Planes buzzing ADK summmits.

[moose_mckenzie]

I have conducted some research on flyovers, essentially for another purpose. here are some of my findings:

ADK Mt Club has worked out "No Fly Zones" with the USAF. Basically, jet fighters are banned from flying over all or any of the High Peaks. There are certain corridors that they are permitted to use to access the live ammo base at Fort Drum near Watertown, NY.

There is a phone number in Albany that one can call to complain. I will look it up. Take the date, time and if you can see what the plane looks like -- color, number of tails, delta wings, trainer (2 seater) single seater -- and call the number.

The AF has assured ADK that they will take action on individual planes. There is a corridor over E-town; often in early mornings I hear a fighter or two flying through this corridor. Takes anywhere from half hour to about forty or fifty minutes to do the bombing run. I have seen mostly F-14's F-15's and F-16's. I have seen Army helo's flying over the Ausable Lakes.

I don't think that there is any agreement with private planes. I could be wrong, but I, too, have witnessed them flying over a variety of summits in the Park.

MMK

 

[Doc McPeak]

I'm merely setting the record straight. I don't need to defend my actions. It's my personal business what I do when I see a chunk of plane wreckage or a pair of antlers. Like you say, hike your own hike, I'll hike mine. I assume the LNT "ethic" is behind your agressive tone. If you want to take this further PM me.

You're right. You don't need to defend your actions. You're entitled to use the wilderness as your own personal treasure hunt. Rules, ethics. They don't apply to you. Obviously.

 

[Neil]

Aww, c'mon Shaun. Give it a rest. I know you and I would enjoy bushwhacking up a few HH together. It's a small VFTT world and when we meet again I want it to be as pleasant as the first time. All this over a tiny little chunk of plane wreck found on a slide that requires 2 or more hours of bushwhacking to get to. I would have preferred it if last year when I posted you had simply said, "Yo! Neil, myself and others disagree with what ya done, here's a link to a LNT website. Read on and I hope you're with us."

Have you harboured these feelings all that time? IIRC you posted some very cool stuff on that very thread. Why the anger, why the attacks?

And,

 

[Doc McPeak]

Neil, I probably should have at the time. And no, I didn't reply to the thread because I was very disappointed that you had grabbed stuff on your way up the slide and after just meeting you didn't want to snap at you. Which I would have! I felt guilty (and pissed off) because I had responded to your initial queries about the slide before you went, trying to help with directions and the like, and then you did something that I strongly oppose. (Especially because it's a two hour hike to get there!) I could picture all the pieces of plane we passed and pointed out to each other, and then I had helped someone follow behind us who took some of that stuff. Hey, you were heading in there regardless, but it bothered me. I guess this thread about griping about planes flying overhead finally brought it out. For better or worse. I collect tons of artifacts while out on hikes ... with my camera. I love running into funky stuff, and want to leave it there for others to marvel at. I wish you felt the same way. But, what's done is done, what's said is said. Officially giving it a rest.

 

[Jaytrek57]

I just thought of something.

Are plane wrecks, the one mentioned in this thread in particular, somehow protected? I ask sincerely.

Seems to me removing or taking a "piece" would fit right into LNT ethics.

I know in NP, some man-made objects are protected. Historical digs, arrows, pottery, etc. I know some ship wrecks are the same way. Just curious if that plane is again, somehow protected.

Interesting.

 

[Jasonst]

I'm merely setting the record straight. I don't need to defend my actions. It's my personal business what I do when I see a chunk of plane wreckage or a pair of antlers. Like you say, hike your own hike, I'll hike mine. I assume the LNT "ethic" is behind your agressive tone. If you want to take this further PM me.

Neil, I commend you for your restraint. This guy is obviously wacked. Scattered debris from the downed plane doesn't belong in the wilderness, no more than trash left over from logging. You were just doing your part to keep the wilderness clean.

 

[Grumpy]

Two Comments . . .

1) Wright Peak Wreckage

Knowing it is off topic, I nonetheless feel compelled to weigh in on discussion of the military airplane wreck (B-47 bomber) on Wright Peak. My reason? I am a United States Air Force veteran, and to me that wreckage on Wright Peak lies as a sobering and completely authentic memorial to the airmen who perished in the January 1962 crash there. It is my hope that hikers who come across wreckage would leave it undisturbed out of respect for the memory of those airmen. Enough said.

2) Sightseers

As for planes buzzing around in the mountains? Well, I’ve not found it to be any kind of vexing issue, so far. Might be annoyed if it were a steady stream of planes circling close by my mountaintop perch but never have had that experience. An occasional airplane passing by is more of a curiosity and an “extra” experience than anything else. Resent the airborne touristas for having nice views with less effort than it took me to get mine? Nah. It’s no skin off my nose at all, so there’s no need for resentment or disdain. I hope they have a good time and usually wave to them (with my whole hand).

G.

 

[mavs00]

I just thought of something.

Are plane wrecks, the one mentioned in this thread in particular, somehow protected? I ask sincerely.

Seems to me removing or taking a "piece" would fit right into LNT ethics.

I know in NP, some man-made objects are protected. Historical digs, arrows, pottery, etc. I know some ship wrecks are the same way. Just curious if that plane is again, somehow protected.

Interesting.

I'm with Grumpy on this one (although I am a veteran of the much cooler US ARMY ) , THESE PARTICULAR PARTS represent (and are part of) a memorial site for 4 service members that were killed on active duty, which would in turn make them artifacts (to some) in a sense.

However, take the crash on Seward though, No one died....... and its a civilian private piper place. I say haul out the garbage and fine the pilot. While it may certainly be legal in the regulations to fly OVER the wilderness, it is MOST CERTAINLY is illegal and against regulations to fly INTO THE (read: crash) the wilderness .

Does it make a diffierence that this is a MILITARY crash site, it does to me.

Don't attack me for my position, cuz #1) I'm intitled, 2) It's partially in jest and 3) I don't care

 

[rondak46]

ownership of military wrecks

Jaytrek57 wrote "I just thought of something.
Are plane wrecks, the one mentioned in this thread in particular, somehow protected? I ask sincerely.
Seems to me removing or taking a "piece" would fit right into LNT ethics.
I know in NP, some man-made objects are protected. Historical digs, arrows, pottery, etc. I know some ship wrecks are the same way. Just curious if that plane is again, somehow protected.
Interesting."

This from www.caterpillarclub.org

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE MATERIAL COMMAND

WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE OHIO

Aircraft that crashed before 19 November 1961, when a fire destroyed the pertinent Air Force records, and that remain wholly or partially unrecovered, are considered formally abandoned. The Air Force neither maintains title to, nor has property interest in, these aircraft. The authority for access to, and recovery of, these aircraft, as well as liability for damages assocaited with their recovery, are matters to be resolved between persons seeking recovery and landowners of the wreckage sites.


It is interesting that the Air Force Itself doesn't admonish those who would remove such items.

With all due respect, the site does have a memorial and the plane's remains, to me, are just so much junk. I know that If it were me, I would be put off if I gave my life and my country designated a pile of wreckage as a memorial to me. Certainly SAC removed as much as it could at the time, not considering the spot a memorial; certainly the guns and nukes on board HAD to be removed as did any bodies.

I also commend you for your diplomacy Niel. I think those who extend LNT "ethics" to junk and antlers are doing their cause more harm and good; and the nasty tone is just plain ugly and smacks of arrogance.

Not looking for a fight here just laying out what I see as common sense in this issue.

 

[Neil]

Neil, I probably should have at the time. And no, I didn't reply to the thread because I was very disappointed that you had grabbed stuff on your way up the slide and after just meeting you didn't want to snap at you. Which I would have! I felt guilty (and pissed off) because I had responded to your initial queries about the slide before you went, trying to help with directions and the like, and then you did something that I strongly oppose. (Especially because it's a two hour hike to get there!) I could picture all the pieces of plane we passed and pointed out to each other, and then I had helped someone follow behind us who took some of that stuff. Hey, you were heading in there regardless, but it bothered me. I guess this thread about griping about planes flying overhead finally brought it out. For better or worse. I collect tons of artifacts while out on hikes ... with my camera. I love running into funky stuff, and want to leave it there for others to marvel at. I wish you felt the same way. But, what's done is done, what's said is said. Officially giving it a rest.

First of all: I have never before been the subject of a personal attack on a forum and I would like to thank those who PM'd, e-mailed or posted publicly their support for me.

Second, Sean the tone of your last post relieved me greatly. You know, I disagree on stuff with some good friends and it's OK. People do see things quite differently even if they share a common interest. Now, the subject at hand is relatively benign and I'm sure a new, very long thread could get going on it. People with diametrically opposed views would state valid, well thought out viewpoints and they'd all be right. But as I stated earlier, it really was my business, and mine alone, what I chose to do with that artefact.

Your opinion is 100% valid but so is mine. I respect your opinion, but after the way you posted LNT got some bad advertising. Especially with the comment about respect going a long way. Today I don't really want to follow the link you put up, maybe I will in a couple of weeks.

Anyhow, your last post and these final comments by myself give me the closure I wanted to achieve on this . The hachet is buried. Peace.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

How do most folks get to distant back-country in the wildernesses I mentioned above?

For one thing, the wilderness in those areas ( alaska, northern canada) don't need protection. YET.

Are we content to say that there exists some wilderness somewhere in the world, and because of that, we don't have to protect other places? Is it right to say that because something is allowed in X, it should be allowed in Y. Should we strive to keep the remaining areas as wild as possible, or is it already a lost cause, so we should forget about it?

As I said before, do we want to protect wilderness, or do we just want an 'extreme' park to play in.

On a bicycle ride New York City last year, I passed a place of wooded section between Riverside Drive and the Hudson river.. Around 120th St, I think. There was a sign there:

FOREVER WILD

I was both amused and impressed. Doing what you can with what you've got.

 

[Jaytrek57]

I agree with Mavs...the Army is cooler (88-94).

If a Army Double Deuce crashes into the side of some remote mountain road, do we then leave the wreckage as a memorial? Just a thought.

BTW...I for one have found this thread educational and thought provoking, helps me see things from different perspectives. It is hard on the internet sometimes...but in the end we all have common interests/goals.

Of course that doesn't change the fact that the Army is cooler.

Peace.

 

[Grumpy]

. . .

With all due respect, the site does have a memorial and the plane's remains, to me, are just so much junk. I know that If it were me, I would be put off if I gave my life and my country designated a pile of wreckage as a memorial to me. Certainly SAC removed as much as it could at the time, not considering the spot a memorial; certainly the guns and nukes on board HAD to be removed as did any bodies.

. . .

Not looking for a fight here just laying out what I see as common sense in this issue.

Me too. Not looking for a donnybrook, either. Common sense always seems to incorporate a sense of common decency, in my world.

Well, I happen to have served in SAC during my USAF days. And as it happens, also, my duties occsionally involved the on-site investigation of military aircraft crashes, typically in the hours immediately following the incident and before any wreckage -- mechanical or human -- was removed. So, perhaps, I have especially keen feelings about this sort of thing.

Wright Peak will not be returned to a pristine state by removing bits of the B-47 wreck that still lie there. And the fact that the USAF may not officially discourage removal of debris does not change the reality that to me (and perhaps many others among us) the wreckage on Wright is a far more sobering and authentic memorial to the crew members who died on that mountain than is any plaque attached to a rock. Or, we might say that the plaque and scraps of wreckage taken together make a compelling monument. You can call the wreckage that remains junk; I call it hallowed junk.

Not to pick nits, but that message from the USAF about “abandoned” wrecks that was grabbed off the caterpillarclub.org web site refers to crashes that occurred prior to 19 Nov 1961; the Wright Peak crash happened in January 1962.

Anyway, I had no intention of carrying this discussion further when I posted my original remarks. It was not my intent to be critical of anyone in those remarks, nor is it now. I only wish to express my point of view and my wish that it be considered. As we say, one should and must hike his or her own hike. And perhaps bear in mind that being respectful of our surroundings as we go often entails, also, being respectful of those who went before us.

G.

 

[afka_bob]

Pete,

Sorry, didn't mean to suggest this wasn't either wild or in need of protection. Just found a certain irony in protecting it from the mode of transport preferred (required?) in more remote wilderness. I also (in an ecumenical, nonpartisan, and (I hope) inoffensive way -- other than the fact that I said it, chomp ) think that we on the ground (and roads) are the major impacts to this wilderness or whatever it is -- woods, maybe?

Staying WAY far away from whether those wildernesses mentioned above need protection, yet, still or in the near or distant future, and from who or what.

As for the other discussion:

Take only pictures, aircraft parts, and antlers? Leave only footprints and whatever doesn't strike your fancy?

I don't think "LNT" means "RAT" ("remove any or all traces") of whatever one wishes to possess for whatever reasons. I was taught it was bad form to pick the flowers since others might wish to see them, too, so the rest kind of seemed off-limits too.

The argument that it is so remote that no one else would ever get the chance to see them seems weak -- since a human being (not a super-human being who can go where no one else can) is doing the initial (maybe -- maybe not: who saw this before you and didn't take it?) looking and removing. Certainly the chance for others to see something that has been removed is zero.

Grumpy brings up another good reason to leave it there.

 

[rondak46]

One cannot show enough respect for ....

... those who died up there; and for their fellow servicemen. I am not irreverant about them or there sacrifice.

That said, when I first went up there, 15 years ago. I took a small (just describing it, not minimizing my actions), 1.5 by 3/4 inch piece of aluminum from the site. It has a rivet hole in it and I used it as a key chain for years. As such, I always had it on me, and when someone asked me what it was, or the time was appropriate to talk about it, I told the story. In that way, the story of the sacrifice of these men, and the the SAC story itself, was told to others that would never be otherwise interested as to what was on Wright peak, or (unfortunately) what an endeavor SAC representsd to them as Americans. It seems to me that I did a small part to remind MANY others of the the honorable sacrifice and the tremendous vigilance that our servicemen, politicians and citicenzs exibited during htose years. Certainly, in idle moments I could pull that piece of aluminum from my pocket and reflect, sometimes deeply, on the events of that day and during that era. It is on a shelf now, sometimes in a drawer and it still serves that purpose. I think it does more good in my posession than it does on that mountain.

 

[Nessmuk]

Take only pictures, aircraft parts, and antlers? Leave only footprints and whatever doesn't strike your fancy?

I don't think "LNT" means "RAT" ("remove any or all traces") of whatever one wishes to possess for whatever reasons. I was taught it was bad form to pick the flowers since others might wish to see them, too, so the rest kind of seemed off-limits too.
Certainly the chance for others to see something that has been removed is zero.

LNT is a funny thing. When you think about it, it is easy to extend what afka_bob says to get to the most conservative side of the LNT argument. My LNT trainer told me we should leave everything as it is. Some butterfly needs the nectar in that flower just picked, the mouse needs the calcium he obtains from the dropped antler, everything is connected. Taken to extremes, simply walking in the forest does some kind of damage to something. The rational idea is to damage no more than necessary by your presence, and to leave the beauty for the person who comes 5 minutes or 5 years behind you to appreciate just as much as you did... but where is that damage threshold line? Officially closing trails during mud season is but one legal remedy, by extension there are our own lower level ethical remedies as well.

Many people, including me, collect fossils with landowner permission from quarries, farmlands, and other non-wilderness areas. Would it be the same in a designated wilderness to chisel a large prominent firmly cemented cephalopod out of a trailside exposed cliff to take home? It just doesn't seem the same, but it happens. Would or should NY taxpayers give such permission?

At what point does an artifact become historical and part of the landscape? Stumbling upon Native American arrowheads, most would agree, enhances the wilderness experience. The same is true of freshly discarded antlers. LNT would have you leave them where you find them, so others could experience the find just as you did. But if I see a piece of soil crumble and an arrowhead tumbles out onto the trail, you can bet that if I don't pick it up it will be quickly snatched up by the next person behind me, just as quickly as if it was a $100 bill.

I often find rusty 100+ year old logging camp gear half buried in the backcountry. It's mostly metal junk of course, but still it tells a story right where I am standing of historical times past, that I can research and pass on to others as well. How many of you have seen the old big ugly crawler on the trail near High Falls, and paused to wonder of the men and times when it growled and moved earth and logs? It tells a historical story of man made machines and the land, but it doesn't belong in the wilderness... or does it?

When the last bit of aircraft debris is gone from Wright and no one is left to remember it was there, will we then have our wilderness returned back to us? Some things you just have to hold separate from when you find the previous camper's aluminum foil candy wrapper in the firepit.

I'm not trying to pass judgement on any of the arguments presented here, just investigating various logical questions.

- a former SAC crewmember

 

[funkyfreddy]

I generally practice LNT whenever I hike and camp and am always careful about not leaving trash, waste, careful not to pollute streams, etc. That being said some of these LNT arguments are starting to sound like a bunch of theologians arguing about how many angels fit on the end of a pin.

I get a chuckle when I read someone criticize someone else for picking up a discarded moose antler or small piece of wreckage .......

....... most especially if they condone the use of snowmobiles, ATV's, etc. - items that most certainly leave a heavy trace/impact of noise, pollution, etc., on the surrounding forest.

Here's my LNT plan for the preservation and purity of true wilderness - let's remove and leave no trace of railroads, huts, hotels, plane wreckage, snowmobiles, ATV's, logging trash, strip malls, outlet stores, etc., and close most of the roads in the Whites and ADK's.

 

[Tom Rankin]

I get a chuckle when I read someone criticize someone else for picking up a discarded moose antler or small piece of wreckage........................
....... most especially if they condone the use of snowmobiles, ATV's, etc. - items that most certainly leave a heavy trace/impact of noise, pollution, etc., on the surrounding forest.

I hear you. It irks me when I hear people say:

"There are too many people in the mountains these days!!!"

There is a simple solution to that problem...

 

[Neil]

I think this thread has outlived its useful lifespan, don't you? Where's that padlock?

 

[Rick]

Hey before you lock this thread, I need to weigh in -
Army Air Traffic Control 1977-1981 East German Border and HAAF/WAAF GA.
I am proud to say that almost all of my choppers landed safely!!!!!
'Course we always had those USAF weathermen (who never bloused their boot or even new what a gig line was) to blame for any 'situations' Allons!!!