helicopters on the Overland track

[stry]

Agree - again !!

[flyfisher]

Yes sbs, well said.

[north-north-west]

+3

[MickyB]

Do they still have the light aircraft (Cessna?) flights over that area? We did a scenic flight there in 2002 and two days later the plane crashed . Thankfully no one was killed - just a few broken bones from memory.

[South_Aussie_Hiker]

The runway is a carpark now.

[stepbystep]

MickyB, raises an interesting point of course. Human tragedy aside, increased air traffic will of course multiply the chances of accidents. Hundreds of litres of jetfuel(do helis use jetfuel?) and whatever other nasties in the wreckage won't be all that good for subalpine watercourses and plant communities will it?

[Clusterpod]

MickyB, raises an interesting point of course. Human tragedy aside, increased air traffic will of course multiply the chances of accidents. Hundreds of litres of jetfuel(do helis use jetfuel?) and whatever other nasties in the wreckage won't be all that good for subalpine watercourses and plant communities will it?

Its happened in Tasmania with agricultural/forestry chemicals already, with rather devastating effect for Georges Bay.

[MickyB]

MickyB, raises an interesting point of course. Human tragedy aside, increased air traffic will of course multiply the chances of accidents. Hundreds of litres of jetfuel(do helis use jetfuel?) and whatever other nasties in the wreckage won't be all that good for subalpine watercourses and plant communities will it?

Yep. I think that's a good reason to restrict the amount of flights per day but not to ban them all together.

[Scottyk]

This is the problem really isn't it?
If you call it paradise you can kiss it good bye, people can't help but ruin it. Slowly but surely.
If you find a place that is really special, don't tell anyone.

[Mechanic-AL]

Scenic flights overhead are one thing. Scenic landings are a totally different kettle of fish. Far more invasive. As long as they don't land and it doesn't turn into an international airshow up there I don't care.
Some aspects of WHA preservation are open to a certain degree of give and take and I think this maybe this is one of them. The direct impact on the bush and wild life is really pretty minimal.

I get a bit sick of the mob with the blinkers on who want EVERYTHING to be in their favour and if they are expected to give an inch then it's armageddon and all hell should break loose.
Don't spit the dummy and take your bat and ball home just because you had to put up with 60 seconds of chopper racket!! It's far too beautiful to let a little thing like that spoil your day!

AL

[Strider]

Great thread. Would read again. 10/10

[Paul]

MickyB, raises an interesting point of course. Human tragedy aside, increased air traffic will of course multiply the chances of accidents. Hundreds of litres of jetfuel(do helis use jetfuel?) and whatever other nasties in the wreckage won't be all that good for subalpine watercourses and plant communities will it?

Its happened in Tasmania with agricultural/forestry chemicals already, with rather devastating effect for Georges Bay.

What "devastating effects" ?

Paul.

[MickyB]

MickyB, raises an interesting point of course. Human tragedy aside, increased air traffic will of course multiply the chances of accidents. Hundreds of litres of jetfuel(do helis use jetfuel?) and whatever other nasties in the wreckage won't be all that good for subalpine watercourses and plant communities will it?

Its happened in Tasmania with agricultural/forestry chemicals already, with rather devastating effect for Georges Bay.

What "devastating effects" ?

Paul.

I think Clusterpod might be referring to run off from aerial chemical spraying of plantations which could be effecting oyster production.

[Clusterpod]

I'm a bit surprised that in a thread about helicopter use in the Wilderness World Heritage Area, with very vocal and firm support for their usage, a simple google search didn't turn up a major event regarding a helicopter crash.

It wasn't "run off" from aerial spraying, and it wasn't just a case of it "effecting oyster production".

A helicopter carrying alpha-cypermethrin crashed, and a following rainfall killed an estimated 90% of intertidal oysters, and major kills of insect and aquatic life along the Georges River and out into the bay. The effects on the ecology are unarguably permanent.

Devastating chemical, and one that Forestry Tasmania seems fit to continue to use despite its wide-ranging and long-term effects on ecology.

My point, in any case, was that helicopters crash which can have unforeseen consequences.

One crash in the right place under the right conditions...

Of course after a crash has caused a fire event the results of which can be clearly seen nearly 50 years later in places like Artichoke Valley, we can just ring our hands and say well, accidents happen, there was nothing we could do. Tourists had to have their joyflights, tracks had to be maintained, walker's poo needed to be removed.

At what point is the risk of flights out balancing their benefits?

[wander]

The South West of Tassie is one of the very few places in the world where you can step away from man's influence. Yeah, yeah there are ruins of this and that and boats off shore. But very little else. And there are so few contrails or aircraft that when you do see one it is something of note. An aircraft is a delivery flight in / out of Melaleuca and these have fairly repeated routes that can be avoided. A helicopter means there is a fire or someone needs help. A contrail is a puzzle to ponder. In 3 months with 1/2 of that time spent in the field wandering Spring Summer 2014/2015 we saw 1 contrail, oddly heading due South.

The less helicopters and aircraft the better. There is no real justification for more.

[MrWalker]

I tried googling helicopter crash world heritage area but didn't find the crash referred to here. Where is the world heritage area affected?

Why would helicopters carrying tourists also be carrying loads of pesticide or herbicide? This is not a serious risk to wilderness areas.

The helicopter crash was a long way from the oysters and there is no evidence any of the pesticide reached the bay, since it binds to soil.

Oysters are not affected by alpha-cypermethrin and the pesticide would have been detected in the water if it actually reached toxic levels. There would also have been a lot of dead fish floating around, since fish are very susceptible to the pesticide, whereas molluscs are not.

There are plenty of other ways in which the increased use of helicopters may affect our enjoyment of the bush, without getting too concerned about the wilderness being cluttered up with wrecked helicopters, planes, spare fuel, dead bodies, etc.

[South_Aussie_Hiker]

The helicopters based at Cradle for scenics use Avgas, which is essentially leaded 100 octane (very similar to the leaded "super" we used to put in our cars, just slightly higher octane number).

The choppers servicing the track would undoubtedly be turbine engined - and at least 3-4 times as powerful. They run on Jet A1 - which is essentially very similar to kerosene.

No pesticides though, that's for sure. It's hard to work out what would be more damaging to spill into the environment with a crash, a hundred or so kilograms of kero, or the 500kg pod of human filth slung underneath!

[stry]

I tried googling helicopter crash world heritage area but didn't find the crash referred to here. Where is the world heritage area affected?

Why would helicopters carrying tourists also be carrying loads of pesticide or herbicide? This is not a serious risk to wilderness areas.

The helicopter crash was a long way from the oysters and there is no evidence any of the pesticide reached the bay, since it binds to soil.

Oysters are not affected by alpha-cypermethrin and the pesticide would have been detected in the water if it actually reached toxic levels. There would also have been a lot of dead fish floating around, since fish are very susceptible to the pesticide, whereas molluscs are not.

There are plenty of other ways in which the increased use of helicopters may affect our enjoyment of the bush, without getting too concerned about the wilderness being cluttered up with wrecked helicopters, planes, spare fuel, dead bodies, etc.

I have expressed my opposition to increased air traffic as lucidly as I can, but in general terms I have to agree with this post by Mr Walker. I don't think aviation safety provides much of a plank for opposition. We are not talking about crop dusters.

[Nuts]

There's a dinky mash-style black chopper, I think the larger one used for scenic flights is a Bell Jetranger?
afaik Virgin still fly Hobart -Perth direct.. over our wilds? Kinda loosing argument there but perhaps a bit henny penny to begin with.
In fact, especially given our weather, joyflights are of least concern (to me).. landing aside.

Nevertheless, they are a visible part of a bigger, more disappointing, sadder deal.
To me, a seminal 'moment' in what we are prepared to let our pollies concede. It may already be too late.

Our single most precious asset (cliche'd yes but blindingly obvious) is a remote, peaceful wilderness. Even intrinsically the potential value has got to be immense! Any short term, limited financial gain will be most surely prove an expense, financially even.

PS. I'd agree about the poo flights SAH, an unnecessary operation that needs a better plan.

[stry]

Nevertheless, they are a visible part of a bigger, more disappointing, sadder deal.
To me, a seminal 'moment' in what we are prepared to let our pollies concede. It may already be too late.

Our single most precious asset (cliche'd yes but blindingly obvious) is a remote, peaceful wilderness. Even intrinsically the potential value has got to be immense! Any short term, limited financial gain will be most surely prove an expense, financially even.

Bingo !

[wander]

The more I think about it the more the issue is are National Parks / WHA for A) the benefit of the flora, fauna, geology and geography or B) for wholesale exploitation for people. And this is a pretty fundamental starting point.

And there are obviously 2 extremes with zero access at one end and something like the Milford Sound experience at the other.

And there are positions in between and the management plan is an effort to find this.

If you take the position that the purpose of the National Park / WHA is for A) the benefit of the flora, fauna, geology and geography it does suggest that minimising all impacts or possible impacts should be done. This does not preclude access but does mean it is tightly selected and controlled as is the current situation.

Many of the proposals in the current draft management plan including a multitude of helicopter access options appear to be very driven by adopting position B) for wholesale exploitation for people in lieu of Option A.

I do not think National Parks / WHA are about people and any access at all is a privilege, not a right.

[Clusterpod]

I tried googling helicopter crash world heritage area but didn't find the crash referred to here. Where is the world heritage area affected?

The point was raised in response to the effects of helicopter crashes.

Why would helicopters carrying tourists also be carrying loads of pesticide or herbicide? This is not a serious risk to wilderness areas.

They wouldn't, obviously. The point was that helicopters crash. Tourist helicopters are, however, loaded with Avgas or Jet A-1, which are both lethal to aquatic environments and extremely combustible. AVGAS is a known carcinogen, causes heritable genetic damage, and is known to cause long-term adverse effects in aquatic environments. How many liters from a ruptured fuel tank would it take to irrevocably damage one of the small creeks, or even major waterways in the WHA? How many places throughout the area could not be properly or easily cleaned up if such a crash happened?

These are serious, if unlikely risks to the wilderness areas. Increasing flights increases this risk.

The helicopter crash was a long way from the oysters and there is no evidence any of the pesticide reached the bay, since it binds to soil.

Its highly lipid soluble, and after rainfall is found in run-off. Evidence suggests the likelihood of lipid soluble toxins were responsible for the die-offs. Given the locality of the crash and its load of alpha-cypermethrin, atrazine, simazine, chlorothalonil and terbacil I find the accusation that there is "no evidence" amusing.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/7/7c/ ... n_2004.pdf

Oysters are not affected by alpha-cypermethrin

Cobblers.

and the pesticide would have been detected in the water if it actually reached toxic levels.

Cobblers.

There would also have been a lot of dead fish floating around, since fish are very susceptible to the pesticide, whereas molluscs are not.

Cobblers. I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but its not correct.

There are plenty of other ways in which the increased use of helicopters may affect our enjoyment of the bush, without getting too concerned about the wilderness being cluttered up with wrecked helicopters, planes, spare fuel, dead bodies, etc.

Yes, because there are other ways, people need not be concerned with just one. Until when, after it happens?

Exactly my point.

[Clusterpod]

The helicopters based at Cradle for scenics use Avgas, which is essentially leaded 100 octane (very similar to the leaded "super" we used to put in our cars, just slightly higher octane number).

The choppers servicing the track would undoubtedly be turbine engined - and at least 3-4 times as powerful. They run on Jet A1 - which is essentially very similar to kerosene.

No pesticides though, that's for sure. It's hard to work out what would be more damaging to spill into the environment with a crash, a hundred or so kilograms of kero, or the 500kg pod of human filth slung underneath!

As I said above, both AVGAS and Jet A-1 are extremely toxic on aquatic environments, and extremely combustible. Increased air traffic results in increased risk for accidents.

500kgs of human filth would be a terrible accident. So would a big fire caused by a helipcopter crash, or a spill of AVGAS/Jet A-1 into a waterway.

Its not one OR the other.

[Clusterpod]

afaik Virgin still fly Hobart -Perth direct.. over our wilds?

Nah, I think its all via Melbourne these days.

In fact, especially given our weather, joyflights are of least concern (to me).. landing aside.

Nevertheless, they are a visible part of a bigger, more disappointing, sadder deal.
To me, a seminal 'moment' in what we are prepared to let our pollies concede. It may already be too late.

Our single most precious asset (cliche'd yes but blindingly obvious) is a remote, peaceful wilderness. Even intrinsically the potential value has got to be immense! Any short term, limited financial gain will be most surely prove an expense, financially even.

PS. I'd agree about the poo flights SAH, an unnecessary operation that needs a better plan.

Sure. Given the potentials from other directions, joyflights do seem like a minor concern. But they are still a concern.

And it is a thread about helicopters after all

[South_Aussie_Hiker]

Perhaps we should ban buses and cars from driving from the visitor centre to Dove Lake, because they carry petrol and diesel (almost identical to the Avgas and JetA1 fuels listed above).

They can (and have previously) fallen off that road into the valley of Ronny Creek and surely also pose a minuscule fuel spill risk.

[MrWalker]

Perhaps we should ban buses and cars from driving from the visitor centre to Dove Lake, because they carry petrol and diesel (almost identical to the Avgas and JetA1 fuels listed above).
They can (and have previously) fallen off that road into the valley of Ronny Creek and surely also pose a minuscule fuel spill risk.

Let's not get too carried away with miniscule risks or we'll need to ban walkers, in case they die out there and a devil or quoll chokes on their waterproof jacket while eating the body.

[walkerchris77]

Poor quoll.

[Nuts]

Iv'e always pictured helicopters going up in a fiery flameball, everything vaporised?? (maybe watched too many movies..).
Thanks for clearing up the Hbt-Perth schedule /diversion via Melbourne Clusterpod. It's good to see airline companies treating our wilderness with respect.

Last edited by Nuts on Wed 18 Mar, 2015 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[icefest]

Perhaps we should ban buses and cars from driving from the visitor centre to Dove Lake, because they carry petrol and diesel (almost identical to the Avgas and JetA1 fuels listed above).

They can (and have previously) fallen off that road into the valley of Ronny Creek and surely also pose a minuscule fuel spill risk.

Normal avgas and unleaded petrol are quite similar, one has a significant amount of lead in them. There's a reason leaded petrol was phased out. Avgas accounts for a huge percentage of environmental lead poisoning http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... tion-fuel/

Back to the topic:
As long as tourist helicopter don't land I generally don't mind. I prefer there were none, because amenity creep will slowly erode into the wilderness, but hope that landings can be limited.

[Buddy]

It would be interesting if some of the more avid posters in this thread were at a different time in their collective lives. A time that precluded them from carrying a multi-day pack or maybe harboring a physical condition that prevented long exercise. But at the same time having just discovered a passion for wild places. What to do? Generally people in that group will have some assets, so could maybe fly over-apparently not acceptable. May intrude on someone's sensibilities.They could take a cruiser in-nope that won't work-diesel fumes in the water or air through the exhaust. Short day walks, as in Dove Lake? Then are accused of being sheeple or the white shoe brigade. Just tough that they want to enjoy Tasmania, are prepared to pay for the privilege, want to contribute to the economy but the elitists want it all only for their precious selves. I personally find this measure of selfishness obnoxious. It doesn't matter how you enjoy wild places; you have an impact. So don't bother qualifying or quantifying it- it happens. Take all reasonable precautions, then enjoy it. I recall sitting on a boulder in the Gordon R. Gorge some years ago, contemplating the order of things and a big chopper flew low over my head, jerking me back to reality. You know what? I got over it. Harden up.