For me, a literal cross-country — from coast to coast — provides about the most satisfaction you can get from flying a light airplane. I've done it twice. The first time was in a brand-new Bellanca Super Viking. That was from Las Vegas to Frederick, Maryland, so it wasn't quite coast to coast, but close enough. The second time was in the Better Than New 172 Cessna Skyhawk from Palm Springs, California, to Frederick. After each trip I was ready to get back into the airplane and do it over again.
In both cases, I purposely routed my trip over the Grand Canyon National Park. Each time, the weather cooperated beautifully as I flew along beneath a few widely scattered cumulus. The view from 11,500 feet on a clear day is as spectacular as you might imagine. Below, eons of nature's handiwork is laid out for all to enjoy. The mighty Colorado River at times becomes lost in the deep canyons. Soaring plateaus must provide tremendous vistas for those ground bound, although I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to take in the sights from an airplane.
On the first trip, I entered the canyon area from the west near Pearce Canyon, and followed the river as it meandered southeast and then turned northeast. I exited the park area from the north side near Mount Trumbull and continued northeastward toward Lake Powell and Monument Valley, two other sights not to be missed if you're in the region.
I was more adventurous the second time, mostly because I had spent more preflight hours studying the special sectional chart for the area. Special Federal Aviation Regulation 50-2 demands that pilots flying over the canyon follow certain corridors and stay completely out of some areas unless above 14,500 feet msl. In other areas, transient pilots can fly at lower altitudes. But only the commercial air tour operators can fly at the lowest levels. No longer is anyone permitted to fly inside the canyon.
On the second tour, I flew over a much greater portion of the park, doglegging here and there to miss the flight-free zones.
During the hour or so I spent traversing the 120 nautical miles of my route over the park, I saw only two of the air tour airplanes — well below me — no other transient traffic, and no one on the ground.
The SFAR governing air traffic over the Grand Canyon came about after Congress passed the National Parks Overflights Act in 1987. The law charged the FAA and the National Park Service (NPS) with developing procedures that would "substantially restore" the park's "natural quiet." The FAA's answer was SFAR 50-2, which became effective in 1988. The regulations forced air tour operators to fly at specified altitudes along certain routes over the canyon, and it restricted transient general aviation flights to the higher altitudes. Besides restoring the "natural quiet," the SFAR was also designed to reduce the likelihood of midairs among the growing number of air tour operators over the canyon.
No one in the aviation industry liked the regulation much when it came out, but everyone learned to live with it; and for the most part, it has been effective.
According to Daniel W. Anderson, president of the U.S. Air Tour Association, there have been no aircraft accidents in the SFAR airspace since the regulation was imposed. Some 45 percent of the park is now off limits to aircraft, presumably meaning that visitors there won't be bothered by aircraft noise. Of course, that protected airspace is over the most visited areas of the park, where you get to listen to buses roar and kids, full of pent-up energy from a long drive, scream as they tumble out of motor homes.
But 45 percent is not enough for some. Earlier this year the Clinton administration directed the Department of Transportation to modify the SFAR to further reduce the noise impact of aircraft over the park.
On orders from DOT, the FAA then issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that outlined numerous changes to the SFAR. The comment period of the NPRM ended on September 30. After reviewing comments, the FAA will issue a final rule by the end of the year.
At hearings before the FAA and NPS in September, Melissa Bailey, AOPA's director of airspace and system standards, noted that the changes will drastically increase the size of the area covered by the special flight rules, creating virtually a 190-mile barrier to many general aviation aircraft. In addition, the NPRM would reconfigure the flight-free zones and add one, resulting in five flight-free areas that would encompass 87 percent of the park — up from 45 percent today. The NPRM would also make significant changes to the flight corridors, including closing some and reconfiguring others. For air tour operators, the proposal is even more ominous. Curfews would allow them to operate at only certain times of the day and the NPRM seeks to cap the number of sightseeing flights and/or the number of companies offering such experiences.
Most disturbing, however, is the NPS's apparent desire to become an airspace regulator. In fact, Bailey believes the proposed changes are part of the park service's desire to dictate overflight policy for all forms of aviation at all national parks. The subtle preemption of the FAA's authority to regulate airspace is only the beginning of what could turn into airspace regulation or "zoning" by states, municipalities, and private land owners. It's pretty much a revisit of the long and ongoing fight AOPA has had with individual communities over airport noise regulations, being played out on a much greater scale. Time and time again, AOPA has had to file suit against airport owners who have attempted to enact their own noise regulations that do not meet FAA standards. The laws are clear: Only the FAA can regulate airspace and aviation. However, that doesn't stop politicians from trying to win points with uninformed constituents. We always win the cases, but it gets to be expensive and time- consuming.
What's frustrating about the Grand Canyon issue is that aircraft are really the most environmentally sensitive way to see the remotest parts of the park. Aircraft need no roadways, they leave no tracks or trash, they cause very little pollution, and they require no infrastructure in the park.
Of the 5 million visitors to the park last year, 800,000 chose to see the Grand Canyon by air, according to Anderson. Many were probably elderly and handicapped, meaning that the airplane provided the only way they could appreciate the beauty of the park. Others undoubtedly wanted to see the park from a different perspective than is possible from the ground.
According to Anderson, 95 percent of visitors told the park service that aircraft noise did not appreciably impact the enjoyment of their visit to the Grand Canyon. Even two thirds of back-country visitors said they were not impacted, with most saying they saw only one or two aircraft per day. Only about 30 aircraft noise complaints per year are fielded by the park service at the Grand Canyon — about one for every 167,000 visitors. "Contrary to what some would have you believe, the rules at Grand Canyon are working well to do what they were intended, improve safety and substantially restore natural quiet," Anderson testified.
Nonetheless, a handful of politicians in the Clinton administration and some environmental extremists seem bent on extracting maximum political gain by enacting new regulations that they believe will substantially restore the "natural quiet." NPS defines natural quiet as the point when "50 percent or more of the Park is naturally quiet 75 to 100 percent of the time." This, even though there are vast areas of the park which have no visitors at any time. It makes you want to ask: If an airplane passes overhead and there's no one there to hear it, does it make any noise?
If you've never experienced the beauty of the Grand Canyon from the solitary seat of a general aviation airplane, do it soon. Your opportunities may be very limited in the future.
