Helo Pilot fined for hovering over Mt. Cook
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.
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.
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 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?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
Last edited by NZFlyingKiwi; 13th Apr 2013 at 07:59.
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.
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.
Last edited by Weheka; 13th Apr 2013 at 09:36.
In general, a climber makes relatively little noise and (in theory) leaves nothing behind except tracks in the snow and minor scratches on rocks.
CLEANING TOURIST LITTER ON MOUNT KENYA
Trash Dumped on Popular Peak : McKinley's Mountainous Problem: Climbers' Litter - Los Angeles Times
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/green-frida...ns-litter-free
Where ever there are climbers there is litter. It's a huge problem.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Last edited by Oktas8; 13th Apr 2013 at 22:31.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Being able to get through life expecting to not be offended is not a right.
