly in all seriousness.

I accept that these sorts of places should be enjoyed and appreciated by as many people as possible, but where do one persons rights or wants start to encroach on another persons. There are people who through age or disability are not capable of walking around some of our fantastic scenery, are they to be denied the right to enjoy it?

[Oktas8]

Now Weheka, I get that you reject the reasons given by the judge. Fair enough - I don't agree with mountains being sacred either. But I did not accuse you of being either stupid or hypocritical, and your "straw man" arguments imply both. Shall we keep it civil?

27/09 - interesting argument. How about "Everyone has the right to peacefully enjoy the wilderness areas without infringing on others' rights to do the same. Whether you are disabled or not, everyone has those rights, no discrimination."

Cheers all, O8

[Fliegenmong]

Heard today that 15% of NZ now resides in Oz........... :eek:

Tell us again about 'Back in Noo Zeelund..." :hmm:

[NZFlyingKiwi]

Weheka, with all due respect I think you need to go back and read the first few posts again - somebody posted the original story, another person asked whether the DoC rule mentioned by someone else has any justification beyond "it's sacred to Maori", to which I responded yes there is and for the record I happen to agree with it.

You then proceeded to completely miss my point by firstly adding "on the East or West Coast" after my original statement of "on the ground" when you attempted to quote me and secondly apparently assuming I was being quite literal when I said "hundreds of noisy helicopters", which I would have thought would have been patently obvious I wasn't - lord help me the next time I tell my student we're miles too high on a glide approach and he proceeds to commence a frantic search for the oxygen equipment.

For what it's worth, 27/09 does make a very valid point - I personally find a low flying helicopter more of an annoyance than a line of climbers but that will obviously vary from person to person.

But now you're starting to talk about cars driving past and people camping on your lawn, hence why I continue to stand by what I said previously of this moving way outside the scope of the original discussion - I was merely answering somebody's question, you're now picking me to pieces for having a different viewpoint to yourself.

[Weheka]

So you are saying we have both gone outside the scope of the original discussion? I would agree, we have. But that seems to be what happens with discussions, I didn't know there were rules regarding this?

I'm a bit new to this debating game and not very good at expressing my opinions, is "hundreds of helicopters" similar to a straw man argument that I have recently been accused of?

My last comment on the subject is, I don't think any person or group has anymore rights to be in our back country than any other person or group, how ever they get there, i.e. doesn't matter if you walk in, fly in, fly in, then walk. Each to his own to enjoy, as long as they don't deliberately annoy other people.

In saying that, I fully realize with DOC in control I am on the losing side. Flying into remote areas that we have taken for granted in our life time, and have been privileged to enjoy, will be just a dream for the next generation of aviators.

[Checkboard]

In general, a climber makes relatively little noise and (in theory) leaves nothing behind except tracks in the snow and minor scratches on rocks.

Conquering Mt. Everest and Trash (http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2000/04/front.060400.everest.jhtml)

CLEANING TOURIST LITTER ON MOUNT KENYA (http://www.safariweb.com/safarimate/litter.htm)

Trash Dumped on Popular Peak : McKinley's Mountainous Problem: Climbers' Litter - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/1985-06-23/news/mn-11884_1_mountain-rangers)

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/green-friday-keep-crags-and-mountains-litter-free

Where ever there are climbers there is litter. It's a huge problem.

[Oktas8]

Yes, litter is a big problem in lots of places. I had in mind that the Southern Alps are still relatively (somewhat?) clean, but am happy to be corrected.

Weheka - a straw man argument is often seen in politics. Here's how it works: Party A makes a policy statement that seems basically reasonable, although it could be argued against. Party B takes the policy, finds a really extreme example that is entirely unreasonable and easy to mock (the straw man, easily demolished) and publishes it, hoping to make Party A look stupid &/or naive. The technique is good for points-scoring.

I would remove the word "deliberately" from "Each to his own to enjoy, as long as they don't deliberately annoy other people". Then we would be in agreement, and would need to find something else to disagree about!

[NZFlyingKiwi]

Weheka, don't get me wrong, I do absolutely agree that climbers or ground based tourists shouldn't have more of a right to enjoy the place than those in helicopters, but I do generally believe that the average mountain climber is less of a distraction from the scenery than the average helicopter! Of course someone climbing the mountain can be inconsiderate in just the same way a helicopter pilot can fly considerately. I'm not convinced the helicopter in this case was being operated in a manner which could be taken as considerate, but that isn't to say all helicopter operators should be tarred with the same brush.

[waren9]

The bigger issue is why are laws being made to avoid "offence" to some sections of the community.

Being able to get through life expecting to not be offended is not a right.