Helo Pilot fined for hovering over Mt. Cook
 

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

Timaru Court: Fine For Helicopter Hover Over Aoraki... | Stuff.co.nz

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.

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 ;-)

At least he still has his ticket.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

You are in for a rude shock brutha's

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

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.

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.....)

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

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/stor...ding_sun_1.jpg

"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....!

"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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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?