Currently there are over 48,000 flights a year.

GC NPS has prepared a Draft EIS that address overflights by helicopters and planes with a "Preferred Alternative" that will allow up to 65,000 flights a year.

The "Preferred Alternative" flight zone map looks like this:


(The full HiRes image can be downloaded at Here)


Purple denotes the Flight Corridors.

So, although there are "no fly zones", sound won't stop at the line on the map.

Details can be found Here.

Comments can be made Here .

Brief, polite, specific comments are the most effective.

For instance a variation on -
"I hike the Grand Canyon for solitude and peace. The current load of aircraft is much to high. Go down with the allowed flights, not up."

The Comment Period ends June 20th.

Edited by greg23 on 06/10/2011 17:30:30 MDT.

My Comment:

I hike the Grand Canyon for solitude, peace, and quiet. I dread the the thump-thump-thump that starts with such regularity and continues throughout the day. It is disheartening. It is discouraging.

I'm sorry some people cannot walk into the Canyon. But I think they would object to tours of their homes, just as I object to flights through the Canyon.

Please reduce the overflights from the current level, NOT increase them.

"It is disheartening. It is discouraging."

I truly do feel your pain, Greg. The most discouraging thing for me is that writing to the clowns that make the rules is pretty much a waste of time. Money talks, and big money wins the argument. You can bet the outfits that run the helicopter tours have put some big money in the right hands. Guys like you and I don't have the big money and, at least in my case, don't even know which hands to put it in. :(

Tom,
I wouldn't go to the trouble if I thought it was a waste of time.

It does seem unlikely that one voice can make a difference,
but I can always hope that many would be heard.

"It does seem unlikely that one voice can make a difference,
but I can always hope that many would be heard."

I wish you all the best, Greg. I guess I'm getting a bit cynical as the years go by and I'd dearly love to be wrong about this one. Would you be willing to post back if you get a positive response?

Tom,
I don't think I'm smart enough to determine if any of this actually changes the outcome as currently defined. The Preferred Alternative involves flight lanes, departure times, seasonal differences, and many more variables that get "tuned" to achieve a desired result. For instance flights could be grouped, providing larger blocks of quiet time.

My formal comment is intended to convey disapproval of the current plan. If they get enough of that they may reconsider. If they get overwhelmingly negative comments they Will reconsider.

This year the total number of mule trips, and mules, was Significantly reduced. The writing is on the wall for Zero "customer tours" in the distant future. It happened because many people saw the status quo as unacceptable.

Maybe not in my lifetime, but....

"Maybe not in my lifetime, but...."

Let us all hope, Greg. The same challenges occur in many other prime areas in one form or another. I have butted my head against the wall off and on for many years now with various commercial plans for the Sierra, along with many others, but it is definitely an uphill battle. As I said, money talks, and big money talks loudest of all. Or so it seems to me.

I love flying cool places and going across the canyon by air would be breathtaking. I have also been to the bottom by foot and realize how piercing the noise is in contrast to the canyon. As someone who is both a pilot and backpacker, I would suggest reducing the number of flights and implementing a modified approval process (similar to backpacking permits)for flying across the canyon corridors.

"...I would suggest reducing the number of flights and implementing a modified approval process ...."

Please do.