HA"WAII OVERFLIGHTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

A1\TD PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 1696 

TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF THE AIRSPACE OVER NATIONAL 

PARK SYSTEM LANDS IN THE STATE OF HAWAII BY THE FEDERAL 

AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AND THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, AND 

FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

NOVEMBER 18, 1993-WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 103-63 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

87-820 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1995 

For sa le by the U.S. Govemment Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16- 04 6801 -9 
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana 

EDWARD J . MARKEY, Massachusetts 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

CALVINM.DOOLEY,Califu~a 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

Ranking Republican Member 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

ELTONGALLEGLY,Califurnia 

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

SCOTT MciNNIS, Colorado 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KlSH, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMIITEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PuBLIC LANDS 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota, Chairman 

EDWARD J . MARKEY, Massachusetts JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia Ranking Republican Member 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, Oregon 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona KEN CALVERT, California 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

MAURICE HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

RICHARD HEALY, Staff Director 

JAMES BRADLEY, Professional Staff Member 

CHARLENE SEAMENS, Clerk 

KuRT CHRISTENSEN, Republican Consultant on Public Lands 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held November 18, 1993 . ......... ... . ............. .. .... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .......... ... .. .. . .. . ... .. . 1 

Text of H.R. 1696 ..................................................................................... ................ 68 

Background . ........ .. .. . .. .. . . ... . .. . . . . . .. .... .... ... . ... . . .. .. .. ... .. ... . .. .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. .. ... . . .. . . .. .. .. .. 79 

Statements of Members: 

Hansen, Hon. James V., a U.S. Representative from Utah .......................... 6 

Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a U.S. Representative from Hawaii ............................ 2 

Vento, Hon. Bruce F., a U.S. Representative from Minnesota, and Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands ......... 1 

Williams, Hon. Pat, a U.S. Representative from Montana ........................... 4 

Statements of Witnesses: Becker, Hal, Manager of Airspace Rules and Aeronautical Information 

Division, FAA ................................................................................................ 26 

Chevalier, David, Blue Hawaiian Helicopters, Inc ....................................... 51, 54 

Prepared statement with attachments .................................................... 139 

DeCamp, Bob, Executive Director, Hawaii Helicopters Association ............ 51 

Prepared statement with attachments .......................... ....................... ... 125 

Halvorson, Elling, President, Papillion Airways, Inc ................................... 51, 57 

Prepared statement with attachments .................................................... 151 

Harrington, David R., Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for 

Re~;~~ds :~fe~:~~~~~-~~~~:.~~-~-~~~~-~~~~~-~~--~~~-~~~-~~~~~~~ .. ::::::::::::: ~~ Leese, David, Citizens Against Noise, Maui Chapter................................... 42, 44 

Prepared statement with attachments .................................................... 111 

Moser, Kathy, Sierra Club, Maui Chapter .................................................... 42, 46 

Reynolds, John T., Deputy Director, National Park Service, Department 

of the Interior ................................................................... ........................... .. 7 

Prepared statement ............. ........................ .............................................. 87 

Stokes, Barry, President, Citizens Against Noise, Hawaii ........................... 42 

Additional material supplied: 

Editorial from the New York Times of November 17, 1993, "Parks Are 

for People, Not Planes" ................................................................................. 82 

Environment Hawaii, a monthly newsletter, vol. 3, No. 11, May 1993 ....... 102 

FAA: 

Aircraft Operations Plan for Islands . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. 39 

Grand Canyon Overflights .. . ... ......... .... .. . .. .. . . .. ... . .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . ... . .... .. .. . . . .. ... 40 

Master Plan Grant . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. . . .... .... ... .... .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . . . .. . ... . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . 30 

Hawaii Helicopter Operators Association: Agreement between HHOPA, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, and 

the Federal Aviation Administration ................................................... 163 

Tour helicopter management plan ........................................................... 167 

Interior Department: 

Interagency agreement between National Park Service, Fish and Wi~dl~fe Serv_ic~ , B~eau of Land Management, and Federal 

AVIation Adm1rustrat10n ........................................................................ 171 

Meetings held .............................................. .............................................. 21 

Reports from Park Superintendents ............................. ........................... 20 

Testing site data . ....................................................................................... 17 

Kanamine, Linda: Article entitled: "Push afoot to shush air-tour park 

noise"....................... ....................................................................................... 81 

DOT: Advisory Circular dated October 19, 1984, "Visual Flight Rules 

(VFR) Flight Near Noise-Sensitive Areas" ................................................. 176 

Communications submitted: 

Babbitt, Bruce (DOl): Letter of August 2, 1993, to Hon. Federico Peiia ..... 178 

(III) 
IV 

Page 

Communications submitted--Continued 

Dennerlein, Chip (Nat. Parks & Conservation Assn.): Letter of October 

15, 1993, to Federal Aviation Administration ............................................ 99 

Gale, Julie Galton (Grand Canyon Trust): Letter of December 7, 1993, to Hon. Bruce F. Vento ................................................................................. 161 

Leese, David J. (Citizens Against Noise): Letter of November 8, 1993, 

to Hon. Bruce Vento ..................................................................................... 85 

Montgomery, Steven Lee (Conservation Council for Hawaii): Memo of 

November 15, 1993, to Aviation Subcommittee of Natural Resources 

Comm. on H.R. 1696 ..................................................................................... 180 

Stokes, J.B. (Citizens Against Noise): Letter of November 8, 1993, to 

Hon. Bruce Vento .......................................................................................... 84 

Wineinger, Jason (Tour Aircraft Control Coalition): Letter of November 

8, 1993, to Hon. Bruce Vento ....................................................................... 83 
HAWAII OVERFLIGHTS 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, 

AND PuBLIC LANDS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bruce F. Vento 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE F. VENTO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MINNESOTA, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

Mr. VENTO. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and 

Public Lands will come to order. The subcommittee is meeting 

today to consider the initiative by our colleague on the subcommittee, Congresswoman Patsy Mink, H.R. 1696. This measure provides 

for the regulation of air space over the NPS lands in the State of 

Hawaii by the Federal Aviation Administration and the National 

Park Service. 

The initial law, which was passed in 1987, the National Parks 

Overflight Act of that year, required the National Park Service to 

conduct a study to determine the proper minimum altitude which 

should be maintained by aircraft flying over units of the National 

Park System. This law specifically directed the National Park Service to study the Haleakala National Park on Maui and the Hawaii 

Volcanoes National Park on the Big Island and imposed restrictions of flight over certain areas of these parks. The study required 

by the law which passed in 1987 was supposed to be done by 1990. 

Although the law is several years overdue, it is my understanding that much of the data on it has been collected, but the overall 

report is not expected to be done for several more months. While 

I understand that the National Park Service may not be prepared 

to offer final recommendations about aircraft overflights in the 

park units in Hawaii, I would be interested in the data collected 

concerning the impacts of aircraft overflights on park resources and 

on visitor enjoyment, as well as any preliminary recommendations 

and findings they may have. 

Although there are a number of other issues concerning 

overflights, particularly at Grand Canyon National Park, today's 

hearing will focus on the issues addressed by Congresswoman 

Mink's bill. She introduced her bill after receiving complaints from 

constituents about noise, unsafe flying practices and other harmful 

(1) 
2 

impacts from park overflight activity. I understand that she has 

held several meetings in her district and in Washington to try to 

come up with solutions which respond to those concerns while 

being sensitive to the needs of aircraft operators. 

I might say, in reviewing the bill, it does offer some new insights 

and perhaps policy paths for dealing with this serious problem. 

[The bill and background may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. VENTO. Congresswoman Mink, did you have an opening 

statement? I know that you have done a lot of work on this, and 

I am pleased to see that you have joined in this issue. It is an issue 

that the subcommittee considered extensively in 1987. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATSY T. MINK, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM HAWAII 

Mrs. MINK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am very 

pleased that you have decided to have a hearing on this bill. It is 

a matter of enormous concern to my constituents and, in effect, this 

is a continuation of the efforts of my predecessor, who I am sure 

had a great hand in inserting into that Public Law that you mentioned the request to the Department to conduct a study; because 

even then, 5 or 6 years ago, complaints were coming in with respect to the noise element at Haleakala. My bill enlarges the scope of that inquiry beyond Haleakala to 

the Volcanoes National Park, and so it is, in that sense, comprehensive with respect to concerns for both. On both islands remain enormous concerns about the invasion of 

the tranquility of the two parks. I firmly believe that the country 

has set aside these two giant volcanoes not only for the idea of conservation and preservation, but because they stand as huge monuments to our national heritage. I am originally from Maui where 

Haleakala is located, and I recall spending many wonderful days 

during my childhood enjoying the tranquility and the grandeur of 

Haleakala in particular. Today, however, that grandeur and that tranquility is no longer. The state of the situation, in fact-as tourists have become the 

dominant industry in my State, we have had all these corollary 

kinds of services that naturally emanate from a burgeoning tourist 

activity, whether it is diving or following the humpbacked whale or 

whatever it is, coral diving and all of these things which are 

invasive to our natural environment, have become problems for 

conservation and protection. And so we are here today with this bill asking the Congress to 

help us carry on the work of my predecessor in trying to lay out 

some specific areas in these parks where overflights would be totally banned, areas where they may be permitted but only at certain heights, and other kinds of safeguards. 

Mr. Chairman, I must say that my bill actually was a proposed 

draft which came from the Parks Division and is something which 

I did not produce myself. It has been worked on, I assume, because 

of the interest that had been expressed some years ago. So I am 

hoping that these hearings will not only incorporate the concerns 

and the necessity for legislation, but that this committee will rapidly report out the bill. 
3 

I know that many colleagues in the House have expressed to me 

similar concerns about parks in their areas. And as staff have indicated, there may be an appropriate moment in which all of these 

efforts or concerns can be joined together in one bill. 

I have with me here a stack of petitions that have been signed 

by people who either live on one of the two islands, or are tourists 

who visited the parks and have expressed extreme concern; and accordingly, am asking the subcommittee to endorse my bill and to 

report it out. 

I would like to say that the Sierra Club and the Citizens Against 

Noise, the Conservation Council of Hawaii and numerous other 

groups-many community organizations, as you will see reflected 

in these petitions-have joined forces to try to get something done. 

And so, if it is appropriate-if not, I will carry them back to my 

office, but I simply wanted to indicate the enormous concern. 

Mr. VENTO. I think if the gentlewoman would yield with regards 

to the treatment of the petitions, we could reference them in the 

record and highlight those which represent important and significant organizations, and the number of individuals that have signed 

such petitions and/or Members of Congress, and reference them in 

that manner, if that is appropriate. So in the event we were to 

print the record, we would not be faced with--

Mrs. MINK. If it is appropriate, I would like to ask this my entire 

testimony be submitted. 

Mr. VENTO. Without objection, the statement of Members and 

witnesses will be made a part of the record and the treatment of 

the referencing of the petitions and documentation as outlined by 

Congresswoman Mink will be part of the record. 

[The statement of Mrs. Mink follows:] 

STATEMENT OF PATSY T. MINK 

Chairman Vento and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity 

to appear before you and to testify in support of my bill, H.R. 1696, which seeks 

to reduce helicopter noise pollution over Haleakala National park on the island of 

Maui and Volcanoes National Park on the Big Island of Hawaii. 

Having been born and raised on Maui, I can attest to the beauty and grandeur 

of Haleakala National Park. And, as a visitor to Volcanoes National Park, I have 

experienced its unique and captivating natural brilliance. I can attest to the tragic 

loss-one might even say sacrilege---Qf the pristine and gentle beauty that is 

Haleakala and Volcanoes National Parks despoiled by constant helicopter noise. 

The residents of Maui and the Big Island have unsuccessfully attempted to re- solve the noise problem afflicting Haleakala and Volcanoes National Parks. The 

noise problem persists at these parks despite years of community action and agita· 

tion. 

The burgeoning helicopter tour industry is a testament to the popularity and 

great natural beauty of Haleakala and Volcanoes National Parks. While helicopter 

overflights are a unique way for visitors and residents alike to experience the beauty of Haleakala and Volcanoes National Parks, the lack of regulation of the helicopter tour industry has resulted in serious noise and safety problems. 

My bill seeks to find an acceptable solution to the safety and noise problem, while 

at the same time respond to the competing interests of the helicopter tour industry, 

of residents and of visitors to our national parks. H.R. 1696 does not propose to 

eliminate helicopter tour overflights, but to regulate its operation to ensure opti- mum safety and ef\ioyment of our national parks. 

H.R. 1696 creates flight-free zones in certain areas of Hawaii's national park system, and establishes a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet for helicopter and fixed-wing 

flights over the remaining areas of the park system. The proposal contained in H.R. 

1696 is based on regulations in other parks, notably the Grand Canyon, that addresses similar problems. 
4 

The residents of Hawaii and visitors to our parks are subject to often overbearing 

noise from helicopter overflights. 

The noise from helicopter overflights cannot be prevented from infringing on those 

who are hiking and camping in our national parks. The noise from low flying helicopters cause distress to the native bird life already on the verge of extinction. The increasing number of fatal helicopter tour accidents has intensified the call 

for government regulation. by enacting reasonable regulations governing airspace over our national parks, we can insure safe helicopter overflights, calm local residents and satisfied visitors to our national parks. 

Many residents on each of Hawaii's major islands are calling for an immediate 

and long-awaited solution to this noise problem. This bill is a promise of relief to a frustrating, aggravating and serious problem, and a way to preserve the natural 

beauty and enjoyment of our parks for everyone. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge this Subcommittee to endorse H.R. 1696, and to 

take immediate action to give back to the people of Hawaii and to the visitors to 

Haleakala National Park and Volcanoes National Park, the pristine beauty, the 

physical enjoyment and the natural magnificence of these parks. 

Mr. VENTO. I will also put the two editorials in The New York 

Times and USA Today, the editorial from yesterday, in the record 

without objection. 

[The information may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mrs. MINK. If I may, Mr. Chairman, also have permission to submit these endorsements which have come from organizations, also 

for the record? 

Mr. VENTO. Without objection. I assume that the documentation 

had some endorsements or letters from organizations and those 

should be made part of the record. 

[The material may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. VENTO. Congressman Williams sat through and worked with 

us on the actual study and implementation of the Act which placed 

limitations on overflight on Haleakala, on Hawaii Volcanoes, on 

Glacier and other key sites that Members were concerned about. 

We specifically legislated with regards to the Grand Canyon, based 

on some Park Service work that had been done. 

I recognize Congressman Williams. I understand that there are 

some agreements that have been reached on Glacier. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAT WILLIAMS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MONTANA 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Patsy 

Mink for the leadership that she has demonstrated on what many 

of us believe is a critical and growing problem. Not only, of course, 

as Patsy knows, in the beautiful State of Hawaii, but in many 

other States and many other national parks. 

On one warm day last summer the new Director of the National 

Park Service, Roger Kennedy, and I went on a couple of long walks 

in Glacier National Park, a place that we think is one of America's 

nicest corners, America's alps. People go to Glacier for tranquility 

and solitude. They go there for a wilderness experience. And the 

pop, pop, pop of low-flying helicopters has no place over Glacier National Park. 

I recognize that there are a few people--very few, but a few people who would prefer to experience that national park from a helicopter. They should be denied that experience. 

Glacier National Park is a wilderness park. People go there to 

get away, and they should not be disturbed by low-flying aircraft. 

And the FAA is going to have to get that through its head. And 
5 

if that means that the National Park Service has got to be given 

the right to govern air space by this Congress and the President, 

then we ought to go about doing that and take that away from the 

FAA. 

The FAA drags their feet, they procrastinate, they claim they 

have got agreements when they don't have them-for example, in 

Glacier National Park, an agreement that satisfies no member of 

the Park Service. 

The American citizens who want to continue to enjoy parks, such 

as Mrs. Mink is proud to have in her State and I am proud to have 

in mine, have a right to experience those parks without disturbance from low-flying aircraft. And I am hopeful, Mr. Chairman, 

that before this Congress is out next year-this body, the House, 

and hopefully the Senate will have passed legislation which will 

grant the Park Service, in conjunction with the FAA, the right to 

regulate and, if necessary, completely restrict aircraft flying in the 

near proximity of the parks. 

Mr. Chairman, Patsy and I, and others as well, are grateful for 

your attention to this, and we hope you keep riveted on it. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. I guess I misspoke when I said that 

there was an agreement at Glacier, and I note that the government's comments with regard to that-and we will pursue thatand also that Volcanoes National Park did not have limitations put 

on it. It was only Haleakala and Yosemite. We included other areas 

beyond those. 

Mr. de Lugo, Did you have an opening statement or comments. 

Mr. DE Luao. I don't have an opening statement. I would like to 

say that I am here to support my colleague, Patsy Mink. I try to 

follow her leadership as much as possible. And I think that certainly her approach here is a wise approach. I was supportive of 

the 1987 legislation. I am disappointed that the studies that were 

mandated haven't been completed. This is a frustration that we 

face on a continuing basis. 

I was fortunate enough to visit Haleakala prior to the passage 

of that legislation. I certainly associate myself with everything that 

has been said by Mrs. Mink and also my friend, Mr. Williams, and 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. VENTO. And, Congresswoman English, did you have any 

statements? 

Ms. ENGLISH. I don't have a prepared statement, but I do want 

to thank you for having this hearing and for my colleague, Patsy 

Mink, in pursuing this. 

I don't currently represent but have been involved with for years 

the same issue over the Grand Canyon, and it has taken years. 

And I will tell you from firsthand experience that I think Mr. Williams is correct. People have an opportunity to enjoy some of our 

national parks, and sometimes those opportunities are difficult and 

time consuming. And to have that experience interrupted by lowflying aircraft is truly a disruption in that experience. And I think 

we need to do everything we can to protect what I believe is a natural resource for our tourists. And anything I can do to support 

this legislation, I will be happy to do. 

Mr. VENTO. Congressman Underwood. 
6 

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no prepared statement, but I would currently like to associate myself 

with the earlier statements made by the Members of the committee 

and issue my strong support for Congresswoman Mink's legislation 

here. And I am sure that-eventually I hope that it will have wider 

implications and cover all the national parks that are threatened 

by these low-flying aircraft. 

We had one-although the national park on Guam is very small, 

and Guam itself is very small, and all low-flying aircraft will eventually impact the park, we had one incident in the national park 

when recreating the invasion of-the American reinvasion of Guam 

of 1944, a low-flying aircraft came over at a critical moment in 

that, disrupted it and moreover it had a political message attached 

to the low-flying aircraft to vote for someone. Needless to say, that 

candidate did not win. 

So this is important legislation, and I want to lend my support 

to it. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. 

Mr. Hansen. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM UTAH 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The issue of aircraft 

noise is certainly an emotional one, whether we are talking about 

noise impact on the residents in the vicinity of airports, impacts 

from low-level military flights or aircraft use in national parks. The 

fact is that aircraft travel is vital to commerce and for defense of 

this country and every indication is that all segments of aircraft 

use will continue to increase in the future. 

Mr. Chairman, the Park Service has already adopted a position 

endorsing aircraft tours as a legitimate way to experience parks at 

areas ranging from Grand Canyon to Denali, where a park concessionaire conducts unrestricted air tours over wilderness areas. 

Clearly, there are times and places where the government must 

exercise some control in tenns of limiting aircraft noise. To that 

end, seven years and nearly $4 million ago, this Congress directed 

the Park Service and Forest Service to conduct studies to determine what"impacts, if any, were resulting from overflights of areas 

they manage. 

The Forest Service report, received one-and-one-half years ago, 

finds no significant impact on Forest Service wilderness areas. We 

are still awaiting the results of the National Park Service studies. 

Mr. Chainnan, the Park Service correctly requests in their testimony today deferral on this legislation until they have furnished 

us with the results of their study. While I realize that continued 

delays in receipt of these studies will frustrate some people who 

wish to act now, I would hope that you would agree that objective 

research is vital and that any necessary congressional action 

should be on a nationwide basis, rather than a piecemeal approach, 

and I am curious to know when that study will come in. 

As you may recall, Mr. Chainnan, a few years ago we got into 

a lengthy debate on the Grand Canyon. The Chainnan of the committee then, Mr. Udall, confessed to flying a Cessna down the middle of the Grand Canyon, at which point the rest of us confessed 
7 

our sins, because I flew a Supercub right down the middle of it one 

time, and then Danny Smith flew an F -4 down it and to top that 

off, John McCain said he flew an F-14 down it. So we were all sinners in the Grand Canyon. Since that time, we have changed that, but it seems like we are 

doing it on a per-park basis; and I would be very curious to know 

if the Park Service could ever come up with it. Mr. Chairman, as 

you know, we have the mining bill back on the Floor and I am 

going to go back over there, but I am going to ask unanimous consent that the questions that I have here, that the Park Service 

would answer those and refer them to the committee. [The replies were not available at time of printing.] 

Mr. VENTO. Without objection, the Park Service and the FAA 

may have questions submitted to them and other witnesses, in 

writing, and respond to the Members in a timely manner. 

Mr. Abercrombie, did you have any opening words this morning? 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to associate myself in every respect with the testimony and commentary 

of Representative Mink. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. We are pleased to welcome John Reynolds, the Deputy Director of the National Park Service. His testimony has been 

made part of the record. I think he had answered Congressman 

Hansen's question that, sometime this spring, they are going to 

have the study back, which is any time from March 21 to June 21. 

It is not good enough. 

Mr. Reynolds, please proceed with your statement. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN T. REYNOLDS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be 

here. I have with me Wes Henry, who has been doing yeoman's 

work for the National Park Service, getting the study completed. 

Before I do the testimony, let me say that the studies will be 

completely done this spring. The information reports will all be finished in the next couple of weeks, and people will be able to see 

those. Some of that information is already available. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

the committee today to present testimony on H.R. 1696, a bill to 

provide for the regulation of the air space over National Park Service lands in the State of Hawaii by the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Park Service. 

We support the intent and appreciate the concern underlying 

H.R. 1696, but believe that legislative action is premature. Instead, 

we believe it is preferable to wait until the spring when a draft of 

our report to Congress on the overflight study will be available and 

we have had time to get a detailed response from the Federal Aviation Administration on how it will assist the Park Service with 

problems associated with overflights throughout the National Park 

System. We view your interest as an added means of strengthening the 

working relationship between the Park Service and the Federal 

Aviation Administration that has been developing, especially within the last several months under this administration. We do, how-
8 

ever, wish to take this opportunity to communicate the great concern among many of our superintendents and their staffs who are 

concerned about overflight issues. 

The auditory and visual intrusions of aircraft overflying national 

parks in Hawaii generates more public complaints than any other 

issue in those parks. Our research suggests that when aircraft are 

audible, a high percentage of the time, a significant proportion of 

the visitor population will be annoyed. Parks such as Hawaii Volcanoes and Haleakala are incredibly 

quiet places in their natural condition. At Haleakala, for example, 

we have measured background sound levels as low as 8 decibels. 

Most people can't hear below 20 decibels. Aircraft sounds ranged 

from the threshold of hearing to over 90 decibels. Acoustically, this 

is a startling range of difference. We also have several safety concerns which the FAA is addressing, helicopters are flying too low over active lava flows, over the 

ocean near the lava flows, and through related volcanic fumes. This 

not only endangers the air tour pilots and passengers but also the 

Park Rangers, who must conduct rescues in the event that there 

is a crash. Low-flying helicopters can also be dangerous to people 

on the ground, as hovering can subject them to a shower of volcanic 

gas, debris and toxic fumes. We are making progress on resolving 

issues. Hawaii Helicopter Operators Association, the Federal Aviation 

Administration and Hawaii Volcanoes National Park have been negotiating to develop a voluntary agreement to mitigate problems 

caused by low-flying aircraft over the park. The agreement identifies restricted areas and minimum standoff distances for the helicopter operators overflying Hawaii Volcanoes. It is a useful start, 

but its effectiveness is yet to be tested, and it does not deal with 

parks other than Hawaii Volcanoes. I would like to reiterate that the Park Service supports the intent, appreciates the concerns underlying H.R. 1696, but believes 

we should provide an opportunity for current Park Service-FAA initiatives and strengthening relationships to prove themselves before 

considering the legislative response. 

Before I conclude my testimony, I would like to add an observation or two, both representing the National Park Service as Deputy 

Director and also as a former superintendent of a natural area of 

the National Park System. 

First, I would like to thank Congresswoman Mink for bringing 

this subject to the Congress. I would like to thank you, too, Mr. Vento for holding the hearing. 

I believe this is one of the most important resource and visitor enjoyment issues that face the National Park Service now, and even 

more so in the future; and the ability to have this discussed openly 

in the Congress and to take action to deal with the situation is ex- tremely important to the National Park Service. This concludes my prepared remarks, and I would be pleased to 

answer questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Reynolds may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Deputy Director Reynolds. I have been 

looking, too, and I think other Members expected the study back 

much sooner than is the case. 
9 

Has Mr. Henry been the principal, lead person in this since the 

initiation of such a study? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. No, Mr. Steve Hodapp was; and I believe that 

when Steve left the Park Service, Wes took over. 

Mr. VENTO. What has been the delay? It is an extraordinary 

delay. We have been waiting for this. 

Your suggestion is to wait until next spring sometime, and I 

don't know if that means June or March. If it is the first part of 

March, it is a reasonable request, but June is difficult. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I will have to ask Mr. Henry to amplify, but I believe the reasons are twofold. 

Number one is the initial delay of not having any funding to 

start the studies. Following that, I believe that the Park Service's 

primary reason has been, since then, that the Park Service found 

that this issue is much more complicated and difficult to understand and deal with than anybody had originally anticipated and 

the studies have taken longer. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. HENRY. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I would say that we 

lost about a year in the slack time between Steve's leaving and my 

coming on board. 

Mr. VENTO. I might say that the Park Service or the Department 

of the Interior didn't request funding after the authorization. It 

was a congressional add-on at the insistence of Congressman 

Coehlo, who was the principal lead in this in the House, as well 

as others. 

There were some other problems here. I think, fundamentally, to 

all of us, this gets to the core of why we have parks or why we 

have set-asides in terms of land. The organic act, the initial laws 

that established the Park Service, didn't anticipate the sort of intrusion and presence of a significant number of aircraft being used. 

Of course, everyone knows that we get into commercial or military 

or other type of activities. 

What we are talking about is the type of aircraft that are exclusively there because this is a park, a historic site, a natural feature; that is why they are there. They are directly related to visitors or users to the park and, at the same time, they are in sharp 

conflict with the experience others may have on the ground or at 

a visitor center or some other location in and around that historic 

or natural site, that park. It really gets right to the core of what 

the visitor experience is. 

It is evoking very strong responses in places where it has really 

become overbearing. To say it is a difficult problem is probably an 

understatement, because it does get right to the experience in 

terms of what is happening here. 

I think everyone understands that if we can't define this, maybe 

we have got to set out some new policy with regards to this if we 

have to look back and say, ''Well, does this affect the preservation 

of this? Does this affect the species or how does this fit in?" If it 

doesn't affect of any that, then it has to go on. 

But I think that misses the point. I think the fact that we have 

half a dozen Members here from these areas certainly speaks to 

the issue. The study will be done. The FAA Las been cooperating 
10 

insofar as you have asked them for data, Mr. Reynolds or Mr. 

Henry? 

Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, yes. We started a process, for example, in Glacier two years ago; and this past summer, there has been 

quite a lot of activity trying to get some forward movement in that 

area. 

Mr. VENTO. Cooperation in terms of information, or what are you 

talking about, movement? 

Mr. HENRY. In putting together an agreement that would satisfy 

the park. 

Mr. VENTO. That is interesting. I mean, Mr. Williams had some 

observations with regards to it. What I am talking about is in 

terms of getting the study done and you are talking about getting 

final agreements in place? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I think in terms of the FAA, none of us would 

argue prior to the last few months the response of the FAA has 

been as helpful as we would appreciate. However, the last few 

months, and particularly in the last month, the FAA has shown 

some real willingness to work very directly with the National Park 

Service. 

Mr. VENTO. As an example, in your view, has there been adherence to the voluntary and mandatory compliance of aircraft 

overflights in the national park units in Hawaii? Haleakala, do you 

know what the situation is there? Or at Yosemite or Grand Canyon? 

We read about the intensity and the number of flights. But what 

about the voluntary and mandatory compliance issues at these 

sites? How do we monitor it? What do we know about it? Has there 

been compliance or not? 

Mr. HENRY. I don't believe compliance is the issue in either the 

case of Haleakala or Yosemite. The law put altitude restrictions on 

those parks. Compliance is not the issue; effectiveness of those altitude restrictions is. 

Mr. VENTO. Do have you any control of the frequency of flights 

at these sites? 

Mr. HENRY. None. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. And I believe the studies and particularly what 

managers are saying show that the increase in the numbers of 

flights have---

Mr. VENTO. Increased? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. They definitely have increased, and the effect on 

the parks has been adverse. 

Mr. VENTO. What role has the Park Service taken in terms of 

being present and involved in FAA hearings or other types of activities that would bear on the expansion and increase in the number of flights at these sites? Has the Park Service taken any role 

in the interagency, interdepartmental role in terms of speaking out 

in terms of how this affects the parks? 

Have you offered testimony? Have you protested? Have you offered any counsel or guidance? Have you been sought to offer any 

counsel or guidance? Have you been notified? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I don't know the answer to that. I know that in 

Hawaii, the park has been working with the FAA. And the results 

of that are not in. 
11 

Mr. VENTO. Of course, you are working with them on the study, 

but my question is--

Mr. REYNOLDS. No, this is working with them to get a voluntary 

agreement. 

Mr. VENTO. I am talking about transboundary issues where there 

are permits and other issues where the airports are being expanded and the number of flights are increasing specifically with 

the purpose of tourism and flying into that park and having an impact on it in terms of the visitor experience. I want to know whether the Park Service is standing up to speak 

up for these parks or not. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I believe that the superintendents, in fact, are; 

and they are supported by this administration and the National 

Park Service to do so wholly and openly and freely. Mr. VENTO. I would like to know the instances and examples of 

when that has been done, because the impression I get is that 

these types of transboundary issues fundamentally get at the basis 

for establishing these units and are not being addressed in a forceful way by the Park Service. I think the low priority or the fact 

that this study isn't before us after this long is an outrage in terms 

of what has happened and the examples I have heard. 

If it is the FAA's fault, then they should get the contract for it, 

but I must say that I am disappointed in the role. The Park Service 

should be leading this rather than waiting for an individual Member to come up here and try to get this together. We ought to be 

out in the forefront and be on the cutting edge of dealing with policies like this. This ought to be at the top of your legislative priorities for January of 1994. You are putting together a legislative program. This had better 

be in it, as far as I am concerned; and if it isn't, I will put it in 

and I will have the help of these Members to do it. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I don't think that you can be any more frustrated 

about this than I am or the NPS. We are embarrassed that the 

studies are not complete. We are only asking today that we use 

this bill as a vehicle with good information so that when the prescriptions that are made are applied, that they work and that we 

take, no matter how frustrating it-just a little bit more time to 

be able to, in fact, have prescriptions that apply directly to each national park and its individual problems and that it addresses that 

for the Nation as a whole. 

It is very important to the National Park Service, and I agree 

with you. 

Mr. VENTO. I think you should be leading the way on this stuff. 

You are new in this role, and this is a new opportunity here. But 

I think that we have got to come up quicker in terms of meeting 

these issues in a way that carries a sort of urgency that I think 

they deserve; it should have been done earlier. 

I blame myself for not doing more, but candidly, I think we have 

to get on with this when you have this sort of impact on the parks. 

Congressman Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. If you would, give us an idea where we are, where 

you are in the process of the study, preparing the study. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, I am going to ask Mr. Henry to do that, sir. 
12 

Mr. HENRY. We have probably a dozen studies that have been in 

process. I will run through them quickly. 

We have reviews, looking at the effects of aircraft on wildlife and 

cultural resources. We have a visitors' survey that ran in over 40 

parks. This is part of the complexity of it. We want to be able to 

tell you system-wide what is going on. We can't do that for one or 

two parks. That report, for example, is not in yet. I expect it in 

next week. 

We have also looked at the relationship between noise-dose and 

visitor response in Hawaii and Grand Canyon situations. That report will be out next week officially. 

There are visitor surveys from Grand Canyon separate to the 

ones I just mentioned. We have a lot of acoustic monitoring data 

from both the Hawaii parks and the Grand Canyon. We have a 

white paper on the relationshif of altitude and noise propagation. 

As you mentioned earlier, al these reports will be finalized and 

on the street by sometime in December. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Are any of those elements completed and have 

you moved on to others, or are they all in about the same stage 

of noncompletion? 

Mr. HENRY. There are several that are complete. And there are 

three or four that will be-l have already cleared them-released 

shortly. It is just a matter of the printing and so on to get them 

on the street. 

The only big one that is missing is the major visitor survey and 

the national fark managers survey. Both of those have to go 

through a fina clearance. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Okay. Mr. Henry and Mr. Reynolds said that for 

the first few years, up until about 30 or 60 days ago, cooperation from the FAA was, I think he said, a little less than desirable, or 

some such statement. 

Do you agree with that, Mr. Henry? The cooperation with the 

FAA hasn't been as good as it might be? 

Mr. HENRY. As a general statement, yes. I think if I could express it, not necessarily based on my experience here with the FAA 

people I deal with in Washington, but based on the experience of 

our field people, getting cooperation from FAA has been very frustrating. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. May I add, obviously, Mr. Henry has had some 

very good working relationships with the staff people in the FAA; 

and in my remarks, I hope that I implied that policy level has 

been-in terms of implementation, has been somewhat different up 

until the last few months. Mr. WILLIAMS. What do you think caused that improvement? If 

that is what you mean by "different"? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I think that the major cause for the improvement 

has been the Assistant Secretary of Interior, Fish, Wildlife, and 

Parks and the Secretary of Interior having spoken directly to their 

counterparts in the FAA about the importance of protecting national park units. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I noted, Mr. Chairman, that a few minutes ago 

Congresswoman Shepherd came in. And, Karen, I was talking 

about our walk-you and I and Director Kennedy-one day; and 

then he and I after you moved on, he and I went on a walk the 
13 

second day. But I remember visiting with you at a time when a 

helicopter went overhead and not flying as low as they sometimes 

do. But it was disturbing. 

And many of the people who go to Glacier to enjoy the solitude 

that we were enjoying that day are greatly bothered by those popping helicopter sounds. 

I don't intend here to speak for Director Kennedy, but I believe, 

Mr. Chairman, that the Director's attention is riveted on this problem and that he would like to see a resolution of it. Of course, he 

wants to cooperate with other agencies. 

But speaking for myself, I really believe that the Director of the 

Park Service and the individual superintendents need to have significant authority to make determinations with regard to the appropriate use of the space above the national parks. 

Thank you for being here, gentlemen. I know that it is a tough 

time for you, but we hope that you will do the best job that you 

can in completing the reports in a timely fashion. Spring in Washington comes sooner than spring in Montana. I assume you are 

tafking about spring in Washington. I suggest that you doubletime. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Two things before I leave. One is that I really did 

mean thanking you as a committee for bringing this to the fore. 

Congressman Williams, what you just said about Mr. Kennedy's 

desires is the case. We can provide--as soon as these reports are 

back from the printers, in the next week or ten days, we can provide those reports to the committee; and it has not been a bad time 

to be here. It has been very pleasurable to be here talking about 

this. 

Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. Congresswoman Mink. 

Mrs. MINK. I want to echo--

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I want to ask some questions. I hope that the 

folks are not leaving. 

Mr. VENTO. No, they are not leaving. 

Mrs. MINK. I want to echo the comments of the Chair. I am enormously frustrated about this issue. 

And I take personal affront in your testimony here, Mr. Reynolds, your statement in particular that this legislative action is premature. It is long overdue in my view. 

We have been agonizing over this issue for a long time, and since 

you acknowledge that this is a problem that your field people experience and the questions of tranquility and the invasion on that 

tranquility are not at issue--they are obvious; they are recorded 

daily. The complaints come in to your superintendents. 

The people out in the field in my State are fully in accord with 

the necessity of doing something. I am impatient even to have to wait for the reports that are six 

years in coming, but I am content to see those documents, because 

I have no doubt that they will underscore the necessity of doing 

something. But fundamentally the issue is, why do not the Park 

Service and the Department of the Interior declare that this is a 

matter of their responsibility and authority? 

Why are you so reluctant to make a determination that this is 

something which is in the scope of management of these resources 
14 

that have been given to you to guard and protect? If you accept 

that responsibility of guardian and preserver, then it would seem 

to me that support of this legislation or something like this would 

be natural. 

No one is saying that we have the exact criteria as to what the 

flight pattern must be over every park or what the height level 

should be over every park or where the damaged areas are that 

should have our special attention. All we are saying is that the 

Park Service must take command over this issue and assume authority and responsibility. And if the FAA may have a part in it, 

fine, but if they don't, leave them out. 

And my search is for any indication on the part of the administration here of a willingness to assert that kind of authority and 

responsibility. And that is my question to you, because I don't understand your statement saying-about it is much more difficult to 

understand than we thought. It is not difficult to understand. All 

you have to do is to be there in the parks and to experience what 

that nuisance and pollution is. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mrs. Mink, you are absolutely correct. It is our 

responsibility and we accept that. We will, and we are in fact making that solution a very high priority. 

I apologize if my wording was not as good as it could have been. 

In terms of premature, I only mean that I would very much like 

to have the solutions crafted based on scientific basis. 

You are absolutely correct. We know-we know that-we know 

that it is a problem, a major problem. I do not mean to imply in 

any way that we do not know that. Mrs. MINK. Well, the Congress doesn't in any minute way 

micromanage how you run the parks. It seems to me that if you 

are ready to take responsibility for this issue, for this degradation, 

your charge that you have been given, the responsibility to manage, then the details as to whether it applies to this park, and in 

what way, or that park, and in what way, and what areas should 

be specifically protected, that is something that you should work 

out. 

And the fact that you have not made a determination on the specific solutions for specific areas and parks ought not to delay a precise statement by the Congress that we expect you to assume this 

responsibility and not have to wait on cooperation from another 

agency or voluntary discussions with the very people against whom 

we are making accusations that they are callous and have little regard for these areas that are of particular concern. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We would welcome such legislation. We only ask 

that it take into account the studies that we will provide for you. 

We very much would welcome the legislation. 

Mr. VENTO. We have a vote here, we can probably recognize Congresswoman English first, and then we may have to see where we 

are. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Thank you. I have one quick question. The Grand Canyon, I believe, has a rather restrictive policy onitself, the Park Service, for flights in the canyon for rescues, for repair of equipment and that sort of thing. And so I believe that the 

Park Service themselves understand the sensitivities and develop 

policies that make for the best experience for tourism. 
15 

And knowing that is the case, why is it so difficult to take that 

understanding to the companies that you deal-that the Park Service deals with-! will use the Grand Canyon, in Tusayan and even 

Las Vegas and Flagstaff, why is it so difficult to sit down with folks 

and talk to them about it, rather than waiting until it comes to the 

point of being legislation? 

I think that a lot of-since you think there is-since you develop 

policies for yourself that you think take into consideration the 

needs of all the tourists, I think that this has gone so far beyond 

what it needed to go, had there been cooperative discussions early 

on. And I encourage those kinds of discussions, even with legislation. 

Do you want to comment on that at all? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Sure. Number one, I agree with you. And I think 

that-well, I agree with you; and many of the attempts to sit down 

and arrive at conclusions with operators have not been fruitful. 

And I think that is part of the reason that legislation is introduced 

today and that we would like to see both administrative action and 

legislation take place, because we haven't been able to accomplish 

it in the past. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. If it 

hasn't been fruitful or there has been less than cooperation, do you 

believe either the Park Service or the FAA has the authority to 

regulate without that cooperation? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. It is my understanding that the Park Service has 

the authority to fight for protecting the parks and that the FAA 

has authority to restrict the use of air space. I think, however, that 

an expression of the national will from the Congress could do a 

great deal to get the resolution that is needed to protect the resources of the parks. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Has there been a lack of expression from past administrations or past congressional-from Congress in the past on 

this issue? Or has there been a different direction? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Congress has been straightforward in passing the 

overflights study bill and understanding that the problem existed 

in the national parks and wanting to know what the extent of that 

problem was and how to fix it. I don't think that this committee 

or the Congress has a whole has ever gone against that in the 

parks. 

I would have to say that in previous years we have not been successful, even at the Grand Canyon, in establishing the kinds of restrictions that we believe are necessary to protect that park and 

provide a visitor experience that is worthy of that kind of a resource. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Why haven't you been successful? Is it because 

Congress refuses to give you the authority to implement them 

or--

Mr. REYNOLDS. No, I do not believe it is a problem with the Congress. I think it is a result of the natural conflict between hugely 

increasing visitor demand and the affiuence to be able to have this 

kind of visitation coming up in opposition to protection of the very 

resources that other folks are trying to enjoy at the same time; and 

I think that the Park Service has not been able to martial the 

forces necessary to do it on its own. 
16 

Ms. ENGLISH. An argument for ever-increasing options in a decreasing world, isn't it? Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. The threats to the parks have been recognized. Congress didn't initiate a strong reaction in 1987. And the Park Service never reacted. 

The decade of the 1980s was like a vacuum because nothing was 

coming up. There is a backlog of issues and that is why it should 

be on the agenda. And I want you to put it there, Mr. Reynolds. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I will assure you that we will. 

Mr. VENTO. We have to go vote and we will be back to ask more 

questions of you and Mr. Henry. We have back-to-hack votes. It is 

a motion to recommit. But we should be back in 15 or 20 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. VENTO. We will get going again if we can with the testimony 

or the questions to the Park Service. 

Sorry I was delayed. 

Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Henry, can you provide the subcommittee 

any type of insight from the data, from the annoyance of interference or data concluded about the overflights on resources, visitor 

experience, and the impact on resources? Does any of the data suggest any insights? 

You suggested that you were going to try to get the information 

up to us in the near future, notwithstanding the fact that you have 

not had the information out to complete comments on, and the final 

study before us until the spring. I guess what I am asking is to go 

beyond the testimony today and try to provide the subcommittee 

with some insights. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I might start by talking a little bit about 

Haleakala and Hawaii Volcanoes in terms of the percentage of time 

that aircraft are audible and how audible they are. 

The percentage of time that those two parks, according-from the 

studies that aircraft are audible, ranges from about 36 percent or 

so to about 85 percent of the time, ranging from about 22 decibels 

up to as high as 65 decibels. And in the case of the 65 decibels at 

Hawaii Volcanoes, that is up there at the 85-percent-of-the-time 

level. So it is pretty intense stuff at that point. Mr. VENTO. What is the percentage of time at the higher decibel 

levels? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. At the one site in Hawaii Volcanoes, it is approximately 85 percent. I am reading from a chart so I may be a percent 

or two off. 

Mr. VENTO. You are suggesting that it has increased from 35 to 

85 percent, is that an increase over a period of years or is that the 

variation of the basic range? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. That is the range, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. This is during the visitor hours; it isn't evening when 

you can't fly. So the hours that the park is open and available for 

the public to visit? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. So you are saying 85 percent of the time, in one instance, at one site, there is audible sound from tourist or other type 

of aircraft. Most of it is tourist aircraft here, though, and so one 

would have to then extrapolate what the visitor experience would 

be in terms of those sites. 
17 

At least part of the visitor experience would be the hovering of 

helicopters or aircraft for 85 percent of the time. So it has become 

part and parcel of the experience at least a third of the time in all 

sites. Would that be an accurate description of the sites that you 

monitored or that were monitored by Mr. Henry's staff? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I am not sure that the aggregation is, but the 

range is. They vary tremendously from site to site. 

Mr. VENTO. If it is 36 percent, it would seem to me that at least 

a third of the time during the visitor hours there was an aircraft 

hovering. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I would have to provide that for you. I don't have 

the information to be able to infer that. 

[The information follows:] 

TESTING SITE DATA 

Average time Ambient Aircraft Range audible (per- Range (dBa) (dBa) cent) 

Haleakala N.P.: 

Sliding Sands Trail (Top) ............................................................................... . 39 15-35 35-60 

Sliding Sands Trail (Bottom) ......................................................................... . 43 15-30 35-60 

Kalahaku Overlook ......................................................................................... . 76 13-23 27-65 

Pu'u Mamane ................................................................................................. . 56 8-15 39-69 

Hawaii Volcanoes N.P.: 

Wahaula Temple (Road) ................................................................................ . 36 35-40 30-75 

Wahaula Temple (Temple) ............................................................................. . 39 35-45 30-75 

Halemaumau Crater ....................................................................................... . 17 16-23 32-65 

Tree Fern Kipuka (1 mile west-Pu'u O'o) .................................................. .. 85 16-29 37-77 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Abercrombie has returned but since I asked a 

question concerning the impact of overflights on natural, cultural 

or historic resources outside of the visitor experience, I guess we 

just have to leave that to our own common sense in terms of what 

it means to have aircraft from 36 to 85 percent of the time at one 

site at these particular decibels. 

But what about the impact on the resources? Did you have any 

comments about that, or insights? 

Mr. HENRY. We could provide a few comments right now and 

more details if you need. 

Mr. VENTO. I know that you don't have the study, but I was trying to give the committee a little flavor of what is likely to be the 

information that you are going to be presenting to us. 

Mr. HENRY. For example, on cultural resources, we have looked 

at the literature very closely and one of our concerns, for example, 

would be vibrations from the main plain of the rotor too close to 

ruins, or a helicopter hovering off the Statue of Liberty, which they 

do, which could do damage to the structures. We would be able to 

set up some recommendations on what kind of limits we think are 

necessary to establish. 

Wildlife is a lot more complex. I could say one thing about what 

the literature says. There is potential for impact; but we don't 

know how much. There is very little significant literature out 

there. A lot of observational kinds of research. There is just a lot 

we don't know. 

And as for the kind of research that it would take to prove population damage, I would call that research equivalent to seeing how 
18 

many angels can dance on a pinhead. You are talking multimillion 

dollar studies over a period of years to prove population damage. We can start to point out species, like grizzly bears or shore birds 

or other waterfowl, where we know that there are problems. It is 

intuitively obviously some literature supports this. And what this 

points to is, you need to look at mitigation beforehand; you know 

going into it that multimillion-dollar studies will be needed to 

prove that there is an impact. It is a better use of taxpayer dollars 

to do some abatement or mitigation up front on these issues. 

Mr. VENTO. It could affect everything, predator-to-prey relationships or migratory birds, where they are disturbed by sound waves, 

or auditory differences may make a difference. It could lower or 

make them more susceptible to predation and make them poorer 

at the job of predation. 

Mr. HENRY. Those are very difficult relationships to establish. It 

is another thing we have labored over, to be able to say with some 

accuracy what is known. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, some of it is common sense. If the-if an avian 

is actually capturing its prey by virtue of sound and you have an 

86 percent incidence of change here that is affecting it, it doesn't 

leave much. I don't know how much further you have to go than 

that. I think there are some matters that can be pretty persuasive 

in terms of recognizing that there is certainly a significant potential for problems and the air movements come from a different direction in terms of helicopter props and so forth affecting the rain 

forests and other areas. Let me recognize Mr. Abercrombie, who has now returned from 

the vote. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Reynolds, let me run over a little history with you and see 

if we are in agreement as to what that history is, and then I will 

ask you some questions and hope I get your observations. 

Before I do this, you are speaking for the Department of the Interior today? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, I am. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Very good. 

Now, I am going over some background here and I am going to 

recite it to you to see, if you agree. This is background material 

provided to me, and I want to make sure absolutely I have it accurate, because it informs the questions I am going to ask and the 

position I am taking. This is background material on Representative Mink's bill. 

Now, the National Park Service entered into a memorandum of 

agreement with the FAA in 1984 to help achieve compliance with 

voluntary recommendations concerning parks and overflights; is 

that correct? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 1984, 1987-nothing happens for three years, 

essentially. 

1987, this legislation passes requiring the Secretary of Interior to 

conduct these studies. Now, with all due respect to the Chairman's 

comments about birds and species and your comments, Mr. Henry, 

about multiyear studies and all the rest of it, this basically comes 

down to policy as to what you want the national parks to be like. 
19 

Now, some of the things that were involved in this legislation, 1987-impact of aircraft noise on safety and visitor enjoyment, impairment of visitor enjoyment, values of whether the aircraft flight 

should take place at all-I will give you my example. The equivalent example is these damn water jets that go out in the water and 

spin around and then people start talking, well, economic impact. We never had these things before the last few years. Now the 

oceans and lakes and all around the country are spoiled and destroyed and your enjoyment destroyed by some idiot on a jet ski 

running around in circles, including out in Hawaii. 

So it is a matter of policy. Who is in charge? 

Now, this act provided a three-year period to complete the study, 

two-year review period. It hasn't been finished, right? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Correct. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So from 1984, until now, essentially 10 years, 

the Park Service has had to rely upon the good will of the FAA and 

the overflight people, the helicopters and planes, et cetera, to work 

with you. Isn't that, in effect, true? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. To a large degree, yes. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Okay. Now, in my background material I 

have this; I want to know whether you agree with it. 

Under the interagency agreement, the FAA has agreed to assist 

the Interior agencies-of which yours is one-in combating problems associated with low-flying aircraft by participating in appropriate meetings at field and regional levels and by creating a communications network to inform pilots of the hazard of low-flying 

aircraft. Do you think that is true? Is that a fact? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Whether they have done that or not? 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That is what they say the agreement is. Is 

that what the agreement is supposed to do? 

Well, I don't fly an airplane, but I have an idea that even I could 

tell them that there is a hazard if you fly too low and that-having 

said that to them, that should be it. What does it take to tell people it is a hazard if you fly too low? 

What kind of communications network do you have to set up? I 

don't understand that. 

And finally they go over-in addition, the FAA has agreed to investigate and report pilot deviations from the altitude administrated by the Interior Department. Have they agreed to report instances where pilots have flown too low or deviated from agreedupon standards? 

You can answer directly, Mr. Henry. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, yes. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Okay. How many times has that happened 

since 1984? 

Mr. HENRY. We would have to find that. Quite a few I would suspect, in Grand Canyon National Park. I am not sure of an exact 

number. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Can you give me an educated guess in how 

many instances it has happened? 

Mr. HENRY. No, I cannot. 
20 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Will that be part of your report next week? 

Will that be part of your report or reports? I think you said "reports" in the plural would be ready next week? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. No, I don't believe that is part of the reports, but 

we could find that information for you. 

[The information follows:] 

REPORTS FROM PARK SUPERINTENDENTS 

Park superintendents at Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and Haleakala National Parks 

report that compliance with the altitude and/or flight restrictions over those parks 

has been extremely high. For example, in the Grand Canyon last year, park mon- itoring suggested that compliance was on the order of 98 percent. Compliance levels 

appear to be similar for Haleakala and Yosemite National Parks. The Grand Canyon National Park has reported a dozen or fewer serious violations of the Special Federal Aviation Regulations (SFAR) to the FAA since it was put into 

place; Haleakala National Park has reported 3-4 incidents; and Yosemite National 

Park has reported none. Until recently, the parks never got feedback from the FAA on these complaints. 

The NPS has no knowledge of what FAA surveillance and monitoring efforts 

might indicate about compliance with the altitude restrictions. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That is important to have. What are the consequences in terms of the informal agreement that you now have? 

What consequences take place if the FAA has not only investigated, 

but reported on instances of pilot deviations from the FAA-requested minimums? What are the intentions? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. To a pilot? 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I might have to ask somebody from FAA. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So that hasn't been communicated to you? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I do know that if regulations are broken, that the 

FAA does have the authority to take somebody's license. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I understand all of that and I will get to the 

FAA next. I want to know whether you know what the consequences have been. Presumably you have an agreement, even if 

it is informal and it says that they are going to report on these instances to you. Have they reported the consequences to you? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I don't know the answer to that. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So you don't know what action has been 

taken? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. No, I do not, sir. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. All right. 

In your testimony-Mr. Chairman, I am building a case herein your testimony on page 3 you say this is not to say we aren't 

making progress on resolving issues. You then go on to say that the 

Hawaii Helicopter Operators Association, the Federal Aviation Administration and Hawaii Volcanoes National Park have been negotiating to develop a voluntary agreement to mitigate problems 

caused by local flying aircraft. How many meetings have you had? When did they start? When 

did they start? 

Mr. HENRY. The latest effort is Hawaii is within the last year. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I didn't say within the last year. I said, when 

did the meetings start and how many meetings have you had? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. We would have to provide you with that information. We don't have it today. 

[The information follows:] 
21 

MEETINGS HELD 

After a November, 1992 meeting between the NPS and air tour operators in the 

Grand Canyon, discussions between the NPS and air tour operators in Hawaii were initiated. At least six meetings have been held in that time period. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Why don't you have it today? You said here 

that you have been negotiating. 

Mr. HENRY. It has only been in the last year. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. In the last year, how many meetings have 

you had? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I don't know the answer to that. I will have to 

provide it to you. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. All right. What is the status of the negotiations? Have you had a meeting? Have you had a meeting in the 

last year? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. The negotiations that I referred to are twofold. 

Number one, they are the ones that are taking place in Hawaii Volcanoes, and my understanding is-and I will check this for youthat, yes, in fact, we have met in the last year. I might be wrong. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. A meeting? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I don't know the answer to how many meetings. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. A meeting? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Multiple meetings. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. What was discussed at the multiple meetings? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I can only assume that what was discussed was 

creating a situation where the visitor-the safety of visitors and 

the safety of resources and the experience of visitors would be improved over what exists today. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. All right. Are being negotiated? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. But you don't know how many meetings you 

have had? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. No, I don't, sir. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. This bill has been in existence--and this goes 

back to your comment that this legislation is premature. This bill 

has been in existence for six months. Have you had a meeting in 

the last six months? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Knowing this bill exists, what has been the 

result of those negotiations? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I don't know the specific answer to that. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Then how can you say that the legislation is 

premature? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. As I used the word "premature--" 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I know you are thinking real hard about why 

you used the word "premature." 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I am thinking real hard about how to express 

this clearly so that there will not be any doubt about what I mean. 

I used the word "premature" only in the sense that I would like 

to have any bill that is passed by the Congress, if possible, to address the issue on a nationwide basis, not just in Hawaii. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Okay. It is not going to hurt my feelings. I am 

perfectly willing to amend this bill. I don't know whether it can be 

amended on the title. 
22 

Mr. REYNOLDS. And that the bill be based on the best science 

possible, which-we believe the best science that exists in the United States or anywhere else in the world is these studies. That is 

my only definition. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I don't think this bill can be amended. The 

title would prevent that. But that gets me to where I am going, Mr. Chairman, if you will 

indulge me a minute or two more. 

The reason I ask these questions-and I do think I have gotten 

the answer, I built a foundation for the questions I am going to ask 

you right now. 

You have said that really your cooperation from the FAA has 

taken place only within the last month; you repeated that more 

than once. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I was referring in that instance to cooperation at 

the Washington level, at a policy level between the FAA and the 

National Park Service. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The reason I ask this question is, I have been 

"effusive," I think is a fair word, in my praise of the National Park 

Service in the past on this committee. I think the Chair would 

agree that I have been. 

Mr. VENTO. The Chair agrees. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Most particularly with how the National Park 

Service has conducted itself and its operations in Hawaii. I think 

it is a model for Park Service operations throughout the Nation. 

What bothers me here is that you are not in charge of the parks 

when it comes to these airplanes or this aircraft. And it seems to 

me you should be. 

The question I have for you is this-I want to remind you that 

I asked whether you can speak for the Department of the Interior-why shouldn't you be in charge of what happens in and 

around and about the parks, as opposed to the FAA? What the hell 

does the FAA have to say about the quality of visitor activity in 

a national park? Why shouldn't the National Park Service be in 

charge of what can happen in and around and about the national 

parks rather than the FAA? What does the FAA have to do with 

it? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. The National Park System should be in charge 

of that. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Shouldn't you be able to tell pilots or truck 

drivers or anybody what the boundaries are going to be with respect to the utilization of the park in and around and about the 

park? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, and I would like the FAA to work with us 

to use their regulatory powers to assist us in achieving what needs 

to be done. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Shouldn't you be the lead agency and the 

FAA will have to subordinate their decisions to your decisions as 

to what is appropriate for the park? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I want you to repeat that. 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And if I ask Secretary Babbitt to do so and 

tell Secretary Pena that the FAA should be subordinate to the Na-
23 

tional Park Service when it comes to the management of this national resource, that would be your recommendation to the Secretary; is that correct? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Most strongly, sir. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much. I think this is where 

the key to all of this is. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. I appreciate it. And I think that at least you ought 

to be involved with the FAA. This bill, incidentally, is referred to 

our colleague's committee, Jim Oberstar, Public Works Committee, 

so we do have this joint referral. 

The issues that I would put at point in terms of my deep concerns today are related to the transboundary issues and engaging 

the Park Service more forcefully. I think that Mr. Reynolds and 

Mr. Kennedy and Bruce Babbitt have sent a letter on this. I think 

we are on the track. It is a matter of getting it into the agenda. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I want to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying 

that I think the FAA will jerk the Park Service around for the next 

10 years into-well, certainly into the next century, because that 

will be in the next 10 years. 

I don't think you have a prayer of being able to deal with this 

issue, because the fundamental question is being asked all wrong. 

The premise is all wrong. You are at the other end of the string. 

You should be pulling the string, not being yanked by it, and you 

are not going to get any cooperation because the assumption is 

that, somehow, there is some right for these planes to be overflying 

parks in the first place. 

And I think that a decision that you have to make-and in the 

absence of being able to make it another interagency conflict, I believe that the Congress has to set a policy on this. 

Mr. VENTO. I would certainly like to be involved in providing the 

type of continuity in terms of policy I think is necessary here. But 

there is an area where there has been no action. 

Congresswoman Shepherd has been patiently waiting. 

Ms. SHEPHERD. Thank you. Welcome. I am glad to have an opportunity to address this. As you know, in Utah we don't have the 

really well-matured problem that they have in Hawaii. But we are 

beginning to really feel the effects of overflights over Canyonlands 

and Zion and now Moab, and it is a very difficult thing for our 

Park Service directors. 

I have talked to them about it, and they get caught squarely in 

the middle between the desire for preservation and the desire to 

bring tourism in, which is seen as a way to make preservation possible, but then the increase in tourism often goes so far as to spoil 

the very thing you are attempting to preserve. 

So, I recognize that it is a difficult issue, and I think it is probably fair to say, would you agree, that you need help to have more 

authority to do this? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes. 

Ms. SHEPHERD. That is part of what I think I am hearing. 

I want to follow up on something you said to Congresswoman 

English. There is a national parks overflight jlan for-an aircraft 

management plan for Grand Canyon. You sai that that was inadequate. Could you please elaborate on that? 
24 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I am going to ask Mr. Henry if that is all right. Ms. SHEPHERD. Okay. 

Mr. HENRY. We presented quite a bit of this information to what 

is called the SFAR Oversight Group, which is a meeting of Park 

Service, FAA officials, air tour operators and conservation groups. 

This was in September. 

The conclusion of the superintendent at that meeting, what he 

told the group was, we feel we have not substantially restored natural quiet to the Grand Canyon. What I wanted to communicate 

earlier was that we are going to hold a workshop to address the 

issues that are arising out of that conclusion-three in particular 

are important. One is, can we do any better than the SFAR that 

currently exists? 

Ms. SHEPHERD. With what? 

Mr. HENRY. The existing Special Federal Aviation Regulations. 

Can we improve the management-the aviation management plan 

that we have in place? How far can we fine-tune this thing? Because as you tweak it one place, you are going to effect it in some 

other place. So the park has gone through the effort of carefully redefining 

its objectives. I think they still have to do some prioritization of 

how they are going to give and take on these objectives. And we 

are going to be meeting in March, which is another part of the drag 

on the timing, to discuss that issue to start with; and to address 

the key second issue, which is also relevant to Haleakala, which is 

the increasing numbers of flights, the capacity issue; and a third 

issue, which is of interest to the FAA and Senator McCain, which 

is the use of quiet ~ircraft technology-which we think holds some 

promise of helping this situation. He wants to look at the incentives for introducing quiet aircraft 

technology into that situation. That is very important in the longterm. 

So those are the three sets of questions. We are going to get 

input from all the user groups to include in the report to Congress. 

Ms. SHEPHERD. My concern is the length of time that it is taking 

to do-to get the science together and make the overall policy 

which, I absolutely agree with Congressman Abercrombie, needs to 

be in place. I am afraid that we will get so far down the pike in 

Utah before that policy is in place that we will be in a position of 

having to take things away, which I have learned from bitter and 

hard experience is a very difficult thing to do. 

So what if we were to develop for our parks a special plan as 

they did in Canyonlands? Could you support that and would the 

FAA be required to support that? How does it work now? 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I think at the present time the FAA would not 

be required to support it. In Grand Canyon, if I am correct, there 

was legislation that required us to do that. That does not exist for 

the Utah parks. 

Ms. SHEPHERD. So that was special legislation from this committee, was it? 

Mr. HENRY. P.L. 100-91. 

Ms. SHEPHERD. So if I wanted to do that, I have to sponsor legislation? 
25 

Mr. REYNOLDS. You would be in the same position that Mrs. 

Mink is in. 

Mr. VENTO. We could amend the title of this bill. 

Ms. SHEPHERD. That answers my question. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. VENTO. I don't want to prolong this, but it is a whole issue. 

I was talking to our staff person, Mr. Hodapp, about the nature of 

gaining control of this tourist issue, in terms of concession. One of 

the actions we took this year was to implement the commercial 

tour user fee included in the August 5th measure that was enacted 

into law. It was supposed to take effect October 1st. 

Have you taken any steps to put in place the commercial tour 

user fee requirements of that law? 

Mr. HENRY. There has been an NPS group working on that particular issue and we are in the process of preparing a letter to the 

FAA asking their assistance, because--

Mr. VENTO. Well, we will ask them today. Have they responded 

yet. 

Mr. HENRY. We haven't given them the letter yet. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, they can't respond until you give it to them. 

I am concerned. I think these are the types of tools that you have 

and the mandates from Congress. Again, you are all coming up 

here and picking up the pieces for what somebody else didn't do. 

Mr. Henry, I was thinking about research, and I was reading a 

piece out of ''The Environment of Hawaii." They were talking about 

endangered forest birds. It seems to me, Mr. Reynolds, the way to 

work on this is to get the cooperative research from the universities 

and others. I can think of a number of topics for new dissertations-quickly, and even aircraft that don't make noise can be a 

problem because of what their presence is, and some of these sensitive species that you stressed. 

I don't know what you have to find when you have various species that have a profound effect on the rain forest environment or 

other areas. I would think it was obvious that this is difficult. This 

cooperative research effort would be a good way to go in terms of 

trying to get more definitive information, rather than having to always look to personnel in the Park Service. 

Congresswoman Mink, did you have any other questions? 

We have a list of questions. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Reynolds, Congressman Hansen is going to submit some written questions; and I am sure they will be appropriate. We look forward to your responses. 

We may submit some additional questions ourselves and probably augment some of the answers to the Members today. We intend to focus on this issue. 

[The material was not available at time of printing.) 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I would request that my questions about the 

number of meetings, when they were held, be put into that. 

Mr. VENTO. That is exactly what I was thinking, that he would 

probably want to be more definitive about the responses. 

We appreciate that you can't come prepared to answer all of 

these at this time, but we think timely answers to such questions 

as were raised and not answered today should be forthcoming. 

Thank you, Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Henry. 
26 

Mr. REYNOLDS. I would like to thank you and the Members of the 

committee for the kind of searching questioning. We appreciate 

that, seriously. 

Mr. VENTO. Or next witness is Mr. David R. Harrington, the Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification at the Federal Aviation Administration, accompanied by Hal 

Becker, the Manager of Airspace Rules and Aeronautical Information Division. 

I had a chance, Mr. Harrington, to review your statement last 

night. I appreciate its being early. It is a thoughtful and long statement. It is a complex topic. We would wish it were not, but in any 

case, we appreciate your definitive response to a very important 

issue that affects the parks and public lands. 

Mr. Harrington, your statement is made a part of the record. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID R. HARRINGTON, ACTING DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR REGULATION AND CERTIFICATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY HAL BECKER, MANAGER OF AIRSPACE RULES 

AND AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION DIVISION 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I will make a brief summary in the interest of 

time. Thank you for inviting Mr. Becker and me. I would like to emphasize a couple of points. First, environmental 

protection is certainly one of the major goals of Secretary Peiia and 

the Department of Transportation, and is considered in the FAA to 

be a very important part of our mission. 

We did comment in our statement about some tough technical 

difficulties with the legislation. We would be happy to go into that 

at any level of detail you wish. It has to do with some of the complexities of airspace and airspace management, and I did want to 

say further that the legislation that deals with bringing tour operators under the requirements of Part 135 is an area where FAA has 

draft regulations designed to do just that, and we intend to move 

those regulations through the system. So with that, sir, I will stop and open myself to your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Harrington may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. VENTO. I noticed in your statement that you referred to the 

2,000-foot ceiling at Haleakala and the other historic sites here, 

which haven't been mentioned too much today. We mentioned the 

Hawaii Volcanoes and Haleakala, but your statement also talked 

about a 10,000-foot standoff distance. Can you explain to me what 

the impact of that would be? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. One of the difficulties we had with the legislation was that given normal aircraft operations under visual flight 

conditions, there could be a circumstance where the two-mile 

standoff distance over certain airspace could limit the maneuvering 

or flexibility required to safely pilot the aircraft. 

Mr. VENTO. I know it takes away flexibility, but I understand 

you are not unique here, Mr. Harrington, nobody wants legislation 

to take away an agency's flexibility. We happen to come from a different point of view being legislators. I understand that. That goes 

without saying. But I am concerned, and I was wondering what it 

means. 
27 

I notice one of the other things in your statement, as I read it, 

you talk about the fact that the 2,000-foot ceiling limit would mean 

that sometimes individuals would be flying in the clouds, that they 

wouldn't have visual contact with the ground. Can you think of another solution if you can't maintain the 2,000-foot limitation? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Most certainly, you could avoid that portion of 

the airspace. 

Mr. VENTO. That is right. To avoid that during those particular 

times. Of course, this is not unique to the FAA. It is a common 

phenomenon when you have certain limitations in terms of flights 

and so forth, to in fact avoid such airspace. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Yes, sir, I don't think there is a major problem 

with the 2,000-foot restriction. I think if you were to prohibit operations up .to infinity over a portion of parkland, that might have 

an effect on operations. 

Mr. VENTO. The problem with Haleakala is the tremendous 

height. And even though these islands do not have the sort of 

graphic impression of the Rockies or the Cascades, the height is 

rather amazing, the volcanic nature. So they really make some serious problems in terms of this. 

Now, under the normal course of actions and prior to the enactment of the 1987 act and so forth, do have you any type of restrictions over tour operations, specifically, over some of the national 

parks or other areas like this? Do you actually put any limitations 

on them with regards to the on-the-ground impact of these particular activities? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. The only impacts are the impacts that are in 

the regulations already. 

Mr. VENTO. Looking at safety, health and clearance time of aircraft in terms of separation and so forth; is that correct? In other 

words, you are not really looking at the national park resources 

being anything different than any other type of topography that it 

would be flying over? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. With the exception of the special Federal aviation regulations that apply to the Grand Canyon. 

Mr. VENTO. I understand that. We wrote that. But I am talking 

about public land features where you have tourist activities going 

on. It is not your responsibility to review that; is that correct? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I believe it is our responsibility, and I think we 

are willing to take on that responsibility to look at the environmental impacts of that. 

Mr. VENTO. I would like to make it your responsibility. I don't 

think we want the Park Service, from my standpoint, taking over 

the job of the FAA. I don't think we can. But I do think that they 

have to have a close working relationship in terms of discussing 

what the impact of this particular authorization is. 

As an example, there has been an expansion of the airport at the 

Grand Canyon in recent years. Are you familiar with the details of 

the public hearings and so forth on that, Mr. Harrington, or is your 

associate, who is accompanying you today, Mr. Becker, aware of 

that? 

The public activity, are you prepared to answer any questions on 

it? 
28 

Mr. BECKER. Not in detail, Mr. Chainnan. I think we are aware 

of the new helipads and the moving of the helicopter operations 

from Tusayan Village to the airport. But the overall plan for expansion, we are not--

Mr. VENTO. We have built an exception in the Grand Canyon legislation for the Native Americans who were picking up canoes or 

something, so I know about that exception for the Havasupai, but 

there has been a tremendous increase in tenns of the aircraft. 

Has the Park Service or the Department of the Interior been consulted with regards to what the impact would be in tenns of increasing the frequency of flights and in tenns of visitation there by 

helicopters and other fixed wing aircraft? Do you know, Mr. Becker 

or Mr. Harrington? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I don't know, sir. I have seen no infonnation. 

Mr. VENTO. From my comments with the Park Service, we have 

these issues where the interfaces are called transboundary issues, and this gets to the heart. The reason that these tour operations, 

helicopters and fixed wing operations, are there is because it is a 

park. Because of its features, Congress, way back when, in 1916 I 

guess, with regards to the Grand Canyon, decided to set it aside. 

Some of these parks or reservations have been set aside for over 

100 years. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. We do have a special unit at our local office 

in the Grand Canyon that works closely with the Park Service. I 

am sure that they--

Mr. VENTO. Wouldn't you look for consideration from the Park 

Service who has the ground impact on the effect on the resources 

and on the visitor experience as to the licensure or authorization 

of expanding? Don't you look to them for expanding facilities that 

you are going to be authorizing in terms of these flights? Or don't 

you have any legal basis to stop that? . Mr. HARRINGTON. We are very interested in anything that the 

Park Service would have to say in regard to the park areas. The last question, you may have to repeat it. Mr. VENTO. Are you under any legal mandate as far as the facilities that are built in terms of licensure or in tenns of certification, 

to just go ahead irrespective of what the impact is? Can you qualify 

or limit the construction or incidence of the number and quantity 

of flights by virtue of any action? It is like A, B, C, you fulfill one 

requirement and then you go on to another and you have no ability 

to limit those flights other than for safety and other reasons? Do 

you have any ability to take in the qualitative effect of these 

flights? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Not that I know of. The limitations we have 

would be in regard to routing and altitudes and those quantative 

sorts of factors. 

Mr. VENTO. Safety and health become paramount. Nobody wants 

anything done. We put in the language, and I am certain Congresswoman Mink would accept safety and life qualifications in their 

language. 

Are there any violations of flights over certain areas of Haleakala 

National Park? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Yes. In Hawaiian airspace, I am aware of pilot 

license revocations and suspensions, and several civil penalties. 
29 

Mr. VENTO. Violations have been made for these that have improperly conducted themselves in terms of airspace and safety? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. Are there any obstacles to enforcing such restrictions? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. There are no obstacles to it. We now have inspectors dedicated to the Park Service and to the tour operators. 

As I say, the process is in place. It is well defined and we are able 

to take those actions. Mr. VENTO. What is the nature of the regulatory responsibility 

dealing with aircraft noise, especially with regards to these scenic 

flights? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Well, what comes to mind is that we do do environmental assessments having to do with airport operations, but 

we have not, beyond working toward cooperative agreements and 

signed agreements with the Departments of the Interior, Park 

Service, operators, and local jurisdictions, taken any actions that I 

know of strictly related to the environmental effects & aircraft 

noise over parklands. Mr. VENTO. Congressman Abercrombie referred to an FAA advisory circular which recommends avoidance of noise-sensitive area 

is a voluntary minimum altitude of 2,000 feet over noise-sensitive 

areas for fixed wing and rotary aircraft. What information does the 

FAA have documenting the extent of compliance with these voluntary recommendations? I assume that noise-sensitive areas 

would be a site like Haleakala. The Grand Canyon would go beyond that. But other parks would be noise-sensitive areas. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Of course, the advisory circular is only advisory in nature. We have used that as a model as we have tried to 

reach agreements at the parks. And I think that is where we are 

headed. 

Mr. VENTO. How many agreements do you have? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. There is the agreement that was mentioned 

earlier up at Glacier, which I thought was signed, but I am not 

sure after today's testimony. 

Mr. VENTO. I think you are going to have to answer questions 

about that. Mr. HARRINGTON. We have a memorandum of understanding 

that is close to signature having to do with Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Becker. 

Mr. BECKER. There is the agreement that Mr. Abercrombie 

brought up. The first one was 1984; it was renewed last January. 

Mr. VENTO. What site was that? 

Mr. BECKER. That agreement is national inscope, and between 

the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, the, Park 

Service, and FAA. 

Mr. VENTO. I combined a couple of questions, but what was the 

documentation as to the extent of compliance and the intent of 

problems. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Non-compliance with the 2,000-foot criteria 

recommended in the Advisory Circular is not a violation, so we 

wouldn't have that documentation. 

87-820 0 - 95 - 2 
30 

Mr. VENTO. I didn't say it was a violation, but I just talked about 

compliance with it and of the voluntary recommendations. Do you 

keep any reports? Maybe you don't keep such reports. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Other than the noise complaints, I don't think 

we do. Mr. VENTO. How difficult would it be if we asked you to do that? 

As we work on specifics, is it possible that you could keep records 

on such information as you receive it, or documentation? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. It might be very difficult to do, because other 

than specific noise complaints or a report from the Park Service, 

I am not sure that we would be able to collect that information. Mr. VENTO. I am informed that the FAA recently gave a grant 

to the State of Alaska for airport planning at Kantishna which is 

inside Denali National Park. You gave a grant to Kantishna which 

is inside Denali National Park; that is where Mount McKinley is 

located. Did you consult at all with the National Park Service before issuing that grant? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I am sorry, I am not familiar with that. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Becker. 

Mr. BECKER. I am not familiar with that. Mr. VENTO. Would you answer that in a written response? 

[The response follows:] 

MAsTER PLAN GRANT 

Prior to offering the master plan grant on September 27, 1993, the FAA consulted 

with NPS on the grant on several occasions, and as early as July of 1992. FAA and 

NPS representatives continued to meet in 1993. As a result of those meetings, special conditions in the grant agreement require the State of Alaska to coordinate the scope of work to be performed with NPS and receive FAA approval before initiating 

the study. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Williams, did you want to continue? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The matter of the agreement in Glacier, some people described 

the agreement as a good-faith attempt of people to come to the 

table together. And other people say that there is a written thing 

that nobody has signed yet. There is a lot of disagreement among 

Park Service officials with it. And that is the crux of the problem 

here. 

The Park Service has no authority over any of this. They have 

to agree with whatever you let them do. And you know, it is a legitimate problem. We have a major national, unsolved problem 

here. And it seems to many of us that the FAA is not the proper 

agency to have ultimate authority over it. 

Give us a nutshell of what the genuine difficulties for the flying 

public would be, including perhaps safety, if the Park Service, in 

fact, had authority to regulate its own airspace. Mr. HARRINGTON. I think it would make for a very difficult situation. FAA has always managed and had the statutory responsibility 

for airspace, including airspace for military and other operations. Based on the experience we have and all the technical considerations that have to do with departures and approaches, obstacle 

clearance, low- and high-altitude routing that has been flight inspected, and the many, many things that go into the obstacle clearance analysis, we generally are best able to determine and provide 

the restrictions that are required in the airspace. 
31 

I would much prefer that we continue to work with the Park 

Service, as we are doing pretty closely now; and if we can't achieve 

the kind of results that we need to achieve on the environmental 

side at our National parks or wilderness areas, then let the FAA 

take the regulatory responsibility for putting the proper controls on 

the airspace. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. What is the FAA's enforcement authority? If you 

get a complaint about a violation, either of an agreement about airspace over a park or some other kind of a violation-let me give 

you one example: a helicopter in Montana flying through flocks of 

American bald eagles, reported to the FAA; zip, zero, nada done 

about it. 

What is your enforcement authority and how do you carry it out? 

And give us some examples of fines that you have levied against 

people with regard to the use of their aircraft in a national park. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. The authority, first of all, to take certificate 

revocation, suspension action, or civil penalty action against an airman or an operator comes from our regulations. The regulation 

most often cited in violations associated with the National parks 

would be a violation that has to do with careless and reckless operation. So you would have a situation where an airman operated an 

airplane or a rotorcraft close to property, buildings or in a manner 

that we determine to be reckless. 

That would start the process. We would take violation action and 

that would normally lead to a sanction. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Would it be against your regulations for helicopters to chase grizzly bears at tree level outside of a national 

park? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I would guess that that would certainly be 

something that we would look into and investigate and make a determination as to whether a violation took place. It is hard to work 

with a hypothetical situation. You said tree level; if you were at 

ground level in a rotorcraft, and anywhere near a populated area, 

then yes, it would definitely be a violation of a regulation. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. You see, your regulations that go to the unsafe 

treatment don't get at the problem. You understand that we have 

this problem in the national parks; you have it yourself. You are 

out hiking with your family in a national park and all the sudden 

a helicopter buzzes overhead and disturbs the tranquility that you 

were seeking. It wasn't unsafe and probably doesn't violate any 

regulation. 

We have to get at that and you have to cooperate more with the 

National Park Service and relinquish some authority to them. 

Mr. VENTO. Would the gentleman yield? I am informed that 

there is no minimum altitude for helicopters, unless there is some 

recognition of the continuity. · The fact is that if you have a herd 

of mule deer or elk on the ground and somebody wants to get down 

and take a close look they can, because that is their right-you 

have got a major problem here. There is just no minimum altitude 

for a helicopter. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Again, it goes back to the specific circumstance, Mr. Chairman, but we have used the careless and reckless regulation as a means of enforcement for operations of airplanes and rotorcraft. 
32 

Mr. VENTO. It is tough, because if you were in residential and 

other populated areas, it is a different matter; but if you are over 

water or some place that it is not, they are major attractions. No 

one is going to come down and look at my gray asphalt roof in Minnesota. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. It is probably neither careless nor reckless to be 

hovering over the heads of backpackers in a national park, but it 

is wrong. It ought to be against a regulation somewhere. And finally, it seems to me that it makes it good sense for the 

Park Service to be a major player in determining what characteristics of the individual parks are violated by certain aircraft uses, 

outside of careless and reckless. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I agree with you, Mr. Williams. I think that is 

what we were after with the agreements that we were headed toward at Glacier. Input from the Park Service made some areas inaccessible-that is, not to be flown over-as well as determining 

some routes and minimum altitudes. It was my understanding that 

some agreements had been reached on those sorts of issues. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Frankly, let me tell you-and we are kind of-this 

hearing is sort of being conducted with the bark on. It is a tough 

hearing. It is the frustration of the Members with both the Park 

Service and the FAA that you are experiencing here. The Park Service people, who you know wouldn't want to be 

named for obvious reasons, tell me that-Park Service officials who 

either work in Glacier or work with the folks, their colleagues in 

Glacier, tell me that they have really found what they believe to 

be a long disinterest in the FAA to work with them and a jurisdictional walling-off of the FAA saying, look, these are our responsibilities, and we simply are unwilling to share those. And many Park Service officials believe that your agency hangs 

on to those jurisdictions in an inappropriate manner that doesn't 

allow them to come to the table and try to forge real agreements 

about how things should be handled in the Park Service. 

The Park Service people that testified just prior to you were very 

careful, I thought, and appropriate in trying to say that they were 

working with you and you had begun to work with them as best 

as possible; but there was no question, it seemed to me, that there 

was an attitude of frustration in both of their voices with regard 

to past inability to sit down and work it out with the FAA. 

We understand that perfectly around here. We have the same 

problem with regard to turf battles and jurisdictional disputes between committees. 

We have all got to get beyond that, and we particularly have to 

get beyond it with regard to these priceless national resources 

called national parks. So, you know, let's all try to double-time it 

and see if we can work on it. It is not working very well. 

Mr. VENTO. Congresswoman Mink. 

Mrs. MINK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to share my own 

personal frustration in this whole area. And it is not without a 

great deal of effort in trying to work with the FAA, understanding 

your interest in being the cardinal agency that regulates airspace 

and being intent upon protecting your jurisdictional authority over 

this. 
33 

But I don't understand, frankly, where we have a unique institution like a national park, where the Congress and the government 

have given specific mission and authority to another agency to 

guard over it, why it is not in the best interest of everybody for the 

FAA to make a policy statement, clear out, that with respect to national parks, that you will defer to the National Park Service in its 

responsibilities to safeguard and preserve and conserve these 

unique areas of our country; and that your role would be as a counselor, to try to come up with the most appropriate kinds of restrictions-those that don't endanger life, that make appropriate exclusions of areas where you think that the FAA has particular, unique 

authority, and change the whole modus operandi-instead of being 

the primary agency that makes these determinations, to be the follower. 

And I think that has to come from the very top of your agency. 

And I just want to try to penetrate what I have discovered to be 

sort of a closed environment. They tolerate my nuisance-me as a 

nuisance and they come to see me and they attend the hearings 

and they are very anxious to talk, but beyond that, we don't see 

very much. 

And so I wanted to ask you today, particularly at this hearing, 

to try to understand what it is that is this overpowering impediment and reluctance. Is it statutory? Because initially, when I 

started on this, I got letters from the FAA saying that we have no 

authority over noise, period. Gradually we have been able to overcome that and now there is concern over noise and concern over the 

environment. 

Having come that far, does it take legislation to correct the problem of what I have just suggested? And that is to take a step backward and say with respect to national parks and wilderness areas, 

we are going to defer to the Park Service that has been given statutory authority to protect these areas, these unique areas of our 

country, and save; and except those things that are truly aviation 

procedures, then we are going to cooperate. Is that too much to ask 

of the FAA? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Well, it a very difficult question for me to answer. I am concerned that you feel the way you do about our reaction to the problem in Hawaii. I know that we have put a lot of 

time and effort into trying to reach some agreements there that 

would take us to operations that are satisfactory for all. That may 

not be possible. 

If it is not possible, I think what we would like to do is take information from the Park Service that is specific to a particular 

parkland and take the appropriate regulatory action. And I think 

that takes us to the ending we all want. 

We share the concern for the environment. We are more than 

willing to work with the Congress, the National Park Service, and 

with Interior at whatever level is necessary to get after what is obviously a very important problem. 

Mrs. MINK. What is wrong with legislation or some policy statement which would say that the Park Service decides where an area 

has some particular problems and sets down the guidelines for how 

tour craft can fly over, or when they did do it, at what levels and 

so forth; and simply turn to the FAA and say, help us to enforce 
34 

this? You have control over these operators. You issue the licenses. 

You can pull them. You can enforce them. 

What is wrong with saying to the FAA, be a cooperative agency 

and help the Park Service protect these values? Is there anything 

wrong with that kind of an approach? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I believe we are a cooperative agency, and I 

think we have the tools to help the Park Service do what they need 

to do to protect these areas. Mrs. MINK. In order to promote that, then-since you say that 

you have no objection, in order to promote that and to try to 

achieve that, do I take it that you would not oppose it if we wrote 

that into law that this must happen this way? What would be 

wrong with taking that step to make sure that in the generations 

to come, this would be the modus of operations between your two 

agencies? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Well, I would ask that you give us the opportunity to show you that we can work with the Park Service and use 

the tools that we already have available to do precisely--

Mrs. MINK. I will give you one example of the degree of my frustration, even having talked with the FAA on numerous occasions 

and getting all the assurances of cooperation, when people call to 

complain and they complain to your agency, the response that one 

of your workers gave to a complainer in my district was, I can't do 

anything about it, madam, call your congresswoman. Mr. HARRINGTON. I am aware of that specific complaint. I did not 

have a name that I could trace to the folks in the FAA that do that 

kind of inspection, evaluation, and follow-up. Mrs. MINK. And then also to be told that nobody keeps a record 

of the calls or complaints in your agency. So you get to a point where you are thinking that maybe they don't really want to get 

into this; it is something that they tolerate because we keep calling. 

And so I come down very hard on the notion that it really has 

to be the Park Service. They do keep records. They know exactly 

when they called, who called, what the complaints were all about, 

and I have obtained those records for my parks. But trying to get 

a handle from the FAA has been very difficult. And so I would urge that you take my thoughts back to the administrator ofF AA and obtain his comments. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Abercrombie. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. You heard my questions for Mr. Reynolds. 

Are you speaking for the Secretary of Transportation today? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Yes. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. On the first page of your testimony you say 

that with respect to solutions on the aviation-related issue in Hawaii, best addressed through regulatory action by the FAA, not by 

the Park Service? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I think that there is regulatory action to take. 

I think that the message is that we would like to work with the 

Park Service, and if regulatory action is necessary, that the FAA 

is prepared to do that and do it in line with the normal evaluations 

we make when it comes to airspace restrictions on special-use airspace. 
35 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That is a different question. I am asking underlying policy. If it was the underlying policy that the Park Service was in charge of the parks in and about and around-and I am 

including underground, for example, when I say "in," "about," and 

"around"; you have questions about thermal drilling, you have geothermal drilling, the questions of caves and whether they are going 

to be used correctly and so on. 

So, I am-believe me, I am not being facetious when I say that 

the Park Service has unique and particular responsibilities associated with each and every park. Can you find unique circumstances? 

The point is that it has been the policy of the United States, as 

embodied in national legislation, to establish these parks. And 

there were .circumstances that caused legislators before us, and 

presumably after us, to determine that a national park was warranted, "national" meaning exactly what it says, that there is an 

interest beyond the parochial, beyond the immediate area and that 

the Park Service has responsibility for carrying out policy on behalf 

of all of the people of the United States in it. 

Therefore, if the Park Service had responsibility and told you 

what it wanted to do with respect to air flights, then you could put 

in appropriate regulations. Would that be a fair extrapolation of 

your testimony? If you accept my premise, for conversation's sake, 

that the Park Service was in charge and they told you what they 

wanted the policy to be, would it be fair then to say that you could 

then put in the appropriate regulatory and rulemaking function, 

given the policy that had been enunciated to you? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I would hope there is a dialogue associated 

with that, based on input from the Park Service related to a specific parkland. I think there needs to be a discussion with the FAA in terms of 

what the Park Service's needs are. I think we are willing to take 

action based on those needs. There may be considerations from the 

FAA side of which the Park Service may not be aware. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Fair enough. So that if you determined that 

you could not, within the boundaries of your best judgment, meet 

those standards or meet what was requested by the Park Service, 

the Park Service could decide that there wouldn't be any 

overflights of any kind because they weren't able to work it out and 

they could make that decision and you could abide by that and 

then you wouldn't have that difficulty. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I believe that we are capable of working it out 

with the Park Service. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The Park Service could suggest something to 

you and then you would come back ask say, okay, we can do this, 

this, and this, but we can't do that, and not-and fulfill our obligations and rules and regulations and what we consider to be, in our 

professional judgment, necessary. And the Park Service might decide, well, if you can't do that, we 

defer to your judgment on that; and what we have decided to do 

then is not have anything. In other words, they wouldn't be obligated. This is what I am driving at. 

What bothers me is that there seems to be some kind of informal 

understanding or-"informal" isn't quite the word, but an assump-
36 

tion that there have to be overflights of some kind. There don't 

have to be overflights any more than there have to be jet skis in 

the ocean. 

I don't know why there is an assumption. The reason I am using 

that is that I have gone through that myself, where I couldn't understand why it was assumed that there had to be some kind of 

regulation, when you could have as your overriding principle that 

you were not going to allow the activity in the first place. 

So with respect to this, then, inasmuch as this doesn't exist right 

now and you have the obligation to go, you say that you are pressing on; and then you say on page 2 that, towards that end, you 

have tried to establish closer contacts with the EPA and the Department of the Interior and that you are working toward what is 

called an appropriate balance with respect to the noise-sensitive 

character of many of Hawaii's scenic areas. Can you tell me what you mean by "appropriate balance''? What 

does "balance" mean and why should there be a balance? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Well, I think that balance is what we have 

been trying to achieve with some of the agreements that we have 

worked toward to this point. If there is the opportunity to have balance and have access of both kinds to a wilderness or a parkland, 

we can work via agreements with Park Service and the aviation 

community to strike that balance. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Okay. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. It may come to pass that that is impossible, 

and if we can't reach that balance, then where you took it previously may be where it has to go. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Further on in your testimony, you said that 

last January you at least accelerated this process of pressing on. 

It is now eleven-and-a-half months-let's say it took place in the 

middle of January; and on page 3 you say that you have been 

working to draft an action plan. Why in 11 months of pressing and 

discussing and negotiating and trying to find appropriate balancing 

and challenging the situation-these are all extrapolated quotes, I 

am not trying to throw you a curve by saying them; I think they 

mean what they say, and I am using them in an appropriate context-why isn't-what is the status of that action plan and why 

hasn't it been finished? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. The action plan is finished. It has not been 

signed yet. And it is a pretty extensive plan. It is the FAA's commitment to work on the environmental issues associated with parklands. It is another document, but in that document there are actions that I think focus appropriate attention on the issue at hand. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. When you say "managing the affairs of airspace," that includes a lot of things, everything from overflying Diamond Head to overflying Oahu to small planes to all of this? Do 

you propose to have a separate document? It is not clear from this 

testimony whether there will be a separate document on park 

overflights or whether that is part of the action plan. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. The action plan is on park overflights. It has 

to do with that issue. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. But did I misunderstand your testimony? ·I 

thought that the testimony says that there is to be an action plan 

respecting airspace management in Hawaii in general. 
37 

Mr. HARRINGTON. It is connected to parklands. It is connected to 

the issue that we have been discussing with Mrs. Mink over a period of months. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So it is not a general--

Mr. HARRINGTON. No, sir. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Okay. Then I misunderstood the testimony. Are you absolutely sure? Let me read your testimony to you: 

"FAA has also been working to draft an action plan to assist us 

in managing the airspace in Hawaii. That plan is currently in final 

coordination. In addition, infonnal, high-level discussions are under 

way between our Departments to further advance cooperation on a 

wide range of issues including park overflights." 

I took "in addition" to mean that there was an airspace plan and 

a park overflight plan. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Well, I think--

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I don't believe that-I think it is probably a 

good idea. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I have read the action plan, and the action 

plan that I am talking about in this statement is an action plan 

that is specific to parklands and the work that we are doing there. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Okay. Let me state to you for the record-because we haven't discussed this previously, you and 1-that I have 

also gone through personally, as a legislator in Hawaii, both as a 

member of the city council and a member of the State senate, very 

frustrating contacts with the FAA. If I sounded somewhat sarcastic 

about the FAA, I don't mean to be; I meant to be condemnatory 

rather than sarcastic. And the reason for it has to do, for example, 

with small plane overflights over Oahu and previous contact with 

helicopters. 

I will never, ever forget-you are not specifically responsiblebut I will never, ever forget a helicopter pilot telling me at a meeting at Waikiki Elementary School, there wasn't a damn thing I 

could do about helicopters because the FAA controlled it and there 

are no rules with helicopters and if he wanted to sit outside the 

llikai Hotel and hover there all afternoon until his fuel ran out, 

that was what he was going to do, and I could go to hell. 

That might have satisfied has macho quotient for the day, but I 

can tell you it burned into my consciousness a sense that I would 

inquire about this and make it a part of my legislative repertoire 

for time immemorial with respect to what I could do or not do. 

And I, at that time, then tried for reasons of safety to get a helicopter pad moved from the grounds adjacent to the Hilton Hawaiian Village Hotel and other areas, and could not get anything from 

the FAA because I said I was afraid somebody would be killed one 

day; and I was there the day the helicopter took off, had an accident, and the pilot died. I was there when it happened. 

It is a terrible thing. 1-1 felt, and I still feel-1 am emotional 

about it now. There is only one thing worse in politics than being 

wrong, and that is being right, particularly when it results in 

somebody's death. The reason I bring a little bit of passion is not simply because 

somebody insulted me once-by the way, it wasn't somebody from 

the FAA that told me that. It was a pilot, depending on the FAA 

in that regard. But also because I literally witnessed somebody 
38 

dying as a result of what I considered to be an unsafe practice, and 

it turned out that I was right. 

So my desire to get this concluded is that in the absence of definitive action in this regard in a time-certain-that is the last part 

I wanted to ask, Mr. Chairman-in your testimony, you stated that 

in September of 1993 you finally got something from the pilots who 

say they now understood the communities' concerns and they were 

eager to help. Why it took to September of 1993 for that to take 

place is beyond me. But it says here that-on page 8, although 

progress has been made, much work remains to be done. That seems to conflict with your-contradict your testimony that 

I just read to you about the plan, at least I was under the impression-what page was I on? 

On page 3, I was under the impression this plan is virtually fin- ished. So, if much work needs to be done, we don't have a timecertain. Can you give us a time-certain? In the absence of that, it 

seems to me that this legislation is going to move rather quickly. Mr. HARRINGTON. I think what we meant in terms of the statement is that, yes, we have an action plan, the action plan is meant 

to come from the highest policy level of the FAA, that these are 

some of the actions that we intend to take in the situation in Ha- waii. 

We have talked with Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, where we 

do have some agreements we have met on. We are trying to work 

those agreements out with the Park Service and the Hawaiian Helicopters Association. That kind of model may take us to satisfactory 

operations over the parklands possibly would be something that we 

would like to apply elsewhere. So there is a lot of work to do. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Okay. That is a separate question. 

Let me ask a-so it is going to be finished in a time-certain? 

Have you set a date? Have you set a time? Have you told your people in Hawaii, I want to have on my desk this action plan by such 

and such a date? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. The action plan is here in Washington. Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Is Secretary Pena aware that you have it? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I believe he is. I will ensure that he is. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Okay. I think you heard the Chairman say 

that he hopes-not hopes, I think he stated without-! don't think 

I am stating for him something that I misunderstood, that he 

would like to see this at the top of your legislative agenda in January; and, further, the whole issue of national park usage, of which 

overflights is one of the principal questions, at the top of the legislative agenda to be addressed. 

I don't think I am misstating you, Mr. Chairman. One last point then. You state on page 6 that-we actually do 

read this testimony, you know-on page 6 in the "Fly Neighborly" 

program, which I am aware of, "that the program provides for association-imposed penalties for violations of the HHOA standards, to 

include suspension of employee and company fine after a violation." 

Have any penalties been imposed? I believe the answer was yes 

in previous testimony, but it wasn't elaborated on. Mr. HARRINGTON. The penalty imposed I spoke of was for viola- tions of the regulations. The "Fly Neighborly" program is a different way of taking action that is done within that organization. 
39 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I understand. I am asking you whether you 

are aware of any. Mr. HARRINGTON. I should be, but I am not. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. We can ask that later. Finally-let me impose upon you, Mr. Chairman, just for 30 seconds-! would like to take advantage--15 seconds-take advantage 

of your appearance here today and making acquaintance today, you 

and Mr. Becker and myself, to ask you about these low-level flights 

of fixed wing small planes over Oahu. 

I have been told by the FAA that they are not supposed to do 

it. They do it every day. They fly over the Manoa Valley and over 

Oahu, and sooner or later they are going to crash, just like the helicopter down at the Hilton Hawaiian Village. Sooner or later there 

is going to be a difficulty. 

They are not supposed to do it. They fly and wake people up. 

They do it in the mornings in particular. I wish you would look into 

it. I can't believe that they are not seen and that they are not 

known. They know that it is going on, and they are getting away 

with it. And it undermines, Mr. Harrington, your authority and 

confidence in the FAA when that takes place. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I will look into that and get back to you. 

[The following was submitted:] 

AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS PLANS FOR ISLANDS 

The mountainous terrain of Oahu combined with the location of Honolulu International Airport creates a congestion problem for the airport. As a result, special 

departure and arrival routes were developed for general aviation aircraft, in order 

to separate single-engine from heavy turbojet traffic over or south of the southern 

shoreline of the Island. These special routes pushed the general aircraft back toward 

the mountains and into the areas described by Congressman Abercrombie. Although 

these operations sometimes have the appearance of low-level flights, most are being 

conducted according to the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). While the Flight 

Standards District Office (FSDO) has investigated many noise and low-flying aircraft complaints, most were not found to be violations of the F ARs. 

The Honolulu FSDO is actively involved in Hawaii noise issues. Working with the 

Hawaii State Airports Division, FAA has helped to establish community working 

groups in each county of the Hawaiian Islands. The mission of these working groups 

is to develop an Aircraft Operations Plan for each island that will be acceptable to 

all Island citizens. Local FAA personnel will participate as working members of each 

community group. 

Mr. VENTO. Congresswoman Mink. 

Mrs. MINK. Just one final question with respect to this agreement that you are trying to work out with the Park Service with 

reference to the Hawaii Volcanoes; and that is at some level here 

in Washington, assuming that is signed off and everybody agrees 

to it, how do you enforce it? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I think that takes us right back to the relationship with the Park Service and, I think, what we have talked a little bit about today. I think we would need to reach agreement with 

the helicopter operators, the Park Service and the FAA on a set of 

standards. 

Mrs. MINK. I know that, but how would you enforce it when 

there are violations? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. A piece of enforcement is subtle, I think, in 

that the opportunity to sanction exists. If an agreement is reached 

and it is satisfactory to everybody to operate in that manner, I 
40 

think the stick is that if that agreement is not followed, then we 

would have to look at regulatory airspace restrictions. 

Mrs. MINK. Isn't the answer to my question that there really is 

no enforcement, that it is a voluntary agreement, we hope that the 

helicopter people will adhere to it in order to at least try to provide 

some sort of response to community anxiety? Isn't that really the 

situation, we are going to have a voluntary plan and wait and see 

whether it works? Because there are no teeth in it in terms of enforcement, in addition to which have you nobody on the Big Island 

to enforce it anyway. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I would hope, though, that by reaching that 

sort of an agreement, that there would have to be give-and-take 

amongst the parties that were headed towards that agreement. 

The Park Service certainly has a very loud voice in what the requirements would be. The FAA can also have its input. It is then 

in the helicopter operators' best interest to follow whatever limitations are agreed to. And, of course, the ultimate ending could be 

that you wind up with either hard legislation or--

Mrs. MINK. Are you functioning in this as the lead agency? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. In terms of--

Mrs. MINK. This voluntary agreement? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I don't know as there is a lead agency. I think 

it has been cooperative to the point-! mean, I don't know. 

Mr. BECKER. We, in the context of the agreements, we have assumed some initiative as far as trying to bring the parties together, 

such as the operators; and sit down, as we have done in Hawaii 

and at Glacier and other places, to be the catalyst to bring everybody together and try to hammer out an agreement. 

Mrs. MINK. Thank you. 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks. Just a question or two. Secretary Babbitt wrote to Secretary Peiia concerning the FAA's 

funding for a new helicopter facility at Grand Canyon and asked 

that the project not proceed until completion of the noise studies 

now under way. Has there been a response to that? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I don't know, sir, but I would be happy to follow up. 

[The following was submitted:] 

GRAND CANYON OVERFLIGHTS 

Secretary Babbitt has been infonned that the Federal funding for site preparation 

for the helicopter facility at Grand Canyon National Park Airport was provided a year ago. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is not providing further funding for the project, and the State of Arizona, which operates the airport, needs no further action or approval by the FAA to proceed with the project. It should also 

be noted that Secretary Babbitt and DOT Secretary Peii.a issued a joint press re- lease on December 22, 1993, announcing an interagency working group to address 

overflights issues at Grand Canyon and other National parks. 

Mr. VENTO. The other point is I agree with the gentlewoman 

from Hawaii about the full-time equivalent in terms of presence 

and personnel to make a commitment to find out what is going on 

in Maui or on the Big Island of Hawaii. 

You get a lot of problems in Hawaii; I understand that. But there 

would be no problem with a licensure process by the Park Service 

of tour type of aircraft. I mean, you could continue your role and 
41 

they could perfonn that function in tenns of licensure or a concession-type of function. 

Today, they don't have that sort of relationship. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. I am not sure I am prepared to answer that. 

Mr. VENTO. Licensure for the activity over the airspace--licen- sure of the activity, the tourism activity, the sightseeing activityover these areas. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Unless that conflicted" with some of our regulatory functions, I don't think we would have a problem. Mr. VENTO. No, you have to do your role. What do you mean by 

a Part 135 certificate? I know you gave numbers. I know you mentioned a Part 91 certificate; that is a combination helicopter-fixed 

wing aircraft, the 91. 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Part 135 is a regulation for aircraft with 30 

seats or less, which means the smaller commuters and on-demand 

air taxis. There is a proviso that speaks to sightseeing operations 

within a 25-mile radius, which pretty much excepts those operators 

from the requirements of the rule if they stay within that geographic area. 

The rule was written a long time ago. I don't think it really was 

written with tour operations as we know them today in mind. That 

is why we have taken action to amend the rule. Mr. VENTO. Could you share with the committee a summary of 

what your recommendations are? How long will it be before that 

is finalized? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. It is in draft fonn and goes through a regulatory process that takes some time. It depends on the priority that 

the agency gives it. We do consider it an important rule, and I believe it is on the priority list. 

Mr. VENTO. The Part 91 certificate is different? 

Mr. HARRINGTON. Part 91 is a section of the rules that generally 

applies to all aircraft. It is, in most cases, not as stringent at the 

Part 135 requirements. Mr. VENTO. I had a letter from the National Parks and Conservation Association which relates to the issuance of two grants in 

Alaska; what is more is that these grants are on park land. I don't 

know if you are familiar with all the details, but it is apparent to 

me that the FAA, through the grant process, has leaned over backwards to make these grants in spite of the fact that they are an 

invitation to a myriad of problems in Alaska with regards to questions with the Park Service. 

What this highlights to me is the lack of Federal consistency in 

tenns of one agency working with another agency in terms of problems. It goes without saying that in Alaska air transportation is many 

times the only alternative. In this case the FAA ignored the concerns of the Regional Alaska Director of the National Park Service 

who wrote to the FAA and three days later the FAA dismissed 

these concerns and went ahead and made the grants. It is basically 

on lands that are Park Service land. 

In Kantishna, it might be on the basis of patented mining claims 

in the Park Service which-we are trying to buy them back and 

eliminate some of the problems. It has been an ongoing problem for 
42 

some time. But the last thing we need to do is begin putting airstrips inside the boundaries of a National Park unit. 

And the other deals with Wrangell-St. Elias. I am going to submit this letter and questions to you, and I must tell you that I 

think it speaks volumes about the lack of Federal consistency with 

regards to what is happening here. 

[The letter may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. VENTO. I think that the hearing has provided some important insights. I hope that they will have an impact on the 135. It 

seems that we want you to do the job, but it seems that things are 

falling between the cracks between the Park Service and the FAA. 

I know that the Park Service lead person for the study is still 

here, and we look forward to putting this on a better path in terms 

of resolving it. 

Mr. Harrington, Mr. Becker, thank you. We will stand in recess while we vote. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. VENTO. Let's see if we can resume our sitting. 

Mr. Harrington and Mr. Becker, we sort of concluded with your 

testimony. Obviously, you are going to get some questions, but we 

want to call Mr. Barry Stokes, the President of Citizens Against 

Noise from Hawaii; and David Leese, the Vice President of Citizens 

Against Noise; and finally Kathy Moser from the Sierra Club, the 

Maui Chapter of the Sierra Club. 

I don't know if we have to get them back from the hall, but we 

appreciate your patience. We have nobody to blame but ourselves; 

those of us up here, asking all the questions. Your statements have 

been made a part of the record. Feel free to summarize. 

STATEMENTS OF BARRY STOKES, PRESIDENT, CITIZENS 

AGAINST NOISE, HAWAII; DAVID LEESE, CITIZENS AGAINST 

NOISE, MAUl CHAPTER; AND KATHY MOSER, SIERRA CLUB, 

MAUl CHAPTER 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Stokes, are you ready to present your statement? 

STATEMENT OF BARRY STOKES 

Mr. STOKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate 

this opportunity to speak. I do have prepared, written testimony, 

and I appreciate your also mentioning Environment Hawaii during 

your testimony. This is the single most important piece of written, 

published information on the problem in Hawaii. 

And also thanks, of course, to Mrs. Mink for introducing this extremely important bill. 

My name is Barry· Stokes and I am President of Citizens Against 

Noise. We are a grassroots organization within the State of Hawaii. 

Citizens Against Noise is a founding member of the Tour Aircraft 

Control Coalition. The Coalition represents a union of community 

groups, environmental organizations, and individuals concerned 

about the uncontrolled growth of the tour helicopter industry in 

Hawaii. 

I am honored to have the opportunity to come 5,000 miles to ask 

for your support of Representative Mink's vitally important legislation, H.R. 1696. 
43 

I have been studying the problem for just about 10 years. I have 

been a member of the State Helicopter and Tour Aircraft Advisory 

Council since 1986. I have been a Technical Advisory Committee 

member for the Hawaii State Helicopter System Plan since 1988. 

I was Helicopter Safety Coordinator for the U.S. Geological Survey's Hawaiian Volcano Observatory, where I was employed for 12 

years as a geochemical technician. In that capacity, I flew over 110 

hours in rotary-wing aircraft and participated in over 15 hours of 

safety seminars on the use of helicopters in the volcanologic research. I am a member of the Sierra Club, the Conservation Council for Hawaii, and the Hawaii Coalition of Conservation Voters. 

I own a small business. This leads me to be particularly concerned over the rapid growth of the tour aviation industry in Hawaii's national parks; and we have Mrs. Mink to thank for introducing this legislation. 

Issues of increasing concern in Hawaii are, one, the noise intrusions on residential communities bordering the national parks; two, 

the negative impacts on hikers and native animal species in wilderness areas; three, the disruptive effects on visitors who seek to experience Hawaii in its state of natural quiet; and four and finally, 

the State and community governments' frustration over both the 

noise impacts and the rising accident rate of tour aircraft. 

Very little discussion has been made about the accident problem, 

but I would like to quote a few statistics. 1980 to 1988 there have 

been a total of 44 helicopter accidents in Hawaii, 19 of which occurred on air tour or air taxi flights alone, what this particular bill 

addresses. Just in the past two years, 20 deaths have occurred, 

four by drowning, just in January of 1993 in sightseeing operations 

both on the Big Island and Maui. 

H.R. 1696 is the only piece of Federal legislation presently available that controls this type of aviation activity over the national 

parks. The resolution limits low-altitude operations over Hawaii so 

as to protect the sonic serenity of these areas. It is important for 

the committee, if you would please, to recognize that this resolution 

does not affect industrial, emergency, police, military or Park Service operations of these aircraft. We believe these are appropriate 

use of that type of aircraft and support it. 

Tour helicopters have shattered Hawaii's most precious resource 

its calm and quiet beauty. As visitors to the national parks, our 

rights to privacy and quiet are currently revokable at any moment, 

dawn to dusk. It is no longer possible to visit any portion of our 

State's National Park System without being assaulted by the sound 

of helicopters which the industry itself has admitted is both noisy 

and constitutes a public nuisance. 

Our national parks are "natural museums," established and 

maintained for the public's education, retreat and repose. In the 

words of Henry David Thoreau, "In wildness is the preservation of 

the world," end quote. 

Helicopters are ruining that wildness, and for that we all suffer, 

resident and visitor alike. We are turning away the visitors that 

come to our State, that give us our main source of income. In addition, tour helicopter activity distracts park personnel, annoys and 

endangers campers and hikers, and disrupts the nesting, feeding, 
44 

and breeding habits of Hawaii's native birds, which are in serious 

decline. 

The regulations proposed in H.R. 1696 are clearly necessary and, 

we believe, quite reasonable. They have been, in fact, drafted with 

the help of the National Park Service. I hope this subcommittee 

will kindly recognize that this legislation will restore peace and 

tranquility to the national parks in Hawaii. We also recognize the 

law of the land. It is time we seriously consider the law of the sky. 

I sincerely thank all Members of this committee for this unique 

opportunity to testify. And if given time allowed, I have made some 

comments related to the earlier testimony, but I will defer to 

your--

[The attachment to Mr. Stokes statement may be found at end 

of hearing.] 

Mr. VENTO. I think probably we will get back and ask you a 

question or two and maybe you can comment. 

Next we want to hear from David Leese. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID LEESE 

Mr. LEESE. Leese, that is correct. Good afternoon. 

I reside in Hawaii on the island of Maui. I am here to express 

my concerns as a private citizen and as Vice President of the organization, Citizens Against Noise. 

In 1969, I chose Maui as my home because of its tranquility and 

because of the nearby location of Haleakala National Park. 

Mr. LEESE. A wilderness internationally recognized as one of the 

quietest places on Earth, a place of ethereal absolute silence. However, in the past 10 years, the very small island of Maui has 

become saturated with aviation noise over nearly every square inch 

of its 728 square miles. 

There is virtually no place for residents or tourists to find auditory peace, except for that space set aside as wilderness in the volcanic crater of Haleakala National Park. Humans require the silence of wilderness as retreats from the pressure, noise, and the 

pollution of our society. For 23 years I have found that retreat in Haleakala. But recently, as a consequence of an invasion by a plague of flying chain 

saws, Haleakala has been despoiled. Their incessant racket is as 

much an insult and desecration as a boom box would be inside a 

Cathedral. 

In 1978 Congress mandated that aviation over Haleakala Crater 

be limited to 9,500 feet AGL minimum ceiling, a regulation that no 

longer is effective because of the sheer number of overflights that 

has exploded beyond any reasonable proportion. Ten tour helicopter 

companies operate over 30 machines on a continuous daily basis, 

all year-round. This activity is predicted to double within 10 years. 

The impact of overflights is compounded by the size of the park, 

one of the smallest in the Nation and by the crater's amphitheater 

configuration, which produces acoustical amplification of any sound 

above or near it. Three or four helicopters are often overhead at 

once. This activity goes on all day, all year-round. 

Many people come to the park for solitude, and they are disappointed if they don't find it. To fulfill the desire of three or four 

people in a helicopter at the expense of scores on the ground is not 
45 

just. The claim which the helicopter operators make about leaving 

only a temporary sound footprint is not accurate. There are often 

lengthy stretches of time, upwards of an hour, when there is nothing audible inside Haleakala Crater except for the drone and blade 

slap of tour helicopters. A once silent wilderness has become a war 

zone. 

The legislation under review, while incomplete, addresses this 

problem. I have several things to say in its defense and several recommendations for its improvement. 

Wilderness National Parks are recognized for their intangible 

qualities, such as natural quiet, solitude, scenery, sounds of nature, 

etcetera. 

Regarding actions which compromise these intangible qualities, 

the National Park Service's Management Policies Guidelines of 

1988 state the following with regard to noise, quote: 

Activities causing excessive or unnecessary, unnatural sounds in and adjacent to 

parks, including low-level aircraft overflight, will be monitored and action taken to 

prevent or minimize unnatural sounds that adversely affect park resources or visi· 

tors' enjoyment of them. 

H.R. 1696 offers an excellent opportunity to act on this guideline. 

My hope is that the subcommittee Members will recognize the 

necessity of this legislation and the legitimacy of its attempt to restore ecological quality, peace, and wildness to National Park lands 

in Hawaii. 

Rewording of the legislation will be necessary to reflect the reality that the FAA, in conjunction with EPA, is currently empowered by Title 49 of the U.S. Code, Section 1431, attached to my testimony, to engage in, quote, control and abatement of aircraft 

noise, end quote. 

H.R. 1696 ought to unambiguously require the FAA and the EPA 

to engage in this process in a meaningful way. Also, H.R. 1696 

ought to require the FAA to carry out the environmental impact 

studies called for in the Department of Transportation document 

1051.1D, chapter 3, paragraph 37(b), and appendix 3, paragraph 

3(a), where flight paths below 3,000 feet require an environmental 

impact statement. Both these references are attached. 

I also request that the committee put teeth into the act through 

a clear articulation of penalties and violations of the act. 

I leave you with the words of the late novelist Wallace Stegner, 

Sierra Club leader and advocate of wilderness preservation. He 

stated, quote: "Something will have gone out of us as a people if 

we ever let the remaining wilderness be destroyed. The wilderness 

can be a means of reassuring ourselves of our sanity as creatures," 

end quote. 

Based on what I have heard in this room so far today, I am convinced that sanity will prevail. 

Thank you deeply for this opportunity to testify in person. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Leese. 

[The statement of Mr. Leese may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. VENTO. We will ask now Kathy Moser from the Sierra Club 

to make her presentation. 

Welcome. Please proceed. 
46 

STATEMENT OF KATHY MOSER 

Ms. MOSER. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to comment on 

H.R. 1696. My name is Kathleen Moser, and I live on the island 

of Maui, Hawaii. I have been invited to speak as a representative 

of the Sierra Club and other concerned citizens of Maui. Donations 

were collected for my airfare, and my time is voluntary. I am 

speaking in support of this bill and how it pertains to Haleakala 

National Park on Maui. 

The Hawaiian Islands are some 2,500 miles from the nearest 

continent, making them the most isolated islands in the world. Great numbers of plants, animals, and insects have evolved there 

because of this isolation. 

Today, unfortunately, Hawaii has the dubious distinction of 

being called the endangered species capital of the world. At one 

time, there were at least 140 species of native birds in Hawaii. Seventy percent of those are now extinct. Of the remaining native 

birds, 30 are endangered and 12 of those close to extinction and 

perhaps beyond recovery. The remaining fragile native plant and 

animal life of these islands is in grave danger and needs protection 

if it is to survive. 

Haleakala mountain rises from sea level to 10,023 feet in height. 

The crater of this dormant volcano extends seven and a half miles 

in length and two and a half miles in width. Haleakala National 

Park encompasses the entire crater district and adjacent rain forests. 

In 1980, the United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural 

Organization, UNESCO, designated Haleakala National Park as an 

International Biosphere Reserve. This was determined on the basis 

of its extraordinary biological significance in the conservation of 

biodiversity worldwide. Rare and endangered plants, birds, and insects found nowhere else in the world reside in the diverse 

ecosystems of Haleakala National Park. 

There are five native birds in the park that are listed by the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered. The sole remaining habitat for these birds is the rain forests of windward 

Haleakala above the 4,000 foot elevation. These birds would not 

survive below 4,000 feet because of avian malaria, which is carried 

by the mosquitoes. The bird habitat has been slowly diminishing, 

compromising their ability to exist as a healthy, flourishing species. Because no formal studies have been completed, there is no hard 

scientific data, but it is the consensus of the experts that helicopter 

overflights greatly disturb native forest birds. The observations of 

biologists-the observations the biologists have made while in the 

forest make it clear that the birds are suffering at the hands of 

these aircraft. 

The birds are especially vulnerable to disturbance from helicopters during critical pair-bonding, breeding, young-rearing and 

nest building. The noise startles them. They often abandon their 

nests, leaving their eggs and young chicks. They become disoriented and are more likely to be killed or injured while dislocated. The bird fertility rates are likely to become diminished, 

and their delicate and complex signaling methods with other birds 

are rendered useless. One biologist whom I interviewed said that 
47 

even conducting bird surveys was made difficult by the helicopter 

overflights. The birds would scatter at the intrusion of aircraft 

noise, and the counts, which are for eight-minute intervals, would 

have to be delayed or terminated because of the repeated helicopter 

overflights. 

The natural state of the forest approaches absolute silence. It is 

this realm of silence in which these birds have developed their way 

of life and have lived for thousands of years. If we are to protect 

these forest birds from extinction, we must eliminate the sources 

of stress on their lives. Banning aircraft from these areas is not too 

much to ask to protect what has been acknowledged globally as an 

ecosystem of extraordinary biological significance. 

Another major impact these aircraft have is upon the people who 

come to places like Haleakala seeking the very solitude and tranquility that has been taken away. Some find inspiration and 

strength to deal with the problems of our times by entering the 

sanctuary of the natural world. If we cannot find a place to experience serenity, peacefulness and tranquility, how can we know it, 

teach it and live it? 

The immediate problem today is not only the low altitude at 

which the aircraft fly and the loud noise that they generate but 

also the dramatic increase in the numbers that are operating. 

On a recent Sierra Club hike into what a few years ago was a 

quiet, tranquil area, 30 helicopters passed over in a period of four 

hours. Helicopter passes were almost continual on another Sierra 

Club hike just a few weeks ago. Can you imagine what it would 

be like if that many helicopters flew over this building and you had 

no roof? At the very least, it would be stressful. 

The State motto of Hawaii, "Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono" 

means ''The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness." The 

life of our land is its birds, animals, plants, and insects. If we are 

to allow the perpetuation of these rare treasures, we must live up 

to the task we have set for ourselves. 

We, the Members of the Sierra Club and concerned citizens of 

Maui, wish to thank Mrs. Mink for introducing this bill and urge 

the Members of the subcommittee to vote favorably for its passage. 

Thank you for your time and aloha. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you very much, all, for your testimony and 

your patience. I know it is frustrating when Members are here and 

they are going through and hearing these many problems over and 

over again. 

Considering Mr. Stokes, Ms. Moser, and Mr. Leese, the comments from the FAA, from the Parks Service concerning the memorandum of understanding, are you familiar with the details of it, 

or at least the outlines of it? 

Mr. Stokes. 

Mr. STOKES. We did get a first draft of that memorandum of 

agreement through the National Parks. Actually it was made available to the member of the media that wrote the article on environment Hawaii. 

Mr. VENTO. I didn't read all of that. But I did look at the part 

after I had asked my questions about the avian impacts. 

Are they on the right path? 
48 

Mr. STOKES. We encourage it. And, absolutely, we are grateful to 

FAA, Brian Caldine in particular, with Flight Standards. He is 

going to be holding hearings in January 1994 on the way aviation 

activities continue in the State, not just in the National Parks, is 

our understanding. 

In fact, tonight, on the big island, there will be a four-hour meeting from 3 to 7 p.m. dealing with this issue on big island airspace. 

Members of our coalition will be in attendance. 

The important point is the draft memorandum of agreement is 

still a draft; and while they are responding, there is no change in 

aircraft activity over the National Park at this moment. 

Mr. VENTO. Is it your view-and others may want to comment 

about this-that this particular document, I think Congresswoman 

Mink and others talked about, and some of you talked about, has 

any teeth in it? 

Mr. STOKES. That is a serious concern. We believe National 

Parks should simply be flight-free zones. And this bill does allow 

for various height limitations of aircraft. 

And, again, I would like to make a point on that enforcement. To 

our knowledge, the HHOA has not imposed any fine against any 

particular operator or any pilot. And in fact, the head of the association told us the reason why they don't do that is that they are 

afraid of keeping their membership within the organization, because if they impose too many rules, they will lose their contact between HHOA and the industry. So we have a real problem. 

Mr. VENTO. Who told you that? The FAA? 

Mr. STOKES. No. Bob DeCamp, who is head of the Hawaiian Heli- copters Association. Mr. VENTO. They obviously have put restrictions on suspending 

licenses. 

Mr. STOKES. My understanding is HHOA cannot do any of that. 

It is all up to the Federal Aviation Administration. Mr. VENTO. That is what I meant. I am sorry. That they had, in 

fact, taken such action. Mr. STOKES. I know of two instances that have occurred, one in 

which a pilot who killed four people off Kalaupapa; he was in violation of two regulations. He was 25 miles from the point of take off 

and landing. 

The second violation, he was-his engine aircraft failed; he simply went into the water and drowned four Taiwanese visitors to the 

State. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Leese, you have put forth a suggestion, that the 

FAA has under law, certain requirements right now that you suggest that they are not in compliance with. It says "activities." 

You go through it on page 5. And I appreciate incidentally you 

summarizing your testimony. I did look it over. And then I have 

the attachments. 

Do you want to just elaborate a little bit on that for me? I know 

you were trying to condense things here. 

Mr. LEESE. The reason I mentioned that is that often when one 

has conversations with representatives of the FAA, the 

empowerment is sidestepped; and the FAA will tell you that their 

primary concern is safety, and that we don't really have anything 
49 

to do with noise, which is why I cited the Federal Code, because 

the FAA is empowered, if it so chooses, to control aircraft noise. 

Mr. VENTO. I suppose we could just reference this in terms of 

parks as an example and say parks are considered noise-sensitive 

areas; and, therefore, you have to comply with the rigorous provisions of this in such a way as to evaluate that completely. 

It would be one way to get things on the road. I think that you 

can tell from the comments, that this is beyond just Hawaii. Although I know it is a special problem, it sort of is not untypical I 

think of some-well, I suppose it is atypical really in terms of the 

heights and some of the other-the small size. 

I think there is always a lot more difficulty with Hawaii where 

you have so much commuter and air transportation even between 

the islands. So I think in that sense, it is far different. 

But there are similar types of challenges in other areas, although 

geography and the incidence may not be as frequent just yet. But 

there are certainly unique characteristics in places like the Grand 

Canyon. 

So we are trying to look at a way, I think, at basis of this-1 am, 

at least. I know if we can't do that. We can just deal with Hawaii, 

I guess, on a single-basis bill. But I would hope that we could do 

more in terms of this particular matter. 

Congresswoman Mink. 

Mrs. MINK. Yes. I would like to-since I had to leave at the moment the panel was coming forward--express my own personal appreciation to all three of you for the time and the effort that you 

have devoted to this issue. 

Long before there was a bill, H.R. 1696, all of you were very 

much concerned about this issue, wrote about it, attended numerous meetings, I am sure, in your local communities. So I appreciate 

your support of the legislation, your assistance in bringing it to the 

attention of your organizations and your communities, and in particular, the personal sacrifice that all three of you have made in a 

financial way and otherwise in coming here and responding to the 

subcommittee and providing us this invaluable testimony. The 

three of you are representative of thousands of other people who, 

if they could, would have flown here and been personal testimonies 

to this issue. 

In your respective capacities, I know that it is not only the National Park that concerns you but the whole environment that is 

shattered when these aircrafts fly and invade upon your privacy 

and the privacy of others. But today in this hearing we are dealing 

with the precise issue of the National Park, and in particular, the 

two of primary concern, Haleakala and the Volcanoes. 

The subcommittee clearly has designs upon my bill to extend it 

to other areas and perhaps to recraft it so that it can have some 

national implications. If we go that route, the three of you and all 

the people you represent deserve a great deal of commendation for 

your tenacity, because you have helped us to evolve beyond the immediate of our two parts into something that can help to develop 

nationwide policy for all parks. And to that extent, I am sure all 

areas will be tremendously indebted to you. 
50 

One of the things that I would like to ask the three of you, if you 

care to respond, is the nature of the regulatory presence currently. 

Is there any? 

We keep hearing about voluntary agreements, tentative agreements, interim agreements, understandings, collaborations, cooperation, voluntary and so forth. 

Are you aware of any regulatory, voluntary efforts being made by 

anyone in this area of protecting the National Parks and safeguarding its environs from the noise of aircraft? 

Mr. STOKES. Thank you very much for the question. And also 

thank you for the praise, Mrs. Mink. We all appreciate that. 

We are unaware of any FAA presence on the big island that has 

taken regulatory action against these operators. Maybe one analogy 

that might help would be if you are speeding on a highway and a 

policeman sees you; he will pull you over and stop you because you 

are in violation of the law. When these aircraft fly outside their 

flight safety envelope, as they do every hour of every day, the only 

ones they are watching are other tour helicopter operator pilots; 

and they don't talk; they don't rat on one another. It is a close community. So they know what is going on, but they are not telling the 

FAA about it. We know what is going on, and we tell the FAA 

about it. And they are not responding. So that is the problem. 

If I could make one more point about funding. The National 

Parks complained that they couldn't do an adequate noise study because there wasn't funding available to them. Yet the FAA granted 

the Hawaii Helicopters Association a $127,000 grant to propose 

their Noise Abatement Performance Evaluation System, or NAPES 

for short. 

Now, the problem with this is that the control of this program 

remains within the industry. And, in fact, Mr. DeCamp was before 

our county council just last month telling them that, because the 

FAA is only giving partial funding to this program, the public only 

gets partial access to the data. 

So this is our problem. All of it is in-house. And we are trying 

to get some public control over this industry which causes a nuisance. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. MINK. Anyone else care to comment? 

The question I was trying to get at was touched on tangentially 

in your reply in terms of no one being present and no one doing 

anything. 

My question is: Aren't there in place, to your knowledge, any 

agreements, voluntary or otherwise, any standards that have been 

promulgated by anybody that anybody has to adhere to which could 

formulate the basis of a serious complaint that could be acted upon 

by a citizen? 

Mr. LEESE. This is with regard to the National Parks? 

Mrs. MINK. Just the National Parks, right. 

Mr. LEESE. Only the regulation from the 1987 legislation which 

mandates 9,500 feet, which is frequently violated. I can personally 

testify to that. I have seen it myself. Mrs. MINK. But with respect to the general admonition with respect to low flights, with respect to noise and invasion of the park 

environs, are there any existing regulations that any of us inter-
51 

ested in this area could pinpoint and say, well, here it is, and this 

is a violation? 

Or are we in a situation where there is a total vacuum, a lot of 

talk and lip service, and a total crippling of the ability of citizens 

in the community to put their fingers on precisely what ought to 

be done, because there is nothing there to put your finger on? 

Mr. LEESE. With regards to the park, that would be true. 

Mrs. MINK. To the park, yes. 

Do you concur with that, Mr. Stokes? 

Mr. STOKES. I do. 

As I understand it, however, there are ways that FAA can take 

action on existing rules and regulations. 

Mrs. MINK. My point was: Is there anything now that either you 

or I or any other constituent, barring the enactment of this legislation, can relate to in terms of reporting nonconformance to a voluntary agreement? 

Mr. STOKES. None that I am aware of. 

Mrs. MINK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks. I appreciate, too, your patience and your 

traveling to share with us your views and the work that you are 

doing on this. We hope we can put it to good use. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Leese, Ms. Moser. 

Mrs. MINK. Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether in my absence 

you permitted them to have their entire testimony put into the 

record. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes. We saw to that request early for everyone. 

The record will stay open for others that have testimony for a 10-

day period. Well, it would be easier to be 10 legislative days, but 

I guess we hope we don't have 10 more legislative days this year. 

So we hope they will come in a reasonable length of time. 

Finally, the last panel is Mr. Bob DeCamp, Executive Director, 

Hawaii Helicopter Operators Association; David Chevalier, President of Blue Hawaiian helicopters, Inc; and Mr. Elling Halvorson, 

President of Papillion Airways, Inc. 

We have testimony from Mr. DeCamp, and others don't. So let 

me call on him first and just suggest to the others, that if they 

don't have-I haven't received written testimony-that you try to 

stay within a five-minute period to summarize your views, and 

then we will get back and ask you a few questions. 

Mr. DeCamp, we do have your testimony as part of the record. 

Please proceed. 

STATEMENTS OF BOB DeCAMP, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HAWAII HELICOPTER OPERATORS ASSOCIATION; DAVID CHEVALIER, PRESIDENT, BLUE HAWAIIAN HELICOPTERS, INC; 

AND ELLING HALVORSON, PRESIDENT, PAPILLION AIRWAYS, 

INC. 

Mr. DECAMP. I would like if I could, with your permission, to 

enter my testimony as it is--

Mr. VENTO. It has already been entered into the record. 

Mr. DECAMP. I would like to then take some time to discuss 

other points. 

Mr. VENTO. About five minutes. 

Mr. DECAMP. Great. Thank you. 
52 

I am Bob DeCamp. I am President of the Hawaii Helicopters Operators Association. We do have 87 percent of the helicopter tour 

companies within our membership. They own or operate 93 percent 

of the tour helicopters Statewide. The membership has grown since 

its inception in 1987. And that is because the helicopter operators 

understand the value and cooperative effort. And our main topic of 

concern right now is noise abatement. 

A couple of things I would like to comment on that came up 

today earlier. One is regarding, I think, what is important to the 

panel and that is the agreement that is being put together right 

now with the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. 

That agreement has been approved by our association and by the 

FAA. And we are just waiting for the Park Service's final review. 

So I believe it was a month and a half ago it was submitted to 

them as a draft, as a final draft from FAA and our association. 

It will specifically outline the techniques for flying within the 

Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, a method worked out with this 

negotiation process, with the Park Service, and the FAA. There 

have been four full meetings with the Park Service and the FAA 

to develop this, as well as over a dozen partial meetings, both in 

person and over the phone to develop it. It is in its 7th form, 7th 

draft form. So there has been quite a bit of work done. And it is 

a procedure that we found very interesting and beneficial. And we 

think that the program will work very well. 

As far as monitoring the program and the teeth · in the program, 

we will use the same approach that we have used in our Mandatory Fly Neighborly Program to date. We have a Mandatory Fly 

Neighborly Program which is the first of its kind in the Nation, 

and it requires a contractual agreement between our association 

and the members as well as a contractual agreement between the 

members and their pilots that they will follow the guidelines of the 

program. 

When a violation is verified, there are three levels of penalty. 

The first level is a warning. We give a pilot, in a one-year period, 

one warning. The second level is a $100 monetary fine to him and 

also the company. And the third level is $250 monetary penalty to 

the company and a 30-day suspension without pay to the pilot. 

What we have found-that was the original formula that was devised by a task force that came up with this mandatory program. 

The task force, as I mentioned in my testimony, was one which was 

sponsored by the industry. But not-it was not an industry-dictated situation. We participated in the process to come to this mandatory program, and out of that program came these penalties. 

What we have found since that time is that it rarely gets to the 

point of having to have a monetary penalty. In fact, I am not sure 

we have even had one monetary penalty. Because if the operators 

find that the pilot is not going to cooperate with the agreement, 

they just fire them. We have had five or six firings due to this. The 

operators are very serious about the program, and it has been highly successful. 

You will see attached to my testimony a letter from the mayor 

of Maui who would probably be the most well-versed mayor in the 

State on this issue, and she very highly commends the program. It 
53 

is very successful, contrary to the comments by a very small group 

of well-organized individuals. 

I should also point out that we do not hesitate to pressure the 

pilots in any way we can through this pilot system. I am not sure 

what Mr. Stokes was talking about with regard to not wanting to 

penalize them. We want to penalize them, if need be. There is no 

hesitation whatsoever to do that. That is why pilots have been fired 

before they even have gotten to the suspension stage. 

There is just so many things that have come up today that I 

think it probably would be better served if we speak with the individual Members of the panel some time on an individual basis and 

go over some of these things. 

But a couple of things that came to my mind as things were 

being said here is there is frustration because there doesn't appear 

to be a system to deal with this problem, and we agree completely. 

That was the reason for our mandatory program. We feel there 

needs to be a yardstick that we are measured against. Otherwise 

each complainant's complaint is its own yardstick, and that is a difficult thing to deal with. 

In fact, what we would recommend-and I will go back to my association and recommend this, and I believe they will adopt this 

idea-we would like to work with someone on the House side. We 

are currently contributing on the Senate side to legislation. We 

would like to work with a representative on the House side to develop a reasonable--a fair, and intelligent legislation that would 

create a means to develop a yardstick within individual parks that 

have problems. And we have lots of suggestions on that if you are 

interested. 

The current legislation that is being proposed, we agree with the 

National Park Service that it is premature. It is als~it doesn't 

really deal with the problem as well as it could. It is somewhat like 

what happened in Haleakala. At Haleakala they enforced-implemented a restriction there which actually has increased the 

amount of intrusion by helicopters, because they have raised the altitude helicopters and the sound cone. The sound generated from 

a helicopter is cone-shaped. So the higher you get a helicopter, the 

more area it is impacting on. 

I am not saying there wasn't a need for something over 

Haleakala. But I think if all the parties had come together in a 

proper form and worked this out on an individual basis, it would 

have been handled differently and would have been much better 

than the situation is right now. That is the concept that we would 

recommend, a legislation that causes a mechanism, let's say, that 

the parties get together to address the issues and resolve them on 

a park-by-park basis. 

I would point out that the grant that Mr. Stokes talks about really demonstrates the proactiveness of the industry and the FAA. We 

did ask the State to go in with us as well on the funding, and they 

were unable to because of resource problems. 

But the research and development division of the FAA had some 

funds, and it was a very wise idea, I think, on their part to contribute to that, because that is a tool that can measure the effectiveness of any program, whatever the program is. If you can't measure 

it, you can't manage it. And this tool, which we actually began our 
54 

effort on a couple of years ago-which Representative Mink, by the 

way, endorsed the concept and commended us for it-is a tool that 

industry can use to demonstrate that it is doing its job. 

We often get mixed up with other types of flights. In my testimony, I mentioned the enormous amount of DEA flights that are 

happening right in the exact same district that has the highest 

complaint ratio right now in the State. And this tool will help us 

differentiate our flights from the DEA flights which do hover low, 

hang around for quite a while, do different things than tourists 

that are on a very tight time schedule. 

We have not heard from the Citizens Against Noise, except for 

one complaint that we are aware of at the helicopter help line. And 

Mr. Stokes called the help line. So he mentioned that he is not 

aware of certain things. I think part of that is because he hasn't 

really come forward with any communication with us. There have been problems in the past dealing with him, but I 

think we could have an open discussion at this point to help educate him on some things. 

The one thing he did call about I thought was kind of amusing, 

because he was screaming over the phone about a helicopter that 

was flying over the park, and it turned out to be a helicopter hired 

by the Park Service. 

So this is why we need a yardstick and a means to measure and 

differentiate our flights from other flights so that we are not being 

thrown into a group unfairly. I think-despite the fact that I have 

many more things I would like to mention, I think I will just pass 

the baton on. 

[The statement of Mr. DeCamp may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. David Chevalier, President of Blue Hawaiian 

Helicopters. 

Mr. Chevalier. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID CHEVALIER 

Mr. CHEVALIER. Thank you. As an FFA representative from 

Maui, I am one of the founding members. We founded the Noise 

Abatement Program back in 1986. 

I am a Vietnam veteran helicopter pilot. I own Blue Hawaiian, 

along with my wife, Patty, her brother David Griffin, and a native 

Hawaiian woman named Yaket Poua is our office manager. We are 

a small owner-operated, as well as most of the companies in Hawaii are. 

Over the years, we have worked hard to achieve the goal of harmony between the helicopter tour business and Maui's communities. 

Since 1986, we sponsored a helicopter noise complaint called the 

Helicopter Environmental Liaison Office. Steny Sokagroua now is 

our paid representative for the last three years. We advertise our 

complaint line weekly in the local newspaper. We want to hear 

from people if there is a problem. All the helicopter tour companies meet the second Tuesday of 

each month. We discuss each noise complaint. We try to eliminate 

any negative impacts that we cause. Community members have always been able to attend these meetings. 
55 

The first year of our program we had over 450 complaint calls. 

To date, this year we have received less than 50. We have learned 

that, although, we can satisfy 98 percent of the people, there are 

those that we will never satisfy as long as we operate. 

We are not perfect, but we do do our utmost to find a solution 

to every problem. We are completely sincere in our commitment to 

fly neighborly. It is hurtful and misleading for some anti-tourism, 

anti-helicopter people to portray us as uncaring and unresponsive 

to community concerns. 

Although our organization and efforts are well-known, problems 

with overflights in the National Parks really hasn't been an issue, 

wasn't an issue at our organization until Mrs. Mink's bill came out. 

I know that before our organization was formed, back in 1985, 

this truly was a huge issue, over flights of the parks. We, with our 

Noise Abatement Program, limited our overflight altitude to 8,500 

feet and avoided flying near the visitors' center. 

Public Law 100-91 nevertheless was already in the works and 

mandated 9,500 feet over the crater. Well, since then we have 

heard very little about problems with park overflights, again, until 

Patsy's bill came out. 

I do believe that this legislation arose out of a response to certain 

very vocal citizens, some of whom you just heard from, concerns 

over residential on overflights. 

They seem to believe that if we can no longer overfly the place 

that tourists want to see the most, we won't be in the air to overfly 

their house either. 

In fact, in a noise meeting that I attended six months ago, this 

strategy was specifically discussed. I believe it is incorrect that this 

would increase the helicopter flight over residential areas and over 

wilderness areas, concentrating more in others. 

But you know I have heard people here talking about low-flying 

aircraft. We don't have low-flying aircraft. We are talking about 

Haleakala, 9,500 feet over the park. When you realize that the 

floor of the park is 6,500 feet, we are generally 3,000 feet above the 

crater floor. Now, the visitors' center sits up at the summit at 10,000 feet. It 

has a steep trail called Sliding Sands that leads down to the crater 

floor. The air at 10,000 feet is thin. Only those people of robust 

health are able to hike into it. We do avoid flying near Sliding 

Sands Trail. 

In fact, most of our operations range from the center of the crater, which Kathy had mentioned measures 21 miles in circumference, the center of the crater, to the far end opposite that of the 

visitors' center. 

Last year we flew over 173,000 people over Haleakala National 

Park. This number is exponentially higher than those that hike 

those far trails. While we deeply sympathize with those who want 

total quiet and do our best to alleviate our impacts, there must be 

some concession made by the few for the benefit of the many; and 

that is the way I truly do see it. You have heard different, but this 

is the fact. And a lot of things have been said here today that are 

not based on facts. I truly wish we would get the facts straight. 

From a preservation of natural resources point of view; you 

know, consider a couple of things that haven't been brought out. 
56 

Foot traffic through Haleakala: The trails right now do show serious erosion. Native vegetation is trampled by foot. Trash is often 

left behind by the hikers. The National Park is under intense pres- sure right now to erect yet another structure to the crater rim to 

accommodate the toilet requirements of the visitors. 

You stop the helicopters from over flowing the park, maybe add 

170,000 people driving to the rim, then again, many of the rental 

car companies don't allow visitors to drive out there because of the 

wear on the brakes coming back down. The legislation here, H.R. 1696, is opposed by virtually the entire 

Hawaii visitor industry, the Maui Chamber of Commerce, and the 

mayor of Maui County. You know, looking at it on the basis of equal access questions 

alone, I can't see where you could legally deny people who couldn't 

physically see it otherwise from the ability to experience their National Park. In fact, why deny any one their freedom of choice. 

Rather, work with us to reach a compromise, a win-win situation 

for everyone. Let's try to work it out together. Give us half the 

park and the hikers take the other half. I think we can find a solution if we work together. 

My point is really, nobody has come and really tried to work anything out with us. We are so open. I mean this is our livelihood. 

We will bend over backwards to make it work. And this idea that 

we are hard to work with or that we are uncooperative is totally 

not true. 

If I could just read something, for instance, from a citizen's perspective here. I have a lot of things I could read to you, but just 

this one. This is from Dr. Thomas Thornton, M.D., from Allen, 

Texas: 

I have just returned from a three-week vacation in Hawaii. It was my first time 

to return in almost 20 years, having lived on the Island of Maui in the late 1970s 

while teaching at the community college there and working for the State of Hawaii's 

Health Department as the Chief of Child and Adolescence Psychology. During my recent vacation, I had the most exhilarating and awe-inspiring experi- ences of my life in being able to take the Blue Hawaiian Helicopter excursion over the Island of Maui and on the Volcano Crater of Hawaii. I was able to see firsthand things I would never have been able to experience. I consider myself an active environmentalist and truly believe this ride has broadened my horizons. President Theodore Roosevelt was, indeed, a man of great vision 

and wisdom when we enacted the law establishing our National Park Service to pre- serve the great beauty of this Nation for all generations to come. Thank goodness he had the foresight to define the fraction of land in America's 

National Parks as public property with a view to its preservation and the development of the purpose of recreation and culture. I was greatly saddened to learn that-this is a letter to Representative Minkthat you are sponsoring a bill to end all helicopter flights over our National Parks. I sincerely hope you will reconsider, because an end to such flights will end a glori- ous heritage for so many Americans. Not only are there portions of our parks that are entirely inaccessible other than by helicopter, but there are many medically 

handicapped or restricted or too young of an age to travel to the inaccessible areas of the park on foot. 

Certain areas such as Haleakala Crater on Maui are already being further isolated by rental car companies, already said that-that forbid their rental people 

from traveling the road to the crater in their automobile. 

He has been-he says: 

I have been advised by my physician-he has had a right hip replacement, and 

he is not supposed to take long hikes of any type. 

Restricting helicopter flights over our National Parks would prevent my being 

able to experience the grandeur. I hope to move back to Hawaii some day in the 
57 

near future and would be greatly saddened if I could not take my children and 

grandchildren on helicopter flights over the highland's treasure so that they too 

could experience the heritage that are preserved in all of our National Parks as President Roosevelt intended. There is so much of our Nation's physical beauty that can never be fully appreciated until viewed from its totality from above in helicopter flights. If we hope our children and their children to value our land and view it with reference--

Mr. VENTO. Let's put the letter in the record, since you are reading it; and we can make a copy. 

Thank you for your statement. 

[The statement of Mr. Chevalier with attachments may be found 

at end of hearing.] 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Elling Halvorson. 

STATEMENT OF ELLING HALVORSON 

Mr. HALVORSON. Yes. Mr. Chevalier is too modest to say that his 

name really is Mr. Chevalier. And I can't spell it. I apologize for not having a written statement. But when I found 

out that I was going to speak, I was on the road and didn't have 

an opportunity to complete a written statement. I will get it into 

the record immediately following this meeting. I am the President of Papillion Helicopter Airways, which operates at the Grand Canyon and on all of the islands in Hawaii, the 

largest helicopter operator in those areas. 

I would like t()-and I can answer questions, as we go on, about 

both areas. I would like to make just a few comments about Grand 

Canyon. Although that was not the intent of this-the mission of 

this hearing, it became rather involved in the discussion. 

I have-we have been flying at the Grand Canyon for 30 years. Contrary to anything that the National Parks Service says or anyone who has an opinion as to whether there has been substantial 

restoration of quiet at the Grand Canyon National Park, I can assure you that in 1984, 1985 there was severe degradation of the 

quietness in the park; and we were part of the problem. 

And we had a cavalier attitude toward that, just as the FAA had, 

and many others. And we were part of that problem. It took us a 

while to come around to recognize that we had to live together with 

the other people, the other users of the park. 

I think that same thing does happen a lot when a pilot straps 

on a helicopter and he gets in his own environment and thinks he 

isn't impacting anyone. And that is something that we as an industry have been working hard to try and overcome, because we have 

an industry here that is really concerned and wants to be neighborly. Enough about the Canyon. But I would be glad to answer any 

questions you might have. 

I would like to change the nature of my approach to this a little 

bit, and I would like to address first of all, why people take a helicopter or an airplane flight, more specifically a helicopter flight. 

They do it for the same reason that a person goes to the National 

Park to enjoy the National Park in other ways. They go to see the 

splendor of the area, the beauty, and have an experience, the experience is different. Not everyone's experience is the same. So this 

is a different user group of people. But it definitely is a user group 

of the National Park. 
58 

For the first time, many people are beginning to recognize that 

the aircraft is an eco-sensitive way to see the park. I have a letter 

here that I would like to read only two paragraphs from. It is from 

a man in New York, unsolicited, I have never met or talked to this 

person. 

I will put it into the record: 

I was particularly impressed by the ability of the tour to access remote and beautiful places in the interior mountains and secluded coastlines we passed by. 

Many of the places we saw could not have otherwise been seen. Having just participated in a conference in Honolulu which dealt with nationally important environmental issues, including the emerging concept of eco-tourism, I realized that a Papillion sight-seeing tour fits perfectly into the echo-tourism model. It provides public access to a valuable resource without compromising the ecological integrity of the resource. A Papillion tour provides a visually and physically exciting experience 

without the direct physical impact on the resource that attracts visitors in the first 

place. This protects the integrity of the ecosystems visited and ensures the resource can be el\ioyed by future generations of visitors. While eco-tourism is a relatively new concept, it appears Papillion has been promoting environmentally sensitive 

tourism all along. 

Now, in reading that, I acknowledge the fact that there is a noise 

problem. There is no question about it. It is a problem we have to 

deal with. If you sort out all of the issues, that is the only problem. 

Possibly a visual problem. But you can have that with seeing another person in the park too or seeing an automobile. We deal with 

that all the time. 

The real problem is the noise problem. Outside of the noise problem, the helicopter does not cause any erosion on trails or climb up 

any side hills; it doesn't trample the vegetation; it doesn't leave any 

human waste; it doesn't leave refuse or foreign seeds or any of 

these situations. 

In fact, as far as the animals are concerned and the impact on 

animals, in the U.S. Forest Service study on the impacts of 

overflights, Item No. 4, on a study that they spent a million dollars 

developing says that: ''The study led to the conclusion that 

overflights generally pose negligible risks of consequential biological effects on wildlife." So the statements in that regard are really 

unfounded, because there has been a lot of research attempted to 

be done that has been refuted. 

Who takes the flights? In many cases people think it is the very 

wealthy Americans. That is not the case. And it is not the foreign 

visitor. I represent the largest company. Eight percent of our people that we fly are westbound, or from the Pacific Rim, on the 

Eastern Pacific Rim. And 92 percent of the people we fly are middle America folks. They are the active, the inactive, the able, the 

lame, the young, and the elderly. 

The association, what has the industry done? The industry has 

done a lot. It has initiated many of the meetings that have taken 

place. It has adopted Mandatory Fly Neighborly Program for 

HHOA members. It has established hot lines. It has established a 

calibrated camera program for violations. It has had meetings with 

FAA, National Park Service. Drafted agreements. It has established strict routes and altitudes that are changed as the environment below them changes. 

The NAPES program which identifies the location every few seconds of every aircraft that is so equipped and identifies the location 
59 

on a map and the altitude is just going into service. It is installed, 

I believe, in five or six aircraft now and is in its test program. 

I guess the last important thing is that we don't want to throw 

the baby out with the bath water here, because we are coming to 

a point in time where there are going to be quiet aircraft. And this 

is in the process of happening right now. 

NASA announced this past week that they have developed a carbon fiber rotor blade that actually absorbs sound. The manufacturers have taken a positive aWtude toward this. There is now sound 

attenuating frequencies that we use in head sets for passengers in 

the aircraft. They have now developed that for the entire interior 

of the aircraft. And it is not beyond reason to believe that in the 

future, and not too distant, I believe, there will be sound attenuating frequencies that will be able to be emitted from an aircraft to 

counteract ·the frequencies of the rotor system. 

Mr. HALVORSON. Quiet aircraft are on the come. And I firmly believe myself, because of the diameter of the rotor systems that we 

deal with, that they can be more quiet than a conventional propeller-driven aircraft. 

I would recommend that this-at the least, that this bill be tabled because I do not think it is good for Hawaii, for the people, 

for the economy of Hawaii. There was a statement that people are 

not coming to Hawaii because of helicopter noise. I would challenge 

that statement, because I don't believe there is anyone who does 

object, not come to Hawaii because of helicopter noise. And contrary to that, there are thousands of people who look forward to a 

helicopter flight in Hawaii. And it is one of the inducements to 

going there. 

Nine out of ten persons who step off the ground in the State of 

Hawaii spends that amount of money for a helicopter flight. And 

it is that important because, where their minds are, their pocketbooks follow. 

Thank you for this opportunity. 

[The statement of Mr. Halvorson with attachment may be found 

at end of hearing.] 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you for all of your testimony. I think it indicates, sort of, the dilemma. Obviously the question arises as to 

these areas. 

When you talk about someone with a disability or the amount of 

time they would have or what the experience would be, many of 

these areas that they classify as wilderness did not anticipate the 

utilization of this type of scenic activity. 

Although, admittedly it has been going on for some time, 30 

years in the Grand Canyon, perhaps more. And some more recently, I guess by virtue of some of the testimony we have heard 

today. And some of it has accelerated. 

Are there limits or some way to deal with it in terms of providing 

the proper format? 

You talk about a couple of hundred thousand people going to 

Haleakala in terms of the helicopter scenic tour, but there are literally hundreds of thousands that are literally driving up to the 

top. They may not be hiking. There may be a smaller number that 

hike out into the crater which you have indicated is sort of a strenuous type of activity. 
60 

But nevertheless we have to sort this through and see how it all 

fits together and determine what the impacts are . . So even in this 

book that you referred to, the Forest Service has indicated that in 

these remote wilderness sites there is 30, 40 percent annoyance on 

behalf of visitors. 

We don't permit motor boats or motor vehicles in this 27-yearold wilderness system. Some of the areas in the Park Service and 

Haleakala are wilderness. That is another frame of reference. It is 

not just a park designation. It is a wilderness designation on top 

of it, and the question, as you point out, may be one of noise, it 

may be presence, it may be that there are some biological impacts 

in terms of just the shadow of a helicopter or aircraft in that vicinity. 

And there is the question of licensure and whether or not the 

FAA and the Park Service are talking to one another, that is perhaps not your problem, or perhaps it is your problem, because if 

they are not, that may indicate the fact that there is not the type 

of policy that gives you, then, the type of direction that you need. 

Then it is a question of getting them to work together. I think 

there are some unique topographic features in Hawaii, and obviously a lot more intensity of use in many cases. 

You mentioned, Mr. DeCamp, that you had received a grant from 

the FAA to devise the type of plan that you have. There is some 

suggestion that you take in and monitor what is going on. 

Is that data readily available to the FAA? Is it available to others that are interested in determining what the impact is or the 

incidence of imposition of flights and the number of complaints and 

so forth and so on? 

Mr. DECAMP. Yes. This is a brand-new technology and system. 

But the proposal is to carry forward some of our older schemes 

which is putting together a monthly report of the complaints; and 

if there is a complaint, register that the NAPES system has information on, that information is stored. We don't store wholesale information that are not violations; but when a specific violation occurs or even a complaint, that violation can be stored for future reference. 

And we did not receive, actually, the grant directly nor all of the 

funds that were mentioned. We received a subcontract of the grant 

to perform our portion of the study. We funded 50/50 with the FAA. 

The portion of the subcontract that we received was matched 

equally by industry. 

Mr. VENTO. So this was a quarter of a million dollar study. Is 

that right? 

Mr. DECAMP. I believe the total was $120,000. 

Mr. VENTO. So you matched half of that? 

Mr. DECAMP. Actually the $120,000 was the total grant. We received about half of that. And we matched half of that. So we 

matched $60,000 in rough terms. 

Mr. VENTO. So the remainder was expended by the FAA? 

Mr. DECAMP. I think by the grantee. They are monitoring what 

we are doing and reporting back to the FAA. 

Mr. VENTO. You have a common monitor in terms of ground station type of activities? Is that the point? This whole new system 
61 

that is being put in, where are those monitors located? Is it in Park 

Service areas? 

Mr. DECAMP. In the test we have a base station at the airport 

at Hilo and what is called a digitmeter out in the southeast comer 

of the island. And the proposed plan is that digitmeter will cover 

the Volcanoes National Park. That is part of the test to determine 

where we need to place digitmeters to maintain the parks. 

Mr. VENTO. At this time the parks do not require any licensure 

in regards to your present surrounding or over the park. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. DECAMP. That is correct. And if I could add one thing. In Hawaii we have beaches that 

are swimmer's beaches and beaches that are surfer's beaches. The 

swimmers can go into the surfer's beaches but the surfers can't go 

into the swimmer's beaches for obvious reasons. 

And that is a very simple formula, and we think that same type 

of formula could be used and is being used for helicopters. You can 

set a certain portion of the park aside where helicopters would normally not go and a hiker going in that area would not expect to 

see helicopters or hear them. 

There could be another section of the park where they would 

know in advance that there are helicopters using that portion of 

the park. Mr. VENTO. So you don't have that type of--

Mr. DECAMP. We do right now. Mr. VENTO. You have an agreement of that sort with the Park 

Service? 

Mr. DECAMP. We have allocated certain parts of all the parks in 

the State that are used in our mandatory program in that fashion. 

But they are not as elaborate as the agreement that we have 

worked out with the parks right now. 

Mr. VENTO. I suppose in a sense you have to file flight plans and 

do a variety of things like that in terms of what the scenic tour 

would be; but it would seem to me that in terms of dividing up the 

park in this particular manner in terms of what the air space is 

that some discussion or concurrence on the part of the Park Service 

would be necessary. 

Mr. DECAMP. That is what we did. The agreement that we have 

is one done in much detail. We sat down with the resource manager who was the chief negotiator in a series of meetings between 

the four formal meetings. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chevalier, do you recognize any type of limitations in terms of carrying capacity regarding the type of business 

that you have? 

I mean, is there some limit-other than the fact that you can just 

keep putting helicopters in the area and providing the air and safety is all right? Do you recognize any other types of limits? Do you 

think there are any? 

You are delivering a couple of hundred thousand people there 

now. In a couple of years it is going to be 300,000. 

Mr. CHEVALIER. Right now it really is market driven, and that 

is it. There are times when all the seats are taken on helicopters. 

People want to go, and there are no seats available. 

87-820 0 - 95 - 3 
62 

And then, yes, there is room for more. That opens up the door 

for more business to come in. Mr. VENTO. But do you understand what I am asking? Mr. Halvorson might want to respond. Do you see any type of carrying 

capacity or any limit whereas you would continue in this particular 

type of pattern; but as long as safety and health are not at risk, 

you can just continue to increase the number of helicopter flights 

that are market driven? 

Mr. CHEVALIER. If I could say, Mr. Leese has commented before 

there were 10 helicopter tour companies and 30 aircraft. In actuality there are seven and 18 to 19 tour helicopters on Maui. Just to 

set the record straight on that. But right now we have a built in~n Maui, anyway, kind of a 

built in check on things with only a certain number of lease lots 

available to the operators. And you are not going to expand the airport anymore. 

Mr. VENTO. You would have to have a certain amount of air 

space, and you are not going to expand the airport. I don't know 

that I should make that presumption. 

At Grand Canyon, clearly that has been an issue with the 

helipad controversy or contentious issue that I raised. 

Mr. DECAMP. Mr. Chairman, if there were a sensible, fair legislation which the industry, the FAA, and the National Park Service, for example, would come together and work on that very question, 

have we reached a limit? Or if we do it this way, is it possible we 

can add more flights, whatever, if they were available, and Patsy 

Mink's legislation doesn't make that available. But if it were available, the industry could live about that. 

We want to do certain things a certain way to survive as a business. The FAA needs to do certain things for safety. The Park Service needs to do certain things. We need a forum, a sanctioned 

forum which is the place to go to sit down and sort this out. And if that group can't do it, we would like to see a secondary 

arbitration factor, not putting one of the entities in charge of the 

final decision so that everyone knows that they go in there on 

equal terms: the users, the park, the FAA, and the National Park 

Service. We could work with that situation. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. DeCamp. Mr. Halvorson, do you want to try and respond to my question? 

Mr. HALVORSON. I can try is all. That is a difficult question because, on one hand, you have the entrepreneurial incentive to 

grow; and, on the other hand, you recognize that this is a sensitive 

area. 

And this is a place where I think, in the future, if there were a 

quiet aircraft incentive and even a very quiet aircraft, and then a 

transition period to get there, that that is one way that we may 

be able to accommodate both sides of it. 

And I agree with Bob, that if there were some equitable way of 

controlling this-and we would like to be party in discussing this1 haven't found the operators to be adverse to some sort of limitation or--

Mr. VENTO. It raises all kinds of questions. I am wondering if 

there is any limit in terms of carrying capacity, which is tough. But 

the other thing is what do you do? Do you license, franchise, only, 
63 

Mr. Chevalier and Mr. Halvorson and Mr. DeCamp, that you get 

one-third of the market and you get 25 percent and somebody else 

gets 50 percent? I guess that adds up more than 100 percent. 

Those are all bound with your saying that if there is no limit, 

then there is no problem, then all you have to do is have the capital and the wherewithal to get a spot at the airport to get a 

helipad to take off, and you start your marketing program and you 

are off to the races. 

Maybe that is the way it should be. 

Mr. HALvoRSON. Right now the market is limiting itself. The 

growth is not there as we have seen in the past. So to say in 10 

years we will see double the aircraftMr. VENTO. But we can't assume that. We are trying to push the 

FAA and the Park Service. We have been waiting a while. It took 

the Forest Service five years to do their study. It is a tough question, I guess. 

But we think it ought to be a priority issue rather than leave it 

to unwind without any type of direction in terms of what is happening because I think you deserve some answers. You may not 

like the answers that we craft. That is fine. But, you know my job 

in life is not to please everyone. 

Mr. DECAMP. Your question is the type of question that could be 

easily answered if there were a forum at a particular park, let's 

say, Haleakala if there were a forum of the DOD, the NPS, the 

users of the park, and it was a forum that everyone recognized as 

the body you go to to get this ironed out, that question, ecological 

questions, impact questions, all of those questions would be asked. 

And then the group would come up with the answer, and it needs 

to be designed for each park, because the Statue of Liberty has different types of needs than Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Mr. VENTO. There is a real acceleration to do this quick in a helicopter. There are some areas that can be uniquely viewed that 

way. I don't know if that is the case with the Statue of Liberty. 

Mr. DECAMP. They love that tour. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, let me yield to my colleagues who are vitally 

interested in your testimony, I am certain. 

Congresswoman Mink. 

Mrs. MINK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to direct some questions to Mr. Halvorson, since you 

have had experience at the Grand Canyon National Park and the 

imposition of standards and restrictions in areas that have been 

banned from all tours all together, and the reluctance of the industry to accept those restrictions initially and eventually working 

them out and now living with it. 

And some people say substantial achievements have been made; 

others say not quite enough, but at least it paved the way for the 

industry to work together with the national parks. 

Is that an accurate characterization of what occurred with respect to Grand Canyon? 

Mr. HALVORSON. Yes. Actually the issue at the Grand Canyon got 

pretty hot about 1985 after a mid-air collision between an airplane 

and a helicopter. 

And one of the primary reasons for that collision was the fact 

that it was becoming a very sensitive issue and the air tour opera-
64 

tors at that time were beginning to recognize that we need to 

change our act. 

And so we rescheduled the flight routes to begin avoiding some 

of the sensitive areas. That was in a very early part. And when the 

legislation came along in 1987, we had already changed probably 

80 percent of the infractions that were caused prior to that time; 

1984, and 1985. 

And as I said before, we were part of the problem. You know, we 

had flights going out every 15 minutes right over the Brite-Angle 

Trail and down the center of the canyon and back. That was our 

hot special. 

But in about 1984-about 1985, we recognized that, you know, 

this isn't good for anyone. And we have all lived within those regulations at the Canyon. We actually are flying in a two-mile wide 

corridor which is probably where 80 percent of all flights occur by 

helicopter. And there has been virtually 100 percent-what is the 

word I am looking for-<:ompliance. Virtually 100 percent compliance from the helicopter operators. I am told that there is about a 3 percent-97 percent compliance 

overall. And that is when a transient airplane comes through or a 

military airplane takes a deviation and comes into the Canyon. 

But there have been very few infractions from the tour operators. 

And I can assure you that if something like this is worked out in 

Hawaii, that I will be one person dedicated-and so will these gentlemen-to seeing that those rules are carried out to the extent of 

terminating violators. We don't want to be violators. We want to 

work out something and then live by it and try and be good neighbors. 

Mrs. MINK. Trying to understand your testimony, then, and your 

response to my question with reference to Haleakala in particular, 

and the Volcanoes National Park, do you, as the owner and operator of a major helicopter tour company, recognize that there is a 

similar-not as large, but a similar problem with respect to tour 

operations going on right now at Haleakala and at the Hawaii Volcanoes? 

Mr. HALVORSON. Yes, I definitely do. In fact, I chair the tour operators committee of the Helicopter Association International. And 

I prompted and went to Hawaii to initiate that first meeting with 

the Park Service because I have gone through all of these things. 

I have seen how it works and what happens. 

And I believe, as do most people, and probably yourself, that the 

very best thing is if you can work things out together without setting laws and rules on top of laws and then having the cost of administering and all of those things. 

So I do see a similar problem, not as large; but it needs to be 

dealt with. 

Mrs. MINK. I was impressed with your earlier comment when 

you say that when the industry in which you participated and were 

part of the problem, realized that there was something grossly 

wrong with what was happening at Grand Canyon, you took steps 

within the industry even before the Congress acted to try to ameliorate the problem. 

My question is now: What is being done in Hawaii to help ameliorate the problem with respect to the tours themselves, not the 
65 

negotiations, not the conversation. Not the discussions, but with 

reference to what the tour operators, and yourself included, are 

doing to change your tours in the conduct of your flights? 

Mr. HALvoRSON. Well, others maybe can speak to this better 

than I can. But at Haleakala, the flights are avoiding the visitor 

center, tourist center area. 

Mrs. MINK. Was that required by statute? 

Mr. HALVORSON. I don't believe so. 

Mrs. MINK. I thought that was one of the specific items. 

Mr. HALVORSON. The altitude was a specific item, but this was 

a voluntary thing. And as far as Volcanoes Park is concerned, personally, I was at only the first meeting; and these gentlemen have 

carried on with many meetings since. 

But what we did is we sat down at the table with the park superintendent and with his assistant and laid the map out on the park 

and asked them, first of all, you tell us which are the sensitive 

areas; where do you feel we shouldn't go; and where do you feel it 

is not sensitive? 

And they showed us on the map, and there was nothing that we 

couldn't live with. 

Mrs. MINK. So is it in practice? Are those areas that have been 

pointed out' by the Park Service as sensitive areas, where there 

should not be overflights, are those areas being now, in fact, avoided by the tour companies? 

Mr. DECAMP. No, not on a wholesale basis. There are some operators that recognize they might as well get in the habit of doing 

it. But because the agreement itself has changed seven different 

times, we felt it better not to fully implement it until it was completed. 

Mrs. MINK. The agreement has changed because you have revisited the recommendations of the Park Service or they have changed 

what they consider to be sensitive? 

Mr. DECAMP. Both. 

Mrs. MINK. Though common areas as to where there is agreement as to sensitivity, have the tour companies altered their routes 

so as to avoid them? 

Mr. DECAMP. Under the agreement, yes. It actually addresses 

both the areas--

Mrs. MINK. Are they now, in fact, doing this? 

Mr. DECAMP. Some are doing it. 

Mrs. MINK. I am following the line of argument that Mr. 

Halvorson expressed with reference to what happened at the Grand 

Canyon trying to determine if similar things are happening prior 

to the legislation passing in the Congress. 

Mr. DECAMP. Yes, very much not so. In the Grand Canyon, not 

all operators were as wise as Mr. Halvorson. 

Mrs. MINK. What areas are not being overflown as a result of 

discussions with the Park Service? 

Mr. DECAMP. Kilauea Crater, the East Rift area, part of the 

Keaau desert. I don't recall the name of this area up here at the 

right. And Mauna Loa. Those are areas that some of the operators 

have been wise enough to recognize. 
66 

And also the agreement has solidified well enough that some operators have chosen to go ahead and begin following the concept. 

But not all have. And that is part of what our program does. 

Mrs. MINK. What percentage do you say? 

Mr. DECAMP. Probably-this is a ballpark figure-about 50 percent or more? 

Mr. HALVORSON. I couldn't say. I can only speak for our company 

because I don't deal with it on a day-to-day basis. But we-I have 

instructed our company to follow those. 

Mr. DECAMP. At least half? Maybe more? 

Mrs. MINK. With respect to those areas that you have mentioned, 

are they any different than those areas that I specify in my bill, 

H.R. 1696? 

Mr. DECAMP. Yes. 

Mrs. MINK. Which ones are left out that are in my bill and not 

in the pending interim agreement? 

Mr. DECAMP. In Hawaii Volcanoes specifically? 

Mrs. MINK. Yes. The ones where you mentioned the areas. 

Mr. DECAMP. I don't think any of them are left out. But they 

have been changed. And the Park Service and the FAA and the industry worked out what was best for the three parties. 

Mrs. MINK. So with reference to the areas that I designated as 

particularly noise sensitive areas, there really is no major objection 

to those being listed as areas that should be avoided in terms of 

overflights? 

Mr. DECAMP. Actually, the way the agreement is written they 

are called restricted areas. 

Mrs. MINK. That is exactly what is said in this bill also. The 

name of the bill is "Restricted Areas." 

Mr. DECAMP. But as I understand your bill-and correct me if 

I am wrong-your definition of "restricted area" is different than 

our definition. 

Mrs. MINK. I have not seen the purported document that has 

been talked about all day. You have been a party to it. I have not. 

The subcommittee has not. Most of the concerned citizens have not 

been sitting in these meetings. We are total strangers to it; and, 

therefore, I can only try to import what you have said and relate 

it to my legislation. 

And it seems to me that we are really not very far apart, if I understand your teatimony today. You recognize the importance of locating the sensitive areas and avoiding them. You recognize the 

role of the National Park Service, particularly Mr. Halvorson, in 

your testimony and your willingness to let them describe what the 

adverse impacts are. 

All my legislation does is to give the National Park Service responsibility for identifying these areas. As I observe, what has been 

going on over the years, is it is who is in charge. And the Park 

Service has systematically deferred to the Federal Aviation Administration. And as a consequence, it sort of remained at a deadlock. 

The primary purpose of my legislation is to remove that deadlock 

and gridlock or whatever and to finally put the National Park Service in a position of primary authority. 

So if we are not in disagreement, that the Park Service should 

have a role, Mr. Halvorson, and we are not in major disagreement 
67 

as to where the noise sensitive areas are concerned, I see no reason 

for not moving ahead with this legislation and getting rid of this 

jurisdictional dispute that has really made it very difficult for the 

community to see that anything is really being done. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE [presiding]. I want to thank everyone who has 

participated in the panels. I can assure you that the legislation will 

be looked at and probably more importantly at this particular moment. 

If those questions which have been asked and answers promised, 

in the sense of being forthcoming-if they would come to the committee, we would be very grateful and the various reports that are 

referred to, going back to the Park Service and the FAA, and they 

could be brought up-to-date, I think we would be in order. I only 

have one or two more points. 

Mr. DeCamp or Mr. Halvorson, you may have answered this earlier and I apologize. I had to be elsewhere and you have seen how 

we get yanked from one place to another. 

Do you have the same understanding as I think I now have with 

respect to the timetable-or likely timetable for the submission of 

various and sundry reports by the FAA and the Park Service? 

Mr. DECAMP. I think you were out of the room when we mentioned that we have submitted our accepted draft, and the FAA 

concurs with that draft. And so we were just waiting for the N ational Park Service. If they will hand us back the agreement, we 

are ready to sign. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Then maybe you heard me ask before. Would 

it be out of line for Representative Mink, myself, and Mr. Vento to 

expect that this could be done by the end of year? 

Mr. DECAMP. If it is up to us, it will be done tomorrow. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Anything else? 

With that, I know it has been a long day, and I appreciate-believe me-and Mr. Vento appreciates your patience with respect to 

the multiple activities that we have to try to give attention to. And 

as a result, we have to leave periodically. But I assure you all of 

this-ask anything else-by the way, I presume Mr. Vento said at 

the beginning, if there is anything else you would like to submit 

for the record in 10 days, if there is anything else that comes to 

mind as a result of the conversation that have you heard today 

that you know would be useful in our deliberations, by all means 

submit it; and it not only will be part of the record, but it will be 

part of the deliberative process. 

With that I bid you aloha and thank you for making this long 

haul up here. I assure you the time was well spent. 

[Whereupon, at 2:41p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned; and 

the following was submitted for the record:] 
68 

I 

103DCONGRESS 1ST SESSION H R 1696 

• • 

To provide for the regulation of the airspace over National Park System 

lands in the State of Hawaii by the Federal Aviation Administration 

and the National Park Service, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

.APRIL 5, 1993 

Mrs. MTh'K introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the 

Committees on Natural Resources and Public Works and Transportation 

A BILL 

To provide for the regulation of the airspace over National 

Park System lands in the State of Hawaii by the Federal 

Aviation Administration and the National Park Service, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembkd, 

3 SEcriON 1. FINDINGS. 

4 The Congress finds the following: 

5 (1) The National Park Service administers Fed6 eral parks, monuments, and reservations, to conserve 

7 the scenery, the natural and historic objects, and 

8 wildlife therein, and provides for the enjoyment of 
69 

2 

1 the same in such manner and by such means as ~ 

2 leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

3 generations. 

4 (2) It is the function of the Federal Aviation 

5 Administration to manage the safe and efficient use 

6 of the navigable airspace of the United States, as 

7 provided for in the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 ( 49 

8 U.S.C. App. 1301 et seq.}. 

9 (3) The National Park Service lands in the 

10 State of Hawaii, consisting of Kaloko-Honokohau 

11 National Historical Park, Kalaupapa National His12 torical Park, Pu'u honua o Honaunau National His13 torical Park, Pu'u Kohola Heiau National Historic 

14 Site, Haleakala National Park, and Hawaii Volca15 noes National Park, are managed for the purposes 

16 of wilderness preservation, protecting natural, cul17 tural, historical, and wildlife resources, and for pro18 motion of the public enjoyment and use of these re19 sources. 

20 (4) Haleakala and Hawaii Volcanoes National 

21 Parks are designated by the United Nations as 

22 International Biosphere Reserves because of their 

23 internationally significant scenery and plant and ani24 mal communities, and furthermore that Hawaii Vol25 canoes National Park is designated by the United 

•BR 18116 m 
70 

3 

1 Nations as a World Heritage Site because of the sig2 nificance of Mauna Loa and Kilauea Volcanoes. 

3 ( 5) In recognition of the values for which N a4 tiona! Park Service lands are managed, an above 

5 ground level (AGL) minimum altitude of 2,000 feet 

6 shall be established for aircraft flying in airspace 

7 over certain lands administered by the National 

8 Park Service. 

9 (6) The auditory and visual intrusion of aircraft 

10 flying at low altitudes is the source of public com11 plaint in certain areas administered by the National 

12 Park Service. 

13 (7) Aircraft flying at low altitudes may pose a 

14 potential hazard to wildlife in certain areas adminis15 tered by the N a tiona! Park Service. 

16 (8) Aircraft flying at low altitudes over large 

17 concentrations of migratory birds may pose a poten18 tial safety hazard to pilots and passengers in certain 

19 areas administered by the National Park Service. 

20 (9) The Federal Aviation Administration and 

21 National Park Service shall act in cooperation to re22 duce the incidence of low-flying aircraft, including 

23 fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, ultralight vehicles, 

24 balloons, and gliders over National Park Service ad25 ministered land by complying with the 2,000 feet 

•BR •• m 
71 

4 

1 AGL minimum altitude requirement, and to avoid 

2 flying over areas which the National Park Service 

3 designates as noise-sensitive, and to respect standoff 

4 distances away from areas which the National Park 

5 Service designates as primary visitor use areas. 

6 SEC. 2. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RESPONSmiLITIES. 

7 The Director of the National Park Service shall be 

8 responsible for the following: 

9 (1) IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIFIC AREAS.-

10 Identifying specific areas where low-flying aircraft 

11 may constitute an adverse impact on resources and 

12 conveying specific information, including annotated 

13 maps, which indicate designated flight-free areas 

14 and primary visitor use areas, to the Federal Avia15 tion Administration for appropriate action as de16 scribed in section 3. 

17 (2) LOW-FLYING REPORTING SYSTEM.-Devel18 oping and implementing a standardized reporting 

19 system acceptable to the Federal Aviation Adminis20 tration to document instances of low-flying aircraft 

21 over National Park Service administered lands. This 

22 reporting system shall provide for transmittal of 

23 such documentation in a timely manner to the Hon24 olulu Federal Aviation Administration Flight Stand-

'25 ards district office. 

•HRt .. m 
72 

5 

1 (3) TRAINING.-Developing training programs 

2 and instructional materials for National Park Serv3 ice personnel to enable them to recognize and report 

4 instances of low-flying aircraft in a competent and 

5 professional manner. The appropriate training pro6 grams of the National Park Service shall expand to 

7 incorporate the subject matter into in-service train8 ing requirements. The Director of the National Park 

9 Service shall seek the assistance of the Federal Avia1 0 tion Administration to help develop training cur11 ricula. 

12 ( 4) QUARTERLY MEETING.-Making personnel 

13 available from the National Park Service to meet 

14 quarterly with the Federal Aviation Administration 

15 and affected pilots to discuss resources management 

16 objectives and issues associated with low-flying air17 craft. 

18 SEC. S. FEDERAL AVIATION RESPONSmD..ITIES. 

19 The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Adminis20 tration shall be responsible for the following: 

21 (1) COMMUNICATION WITH PILOTS.-Commu22 nicating to pilots the concerns and objectives of the 

23 National Park Service about low-flying aircraft in 

24 specified areas, using advisories, bulletins, the Fed25 eral· Aviation Administration publication The Fed-
73 

6 

1 eral Aviation News, the ongoing "Accident Preven2 tion Program" for routine pilots' contact, and other 

3 means of communications with pilots, and to impress 

4 upon pilots that pilot participation is strongly enS couraged to ensure protection of resources and the 

6 enjoyment of natural areas by the public. 

7 (2) INVESTIGATIONS.-Investigating instances 

8 of pilot deviations from the Federal Aviation Admin9 istration requested minimum altitude over areas, 

10 and National Park Service-designated flight-free and 

11 primary visitor use areas in lands administered by 

12 the National Park Service, and taking action to dis13 courage deviations with the objectives of reducing or 

14 eliminating such incidents in these areas. 

1.5 (3) MILITARY AIRCRAFT.-Assisting the Na16 tional Park Service in communicating with the var17 ious agencies of the Department of Defense with re18 gard to military aircraft operations over National 

19 Park Service administered areas. 

20 (4) AVAILABILITY OF STATUS AND RESULTS OF 

21 INVESTIGATIONS.-Making available to the National 

22 Park Service, at the Federal Aviation Administra23 tion Flight Standards district office, the status and 

24 results of the Federal Aviation Administration's in-

•BRt•m 
74 

7 

1 vestigation of instances reported by the National 

2 Park Service. 

3 (5) SUPPORT OF AVIATION GROUPS.-Enlisting 

4 the support of all aviation groups and organizations 

5 by requesting they disseminate information about 

6 problems associated with aircraft operating at low 

7 altitudes over areas administered by the National 

8 Park Service. 

9 (6) MEETINGS WITH NATIONAL PARK SERV· 

10 ICE.-Assisting the National Park Service in com11 bating problems associated with low-flying aircraft 

12 by participating in appropriate meetings at field and 

13 regional levels. 

14 SEC. 4. FLIGHT RESTRICTION DESIGNATIONS. 

15 (a) KALOKO HONOKOHAU, Pu'u HONUA 0 

16 HONAUNAU, Pu'U KOHOLA HEIAU, AND KALAUPAPA NA17 TIONAL HISTORICAL PARKS.-Inasmuch as Kaloko 

18 Honokohau, Pu'u honua o Honaunau, Pu'u kohola Heiau, 

19 and Kalaupapa National Historical Parks are mandated 

20 to protect historical, cultural, and religious values, and 

21 other resources considered sacred to Hawaiian people, all, 

22 in their entirety are considered noise-sensitive and shall 

23 not be overflown by commercial tour aircraft. Commercial 

24 fixed-wing aircraft which are not on scenic tours may 

25 overfly Kaloko Honokohau when it is unsafe to use 

•BB ... m 
75 

8 

1 alternative approaches to Keahole Airport. Furthennore, 

2 inasmuch as those areas are small and are entirely pri3 mary visitor use areas, scenic tour aircraft shall maintain 

4 a 2-mile standoff distance. 

5 (b) IIALEAKALA NATIONAL PARK.-lnasmuch as 

6 Haleakala National Park is mandated to protect natural 

7 and cultural resources, and especially rare and endangered 

8 plant and animal species, magnificent scenery, .and tran9 quil and unique wilderness, the Crater District and 

10 Kipahulu Valley, including adjacent rain forest areas with11 in the Park, in their entirety, are considered noise-sen12 sitive and shall not be overflown. Furthennore, inasmuch 

13 as the overlook near the Sliding Sands trailhead is a pri14 mary visitor use area where people often are assembled 

15 on the ground, a two-mile stand-off distance shall be main16 tained. 

17 (c) HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK.-Inas18 much as Hawaii Volcanoes National Park is mandated to 

19 protect natural and cultural resources, .and especially rare 

20 and endangered plant and animal species, magnificent sce21 nery, and tranquil and unique wilderness, the designated 

22 wilderness areas, in their entirety, consisting of Mauna 

23 Loa, Ola's Forest, East Rift, and Kau Desert, and the 

24 summit of Kilauea, and the coastal area between Ka' aha 

25 and Kamoamoa are considered noise-sensitive and shall 

•D ••m 
76 

9 

1 not be overflown. Furthermore, inasmuch as the Kilauea 

2 summit, the Chain of Craters corridor, and the Kamoamoa 

3 village sites are primary visitor use areas where people 

4 often are assembled on the ground, a 2-mile standoff dis5 tance shall be maintained. 

6 (d) MlNIMuM ALTITUDE RESTRICTION.-lt shall be 

7 unlawful for any fixed wing aircraft or helicopter flying 

8 under visual flight rules to fly at an altitude of less than 

9 2,000 feet over the surface of any National Park System 

10 lands in the State of Hawaii not subject to subsections 

11 (a) through (c) of this section. For purposes of this para12 graph, the term "surface" refers to the highest terrain 

13 within such lands which is within 2,000 feet laterally of 

14 the route of flight. For purposes of enforcement, the pro15 hibition pursuant to this subsection shall be treated as a 

16 requirement established pursuant to section 307 of the 

17 Federal Aviation Act of 1958. To provide information to 

18 pilots regarding the restrictions established under this 

19 subsection, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Ad20 ministration shall provide public notice of such restrictions 

21 in appropriate Federal Aviation Administration publica22 tions as soon as practicable after the enactment of this 

23 Act. 

•88 ~...111 ) 
77 

10 

1 SEC. 5. FEDERAL AVIA'nON ADMJNISTRA'nON AND NA2 'nONAL PARK SERVICE JOINT RESPONSIBJL. 

3 ITY. 

4 The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Adminis5 tration and the Director of the National Park Service shall 

6 jointly be responsible for the following: 

7 (1) .ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENTS.-Assess situa8 tions in addition to those specified in section 4 

9 where impacts of aircraft operations upon human, 

10 cultural, or natural resources are sufficiently serious 

11 to warrant consideration of site-specific action by 

12 the Federal Aviation Administration to minimize or 

13 eliminate the causes of such problems. 

14 (2) INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS AND SCI15 ENTIFIC STUDIES.-Prepare public informational 

16 materials, including printed matter and audio-visual 

17 programs, for communication to pilots using existing 

18 Federal Aviation Administration pilot-contact meet19 ings and programs, aviation periodicals, and other 

20 means of generating pilot understanding of National 

21 Park Service resources management objectives. 

22 Where appropriate, the Federal Aviation Adminis23 tration and the National Park Service will share in24 formation on techniques of conducting scientific 

25 studies and data collection to facilitate understand-
78 

11 

1 ing of the impact of aircraft operations on affected 

2 resources. 

3 (3) PRocEDURES.-Work together to define 

4 procedures for use at national headquarters and 

5 field office levels to ·address overflight issues over 

6 public land areas. 

7 SEC. 8. APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN REGULATIONS TO CER8 TAIN SIGHTSEEING FIJ.GHTS. 

9 Parts 91 and 135 of title 14 of the Code of Federal 

10 Regulations, relating to general operating and flight rules 

11 and to air taxi operators and commercial operators, re12 spectively, shall apply to nonstop sightseeing flights that 

13 begin and end at the same airport and are conducted with14 in a 25 statute mile radius of the airport. 

0 
79 

Background on H.R. 1696 

Hawaii Overflights 

Controversy over low altitude aircraft flights above certain 

units of the National Park System has existed for several years. In 

1984, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued Advisory 

Circular No. 91-36C, which recommended a minimum flight altitude level 

of 2,000 feet over noise sensitive areas including national parks. 

The National Park Service entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with 

the FAA in 1984 to help to achieve compliance with these voluntary 

recommendations. 

Although these efforts were reported to have had a positive 

effect at some units, park users at many other units continued to 

complain about the noise intrusion of aircraft and express concern about their safety. At that time, there had been no systematic study 

of the National Park system to determine how widespread or how severe the problem was. Nor had there been any systematic study of the noise 

levels of different types of aircraft flying at different elevations. 

In 1987, Congress passed legislation (P.L.l00-91) that required 

the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine the 

appropriate minimum altitude for aircraft flying over National Park 

System units. The purpose of the study was to identify problems 

associated with aircraft overflights and provide information regarding 

the types of overflights which may have an adverse impact on park unit resources. The study directed research at several specific National 

Park System units including Hawaii Volcanoes National Park on the Big 

Island of Hawaii and Haleakala National Park on Maui. 

The study was to focus and evaluate four specific points: 

(1) the impact of aircraft noise on the safety of the park 

system users; 

(2) the impairment of visitor enjoyment associated with flights over units of the National Park system; 

(J) other injurious effects of overflights on the natural, 

historical, and cultural resources for which such units were established; and 

(4) the values associated with aircraft flights over such units 

of the National Park System in terms of visitor enjoyment, the protection of persons or property, search and rescue operations and firefighting. 

The Act provided for a three year period in which to complete the 

study, followed by a two year review period. During the study and 

review period, the Act restricted all fixed wing aircraft or helicopters from flying at altitudes below 9,500 feet above mean sea level over the surface of certain areas at Haleakala National Park 

including Haleakala Crater, Crater Cabins, the Scientific Research 

Reserve, Halemauu Trail, Kaupo Gap Trail, and any other designated 

tourist viewpoint. This restriction was suspended in cases of 

emergency situations, search and rescue operations, firefighting 

purposes, or compliance with air traffic controller instructions. 
80 

The study required of the Secretary of the Interior by the Act has not been completed yet hut most of the data has been collected . The Act 

also required the submission of a report concerning the Boundary 

Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and an assessment of National Forest 

system wilderness overflights. That report and assessment has been 

completed and the results transmitted to Congress . 

In 1992, an Interagency Agreement was signed between the National 

Park Service (NPS), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM), and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) . Under this agreement, it is the responsibility of the NPS, FWS, and 

BLM to identify specific field units where low-flying aircraft may 

have adverse effects on the surrounding resources and, by developing a standardized system, to document these instances and report them to the FAA. The agencies have also agreed to make personnel available to meet with the FAA and affected pilots to discuss resource management 

objectives and issues associated with low-flying aircraft . 

Under the Interagency Agreement, the FAA has agreed to assist the 

Interior agencies in combating problems associated with low-flying 

aircraft by participating in appropriate meetings at field and 

regional levels and by creating a communications network to inform 

pilots of the hazards of low-flying aircraft while impressing upon 

them the importance of their participation in ensuring resource protection. In this effort , the FAA has pledged to enlist the support 

of aviation groups by requesting that these organizations relate 

information about problems a ssociated with low altitude aircraft to their members. In addition , the FAA has agreed to investigate and 

report on instances of pilot deviations from the FAA-requested minimum 

altitude over areas administered by the Interior Department. 

The agreement also provides that the FAA, NPS, FWS and BLM would assess severe situations where impacts of aircraft operations upon 

human, cultural, or natural resources are sufficiently serious to warrant consideration of site-specific action by the FAA to minimize or eliminate the causes of these problems. 

H.R. 1696 

In April, 1993, Congresswoman Patsy Mink introduced legislation 

which would focus specifically on the effects of low-flying aircraft over National Park Service land in the State of Hawaii. The bill, 

H.R. 1696, would provide for the regulation of airspace over National 

Park System lands in the State of Hawaii by the Federal Aviation 

Administration and the National Park Service. 

The proposed legislation directs the FAA to cooperate with the 

National Park Service to institute a mandatory 2,000-foot AGL (above 

ground level) minimum altitude, and to prohibit flights over areas designated as "noise-sensitive" by the National Park Service in order to protect the historical, cultural, wildlife and scenic values of the area. 
Push afoot to shush 

air-tour park noise 

By Linda Kanamine 

USA TODAY 

National park visito~ are 

grumbling about obtrusive 

noise rrom air totn'S. Six years after Con~ 

passed a law to tum down the volume from tour planes and helicopters over Arizona's Grand Canyon, activists there say Cape Solitude has no soli- tude. Point Sublime isn't 

Similar complaints created such cacophony at Hawaii's 

craters. pools and vok:anoes 

thai COftiJ"!S' besiJIS hearing~ 

today on legislation to curb alght e~ects over national parlcs there. '"U sounds like you're in 

downtown tramc," says Ho- nclulu's Nelson Ho, about hik· 

in& tbe giant crater at H~ 

alrala National Park. .. In the 19705, the only 

IOUDd there was the Wind, the 

auncblng of lava cinder beneath my boots, and the 

sound of blood rushing 

lhrou&tl my eardrums.• Hawaii and Grand Canyon 

are a leadlns wave in the 

soaring, $180 million-a-year air tour business. 

M the nation's most treasured real estate draws ever- IJ'O'Mna crowds - 250 million a year - air tour operators aret\'t far behind. 

Air open""' call !his IOIP>- Iatlon, and a pending Park 

service report on systemwide 

problems. an aaack. '1lle park service says we 

bave not restored the natural quiet t0 tbe Grand canyon, as the law requires." says Miles 

Beck.K of PlpjUon Grand CAnyon HeiiCOpU!rs. .. But we musr: 4gure out some type or oolutlon." 

Meanwhile, the popularity 

at air toun is spreading: ..,. Helicopter Digtus bepn 

tllis summer over Arches and 

canyonlands national parks in Utah. Moab, Utah, is debat· 

illl a ben ol !:he helicopter 

lallding pod !here . ..,. A belicopter operator 

tried to locate a hellpad out- side Utah's Zion National Plrt. Adjacenltowns reject- ed it. sa)'in& Zion Canyon is a 

natural echo chamber. · ..,. Tennessee. home to the 

Great Smoky Mountains Na· tiona! Pari<, passed a law pro- hibiting helipads within 9 mile$ Of !he pork bonier. 

IIUsineslosare cllallengjngit Superinlenderlls have no 

'""'aulhority ID limit CIXItrol 

or ~ liers because air lnlll!c Is reaulated by !he Federal Aviation Administra· 

don. "'l'bal's wby !here's !rus-

..-.· ,.,. 111e Part ser- vice's Wesley Beary. 

He Is compl1ln& • report 

lbal sbOM vilitDrS continue to 

bellllllappyaboutnoloe. 

Recommendalions 1D COO- ..... may ...,.. 1n>m Umiting ailmben.limes and ...... 

ot <J¥ert~F!!; llivinc opera- lOr'S incentive to._ new, quiet IOdlnolcJCY; .... <harllina IJeB park,..._ 

For Roeer <lark 01 !he 

watcbdog IP'OUP Grind can- yon TJust lhele's uwe doubt 

dlaftle is .-: "II you're 

oeeking OOiilllde. it's a place bard., ....... 

llul !be key ...... in lar&e port wtlh !he FAA. c:onc:emed 

primarily - !lte<y. ''The ageacy recosnizes lbat protec:liDc the enVi.~ 

meat is abo pan or our mis- Son. We in&end 10 cooperate 

!lilly-!be"""'-.· ays !he FAA's POt Clriseo. 

Wllboullldion 110011. many 

porb wtU ,_!he...,. pres- ...... as 111e Graad canyon. •ys Terri Manln of National 

--~()<lAlii/;& 

dadon. "Na- porb .... jusll» Of !be land- in 

lhe"-'411-lndyou 

Sllll c:anl eocapelhe sooncl ot machinery?" she says. 1bat's a traw.y." 

81 

-- - ---

-fOSA 

TODAY - -

Noise in national parks Tho National Par1< ServiCe studied airCraft noise at 39 

Of lis 367 sitos in 1f1e USA. Those sites found to have 

noise that could bo considered annoying: 

ARIZ.: Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Grand Canyon Nalional Part<. Saguaro Nalional Monument 

ARK-: Bunalo National River, Hoi Springs National 

Part< 

CAUF" Sequoia and Kings Canyon national par1<s, Yosemite Nalional Part< 

R.A.: Everglades Nalional Part<, Gulf Islands National 

Seashore (alao in Mlssis!ppil 

QA.: Cumberland tsianc:t National Seashore 

HAWAII: Hawaii Volcanoes National Par1<. Haleakala 

Notional Par1< 

N.M.: - National Monument 

ONO: P!l!!y's V!CIC!y. lnlemational PNee Memorial 

PA.: Ge!lysllu!g National Military Part< 

1-D-: Mount Rushmore Nalional Monument 

TENN.: GrNt Smoky Mountains National Part< 

~Mount R- National Par1<, Nort11 Cascades National Part<. Olympic National Part< 

S.::UC. ~Piri!Ser'wil» 
82 

'C' 2029393427 Grand_C3nyon_Tru 11/17/ 93 10: 50 J3 

THE NBW YORK TIMBS EDITORIALS/LETTERS WliDNJ:.'iJJAY, NOVEMHBH 11, 199J 

Parks Are for People, Not Planes You and your kids have Just hiked or driven to 

Desert View, a vanta&t point at the eastern end of 

tile Crand Canyon. To lhe north and weSl liea rh~ 

Colorado River: 10 the ea1t, the Pointed O.•err. Anu 

riaht above you. 1101 quite close enou&h 10 touch but 

tertainly close enouah 10 l'llin the moment, hover~ a 

•l&htseeina helicopter. 

'Ilia Crand Canyon hu become a ballle;round 

foto tile human MnMS, and the airpl.,nes are win- nina. AI peak ... _,, anyone atan~ina at Deoero 

View ml&ht experience only a few mi11u1e5 of tranquillity between ni&hts. 

'Illil II not what eonaress had in mind when it 

paased the National Parks Overfli&hts Act in 1987 to 

restore "tile natural qulet and experience of the 

park." Subsequent reauiationl bann(u lll&hts below 

Ule canyon's rim but did nolhin& to prevent flights from doublin& in the next six ye~n. Nearly IIOO,UOO 

·visitors buzzed Lhe ca nyon in 18t2; one 01111it alone 

conducts 100 fli&hts a day during the summer. The villains urc not so much the tour opca·•tora as the Department of TroullllJXar"UUton and lh<.' Fed· 

eral Aviation Admonistrallon. In IN¥ the F.A.A. 

gave Ari~ona $1 million to expand helicopter facilities at Crand Canyon N"tional Park Airport, which 

could lead to still mure flight&. 

Bruce Babbiu, the Sec:rctary ol tha Interior, has uraed the ~ret.a ry of Transporulion, Feder· 

teo Pcila, to delloy the expansion pending the completion of a Nauunal Park Service study on noiae 

levels. Mr. Babbitt cle•rly loreseeJ a dlly when 

there will be fewer flights, not more ; 10 far, Mr. 

Pel\a has been silent on the matter. 

It'• dillicull 10 lind any national park where 

only the silence or nature is hearJ. Parks are for 

people. llut not tor 200 or 300 plan•• • day. 
83 

Tile Ho110rable Bruce Vento, Chair 

Tour Aircraft Control Coalition 

P. 0. Box 1060 

Mountain View, Hawaii 96 771 

November 8, 1993 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands 

U. S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D. C. 25015 

~ar Repr~ntative Vent.o: 

As spokesman for the Tour Aircraft Control Coalition, I write to express 

our organization's support of HR 1696 Which is before your Subcommi~. 

We come to you to ask that, by supporting HR 1696, you will restore 

unto us ·..mat ;.;as once a true "wilderness e~rience; but what has now 

become something much less than that. That is to say that one might e~t 

to experience nature and its relative quietude, rather than to be eJpOSed to 

the relentless noise of tour aircraft - helicopters in particular - when viSiting 

a National Park. Although automobiles are allowed inside the Parks, they 

are required to remain on the designated roadways; the intrusion of aircraft 

is analogous. if not more egregious, than if automobiles -w-ere to be allowed 

OFF the roadways and with no rules to follow. It seems that a few "Rules of 

the Road" would be past-due in the case of tour aircraft. 

We have heard the tour aircraft industry speak out on the issue of 

·~o-tourism" and how, since they leave no trash, footprints etc., they must 

be the ultimate example thereof. Please don't let yourselves be beguiled by 

such irresponsible and disingenuous statemer)ts. 

Nor should the safety factor to be left unaddressed: In addition to 

several "forced landings" within and without of the Parks, -woe have 

e~rienced at least two crashes in Which ~aths have occurred, one at 

Haleakala (7 perished) and one on the Kamoamoa coast at Volcanoes (4 

perished). In neither of these instances were persons other than the 

occupants of the helicopters injured or killed, but the gruesome potential is 

t.here. Please note also that the president of the Hawaii Helicopter Operators 

Association (HHOA) stated publicly that it is often safer to be twenty feet 

above a skylight than higher (not an ellact quote, but the Substance is there). 

Had this been the case in October of 1992, When a Kainoa Aviation helicopter 

crashed at Pu'u ·o·o, on the »ig Island, the passengers and crew would have 

certainly been incinerated along with the aircraft; fortunately all survived 

by a narrow margin. 

P. ully, 

.JJJ•' . n,TAH- Enclosures 
84 

CITIZENS AGAINST NOISE 

OAHU: P.O. Box 27705 Honolulu, Hawaii 96827 

BIG ISLE: P.O. Box 364 Volcano, Hawaii 96785 

Phone: (808} 985-8861 

FAX: (808} 98/J-8893 

Honorable Bruce Vento 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

November 8, 1993 

Dear Representative Vento: 

My name is Barry Stokes, and I am President of Citizens Against Noise. Citizens 

Against Noise is a founding member of the Tour Aircraft Control Coalition, which 

represents a union of community groups, environmental organizations, and 

individuals concerned about the uncontrolled growth of the tour helicopter industry 

in Hawaii. We are asking for your support of Representative Patsy T. Mink's vitally 

important legislation, H.R. 1696 (Aviation Controls over Hawaii's National Parks). 

Tour helicopters have turned Hawaii's most precious resource, its natural beauty, 

into helicopter hell. It is no longer possible to visit any portion of our States' 

National Park System and not be out of sight or sound of these flying and hovering 

airborne machines. We have tried in vain for the past ten years to stem the tide of 

increasing aircraft and flights. Nothing has worked. Our final effort has been to 

come before this distinguished body, the United States Congress, for relief. 

Our National Parks are "natural museums", established and maintained for the 

public's education, retreat, and repose. In the words of Henry David Thoreau, "In 

wildness is the preservation of the world" . Helicopters are ruining that wildness, 

and for that we all suffer, resident and visitor alike. Tour helicopter activity distracts 

Park Service personnel, annoys and endangers campers and hikers, and, most 

importantly, disrupts the nesting, feeding, and breeding habitats of those rare 

emissaries of our past, Hawaii's native birds. 

The regulations proposed in H.R. 1696 are dearly necessary and reasonable. We 

hope you will recognize the necessity of this legislation, and the legitimacy of its 

attempt to restore peace and ecological tranquillity to the National Parks in Hawaii. 

~ 

Sincerely, 

J.B. Stokes, President 

Citizens Against Noise 
85 

The Honorable Brute Uento, Chair 

Citizens Rgaln't Nobe 

Maul Chapter 

2695 Lie Plate 

Haiku, Hawaii 96108 

Nouember 8, 1993 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands 

U. S. House of Representatlues 

Washington, D. c. 25015 

Dear Representatlue Uento: 

As the Maul Chapter's spokesperson for the statewide, gran-roots 

organization Citizens Against Noise, I write on behalf of the chapter to 

eMpress support of H. R. 1696 for which Subcommittee heanng' are 

scheduled on Nouember 18. I request your support, and ad: that you 

tonsider the following. 

As a frequent user of Hawaii's National Parks, I attest to the fact 

that tour flights ouer the Parks (promoted as "eco-tourlsm") are the 

furthest thing imaginable from "ecological. • Helicopters consume 

inordinately large amounts of ualuable non-renewable resources per 

penon serued. (Busses and cars are far more fuel efficient.) Helicopter 

presence ouer Perk land pollutes the air. It upsets the breeding. 

nesting. and feeding habits of endangered species of birds. It 

interferes with the ectlulty of Pork personnel. Rnd, It utterly de•troy• 

the eHperience or Park users on the ground by shattering the tranquility 

which they make great effort to seek out. Haleakala National Park on 

Maui is particularly hard hit, for Its normally eerily silent crater acts 

like a giant amphitheater. Three or four helicopters are often ouerhead 

at once. To those on the ground - the uost majority of Park users - the 

sound Is deafening. This actll.llty goes on all day, all year long. Recent 

testimonials In the local press speak to this problem. (R selection '' 

enclosed.) These machines are obnoHious thrill craft which create 

nothing but mayhem In our Parks. The nonsense about helicopters being 

"educational deulces• which leaue only •temporary sound footprints• Is 

disinformatlon of the highest order. Much as was done in Grand Canyon 

and Niagara Falls, tour helicopter operations must be strictly limited 

within the National Parks In Hawaii, places which are, by defimt•on, 

pristine wilderness preserues. 
86 

11 you read the proposed legislation carefully you will note that it 

does not •prohibit" tour flights within Park bounderles, end thus will 

not preuent those few tourists who choose to ride helicopters from 

getting eerlel ulews of Perk lends. The helicopter operetors cleim thet 

1 696 will hurt their business by prohibiting perk ouerflights. The 

legislation does not do this. The restrictions simply require the tour 

operators to be more ecologically sensitiue, and to obey laws as to 

where they can and cannot go, just es those of us on the ground are 

bound by Park regulotion5 es to where ~ con and cannot go (see 

attached). 

Please support H. R. I 696. Its passage will uelidate the Park 

Seruice's mandate to preserue and protect our Nation's parks, and will 

restore Hawaii's National Parks to their former renown as wilderness 

retreats for those seeking refuge from the buzzing and sowmg of the 

machine age. Passage of 1696 will do much to protect Haleakala 

Natlonel Perk, 11 location thet the Perk Serulce describes as somewhere 

e person con go to ·enjoy the silence and peece or one or Earth's 

special places." 

Oeuld J. Leese 

cc The Honorable Petsy T. Mink 

enclosurest2) 
87 

STATBKD'r OJ' JOJDI J. RBDOLDS, DBPOTY DIRECTOR, BATIODL P.uut 

SBRVICB, DBPAR'l'JIIIJI'r OJ' TIIB IftBRIOR, BBJ'ORB THB SUBCOIOIJ:TTBB OR 

BATIODL P.uut&, I'OJlBS'fS AHD PUBLIC LARDS, ROUSB COIOIJ:TTBB OR 

BATURAL RBSOURCBS, OJI R.R. 1616, A BILL TO PROVIDB I'OR TRB 

RBGULATIOH OJ' TRB ADUIPACB OVBJt BATIODL P.uut SYSTBII LARDS IH TRB 

STATB OJ' RADII BY TRB I'BDBRAL AVIATIOH ADMIRISTRATIOH AHD THB 

HATIOHAL PARK SBRVICB, AHD I'OR OTRBR PURPOSBS. 

November 18, 1993 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

the committee today to present testimony on H.R. 1696, a bill to 

provide for the requlation of the airspace over National Park 

System lands in the State of Hawaii by the Federal Aviation 

Administration and the National Park Service. 

We support the intent and appreciate the concern underlying 

H.R. 1696, but believe that legislative action is premature. 

Instead we believe it is preferable to wait until the spring when 

a draft of our Report to Congress on our overflight study will be 

available and we have had time to get a detailed response from the 

Federal Aviation Administration on how it will assist the Park 

Service with problems associated with overflights throughout the 

national park system. We view your interest as an added means of 

strengthening the working relationship between the Park Service and 

the Federal Aviation Administration that has been developing, 

especially within the last year under this Administration. We do, 

however, wish to take this opportunity to communicate the great 

concern among many of our superintendents and staffs who are 

concerned about overflight issues. They support, especially, the 

need for a strengthened working relationship between the Federal 
88 

2 

Aviation Administration and the Park Service to address Park 

Service issues. 

The auditory and visual intrusion of aircraft overflying 

national parks in Hawaii generates more public complaints than any 

other issue in those parks. on a clear day over Haleakala, for 

example, rotor noise is nearly constant. Our research suggests 

that when aircraft are audible for such a high percentage of the 

time, a significant proportion of the visitor population will be 

annoyed and will have their opportunities to experience natural 

quiet interfered with. 

Parks such as Hawaii Volcanoes and Haleakala are incredibly 

quiet places in their natural condition. such quiet allows 

aircraft 'to be easily detected by visitors and to be noticeable for 

relatively long time periods. At Haleakala, for example, we 

measured background sound levels as low as 8 decibels (most people 

can't hear below 20 decibels). Aircraft sounds ranged from the 

threshold of hearing to over 90 decibels when a helicopter hovered 

less than 100-2 00 feet above the microphone. Acoustically, this is 

a startling range of difference and helps to explain why park staff 

and visitors want this issue to be addressed . 

Public Law 100-91, the National Parks overflights Act, 

recognized that the magic of Haleakala was being eroded by the 

drone of tour helicopters and set an altitude ceiling over the park 
89 

3 

(9,500 feet above mean sea level) to see if that would mitigate the 

adverse effects. The Superintendent reported to us, initially, 

that the ceiling reduced noise levels over the crater floor, but 

the increase in overflights since then has negated these 

improvements. 

We also have several safety concerns, which the FAA is 

addressing. Helicopters are flying too low over active lava flows, 

over the ocean near the lava flows, and through related volcanic 

fumes. This not only endangers the air tour pilots and passengers, 

but also the park rangers who must conduct rescues in the event 

there is a crash. Low flying. helicopters can also be dangerous to 

people on the ground as hovering can subject them to a shower of 

volcanic glass, debris, and toxic fumes. 

This is not to say that we are not making progress on resolving 

issues. The Hawaii Helicopter Operators Association (HHOA), the 

Federal Aviation Administration, and Hawaii Volcanoes National Park 

have been negotiating to develop a voluntary agreement to mitigate 

problems caused by low flying aircraft over the park. The 

agreement identifies restricted areas and minimum standoff 

distances for the helicopter operators overflying Hawaii Volcanoes 

National Park. It is a useful start but its effectiveness is yet 

to be tested and it does not deal with parks other than Hawaii 

Volcanos. 
90 

4 

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that the Park Service 

supports the intent and appreciates the concerns underlying 

H.R. 1696, but believe we should provide an opportunity for current 

Park Service-FAA initiatives and strengthening relationships to 

prove themselves before considering the appropriateness of a 

legislative response. In light of the developing relationship 

between the National Park Service and the Federal Aviation 

Administration and the need for the two agencies to enter into high 

level discussions to address a range of issues affecting parks, 

legislation is premature and current efforts at issue resolution 

between the two agencies should be afforded an opportunity to 

develop and be fully evaluated. 

This concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. 

pleased to respond to questions at this time. 

I would be 
91 

STATEMENT OF DAVID R. HARRINGTON, ACTING DEPUTY ASSOCIATE 

ADMINISTRATOR FOR REGULATION AND CERTIFICATION, FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION, BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS, 

CONCERNING H.R. 1696 PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF CERTAIN 

AIRSPACE OVER HAWAII. NOVEMBER 18, 1993. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I welcome the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today 

to provide the views of the Federal Aviation Administration 

concerning H.R. 1696. Accompanying me today is Mr. Harold W. 

Becker, Manager of FAA's Airspace Rules and Aeronautical 

Information Division. 

At the outset, let me make clear that the FAA understands and 

appreciates the nature of the concerns that have led to the 

introduction of H.R. 1696, which, in brief, would establish 

statutory airspace restrictions over certain parklands in Hawaii 

and would require that Part 91 air tour operators throughout the 

United states be certificated under Part 135 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations. We believe, however, that solutions to the 

underlying aviation-related issues in Hawaii are best addressed 

through regulatory action by the FAA and by pressing on with the 

kinds of efforts we have underway in conjunction with the National 

Park Service, Hawaiian air tour operators, and local communities, 

rather than by legislation. 
92 

-2-

As the Subcommittee is aware, the FAA's primary mission is to 

promote the safety of our air transportation system. We also are 

charged with the safe and efficient movement of air traffic within 

that system, but we recognize that environmental protection is 

also an essential part of our mission. Secretary Pefia has made it 

clear that environmental protection must be one of the major goals 

of the Department and the Nation's transportation policy. Toward 

that end, he has worked to establish closer contacts with EPA and 

the Department of Interior. 

Establishing policies and operational procedures that strike an 

appropriate balance among these goals presents a particularly 

challenging situation for the agency because of the noise 

sensitive character of many of Hawaii's scenic areas, the 

concentration of air tour operators, and the sudden weather 

changes that are experienced in the Islands. However, through a 

cooperative approach with Interior, we are committed to attaining 

results that are sensitive to both the environment and aviation 

requirements. 

Last January, we, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and the Bureau of Land Management entered into an 

Interagency Memorandum of Agreement. This agreement establishes a 

process for the identification of situations where impacts of 

aircraft operations on human, cultural, or national resources 

warrant site-specific action by the FAA to minimize or eliminate 
-3-

the causes of such problems. We are optimistic that this 

Agreement will provide a solid foundation for us to work 

cooperatively to address the types of concerns that we see in 

Hawaii. FAA has also been working to draft an action plan to 

assist us in managing the airspace in Hawaii. That plan is 

currently in final coordination. In addition, informal, 

high-level discussions are underway between our Departments to 

further advance cooperation on a wide range of issues, including 

park overflights. 

There are approximately 26 Part 135 operators with roughly 83 

helicopters dedicated to air tour sightseeing in Hawaii. There 

are also 7 Part 135 operators conducting mostly fixed-wing 

aircraft sightseeing operations. Approximately 15 Part 91 

operators using either helicopters, airplanes, or both conduct 

sightseeing activities over Hawaii. In addition, there are 

commercial airlines, military, law enforcement and agricultural 

aircraft, along with flight training organizations, helicopter 

lift companies, and a host of private aircraft operators who use 

the airspace over and around Hawaii. All of these activities make 

for a diverse and complex airspace system in itself, even before 

taking into account the environmental and noise-related concerns 

associated with Hawaii's beautiful parklands and cultural 

resources. 

We recognize that H.R. 1696 is an attempt to balance concerns for 

aircraft safety, airspace use, and environmental sensitivity. In 

87-820 0 - 95 - 4 
94 

-4-

the past two years, we have begun a variety of efforts intended to 

reconcile these sometimes conflicting activities, and I believe 

the record shows that, while much work remains, we are making 

progress. 

In dealing with the variety of complex and dynamic technical, 

safety, and environmental issues that must be addressed on a 

continuing basis, regulations and other approaches are often 

preferable to legislation . They can be amended more readily to 

handle new developments or problems, and adjusted to take 

appropriate account of new policy concerns. Such alternatives 

must, of course, be pursued in conjunction with other interested 

agencies--notably the Park Service in this instance. We also have 

a number of specific concerns with respect to this proposed 

legislation. For example, provisions in H.R. 1696 prohibit the 

use of airspace by any aircraft over certain parklands. since 

these provisions prescribe no altitude above which overflights 

would be permitted, commercial airliners that may operate over 

those areas at high altitudes would, in theory, have to be 

rerouted, creating potential conflicts in airspace management 

along with potential environmental costs associated with extra 

fuel usage. 

Another provision in the bill would permit certain commercial 

aircraft operations into Keahole Airport, but only if weather 

conditions otherwise would create a hazardous situation. This 
95 

-5-

provision, however, would not provide for air tour operators to 

use such approaches, even though the safety of their passengers 

would apparently be jeopardized by failing to do so. There are 

also no provisions in the legislation to provide for operations 

into proscribed areas for emergency purposes such as medical 

evacuations of injured park visitors, search and rescue missions, 

or firefighting operations. 

Provisions of the bill would also require operators to maintain 

altitudes in designated areas of at least 2000 feet above the 

highest surface within a lateral distance of 2000 feet of the 

aircraft. Air tours are conducted under visual flight rules 

(VFR). Those rules require that pilots keep a certain distance 

from the clouds for safety reasons. Hawaii can be subject to 

sudden changes in weather. By prohibiting the use of certain 

airspace and restricting the permitted use of other airspace, 

pilots may find themselves in dangerous weather situations with 

legal restrictions on their ability to seek safety. 

These examples are cited only to suggest that the inflexibility of 

legislation is not well suited to addressing the full range of 

aviation safety, technical, and environmental concerns in question 

with respect to Hawaii. 

We believe the best means of addressing these difficult issues is 

for the FAA, industry, the communities, and National and State 

Park Service personnel to work cooperatively, as we have begun to 
96 

-6-

do. By bringing the interested parties together and understanding 

each other's concerns, we can create a framework that considers 

and addresses everyone's needs. We have had initial success with 

this method at the Glacier National Park in Montana, where the 

FAA, NPS, and state and community representatives together 

developed a a plan for the use of the airspace over the park that 

addressed the environmental issues without jeopardizing the safety 

of aircraft operations. 

Likewise, in Hawaii, we are working to develop a program that 

includes all interested parties. The goals are to assure a safe 

operating environment and procedures for air tour operators; 

protect wildlife and the natural habitat that supports it; and 

reduce the noise experienced by the community. For almost two 

years, the FAA, the Hawaiian Helicopter Operators Association 

(HHOA), the National Park Service (NPS), and others have been 

working toward this goal with positive results. 

The FAA has taken several steps to address the challenges faced in 

Hawaii. The Honolulu Flight Standards District Office has 

dedicated staff resources specifically for the oversight of the 

air tour industry . Numerous meetings have been held with NPS 

personnel, industry, and the community. The "Fly Neighborly" 

program, initiated by the HHOA in conjunction with FAA, has 

defined noise-sensitive areas, minimum standoff distances, maximum 

noise levels, and disaster and natural phenomenon areas to avoid . 

This program provides for association-imposed .penalties for 
97 

-7-

violations of the HHOA standards, to include suspension of an 

employee and company fine after a third violation. 

The results of these activities have been positive. We have 

increased the safety of air tour operations by increasing 

surveillance, documenting unsafe practices, and identifying 

operators conducting unsafe practices. We have also conducted 

safety seminars addressing these issues for the industry. 

To help reduce the impact of noise on local communities, the FAA 

and community representatives requested that tour operators change 

certain routes. In addition to route changes, the FAA's 

Rotorcraft Certification Office has held educational forums where 

correct flying practices were discussed. The FAA received a 

letter from the Tour Aircraft Control Coalition this September 

stating that once pilots understood the communities' concerns they 

were eager to help. We intend to continue to educate air tour 

operators regarding community concerns. 

We are also involved in research and development to improve,the 

accuracy of reporting procedures for flights. Automated 

electronic flight-following, or the Noise Nuisance Abatement 

Performance system, is being tested and developed to track tour 

operations and record their flight patterns. Ultimately, 

information from that system will be recorded for each air tour 

flight, enabling records to be checked following noise complaints 

to determine if operators were flying in violation of "Fly 
-aNeighborly" standards. Implementation of the Global Positioning 

Satellite system will allow this monitoring and recordkeeping 

system to operate Statewide. 

We are also considering the issuance of a rulemaking proposal that 

would require certain Part 91 air tour operators, based on 

passenger enplanements, to adhere to the requirements of Part 135 

of our regulations. A regulatory process permits a full public 

airing of benefits and costs associated with a particular 

proposal, and also permits future adjustments as circumstances 

dictate. 

In brief, we are working to aggressively address the kinds of 

concerns covered by H.R. 1696, and assure environmentally 

acceptable outcomes. Although progress has been made, much work 

remains to be done. We would ask that the Committee not proceed 

with legislation in this area at this time, and afford us the 

opportunity to continue the work we have underway to address the 

issues we see in Hawaii. We would be pleased to keep you apprised 

of our efforts to do so. 

That completes my prepared statement Mr. Chairman. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions you may have at this time. 
99 

National Parks 

and Conservation Association 

October 15, 1993 

Federal Aviation Admlni$tration 

Al11ske Region 

70 I C Street, Box 1 4 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513 

Att. Russell S. Hathaway 

. Manager, Airports Division 

Subject: State of Alaska application for airport planning funds 

Chisana and Kantishna 

Dear Mr. Hathaway: 

¥:,[£ 

--·-- -·-

On September 15, I wrote you regarding the application by the state of Alaska 

for federal funds for the purpose e~f airport mastl!r planning at Chisana within 

Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve {WRST) and at Kantishna within 

Denali National Park and Preserve {Denali) . I advised the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) tha.t a decision to gra. nt .. fu.nd .. s. tpr such purposes would be 

inappropriate as a matter of public polic.v. ~(IQ l~w. ~ pointed out that the state 

~:s not own a land interest in the Chisana airstri~ ()r the Kantis~na airstrip) - ~ ... · 

_On September 20, John 'M. Morehead, National Park Service Alaska Regional 

Director, wrote FAA.A;Iaska Regional Ad":Jinistrato,r ~~ue~nP. L. ~~ith opposing 

the .sra11ts and prov1d1ng further factual mformat1on as to why 1ssuance of lfie 

grants as proposed would be contrary to currenf'regiilatioii: . M6reover, Mr. 

Morehead pointed out that the FAA database regarding land ownership at 

Kantishna and Chisana was incorrect, and not in conformance with federal law or records. - -- - ·· 

On September 23, you wrote Mr. Morehead, advising him of the FAA's Intent I<> 

proceed. with the grants. You further stated your decision was based on "consultation• with FM regional counsel. I find both the timing and content of 

your letter remarkable. 

First, your letter reads, in part: 

Historically, the FAA has supported (through grant in 

aid funds), planning efforts where land acquisition 

329 F Street, Suite 208, Anchurag~. Al11ska 99501 

TeJcphonc.-/Fax (907) 277-6722 
Russell Hathaway 

October 15, 1g93 

100 

issues are resolved as pact of the scope of the 

IJ/allniDsJ:ffJuL [Emphasis added! 

It is difficult to conceive how such a statement supports your decision to issue the 

grants, or, in fact, how the prop~ed planning effort could possibly resolve land 

acquisition issues. The airstrips are national park lands designated by Congress. At 

Chisana, surrounding lands are also national park lands. At Kantishna, the only 

non park lands are mining r.lalms, the purchase of which (for addition to the park) 

has been authorized and funded by Congress. The National Park Service has no 

authority to sell, lease or transfer park lands for airport purposes, and has further 

informed you of the agency's opposition to the grants as proposed. Despite these 

facts, your letter clearly indicates a prejudice toward acquisition of park lands and 

the intent to resolve, through an administrative planning proces~, land ~~~ues 

which are the sole purview of Congress. I find it hard to believe that FAA 

"historically" conducts business in this manner. 

Second, your letter reads, in part: 

• We recognize the National Parks Service position 

regarding the ownership of the specific airstrips in 

question. Sjmiltr{y. we ~nize that there are many 

facets to land ownership and that D.ther positions have 

been expressed. • IE mpha~is added} . 

The National Park Service "position» regarding land ownership reflects the law 

and is verified by the Bureau of land ManageiTlent Master Title Plats. Your letter 

clearly indicates your office mad<! an administrative decision to give equal weight 

to "other positions~ regarding land statu& as expressed by entities other than the 

legal land manager designated by Congress. Moreover, such a decision was made 

at a time when the FAA database was not in conformance with federal land 

records. 

Third, vo.ur letter reads, in part: 

"The fact that a responsible public agency does not y.S 

have titfe to a specific tract of property i~. thus, not a 

valid reason for denying a planning grant application.• 

[Emphasis added! · 

Given the land. status at Kantishna and Chisana, the specific tr/Jcts can only mean the airstrips themselves, surrounding public lands, or (in the case of Kantishna) 

mining claims currently being acquired for park purposes. The language of your 

letter is clear on its face that your office made an administrative determination 

that the state of Alaska will receive title to national park land~. That is a decision 

reserved by law to the U.S. Congress. 

There is no· debate that there exist legitimate transportation issues within national 

park &y~tem units in Alaska. By working together 4¥f! could, no doubt, fashion an 
Russell Hathaway 

OctOber 15,:1993 

101 

approach which recognizes the National Park Service's lead management 

responsibility and cooperatively utillles the funding and expertise of FM and the 

state. However, the grants as proposed do not reflect such a process. Moreover, 

the FM's justification for issuance, as expressed in your September 23 letter is 

seriously flawed. I am disappointed in the lack of response to my letter of 

September 15, and I find it difficult to believe that the substantive policy and legal 

issues raised by Mr. Morehead in his September 20 letter could have received full 

attention and review by the time you issued your September 23 decision and 

reply. Indeed, the fetters neiirly crossed in the mail. 

Please forward to my office, the application by the state of Alaska for airport 

planning grants for Kantishna and Chisana, together with all pertinent 

correspondence. I also request copies of legal memoranda from FAA Assistant 

Chief Solicitor on which you based the statements in support of the grant 

contained in your letter of September 23 to Mr. john Morehead. Lastly, I 

request copies of other FAA grants made in cases where the airport sponsor could 

not demonstrate clear title to specific properties subject to the pl'oposcd plan 

and/or where title could only be acquired through other than administrative 

action on the part of the sponsor or FM. For your records, you may consider this 

request is made pursuant to the law~ of the United States and the state of Alaska 

regarding freedom of information. Once more; I look forward to your reply. 

cc Jack Morehead, Alaska Regional Director, NPS 

Karen Wade, Superintendent, WRST 

Russ Berry, Superintendent. Denali 

Robert Baum, Associate Solicitor, Conservation and Wildlife, USDI 

Chris Bachman, Office of the Solicitor, Alaska Region, USDI 

Paul C. Pritchard, President, NPCA · 

Elizabeth Fayad, Counsel, NPCA 

Ann Rothe, Executive Director, Trustees for Alaska · 
102 

Environment 

Pricc: SHO 

Hawai'i's Endangered Forest Birds 

Face-Further Harm from Helicopters 

Amid chc !Umr3.nd conrrow-rsio~ncr:ned by 

the reo:nt marked increase i_n tour hdicoptcr 

traffic on the Big Island. "HaTT'f Kim. the 

. C¥tUntv's Civil Defense :tdmini~tr.uor. voin-d 

his.~ gdod s.enst and fresh p.c'r.;pcctive:: 

.;.·we n~someonc cos~ for the birds." 

' Kim's ob!'.Crvarion wa' m;dc ar ;m ;u-rim~ 

rancorous meeting March t.l~)). of mcm~ 

of the public with rrprescnutivcs of rh< Fedcr.U Aviation A.dmini.st~tion, the :tgcncy rh:u 

claims complete, unbrc:ach:tblc jurisdiaion 

over t!Vf!ry OJbic inch of navig:::.bk airspact in 

the Uniccd States. Ddcprcs of communiry 

organizations in the heavily impacted Puna 

and l<a'u dimicu of me isbnd cold chc FM 

n:p~tativcs rhOr q;,nccms abnur rhe unbearable lt"\\.:1:- nf noL~ gcner.ttcd hy the tour 

helicopter~. h w:lS left largdy to H:~.rry Kim 

and D:an 1~ytor. chM..f of f'C'iOUrc~o.~ m;m.1J.,'\:-

mcnt at H.twai'i Vola.nocs N::uiutd l~rk to 

cnvimnmcnc- n:~. n&r:tl and ~ial- have no<: 

been 1-l!m~.:. No C"nvimnml·nfal impact ~t3t

mcryt h;t.' been prcpam:l: no mitigating mcasu~ luvc httn identified. rema~ undcr-

~t:mdahly. tCt.kr;,) rcgul::uor.o; h;wc r:akr:n their 

m:md;atc to supervise industry Wcty tO rrlcr 

tmly rn the hc::tlth :md loW'Ifarc nfhum:an~. 

In .1.ny l"Vt:m, for wh::ucvcr rc:L'Wm,thCft'a~ 

nonudiaof the impact oflw:licopccr traffic on 

HaWliT.., fnrc<;;t hinb .. 

To av that, ~tr. i!i> not to $:IV due thCft' 

is no imj,aa on tM ~are's bird.\. ~from it. In 

one of the orlicsr known incidents.. a golden 

ctglc living in Kau:.'i's Waimea Canyon w:as 

.,rumcd lnro minamcat rhrough a facal encountCT with a chopper; a.< the- late noted 

hink~is t W."~ync C~c put it in a k11:cr to rhc 

Honolulu Adt-t"Ttistrin Au~L't tcjlj. (Just how 

1~ f?,niJcn c.o~k onlC 1n "-""'id,· in W.1.ima 

Ca n~ in ll"k! lir.ol( pl-.a: n.main:~ :s m~u:ry.) 

r:Usc the point that the heli- Such cncounccrs may be rare. Bur odler 

copccn' noisy pnxncc is 

mon: than a nuisance to 

.. hwna.na; for Haw-U'i's surviving na<M: fon:s< birds. 

·puny species of which 

already arc perilously 

~~~···~-~,. ... ,_'JPC' of di ... obancc, ~ shonofdir«thil\,al\ 

be jun 2S seriou.s and 

lif"c -chtt:at~ing. 

· do.<.c to cxrinc.,inn, the 

hclicoptcrsmaypresenc 

stresses sufficient to 

cawe fUI""thc:r population declines. 

s-s.JOwt 

As W'ich many other threats 

to natural resources. tour hdicoptcr mffic in the stat~ has bcc:n 

allowal co develop .nthou< n:gulation to the point that, today, ir has 

=ched a site and scope chac defies bdac<d 

attcmpa at conaol Because of m~ lack of 

roguh<ion, me srud;cs ""' migh< indica« <he ways in which this industry harms Haw:ai'i's 

Taylor. the rc:sourc.cs 

chid" al Volo.nocs Na- . _ tinn;1l 1':1rk .. ~1~ that :11-

rhough hard ~u m.ay 

be lacJUng. ~nough evidence is ar hand already to 

suppon rutrictK>ns on hdic:opc:cr ovc-rflighu of arc::&S inhahiccd by na<M: birds. 

"Birds have a YCf)' eight energy 

~ ... he said in a recent interview. 

1n rhi" budgt.'t, there's no room for 

cnraneous activity, rding toT 2)'1or. 

•Jfsomethingalarnuthcmorausesthcm 

to dcpan from their murine. chc birds have to 

rdyon<hcircnc<gybuffcr-ifrhcyhaw:nnc." 

Helicopters can and do dilrurb the birds' 

StY '"Birt4 •• JI'I'IFI 

Hawai'i 

Frequmt Flym 

Get the Bird 

A~ the Aig.hHccing industry grows. so. too, 

grow the complaints about low-flying air-cnft.. 

Helicopter opcr.ucm say mcy'n: doing all chey 

c:1n be- ~no;on:ahly expected to do ro abate what 

is at most a nuisance. To do mon:, they daim, 

would infrin@:'= on their rights co cam money 

and on wh:u they say arc the rights of tourists 

ro sec Hawaj'i's scenery by a.ir. 

Ptople living along che hdicoptcr routt:s 

have another scary. The Aights ~ fir more 

than a nui.s:an<:e. They cause health problems. 

~'of income, and los:s of privacy. 

Those plaad .. grca<cs< risk by me hd""'P-

,.,.. ubiqw<y may be lc.st able "'"""" <bcU conccmo H'awoi'ls already cndang=d birds. 

The helicopter opcr><OB ha.. .aid <bcU 

bu.lincss is etntourism. aria best; paengas · 

"lcav. nothing and <akc.,..,.only memories 

and phocos." one opcntor has said_ As <he 

contrary testimony of me people on the 

~nd shows. it's not rhac simple.. 

1\nd no one has yet heard fiom <he birds. 

IN THIS ISSUE 

2 A Tlms ,. Ht.uh, 

Wdforr, Wi/Aift 

4 

VJiryofUmpiAintl 

FirrJ 41 0/'".nn 

5 

Flyi"fNnfhb.ij 

Rhtri«i.• ru MIJ c.JJ 

ForAatJf~ 

VJc."ic • G41.AJJ 

T• HdjNJ!tn Rim 

10 c~c ... F..-J -· 

DOHS..jfjourGM 
103 

------------- --------- -------'''.:_ ''-_o_!= "_'_"" nlllaw~, · \l,nloq l 

EDITORIAL 

Beyond Noise: Helicopters Threaten Health, Welfare, and Wildl.ife 

Hardly anyone would deny that helicopter 

tours have become a nui~nccon the Big Island 

and on Maui. Thq u.d to hr .1 bother on 

Kaua'i, too, but Hunicme 'lniki brgdy put an 

md to thaL (l<>u.'i's loss w.as the Big Island's 

g:;ain, with many of K:.ua'i's hdicopcer open.· 

tors rdocuing to HaWJ.i'i.) 

jwt how m2ny helicopters ply the skies is 

nor known precisely. In 1989, the stuc esti· 

m:atcd dut about 40 hdKoprcr companies. 

tognhcr owning some 90 hclicopccrs. W'Crt 

oprracing in the smc. The Hawai'i Helico~cr 

Operators ~~i2rion reportN a ynr later thar 

there were )O tour hcliooprer operators state--

wide. Aying Ro aircnft. The Fedcnl Aviation 

Admini.marion eqinut(S that rocby.on the Big 

bland3lone. thm::u-cabout 1) opc.nrors. fl)ing 

bt1wttn 15 and lO airoah. So.rc records inrli· 

cue dut 30 or more rour hdicoprcrs ;~y be 

based on rhc Big Island. 

Whu~:YCT the rotal, for the people living 

under the regular Righr roura. thm: arc ton 

many hdicopcm. Ayingat altitudes that brush 

the .,... tops. ranlc the clishes. sa,. the stodt. invade privac.y, and shantT to mlithcrems eM 

pcoo< and quiet tha< rosiclma had ocpectcd to 

find by IMng in some of rhc stare's n:rnotcsr 

quancn. 

The problem long ago surpo....d the ln.! of 

anuisanc:e.Tochyirn:prcsmuahcalththn:atro 

some rcopk. ro oC:~ an in'41.ion of rhar 

Envirorunent -~awai'i 7)J iJ~r!i~r('C'f ,Suitt"tJ0-1;l 

Hcmnlulu, HI '}MIJ 

Volume ). Numbn u May '"'' 

P.tuiciaTummoM.U, 

LJN__,, Hn.il" published moMI\Iy hy £nviron- mnu H-.i'i. lroc., :a jOI(c:liJ) ....,...ptoli.1 corpor.nioft.. 

Sublmptiofts vt •H indMdual; 161 wpponinao s6s ClOfJ!Ofttcar.d inAinu~. ~~rcion inq.,itin. 

addrcad.nps.and.Uothn~to&,;,.,. 

-. '"-ii. 7)J BU.hop Suen-, Suicc ~~~.Honolulu. 

H- if61tJ. 

Anidca .,ari"'C in chit journal art inckrcd in eM 

~ul PcriocfoL 8ibr!Op9hy. Eni__, H_ .. l il :nsilablc in~ chmuch Uniwnsicr 

""'~-· Ahrrnatn.c- rn. oolca.,. ()00 North 7..cdl 

R.o.l.Ann Arbor. Michipn ..al06-1)46). 

T~vdpn:d.,.;rianbyFoc-Coloti"'Wr.W"J.lnc.. 

Printiflcby rtPolXU... nbtn.tioftof ftJJ.by ~ Pnn 

. CoV,rricbt 0 '"' Errritontnrnt HZW~i'i, Inc. 

ISSNtQSO-}_J.IS 

rights to priv:tcy: fOr ~rill mon:. c.mgihlc m;ttc:· 

rial los.~. Beyond rh:u. helicopter flighu ovc::r 

ldcmcs.~ arca.o; may well pn~ a ri~k to many 

J~:pt'Cido of cmbngertd Htwaiian fureq hircb. 

FmuTru1/ kt«iarion of Avittton 

'The Fcckr:J.! Aviation A.~"'C:i3 tion ha~ hccn 

nothing if not z.calow in iu pursuit of iu 

mandate ro promote~ the avi.·uion industry. 

HdKorter osxr:noD. cspcci.1lly. ~o with the 

FM's hJcs..,ing anywhere their :Urcr.dt can rake 

rhcm M>k>ngasminimal~~larion.'iand 

condition.'i of their ccn:ificncs :m:- nbscrvtd. 

Regulations ro control noise cxtenJ no further 

th<tn 4,000 feet &om rhe boundaric.o; of public 

airpons. Ik.-yond th:u, nnlw i5 not thi:ir c.:on· 

cem. FA,\nrftei:Usg,v,:.ml ,..,fcrvcnn!I'Kkr:uinn.'i 

a_'rc the sole jtL\tif~tion for ~cnq intc~n· 

unn. 

And, thcv add. if thcv don't inrcrvcnc. no 

one else Cln.'acher. H~cr serious problems 

:LVnei:ua:l with hdicort« urc:r.uiul\.'i hccnme. 

~ much leal ;and st:atl! offtci:.lls might 

want to see things change. the FAA claims that 

it aJnne tw authoriry to akc rnc:l.Wn:J that 

might restrict the righcs of :tviators. 

Timc's up.lfirakcsan 3CtnfCongreutogft 

the FM to he mon: ~n:•i tiw m rhc ~cs of 

cirittns orhcT than av~ton. so be it. The 

chummina.soflhc:FMfi:lttmir:y~~on 

long~.Th<FMhoscn:ucdan:gubtOf]' 

~em dlat makes enfOrcement all but impossible. The Kknri6arion numb... that pc<>plc have to rq'IOfl ro the ~ as a fim sttp in 

enforcc:mcnt actions need be no higher than 

three inches- not feet. but inches! Even when 

the numbe-rs em be ~potted. :dl~tions of 

wrong-doing must involve a safety iniTactiot\. 

. With the FM .setting no minimum altitudes 

fOr hdicoptcr flights. prtMding cvi<kna: of 

safety infT2Cl'i.ons i:s difficult at best. 

The FM, at Patsy Mink's prodding. has S<t 

up-in Honolulu- an Air Tour Survcillantt 

Team. whose putposc i.s to monitot' helicopter 

uaffic ..Wnly on the Big Island. It boasts that 

recently it h.u launched up iosix inqui~ inro 

poaiblc infioctions by helicop<cr op=ton of 

sakty rules. But the investigations win W.. 

· ri~. and ir may lx: months bdUrt enfOJtC--

mcnt actions are begun. Until they are c;on... 

dudcd, and all appeals an: exhausted. the FM 

wiD not rdeasc rhe names of the openton 

undct investigation. citing concerns for their privacy. . 

The lcgi uion introduced hy P:tt.~ Mink 

may, if enacted ~ a step in the right direction. 

r loweY('r. it doe\ not go far enough. \Vhat is 

required i~ nothing lcs.'i than a rn'ision of the 

fM's very charttt. Saf~ is ncx the only maner 

to he: cnn~ dered when ptople ake to the air. 

Noi~. priv:~cy. :tnd imp."Kton r~c:nvironmcnt 

(including endangc~ specio ;md p~· 

rion of wilde~~ quaJitics) dcstrvc equal bill· 

ing. The hour i~ ar hand to rum the FAA 

around, ro mnve it fmm the role of cheerleader 

into a new role as guardian of the public's 

imcrc-;t in the rtgUI:uion of air tr:J.ffic of all 

kinds. 

.<.rfrry F;.,t? 

f.Vl.-n ;1lw:nt :1 h:tn~ in fcdaa] kgi.d:.rion, it's 

Mili a r~uC"icion toa~k why the FAA h:udone 

~, linlc to cnh:tnce the safety of the toor 

hdicnptcr indumy in H:~w::~.i'i. Given that 

m:tny nf the flighn on the Big Island and Maui 

~ ~~ w:tter. it would only make ~ to 

equip ain.:r:~.ft w;th perMlnal Roatarion d~ 

if not pontoons. 

The FAA might alsocon.<id<radopting !!f;Ubrion.< that would make idcnci6ation ofhdj.. 

copccn Qsicr. The Hawai'i State HdicDpm 

S)'>tcm l'lon xknowkdpd the d;fl'>eulcy the 

p<oblic hod in idmdfj.oing low-flying aircnft. It 

n=mmcndcd that the """ D<poruncnt of 

Tr:uupomtinn adopt its own idmtify;ng ~ 

t<m. which, it stated. "is not expta11)' prohibited by fcdcrol rcgubrions and has been impk- rncnml in othtt stares." The new m200np 

would lx: painted on the airaaft's undmidc 

and in letters and numeral. u least rwo feet 

high. The ideo has h<m ~by mcmbe.. of 

thcpublicbtdy.Some ... idmahaYCsuggestcd 

assigning each helicopc:eropemorath~lcttcr 

dc:5ignation, whK.h would become a prdlx for 

the id~ncifying number assign«{ to each air· 

cnft owned by that operator. One thing b dear (even if the numbers~ 

not): Unlil it bc:comes easier for aircafi 10 be: 

idmrij;cd by membe..ofthep.i.&c. the public will haw:=ry right to bel',... that ihc FM has 

no interest in cracking down hdimptm that 

I'll')' be flying in vM>btion ofFM ruks; . 

l't:=ptions that the FM is Jc.. than vigorous in its pursuit of viobton are nor: without 

oonscqucna. Amons hcUmp<cr. operatorS, 

""'". p<""!"ions fOsttr the lcind o( coWboy bchavio' th>t leads to loss of propcnyand .... 

IU.. s. ·u-wr,-J 
104 

Over Industry Objections, County 

Urges Restraints on Helicopters 

The Hawai'i County Council adopted, on 

March '!.f, 1993. :1 f'C'>01utMln supporting :m 

;agreement between the f-ederal i\vi:.tinn Administr:nion and rm N.uional P.uk Scrvic~ to 

set n:tndards for helicopter Aighrsover H:.w:ti"i 

Volo.noes Narional P,rit. 

Adoplion of the resolution W15 mo~ difficult than the ;-o council vnte might ~r. 

At e:uiin horingsof the= ~urion.tcsrimon~ 

from rcsidcnrs had bttn countered by hd~ 

teroperatofs. parricularly Scon Shupe. Shupe. 

who is a princip31 ofMauna Kc:a Hdicopfcn. 

based in K.muda. abo ~the Big Ubnd dir«-

torofthc Hav.'2i•i Hdicopt"er()pa-arorsASSI> 

ciarion. 

The resolution h;a no force of UW. Srill. 

Shupe- w.u lCbmant in his oppn:cition • ti the 

ma.\urr- althou&l\ a times memixrs of rht 

council seemed: to think his ~ria: :n the 

Febrw.ty 14. 1993 council mttting worked in 

rupport of the n::sol~tion. 

Acanding ro Shupe. Righu around the 

volcano. "if done prop<rly. they ate no< dangerous.· But. he added. "1 do think thetc .,. 

"'""' inhctcnt problems with indMduals flyEditoriAl 

ftwnfN'giJ 

Alter a fial ~of an airpUnc on M2ui 

lost >""'• !he National Tr.wporurion s.f<ty 

Bo..d ~in with a""""'~ ing that the FAA adopt 'J'<Cial Rig~!< rule Ia. 

Hawoi'i pt«iody ~x-au.t:,., m•nyofthe.....,5 

annctiono held unwwl dans<n- "Thc -..k<y 

boanl bdi..., that the FAA should id.noty 

ai~dtati.s.rubjcctrocomrnm:i.al.airacli¥­

ity and that may rtquin: special air trafnc procedures FOr environmental ptorecrion orm 

reduce the poa:ntial for midair rollision." irs 

rqx:tn on the Maui ac:cidcnt said. · 

Whikwewould add ·~concerning 

. the h.zanls ofRigh< """""'...lanic Nm<s. 

thcNTSB""""""<rltions=onchcrnoney: 

Woll the FAA adopt !hem! 

En.;,.,..,.,}'-

t--Rying bdicop<m "- an impoa on 

wildlifi:. )utt how pat that impoa is. no one 

knows. Wdlwo..., find ouc! 

Onc_,tOu-!hcimpoais1Dwoitumil 

naNte ~ U$. i"hctt'a a dr.lWbdc to dl.ia 

app.-h. By the rim< the problem is <=cing 21'0und the volono ~ Shutx ~nr on tO 

di.~u.'l.\ the cr~dl nf the Plrnmount Piau~ 

crew imu ru·u nn VCfl( ll.~( f.tl l. A Bis l.J:md 

pilot W:l.~ a.\ked to Ry through the smoke. 

Shupc-~,id . Th< f'Hiot W'1S .lw.l~ that the .smoke 

w:n h~hlr mi'TOiivc :and oonu .. iru low lc:vds of 

o~n. When the laa.l pik>r wouldn't do what 

P.1r.unnunt W3med. rhc:filmcomp:tnrbroughr 

in ils,I'Wn piloi .. mJ hired" hdicoptcrfnlm the 

island. lllc ~~-M Shur-e s:aK.I. is hismry.M 

"lm not mw:l. of a whistkblouxr. 

I just UNtnt "'«< tk indwtry chllngr. • 

It was unF.air to hold the whulc- industry 

rcspon.<ihk for ch.u incident, he g.jd. 

The crash into rhc ocean of the Kainoa 

AvUrion hdicoptcr- in which four tourists 

losttheir1M5-llsoshoukloorbc~ldapinst 

ih. indUStry. Shupe dumcd. Th• pcop1< " Kainoa "wm:compk<dyoutof th• kg>I...Jm 

in wt.id> !hey ....,. ro Ay on !hat day. ... They 

had no right tO b< d.= !hey •••=•t suppo«<f 

nizal. the tim< has long pu!<d fOr .aion to 

hod it off: 

Ano(hcr w:\y, one nu.hrincd in m.~ and 

ftdaal law. is for d10IC" who arc ausinc the 

impaa- co ~an c:nvironmmal impact 

SUt<m<nt.fullydiocb;nganyandallpoo<ibk 

dl<as that their b.havioc mar ha ... on the 

environment. 

The ~te rtquin:s ptq)aDrion of C'1ther lft 

mvironmcntal.asrncntor111 cnvironmcn· 

t:al impKt statcmmt wbcncw:r hd.ic.optcr f.a. 

ciliri<s.,. ~To da«. ............ the 

mvironmmW aucssmmrs doM for these 

protects have dc::alr wirh only that environ· 

mmt du.t lies in the immcdi2tc vicinitv of the 

hdipott 0< hdipad.B<fi>n, any mo« hdicop- tC"r f:aciJirics are pcrmictcd, tiM: cnvironmmal 

..........,. .. 0< EIS.S f...- them should b< ,.. 

quind to addms !he toW impacts. including 

"-on <ndanga>od bitds, on r.d.nlly pn>-

tcacd wildcrnaa 1r1:a1. on sutc wild lands. 

and on ...-s..itiol neighbotl>oods. 

tH 

ASiii>"P In ~ty Control 

Jt habcm brought to our attmtion tNt some 

copies of !he Apn1 edition of &,.;,.. • ..,., 

to be the~. r~ WCTC breaking the law." 

Again. Shupe said. '"it's hard to hold ac:· 

counr:'lhlc the enti~ indu.qry." Almost all the 

o~r.nor,; ~ncr.ning the complaints by the 

public ;1nd p:u-k pcr.r.onnd .. ~Part 91 co mp;~· 

nice;." he mid the cnundt. Shupe ha.~ him~f 

"compla in<.'d to the t-:M that this is nor right,'" 

hcgid. • 

Rut Shu~' cnmpbinr~ ~~op~rt()f mC"n· 

doning individual opmton. Shupe told che 

council he w:'ln(ed rn SC'C FM rquluions 

enforced-"I SC'Cchcmvtof:uedC"VCryd.a.y,"bc 

said. Councilman Jim R.arh pointed out rha.t 

all Shup<had todow.u "pick upth< ..dioand 

ncrn thl-'di l ... l mean. youc.1n lite~lypi ck up 

ynur radio J.nd o..ll right rh~~ nn the spot and 

report any violations ... 

"Wdl." Shup< ...,pnndal. ·rm not much 

of a whinlcb~. l just W"Jnf to xe the 

indUStry change. clean up thor""-· 

Shupe's tcsrimony ldt Councilwoman 

Hd.m: Hale, a sponsor of !he ...elution. 

wondering why. if Shupe himself wanted ro 

rootoutthcbad.applc:s.heshoutdobjearothe 

raolution, which, in any asc. merely su~ 

pona! the Park Service in an xtion it ~ 

a!rady undcnalcing. 

"Wdl, I jwt xe the pattern or the hand· 

writing on me W111 that it'sonc more ruSe. and 

it's one more rule. Pmty soon, wt an't go 

anywhcto." Shupo: rcspondcd. 

Hauwi'i wc:rc mis--printed and do l'lO( contain 

Fg<S 5 thJOU!Ih 8.1f)'OU tcaived on< of these. 

pb<c kt w u- and W<11 b< happy to...,.! 

a tcplac<mmt copy. rr.. of dwtl<- {tct us 

know quickly: our supply of «ppaa:rn<na ;. 

limited, ~d if it ruN out, 2 phorocopy of W 

missing Fg<S will b< _th< bot""' an provide.) 

tH 

EtCetera 

Enllironm"'t HaWtti'i has rdoatcd to Hilo. 

H1w.ai'i. Until ~ havt' a J"'C'1"'TUT:lC"nt :addns 

for mail, please continue to smd :all 'm2il to our 

Bl•hop Stn.-.. add= Should you wish to reach us by td<phonc. 

ournumbcrinHik>is(a.rc:ao::wkloi)9J4-oU1· 

W< have no faaimilt: mad.in<y«. but hope to 

luw: OOC' soon. 

1u a iot(c)(~) corporation. &.!""'"""' 

H...,., Yo «quind to a>mplt:tt Form 9901iw 

the lntnnal R<wnue Scmce. We aloo ar< 

requim:l co make this awilabk to incmsted 

memhcnofthepublic. Thisfonn.........,;,., 

ina>m< andetpmdiNJ<Sia.the p.mous,-._ If anyon<-.ld likr tO sc .. copy.plas< .....1 w your «<!""" along with • swnptd. .df- .dd...,...,d <nvdop<. 
105 

Hearing on Helicopters Draws 

Volley of Complaints from Public 

Mike Wheat lives in Hawaiian Paradise Park. 

a rur:"ll ~ubdivi~ion r.outh of.Hilo. O n d:t~ 

when hdtcopc~:r tr:tff.c i.\ c.:~rx'•!b ll y he:wy. he 

!i:I.Y" Hi!¢'cs over hi..; hotL~ c.1n he l.'i fn:qucr'H a~> 

~cry five minute'i. "The pilots often fly at uttcop lt"Ycl. giving their p.L'i.'i4.'nf.C~ a vi~..-w of the 

signs Wheat h:tS placed in hi~ y:ud, impJoring 

them to go :.way. Far from the ~ip.n.o; achieving 

their intc:ndt.J dfl'\:t. 'fheu . .;.:1ys. they have 

made hts vard a must~ on hdKopccr toun. 

f-orWhc:u. who ruffcrs &om .a terminal 

illnes. ... tht.: noise of rhc fn.~ucnt, low ovcrflights is more than a 1\Uisanci. He says it often 

calJ.SC$him nig.hcm:arish hr:tt.bchet. "'I'm angry 

from yea~ of flights over my hO\L~."' he cold 

U.S. R.eprcsentati~ ~tsy Mink at a meeting 

she called in Hilo to addrc:s.'l the problem b.o;t 

month. ''I'm d~cd. I'm askinp. fnr your 

hdp." 

For Rene iracusa ~ noisy hdicoptas flying 

over her Pahoa house :ur more th:m 3 hot: her. 

<hey ha.., auocd he. maccrial lo.s. Siracusa 

told Mink that she had lost income ~ livestock as • ...We of s<ampcding bro~l on by 

!he hdi<optt< mffic. "I t.. .. been unable 10 

receive compensation for the.: bc:ca~ of me lqr,tl '~~ tu :1in·r.1fi i&,:ntilit::uinn," ~he 

~;d. 

Sir.acu.-;a abo xcu~ the npaatnn of wtyc:uri~m . Until ~ h:ld intiCJnf plumbing installed, Sir.~CUS> mok he. daily bach oucdoon 

in m;d..aftnnoon (giving the w:~rn time to 

hc&t),l'bc "m-.kl'Kfy in thctuh h...omc :t ~ 

opcntordraw,'" $h~ reponed carlicr<~t a March 

1,11)9\, m«tin~ofrommtmirymcm~w;th 

=MnOM j,;j~ 1\t,·.m'lll:slk•t·nuLI nc.'Yt'f f\-.Kitlk· 

numhcn nn thc:offmding hc-IK.:uptcr.;' undersides. no cnfor«mcm actiun' wt.Te ~..~., t:tkcn 

to pcna)i7.e 1ht guihy npcr:no~ 

The hdimp«r Of'<"""'' in ..... ion of privacy wasanissuethatc:ll'ntupn:pe:n~y A'WOmln 

rold t~pand chat her houx in ru·uco. 001 on 

the way 1n :my panicubr !ittnic · had apparently hccomc' a dmirwion in iu own 

right for MMM tour opcr.aton.. F.lmily prhcrinpwm=disruptcd aswdl a.< private: moments 

wMh he. husbond. On one ocasion, she said. 

hdicopccn '"hovm:d fOr as long :as it cook us to put on our clodMs. • 

O.vMISbod....oltaupahocho<norcdmac 

there a~ "more restrict io n~ on boom boxes 

th:mon hdi<.oprc~. Our righl" :> priva<.:y and 

~uict :tn: l"Vo~.:;thl~ ;It m~ mnmt.·m.-

The comp1aining public had no lockhold on 

the high ground of .. rights.~ In whar mi~ht be 

r .. :g:mk'tl :1.( :Ln awt.!"'(unc bmaJr:ning. uf the 

gnmmarofcon.stitutionally p_rotccrcd lxh:lv· 

ior. ~licopccropcr:-uors c:sr ifYin~h<fo~ Mink 

ch:~mpioncd th\! rights of their diems to tl"2vd 

anywhcn: their hdicopu:rs coulcl Ay. Dave ~ier of Blue H:.w.1iian Hdi-

,;optcr.on:m:d that 90 percent of the Aighc:s on 

Maui Clrty visitors co HalcabJa. "1 don't warn 

to Jenv visitors their rie:hr co ~ Halok:lla.~ 

hc!Qid. -

An cmploya: of Blue HtW':\iian - Jim 

Spiri -tnld Mink. "You :1.~ mc:s:~ing with my 

r~h~ if you inrt.·rfcn: with the right co~ my 

park. And you'rr. mc:ssing with all the tourists" 

rights also, since Hzwai'i Volcanoes N:uional 

"P,rk is a world ~rirageparit- !IOU'rc meo:..~ ing 

wifh the UJOrltiiri&flt if you restrict RighrsoYn 

chcparlt." 

Jim Hmn""")'. who n;., ..;,h 1\apillnn 

Hdia>pcm. ddmdcd dtc norion of "equal 

XCC:S.( .. to national rork.~in H::rw..i'i. ~old. 

the ill. tht.· ll:mc.lic.'Jli"·-'J lr'KI ttkN..· ~1n nf 

rimC" wilt be di.'OCriminated agajnsr" if Mink's 

lq:i.(btion. H.R. 1696. i.( JU'-~• h<> w::~mcd. 

lhvic.l L..'\..'1C" lives in the t biku :tre~ ofM:tui. 

The probkm rhm:. he cold Mink. is just as 

h,,,t_ &"rwwn 2.0 anti 40 hdiOlJ'fl'~ a tby ~'-'~ 

u.-~T hi...: IMnN· nn Motui's nunh shnrc. 'lhc 

Aigtu·s-.ting industryS grooMh ha1: been un--

Tq,"UI:ned. he mid Mink. with no :mc:mion 

paid 10 its impact on pcopk or birds. h was 

~imc, heS3id, for the Fedcnf Aviation Administr.ltion m tum from the promot:ion of the 

industry to ics qu)arion. 

Just how much the: FAA an rcgubn:toc:ontml 

no&-iu maucrofsomcdispure.. fMspokc:s-

" men h~ stared that their mandate~ only 

. as far as s:Mcty issue are conccmcd; noise 

~cd byopcncO<Swbo...,in"""'plianc< with all sakty «gUbrions 0. beyond char 

~"'"Y audtority, <hey "'l'· To hear the testimony of peoptc living in 

rh~ hdicopt~rs· patht. h~r. the helicopmpilot~ who art the source: of the greatest annoy3nt.'t a~ often ~ to be in obvious violarion 

of fAA flighc rules. Th<y may be scudding 

alon~ :u frtt·top kvd, h<M:ring OVtt flows of 

fl"'li-hm V<l"orAying~r~noc:rJ:n fOOfu 

our ro :allow them to land sakly in thc:evcltof 

mcchania.l fuilure. In tho.o:e C\~ the pilot 

wouiJ he viol:uin~ FAA rules by flying outlidc= 

what i~ c:~ llni the helicopter's Right mvdope 

- th~ space required to allow a hdicoprc-r to 

land ~fdy. given it.~ spt"Cd and altitude. 

In F.tct, once a hdicoptcr leaves the con· 

trolled airspace of :1 public airport. :about the 

only F.-\.-\ tl-gulation rhat applies to the pilOt's 

activities in flight is the one concerning the 

flight ~nvdopc" The minimum alfirudes that 

flxcd·wing :~ircrafc mu.(t obse-rve- do not apply 

to hclicopteropcramrs.Jim Kane, a resident of 

Waipi'o Valley, tqJOnro to Mink that when he 

compl:Unal rn a hclicoptCTopc-r.uor about thr 

noise Aipns wert: ~ncrating - bcau.\C of 

Waipi'o"s amphithc:uer shape . .sounds rever· 

hcr.ttc-rhcoper.norst:ucd that '"he could Ay anywh~rc: he w,nrcd - ht- could f1~ rwo fttt 

ahovc the ground all the way to the back of 

Wairi'u Valley. ifhc-w:anttd. ~ (;ivcnthc:~t 

FAA rc:gub.tK>ns. the operator is oom:a. 

If a hclic:oper is obscrmf in violacton of safe 

np:r:ning rrgularion..;, the FAA says. it wants to 

hear about it" According to .XCYe Badger, an 

FM cmploya: who heads up a new Air Tour 

S..ln-l·ilbmc.:c·l4.:am ~1hli~hcd for f-tawai'i, rhe 

~AA can and wiD cnfOfCC. David Gilliam, the 

ma~fo.ft~h!""ncUnlsofd><FM'sWctl'nl ~~~iun . c."l:pn:~..c:d the: ~ ~'fltimmr 

even more -..ehcmcndy ;., Mink's m«ting: 

.. Whm: wr: lind rion--complianc.cwe11 argressivdy ICIIIuw ur on thai ... 

All that thcyrodothis is for thecomplaininr: ltlt'1nht·~ nf tlw puhlic to'rmvktc thnn 

wirh tht· c.btc, 1i11M." ;)1lllpb.:c uf vit,J:ukmanc.f the hdicopter~ idcntif'K:::.tion number. 

For yors. !he public lw been providing da~e, 

time and place to the: FM and ro a hod inc set 

up by che Hawa.-o Hdiccpt<r()pcmo"Asoociorio~. which lias promiood to uy 10 get iu 

members 10 abide by a "fly n<i&hbodY" progr.3m. But providing the iden~&atioh nun1-

bcr ~ lrickH:<. All !he numbcnbqin with "N" 

(IQ, number). n.....n., isalonsooqucn«of 

o........Is all hue impossible to cad as d>c 

hdicop<crwhim:sby. Radingd>c~ 

cionO.madc....,.,.,..difficultbyd>cr...""" 

usually !he hdioopto:r is silhooxnal apinsl: • hrighuky. S« ~~ ._1 
106 

If., ,.,.. : • ' "'""''"'•''' llo" .,·, . ,':, . .,-, - - -- - ·- ... , ____ --------

Operators Adnllt Shoncomings 

In 'Fly Neighborly' Program 

The H:t\v:li'i Hdic.:nprc:r Opcr:unrs 'l..••nda~ 

riun wa..'l: ct\;lh,,l in r•,S-4 . l'll..·cms...·. it h;t'l: gM_I. 

~t "N.· indlL,tt;-' t\ ll i~._, j rl~t it •x'-'Lk'l tn imPf''WV1.' it'i 0~ in~prj._l.Jurt-,;: in nttlt..,. In h."l."Omc 

nmn: ..:nm 1t hl~· wirh hnrh ~ pcnnanc,:tlt 

:md ttan!lf.;nt (luurr...t-) c.:nmmunitM..':\. ~ Mt."'l• 

hcr.ohip in chc ..l\.lollll." ;~ticm i'i volunrary; Rub 

()(.'( :"l lp. HHf lA·,. n:~'t'\lliw lli n.nm, ~ic.l 

rnt:ntf~ · d1,11 ;li'II.•UI ;oC(, l"" n. ·n t of rhc ' l.lh:'s 

tnur lu.:lic••ptl't UjX"rarors kclun~ 1u his ~roup. 

In IIJRC). HH< >A c.~tahli..ht.'\1 ''~l: lt it ~..lcscrih,:s.l\ rhc 1:1y N~.. it:hlllttly l't• 'gr:un. ()pcr.a.-

ror.o p:trticipatinit in the prugram. whlch 

H•tt lA J<"r... ri~ -" 1n.1nc.bh•~ · ;a~~ppm...,J 

tc l(,{'""'""""""[Tt;tin st:uw.l .... ~ di!lf:ai"M,X"':mJ lninimum ;tltii'Ul.k.'!l> in ;1~ ~i~rut1...J ;t-. nubc-

•oc.:nsirivc:. \'l'lhn1 •1XT.Uclrs 1~.: liNnw.l ru haVC' 

viubral rill.: jlrt,:r:tnl hy 1hc I U l<. >A:,. l~r 

Ncighhorly Cnmmi~"ion Bmnch, th'-'Y :a~ 

.~uhj«l to fin(':'O. f'nr rhc fio:t vinl.uion, rh~ fine 

iJ~: a warning tu dw.:pilnt :md tht.·c.:nmpany. The 

~ond vinla1ion hy rh~ !oO'Imc.: pilot rcull'S in 

fi~ of JIOO impmcd on hoth pilot :and 

company. AJcJirinnal vinbrinns n..~uh in sus--

pemiun of the pilot for )Otb)'S and :a nso fine: 

P.'Y'bk by chc a>mpany. To d:nc. HHOA hao 

nnt IT("C"'"«< a Ungk vMdation. 

On f,bui. HHOA "Y' chc pmg»m hao M :n :t.~tl ~ rco:uh n~ in ltr.1.cricdly n:duccd 

mam~'TS ,J' C.:lllnjll lint ~. (Son~t: p!.,'f'k: living 

on Maui n;p.1r1' 1h:u they cnmpbin ~ now 

hcaaL'W:" Oimrbinin~ tn HHOA', h<lflineW3Sa 

ComplAints 

fromfH't.'t4 

At the April 1 mc."Clin(t afk'-' hy M ink. 

manyoftho.cttesrify;ngc:ompb.incd about the 

difficulry they had reading che- Wkrnifiatton 

number.. :and :asked the FAA to require larger 

kttm and nwnbc:n :as wdll.S a simpler Kkntific:arion S)'S'Inn - pnhaps staning With a 

thTC"t'-kncr oahbn:vUttun for e:M.:h helicopter 

Of''"'""· Mink ..S.od FAA officWs cu explain the p~t ruks nn hclicofxer Kkmifiarion. 

(~~·l larw..,.-.l\f)l"Ci :t f:t$.U,qant rnthen.l?ntu1 

ac..lmin i~ 1r.atvr nf the FMS w .. ,.,~·m ftL"&ion, 

mok on the r2.-dt. 

ll'lc FAA originally rcquiraf idc:ntifYinc 

lcnen and numctak to be 11 inches hichHacvcy .ud, buc chen the FMs ruk chanpl 

so th:n the: ic.kntifyint; rN.rlc.l nc.'t-dc.:d to he no 

highf:r 1h:m lhi\"C nd'M.~ "'Now 1hc FM ~ 

qui~ ll·inch-hipt kncn. anJ numbers."' 

w:l.\te of time.) 

On chc 1% I .bod. chou~h . ,.,..., DeCamp 

.klmit' rh;,, rhc rrot:r:'"' h.u it." fl:t-. In 

M.uch. he puhlidy .apolugiu.:d fi.1r wh:at he 

<k>crih...J "'"d...f>cicncic::c- in ch..· ~ly Naghhnrfy prugr.un. Ptnmi.Vng ro Jo better thi" 

)t.~r, he~ that the program's "'Hdplinc:· 

wnuld he _,:Jfod_ In anomer Jc:pamm: from 

p:L'>~ r: II..Ti~o:c. IX.< :unps.:aid that fHillA wnuld 

t,._~ n n1uniroring iu m.."mh..:n' flighu to"'-"'.' 

wh<'h..T chcy wrn: indeed A)'ing R<ighborly. 

l"hcll'Kmitnri ns roh:Jonc:hycnmpu t('t. 

Under 2 s;o.ooo gnnt from the Fcdcr.a.l A via· 

tion Admi.nlur:nion. HHOA is to xt up a 

~yq-cm of rrxkintt hdicopc:cr.o~ rfut USd rnn· 

spulll.kn ro send G~ Pt»irioning System 

cJ:na - btinw.k.lnnpnadc. :and ;a.hiruck- tn 

a bnd-h~ m:aving SC~rion . 'Ibm=. the fl»-

5ition nf :my hdicoprtt equipped with a mn~ 

~ncJcr an he:~ as (he hdM:opt:er d in 

Oit;,ht. O:na nn helicopter n;g.u is kept: in the 

c:omplucr f'or up to thl'ft cbys bdOte hcing 

dcsrrortdor tQn.4'"aml toapcnnanmt record. 

Thc"""""-.JNuisano:Abatcmcncl'criOrmancr Evaluation Sysmn proYidcs just the 

sort of d.ca chat doc FAA needs 10 cMxo. iu 

_,regulations. the FAA hao indiamlcha<itwill-bc""""~­

acoddacal'ormfO=ncnL Monicorincwillbc 

Jnnc :;uldy by liHOA. or ia invin.....-1 gursa. 

~<natty. just fi .. of the w "' ,._ lOW' 

hdicoptcn on the B;c bland will be cquipp<d 

Hu.cy .ud. buc added chat doc ""'"irtmcnt p:-.s imu l.f&.·a only wfw:n opcDtors rqxtinr 

their hd'-Hu.cy'scxpbnationdt.wa cborus ofhooo &om the audim= 

Mink wu told ~tcdly of the economic 

b<ncfic cuur hdicopms brine- 0... 0....-

.licr ofl!luc Hawaiian Hdicoptcnsaid chacon 

M.ui, 100 pmplc .,. cmploy<d in the hdia>ptcr tow busincso. ...tUch he: said added 118 

miUion torbestMC'scconomylastyar. On dw: 

llig lsbnd..rso pmplc-. <q>onod co he 

<mplc.,..l by-chc """ hdiwpccr ;ndll<lcy. 

· To many of"-who """" puc up with 

the noix. the opcmo<>' profiu t.... c:omc: ac 

their --c-!'\man may - ... 

.,..,_!the thouFt --rua:inaly. He told Mink:"Mytr•nquilr"J'.,...stolcn and~ 

bow it ""''f'C2m2 .. money in chc pndccc ,.,( · chc: mur optniDfL .. 

Lawsuits Filed 

In 2 Recent Crashes 

The t:f:.l\h~..~ Hfhdicnptcn: in Novcmhtt 199:. 

:and Janu:ary 19')} h:tvc. prcdicr:ably, rcsul f~,.,j in 

1he filin~ of!:IIW!iuirs. 

·rllc • part:'nlll of Ch:a ng Lung Shieh, a 

Taiw.u'""""" IUurist who ri'(..~Um:ahly lml hill life 

in the- :tccidc:nr last January lf. have fil~ a 

wrongful JC':\th ac1inn ~:ainu ~inoa Avla· 

tion, lnc., rhchdicoptc:ropn;uor, a.nd V1rious. 

aKp01'.1tion\ involved in rht: manufxrure of 

the FH· c•oo hclicnpter rtu.c >.Nrnt down in the 

water off Nmoamo:a.. No doiW amount for 

da m~ w;t\ mcn1ioncd: in the suit, filed 

ft.-bru~ 1-f,ll)l),l. in thc1hirdCircuitCoun 

ofHawai'i. 

The sccond b'Miuit, fikd April 1. was 

hmughc by chc iruu«r ofHilo Say Air. Inc., 

the hdicopttt OJXt:lfor. Nmw:d a.s defendants 

an: Hilo !lay. Par.mount Pictura. Inc.. and 

chc chnx people aboard the aircnft. all of 

whom...,. hin:d by l'uamounL 

The suit was brought in fcdcnl coun. 

Accord;nc 10 the -.ptaim. the ;,.....,, Na--. 

tional Union F;,. lnounna: Compony of. 

t>;ttsburgh, Pennsyt..nia. paid a6j,91o.6i in 

M:uch co the Narional 8anlc of Alaslca, which 

hdclali<n on the Bdl w6 hdio>ptcrdamaga! 

when ic fdJ to theAoorofl'lr'uO'o...,L 8u< 

oolcun~chc:panK.rlara.a.n...na:softhe 

accidcn< the inswana: compony dcurminod 

mac when the hd'-...... down. it - 1"10( h..:ing..v.cd in 2 rnanna--.athomcd by me insurva policy. 

1ltc mmplainr noteS tha[ che irwrana: 

puiK.y cxdud<s we of chc helicopter fOr purJIO'CS of"instruaion of Of rmcalco ochrts." Bccaw< Hilo Boy Air had a catcal _..,, 

allowing ~1'21n0Unt use of the hdK:op«cr, the 

insurance company argues. it thcrd'on: has no 

obligation fO pay. 

With the insurance company t'KPN rd\a.. 

inc co pay c~amap. the P-'bo1icy arises char 

Hilo ~ Ai< will <Wm the aHa.ft- damagrd by Pat2mount'~ CtCW and W111 sue 

1

1

.1 rnmcMint, ~r:lftV'IUOf, in tum, midtt 'Ndl 

al"-1>- dw chc hdio>ptcr auhod bcausc of 

Hilo Bay A.;r's F.ailu.n: co maintain 1M airaaft 

The hdia>p<cr toOk ...,.,..j, co falco the 

llnnr ,.,{1\r'u O'o. Gcmnc the lasraewmcm!'. 

bcrouc cooi..Uy.c. BciOn:docd""rcnlcs&om. 

the lcpl banks. t.rw..cr. ycus...,. pars- •·. 
107 

f'. '(' 4 • f.,. ,mn~n• H-:.u'i • .\l.n '"f - ·····---- - ---·-·-·--··--------------------------

Restricting Helicopter Flights 

May Take an Act of Congress 

Anc:mpt'\ 10 l'l.in in ht.~Koprcr tr':'tftc an: no•h~ 

ine 1)4.'\V, li, ,f m· llC~'\"V\'f, must h:ti.V f.tilnl. 

'At dk.·I\-..L:r,,ll..vt.:l. <. nnF.R."-"h·""~j,·t:n the 

Fnkr.d J\vi:utnn ,\tfntinr..rr:uKMt :sptut.<~ihif · 

i~· fi,r nt lkin~ ~un· rhar :1in:r:di ~tt'c.:r:nun tly 

~:tli.:l\'. Th,· I'AA h;a.o; u:ntk.'\1 In h.,: r:11h..·r ~·.tk''L" 

of rhts .1uthmiry. ~'1u:nt"YCr ;~ny ~~~C' nr local 

J;fl'\l.'f'nrTk.'flt hot" cnnsi&m.l :Jduptifl!l ~ 

tku might ht· mcu\' crin~cm than tht· f ,\,\'s 

almn~t nnn-<:'(isting Aighr rule.."~ fOr hdic.opt~. thc.:FAA ha" :L'\q;rtnJ the rre<mpciv.: 

• mthttriry t•f fl,k•r.tl rq:ubrM111s :m,l. wh:u:., 

fJM>f't , h,..; thf'CJr...,lC(} to CUt nlf f'-"\J.,:r.\1 funds 

to natf:\ w~ any ruk\ a~ :teJnrrcd rhac 

mi~ht urp fAA :n&tht•rity.llawai'i h:\.'\!-4.'\."n 

thilli fir.~r u\ol.l. 

A (;,.,m,tltrll MimJWT /~m 

Act .t97" ut' 1hc t•J.~ ~UtC' ~antre c.:.'\Jkd fOr 

the.· Oc.:panntcnr nfTr.U\.'\f"lM:nicm 111 pn.11:tn: 

a sratc.·wic.k· hdic.·nptc.·r m:l.'llc.·r pbn. trlil."r.tfk: 

I >OTh;'KI:l.'\knl tht: ~t:atc·,\nmnc.-v( ;t·nc1'31 fOr 

a rulin): un t~ limit~ of ~r.uc t~thnriry w;rh 

rcspt-'1 tH 1\,J..'f:ll tq!.UI.-niml-'. '11\;tl ruliJlf:. 

~,uaJ_I3nt\;lf)'7 '~(r.SC3tt:d ac."l."nn.lin~ttlf~ 

001: "that c.:c~cm h..w R.11C.":cfc."CII)' ntlc.'tl th:n 

the.· :m.-:cs nf ;tin:r.tfi nni~· .that\."tnc:nt :u11.l 

mininttllll n~hrlc..'Vl4" h:.vt·h.'"'l'l't'-t'nlfMt-d 

"tH. h tlut 111~ '':th" n~ul ninn :tffi, tint•. tiH.-sc.· 

. m·." W:'-' lllk.•>tt,tiunkttul."' 

"lh..· t\numc.-v Cc.·rtc.-r.•l c.:nndtM.k"C.I. " It i~ 

our orinion rh.,; rht.- ~•:nc.· ~y nnr c.-n:ICt :tny 

\c..,:is1utuu rhat 1\;IS tl•· dl~.,_ , nf n.-stric.1ins 

hdicof"" fllt!ht ahinkksor routc:s. "Thc:nnlr 

"ccrc-K>n co rh"- chc rulintt said, w.\~ dw: t~n:UKM\ hy lite.• M;tf't"of:ti'f"'ltlt :1rf1R)I;tt:h-

:tnc.f-&:p.:mu~nKtt~ u~J :rirpm '"~ ah3rc­

~ntrn'1'"=lm~. 

"11-...· l .. l!i!il:unn· 1n11k note.· uf '"" in rl-k· c.frnftin)t nf /\c.1 1')7. ·n.._. :ta ill'iiOk"tl'tl the: 

(XlT ro p~ul' hdK:Of"CT ma.'< IL'f pbn.o; ff, 

each uc.• :tirpnn, whkh woukl he lLW tu 

guide futun:- dt"Velopn"k:ntolhcticuptcr (3cilirics. ·tnc ox1 "-'l"in."tl rhc Jxn· rn Jev. . .-4-~r os 

prrmin ~ ~ fN- hciK."'I>J":~ :and othc:r tour alrcrafi using airpNU unde-r ~:ltc conuol. h did nor authMizc the rxn ,;; ckvdop 

routes or liCt minimum :alrirudc:s. Additionally. it m:ognit.cd ~· ~uthority hy rrovid~ 

ing that ·no rules. on:lcB. or st:md:ud.c p~ 

scribaJ hy the: c.fin:octor fof tr.lll.'f"'VUtMKt) 

shall be inconsistent with or ronu~ry to :any 

acr:ofthtCongrcssofrhcUnitc.JSurcsor3JV 

regubtion promulpttd or mndard cu:ah- lishcd pttnruant rhc:mn.~ 

The our Rn.11 hdkop~., ")"'<m plan 

emo:1J11--d in April1!)89. h induclcd dro~ rules 

fOr hdicnprcrnp.-r.11inn.cout of ~me- ;~lrpon~ 

lldit: ... .,. ... 'D npc.:r.n int; nut •'*' rriv:uc.: hdi~ 

ur hdipnm "M.:n:' o:cmpc'. 

~ d(W,;um<..'Tlt :tlso included rn.t.'«"C.'f rl;ttu 

fi,, hdicnrrcr trnffic :at all ~t<~tc airpuru. MaP' 

and narr .. tivcdio;clL~~ in the l'q)Onshowed 

noiw ~n.qrJve am.~ {wi~~ tr.Kn. rcsic.lcn1WI nc.;shh.,rhooJ.~ Jnc.J the lilcc:) and!lugped hciicopt~ fly routes ro :avoid thc:x 

a.rn.c. No pmhibition on aircraft Ai~ts wa.~ . 

inclmk-d . 

Mink 1wutd rrquitr 

minimum 2.000 j«t alri~ 

a!xtw nO park nrrm 

ui~n~ jli_r,fm urr alluw&:l 

Nmwrhdc.'!l.,., Airpum Oin.-..:tor OWen 

Miy.tmutoh.a.~saidth.attheFAAthrc:."llenedto 

wirhhokl re&.-r:tl :Urpon fUnd, fOr the mre if 

!h...- I)( Yl'impkm,:ntc." the pbn. In :tdc.liOOn, 

in •wo. me private Hawai'i HdK:opcc-r OptT.tton A'i.'IOci.:lfion SLM.-d the su.tc in t"cdcnl 

l.."fiUn in kc."C.'(' rhc ~"Ute..· (nlm etrryirtg UUI the 

pbn :u'ld cnfoJCing rhc- :tdmini~rr.uiw- ntks 

11\;111\;~tll'll.,,t •lnptl"'\lin( "\1c.h...-r t•}R')· lttt""T 

tl1.1n hotnl4: it irut iuwun.tiM.· .¢uc.· IXJI: ."• 

advic..'C of tl-k· Anomc:y (.;cncr.tl. :Jhandoncd 

the pl.n. (A" :t footnote. the HHOA ~t 

Jlo ooofnmtthcst m;:- whichitgysi.'lthl:a"~M 

it incur-r-o.l in mounting the legal dulJenge-to 

1he plan. The 199J J...gj.<la•un: "f''"""'d poy- mmt.) · 

RAutT4nrr tn ~InN 

( )r...- uf 1hc: 1\.'\.,lmmcnd:nton .. in rhc: H:IW;ti'i 

St:uc.· HdK:uptc.T S~em Pbn w-A.C .(h:u the 

governor pccition the- fM ro 3dopc a Special 

r-cdcrnl Avi:uion R.:gul31ion- SFAR- for the taf\:. "Provistons could includcfligln·f"Re 

:li'Cl." on <..-:1c.:h i~:and. impn'lirion of minimum 

. olrinld.s. •nd eo~ablishmen1 of •roffic: patterns. rou«:s and alrirudes in specific an:a. .. 

the- plan scucd. It continued: . 

·s.. .. and fcdcrol ~ w;n need .., 

doigna~ specific areas to be included in the 

. SFAR: r.d<..Jwildom"'....., national pub. 

~res nn the n:ational historic register. smrcickntiftcd wildl:and an::u.. and noise 5ti\SitM 

..... .00. .. w;ldlifi: and bini ....,;"' habitaa..• . . 

To don:, 1he FAA h.s ...m.ci no petition 

·fOe on SFARfrom lhetpY<mC>roranyothcr 

stan:~ in Hawai'i. 

ThcFMh.sadopledSFARs........_-

thc Grand Unyon and. mo~ n:a-nrly. 

Niapn F.alls.ln the,.,.ofdw forme.. 0,.. 

WL""-' iNTruacd the FM to adopc an SFAR 

;liter :t ~"r~ncof xcitk:nD: rhar kiJicd more chan 

llo r«>Plc bc.W«n 1!)11o and 1987 and in Jish• of .. nni1-e :a.v.ociatcd with ~ircraft ovttflightc ... 

\::ttt.,inJ:, :1 ~tif~nt :tdV\."Dt drc.'Ct nn the 

n;acur:tft~uin andc.-xpcricncrofrMpark. "The 

SfAR rcu Niapr:t f'3Jl.; W1'll 1'WM un<ic-tt2kcn 

ru~1nt {0 :an :IC.'t ofCongns. but w:tC done 

for f'U'J'C'C" of ensurinc ..my. In H~-::ti'i. rM FM has~ c:ampl:tinr~cwc. rhdK:optr opcr.niotu:1.~h.wingto 

do mainlr wirh noise, as opposed to safety. 

FAA n::precncarive.< ~ rtpcattdly mted 

th:at until ~1fcty i~ an i~~.M:. they:liC pmhibired 

&om aaing under tcmuof their fcdcr.al man~ 

dale. But in the woke of • numborofhcticopru accidcn[.'l; in the-~- including one in 

JanWiry that took the li~ of four Taiwanese 

rourim- the FAA i.~ hcinr; preR'd br mnn~ 

h.'fll. nr rhc puhlic.· ro ~ud. r~ubttnn nf 

hc:lic..-opfcrtraffichrn.·:u ncca~ry~ ro 

c."n urc~t~"':'"'· 

/WimJ/ Ac1io11 

Who:n C'.ongt"C"o in 19'17, insnucted 1he FM 

"' ,,],'!" <p<-.:ial flittJu rulo f., dw Grand Canyon, i1 also n:qui..d hclia>plcrs tlyms mer ltaleakab aarcr and cmain ~ ~ 

nf' I lalctk.:lb National P.trlc. m mainD.in· an· alrintdc- of~~ lc:t.ct ~00 6:ft a~ men sea 

lc:vd. In :kklirinn, lt n.'Juin.-d rhr ~rrnry rl 

tl'k" lnt,'fiur 1u c.1Milhld a """'ly tn '"Mic.ucify . 

•ny rnoblcms :t.W>Ci••ed wilh .,..Aiglu by . 

•in::ro~- nfHakolab 3nd Hawoi'iV~ 

N~tiun: .J Parle, :u~ ~ units o(_ the No•ionol l'u1t .,....,_ . . 

The .rudy .... bOm dclorod by ...... than 

thR."r yo~ but ~now o:pcmd to be- out in 

1hc f.all of 199J· · · 

U.S. Rep.....,,.,;.. P.ay Mink is no1 

w:titi~ ror rh:lt. On Aprils. h inaoduo:d 

k-gi~luinn inrmdcd to mNcc row airaalt 

•roffic:OY<T Hakolab and H....;';V~ 

natioNI po.b. Aax>!di~~J; 10 • . ...., 1<lczc mucd by he< offia:, M;nk -~ d.c 

lcgislaaon. in rcsponte to numerous com--· 

plainb fiom Hawoi'i I<Sidena, poniadody 

on me Big bbnd •. •bov• u.a-.1 hCiicopoer xrivi'Y ~Kh haoi aoxd ,.,;,Ind. .say problems in and.....,.{ Howui ~ 

NorioNI P.uk. Alto, ......1 '"""''hip-profilehdicoptcr><riden,.t-.,...,du.a-.1 

intercct in tightcninc Ftdmllwilrion Ad. 

ministnrion rcgubrions ~inc triUf hcfi.. 

c:oprm and srm1J planes." - . I _ .. _- . · 

Minlc'•icgPiarion- H.R. •696--.ld. n:quin: 1he Notional Pad< SeMa: ., ptovid!' 

s..·~~~~ 
108 

lldri O<OI •I ,.,,,,.,,.., :u ll r..,,, .,._, ~-------------------------------

tit~ FM with a m2f' id'-'1trif;:ing ncM,q_ ... JCNi.. 

ti¥1: m:::u and to daig.natc flight-free amu in 

1"'""- The FM -.1.1 1hcn nnrify •ircnfr 

vpcr:uors in its bulktim ~nd ocher puhlicarions. Minimum '0111inxk:sof :!..000 fa:t: ~btwe 

ground kvd would hovr: 10 be oh<cr...t hy 

pilots n)ing CM:f any nat"ional p:u4c ~re3 in 

H•W2i'i wt- NCh Ri&hrs '"' .S\owol. Mink; hill ._.w ban .n rnur Air)."' a<er 

rhe Na1inn.al P:u~ uniu at l\a'u horuaa o 

Honawuu.Kdoko Honok.ohau. Pu'u kuhola 

Ml~u. and Kalaupapa n:uiuna.l hi"tnric p::ub; 

"""' 1hr: .,...,. and Kipahulu V>11cy in H.Je. 

.Jula Na1i.>Nl M : and.,...- 1hc d«ignaud 

wikfcrnc:.u :u-e·:&S of Hawai'i Volcanoes ~ 

ion~ I'Jrk. ;u wdlz 1hc summit o(JGJauea 

and 1hr: coo.<tal '"" 1xtww:m I(,'.J.a and KamNmna. 

To da~. rlx FM has rrcrirJn:l 

no JNtitibn for an SFAR 

fom tk~roranyntl'" 

sta~ agrncy in Hawai'i. 

Finally,H R.r~ut<mprs<Oaddn:sssal<ry 

CDn«mS by r<quiring,;gt.....;ng Aishrs drat 

~nandmdatrhc:~meairponmadhcreto 

"ria"' fM Oigh1 sandan:ls. Undt'r am<nl FM ruks, some of rhoor: flighrs .,. cxcmp< 

from n:gulations cnnceming flight opcrarion. 

:~.ircnft and <quipmc:nt. C'lf:IJ( qualifia.tions. 

and wathcr cunditKmt tN.r arply to most 

ocher commercial 2ii"'"afi O('IC'f'3tors. 

A Drrzft Atm-nt In .:he meantime, the FM and the National 

1\uk s.r.na, ....., 1-n ttying to worlo: out • 

memOQndum of undemanding c:onaming 

tour helicopter ovcrfli~a of N:uion31 l'arlt 

uniu on the island• of Hawai'l. "'bui, and 

Molob'i. A draft of rhc ap=ncnr, darcd 

March 16, 199)• wu made available to En'lli~ 

""''''"" H11u1111ii. "The dnfr appean 10 hov<l-n wrirttn by 

the Na1ionall'arlcs...ia.. ln manypaiu.thc 

,._isidcruir>horha<oonrain<din Pmy 

Minkilqpslarion. lr ails lOr bans on Aighrs 

over Pu'uhonua o Honaunau, KalokoHonokohau. l'u'u Kohola. and K.laupopo. 

n.. draft clcpuu fiom m. lqpslarion by 

norinc ..... "- ""' • ._._ CONiclcral 

aar:d "' Hawaiian people.. For rhis ........ 

.n "-lira "r!Wt - be oomilown by · oommcrciahOW"aircnfr._, Funhmno~ in· 

:aSmud.•d.cscuasaR~andU.:cnt tdy 

prinury vi.Utor USC' area. tcmic tour airc:Dft · riWt mainain • !W<Hnilc Jl2nd.<,IF diorano<.. 

HalcaiWa Narional Pork.rhcdraft"'7'> "is 

mandarcd 10 ,.....,.. ... ural and culnnl 

raowu:s. and apecially r>r<and~ 

pbn1 and "'irnal rpccics, ~ir.c., liOCft-

<ry,andrronquilanduniqu< WildcmCII. ·For 

1his . rho draft sara. .n .....nlighrs of 

rhc Cn1e< di.<!ria and 1Gpahulu Valley "" bann<d. A;rcnfr...,rok«pa ._mile...,.(. 

ofrdi.<ancc liom ""'.....took neor .... Slicl- ing Sonds milhcad. 

&tfo/-U,&. Ar Hawai'i Volcanoes Narional l'orlt. the 

Ma~ •J draft ~ lOr a ban of Aighrs 

"""'""'~rcdwildr:r.-.... ormeparlt - wl>idl includes Mauna Loa. 01•• Frxar:. the E= Rift. and Ka'u Dosm. In addition. 

rhc.. '"' robe no Aighrs awcr the summit of 1G1auca and rhc a.=larcolxtww:m Ka'aha and !(,.....,..._A ....,.mile sand-olr dio121100 is 10 he oo..r.cd by ainnh fOr lhr: 

Kilauea. summit, die OWn of Cr.ucn: OJnidtor, and me K>moomoo viftase. ln mici-April, the dnfr wa made """' 

more n:soriaiY<by the Norionall'arlc Scrvioc, 

in lighlof""""""'raiocdatlhcApn1ro,rm. 

m«ri"': allod by Mink 10 hear ~ 

.,.,..,. hcr""'f"tt rnffic.,."""" "'"''" dnfr b._ ails fOr a ex>mp1cte bon 011 Rights 

OO<TaDofrhcparlt"""""'fo<-...... Onc iu I n~miJc..widtcxxricloracn:aan islfunl.D 

o(""' parlt """""';"'I the Mauna Loo dio- rria 10 ......... :uound the 1Gbuea cald<n. 

The.....,.( is."""""· haff.miJo.wO!c: raip 

.Jons the park's ..-....- boundaty .... 

rmdmc tiom ""'ooni<y ofl'u'u O'o 10""' 

"*" As Dan Taylor; nuunl....,..,.,.. dticffOr 

rhc Hawai'i ~ Narional M explained. the hc:f-....... drat would be ""'-1 undt'r rhc righra ratricrions sliD 

pnwiderouraira-afi: a chance toiiC!II: Pu•u O'o. 

The .,.,.,;dar along rhc ........ cdr;< o(""' po"' """"" nia:ly wirh hdi<oprq mules 

~by...,.;dmrslivingiOihcCOSiofmc 

parlt boundary. Toylor said. 

The FM will probohlyobjca 10.......! of 

rhc"""'*""intheap<m<n~ In any...., 

it is not CltfQin chat- the agrceman. wftatnu 

. ,.,_ il mnuino, will bring about signifi. 

ant rcducrions in holicop<a rnllic o< noioc. 

As the dnfr aclu-'odp. ""' """"""" ..drs ... f>"""C'tt .,.,.,..,. a>op<nrion" 

Wirh rhc l'IRriaionJ ~ by rhc parlt ,.,...;.,.. 

p,;,.,~ 

Asrhinpsand now; hc:f-opcn-... r<quitod roobam ocnihcacs tiom rhc FM 

· undt'r l'art lJ! ofFM n:gubtiamo< 1hc mon: 

rtWcd "'" 91 resub•iam. Afrcr rhoc. if •hey wanttoopcmc:outofsutcairponsinHawai'i. 

1hr:y m"" olxain a pmni1 tiom rhc ....., 

Dr:pon'"""' ofTI2I\S('IXI21ion. 

Jusr what is n:quired to obtain a ptrmit is 

unck:rr.DOTrulcsrrnler9 Sulxidr::r.~ 

ter }4ollhwai'i Administp.tiw: Rules) rdlea 

rhc bngwr;. in ll<t J97 (whidl ammdcd 0\apc:a z.6H 1 ofHawai'i Revised Surura). 

Aaual pmnilapplir>1ioru. t.c...Ycr, do no< 

cont2in aU thtmndition.stctfonh in Oupccr 

161-11 or the administraci-re rules. SorM of the m®ng conditions wen: 

arnonc 1hnoc objcacd 1o by rhc H<~WU i 

Hdicoptet Operators Asso:iation in their 

~ir. (f-or cumplc. the statute ~uira 

rho• me •prlicanl be 'in cnmpliana: wi1h .n sutc n3Nta. • No similar rtquirtmmt appn~ in the permit aprf"tation.) 

Bu1 IM>I all of rhc 1ansu'F fOund robe 

objcaionabk by rhc HHOA in rhc adminisrr>riY< rules hz lxo:n ddcud fiom pmnit 

r<quitcmcnrs. For example. the satt oonrinucs ., ~<qui"' • omific:uo o( J<ll<l2lliability inswana: aMr2F of ar leur •s mil&on. · 

.. 
109 

l'.ot¥ ,. ·. n~" """"" ' IIA"'4' o \(,,~ t w l 

----------------------------------------

Flying in Volcanic Fwnes 

Brings Extra Safety Concenis 

Thu•klyofhdkop<etop=rionsin H.-I 

has come under inmuing scrutiny m:mdy. 

laq:dy in the ~ of two serious xcidcna. 

Last N.,....,bcr, • hdic:op<CT cutyinr;a J'.u:>. 

mount Picnu .. film mw r.tl ., me floor ef 

Pu'uO'o«n<AIIaboonlsum..d.but"""" 

diOru,.... difl'ocult and dangmJus. Thm. in 

]>nuary, a rour hd'KOptCT d"'!'P"i inro doe 

ocean off lGmoamna. when: lav.a flows into 

me sc:~ lM pilot""' ...cu<d; fOur Ta"'"'- pas.«ng= 'i!,..,..._f, 

lnecauscsofthcaccidentsareundcrima--

tiprion. Rut pnmblccomributinr;l'aaon'-

bc.n the subject of oome sp«UUarion. 

"T1Jt itDdity tflaz.t is 

appmrimtrtdy tlmr 111 four timet 

that of ront:rnl'fiUdi lnnon juicr. • 

In rhcc::ueof the P1ramounr P"ICtUft!Saash. 

attcncion has foru.scd on the COf'1'05iwe dlias 

of c=ain pes in me fUmes cmimd "" me ...!ono. 1M same fUmes moy '-........ 

uu:d to the failure or <he hclicupur Ol 

K.rnoamoa .. we11. 1n chot cue. me Falonl 

Aviarion AdminUtrarion has :dready deter· 

mined d..t me hdkopt ... op=ror. ICainao 

Aviation. wzs in viobrion of FM rules. The 

oper.utlf had wNt is known as a Pan 91 

czrtifia~e, whid! rauias Rigflu .,.,.;,bin •s miles of their point of origin. When the 

hdkopn wmr dmm, it was ll"'Cft than ~~ 

miles fiom Hilo ,\;'~""'- wheT< me lliptr 

Binls 

fomt P"f:' I 

origina..d. A<a>n!inr;rome FM. it has issued 

.., omarP><Y m-month r<¥OCation of me 

liomse of me pilot. ROOm Ervin. The p.,.. 

moum p;lot has bc.n similarly dio:iplined. 

1Atz-' U...}r<ia 

Ryinr; in '""' """""' .., aaivo volcano does pao<safaypmbkms dw hdkopt<Top=ton d:scwhcR: mav not face. "These wen: deo;cribm 

mmeFMbTThomasL Wrigln. mmscienrlst in chuge ef me u.s. GeologiaJ Scrvicis Hawaiian Volano Qbocr.arory. 

In a 1nm- dmd January >. t991. Wright 

......t thar ">olcanic pcs are continuously 

m.-tfiomthree"""""" Kilauea" -aD or thCTnpopubrhd'ta>p«<tlesrinarion< meNmmit cald= (Hakrna'urna'u), 1\iu O'o. and 

mel<upoianaha lavapond. TheKilaucaiUmcs · 

conain ~lfUric:xid.ar conccntntions a high 

OIJS puu per miOion up a> ..,..,..) hundred 

.,...... fiom me eruprinc ......... Wright said. 

Far this ~ "Kilauea rume "'")' "" or """""'10bdkopt0Tpiloawhoftyatorbdow 

1.000 r..r ..,_pound lew! ... SulfUric ocid 

dn>pleuinmerumecould porrnrially.....Jtin 

tudtine who.! embrinlemeni. caused 1.,- fio- _...tpdonpl_.,.efn....band 

-..,....,...,higlllc..!sofacitlicpcs.A 

......... cn&ine &ilure or • Hugha 100 he!;. 

oopttt- .. me Kilauea MiliwyCamp in •98! ""T '-bc.n caused by such ctpnsu .. 10 ..,&c,icpcs." 

Wftsht-on toclcoaibc"'azo" -shon 

"'laval-. Lax is meplwne that ......... he 

Aid. "when lava Rows ;.,.., me OCCJn and 

Ja noise an "'- binls mo« SUS«ptib1e 10 

..... I""' and ..... malari>.-"""""" ..... abadr '-docimoted H-..·r, r..... bin! 

populaDons. "Birds aren't .n tha. difl'amt &om humans in lhcir JaCtion tOSU'CS$, '"Taylor_,., "lbcirimmunesysrunsan b<....kCSI<dt.,.......,;us.1lloc.W.." 

t:»-J 1JJ.,i, 

To"""'"" doe cll'.as efhcliccpt<n on birds. 

T.,...b.hadmdonomon:thonlooltoutthe 

. -afhis ollice in doe put.. •• had been . wotdoiac .. _...build ia ....... be ayo. 

")t-.ldpa<hona bnnchortharJ'OUI'IIIuoo 

-. .._ da>p 10 me pound. '- a look 

-.1. pick up a-hop about with it a r.w........t.. .._-with B:a>mebtondo ........ il-buildiftc iu-.. . s.--~ .... , 

vaporizes seawater, .. He coruinued: . 

"On some ocasions. me lax pottidcs in 

plume douds gmmred 1.,- vaporizinr;tawatn- rck.-h a large enouch siu ro actually 'r2in' 

fiom me doud. Anal)'t5 or t>in liom such 

clouds show that me dntplm ... J<aWat<r 

brincsconttntnted by a factor of 110 LS times 

due to boiling. ... 

"The nrikinr; r..rure ofla< ~its exa<din&fy 3cidtc chanaer. despite an OYt:nJt c»mtion rdativdy similar to that of seawatrr. 

Measur<m<ntsor me pH or t>in dropkuand 

of condeniate fiom me plume cloud in .... 

viciniry of whctt" lavas now into the sa pvc. values in the r.u1gc of t.s ro 1.0. Thc:se pH 

values indiutc: that the acidity of laze is approximatdythreerofOurrimathatofconcmmrcd lemon juice." 

H.u,J,ontlt.G,..,.j 

Wright'slctt ... is su..Jy one or ....... Qll'ltprrhmsivccompilarionsrodateof rbcdangcn 

of Aying in vok:anic areas. He goes on to 

dacribc tutth... h~ 

"Mc:a.uut-mennofptumcdoudpcsinthc 

same viciniry have KknrifK.'d h)'Cirogen chloride ps :It concmtr3lions. up to 10 pans per 

miHion.Thcpcrmi$.5ihlcOSHAoposurclimit 

for HC1 is a ceiling of s paru per miDion paru 

or air .... Within • doocd hdio>ptu. me.. ;, 

liltdy to be linle dfoct on pmengm or p;lot 

unless me p;lot '-as tor .......! minuta 

di...aly downwind« me plume. H......._ 

Hd ii a highly reaaivo ps. and conaa with 

,_ n....bconodcs d..m .......Iyand l'omu 

flammable hyd~og<n ps. ... ThadO,..aswith 

me vent rume dacribcd ...tic< thcr< is • 

definit< dang.r 10 me aitaah liom "f'C'l<d .._.,., to the ocid plume._,. 

"Tourhdicoptmoommonly'-rdircaly 

...... me2CtM lava field u alritudadwwould 

present • hazard ., pilot. - and hdkopt<Tifmep;lotshoulcllaoec:ontrolorthe 

aiJ<rali due tO mcin< f'oilun: or loa tL...,;. 

torque (tail ftlCDr) control. and-Wl2blc"' maint2in :altirude. • 

USGS std .,. put at rislt 1.,- low-llyinc 

hdicopttn. Wright notcd.lnanearllermcmo. 

dated October ~ •917· Wript poinred .... dwhdimpr<nandtown .... menoiseorlava 

moving or rocb melting - vial wuninc 

sip tor JI<OioPa wodtin& ....... .,......L The hcliccpt<n <~~~ h'- ~Una -w me 

JOOioaioa. ausinc ~ difticulaa and tanptntyltlincl.-. ThqrCJftmaloeksible tor the JI<OioPa to""'"""" or ::'1:; ~ inluumena. 1M ....... '"" .........._ """""" ........... •lxlicopu< 

pi1oa. The hcliccpt<n - - ..- lilc- mcntsand&neotrmdsof"Ne'shoir"IOCiliDC 

.._""".., ~oc~Fin me .,.sac peap1e ... m. pound. ~rauhinc in tanporuy blindJ.-• .. 
,\( .. _, '""'l•t:n•lfUAn"''lil l .. •.u"t • /' .<'

,Birds 

fi-JNII'tl 

Taylor says he watched the bird, and ia 

grow;., -· fot ....... days. Althoucl> hio olllc.cisnotlnanaraofthc~ducis 

rqularly -nlown by helia>p<crs. """day a 

low-ftyins hclia>p<cr passed "'<Tho.!. The 

apap..,. rook fli&ht immediatdy and .,...... 

murned to compktc iu nc::ss:. 

Horwa.i'i's n:uc bird is the nt:nc, :an cnJ:an-

&<r«< spc<ia of-th:at, if it"''"" .uo~ cocontinur: unit:MCrrUpcaion itscvuluctotl:U)' 

counc, would probably be lli~tlds in a few 

milknni.a.lnenc-nctodayis.J.hcavybitd.md 

rduct:am cnout:;h tu l4Lk.c to the .1ir dut m~y 

people oomodcr it inopobk uf lli!;)\t. 

~slowness of thr ll(RC ro roon to llighr 

nuy h:.vc kdsomc ru think th.:n rhcie.: bii\J.s:li'C 

more colcr.w of hdicopc.dS. l'i,timony to 

this cff<a wu U<m. for cwnpk. when 

H.1w-.Ji'i Counry was conskkrins aUuwins 2 

hdip.kl ncar :11 golf c:ounc in VuiC.l.IIO lu\own 

to be &.qumtcd by ncne. (lnst:tlbtion of the 

hclipad w.1$ appr....d. by the way.) 

"PamuJ will 1M drivm 

ftom tlxir 11m> and!Lavt 

lhnr young epostd IIJ prrdaton. • 

Taylor, howcwr, tq>e>m that pork staff 

h2vc S(:en CYen ncnc akc flight. '"A Rock of 

themW<r<subjca.dtoduecquick....nligha 

in a row," he says. "After the rust one, they did 

nothing. After the xwndonc, they saucml. 

A&r the third one, they ftcw out of the,..._ • 

Taylor says that pork staff tq>e>rtcd that the 

neac neva did mum ro that site. 

'C4mnwlt Snw' 

Ridwd w--r of the u.s. F'uh and Wddlih: Servn's H»Wau Fon:st National 

Wddlik Rd'ut;c. adtnowlcdgcsdwthcr. haw: 

bc<u no fi&orow scicnti6c studM:s of the 

impact ofhclia>p<cr tnffic on birds. SUIJ, he says. it's jusr.•c.ommonscnte• to think that the 

hdicopws haw:·a dcairncnt:tl clfca. 

"We "'-birds ,_ to loud noises and 

srimuli that ... sanlinc." he said in a lce<nt . 

tdcpbonc intcmcw. "Wc't< conccmcd about 

hclicop<cs uallic: q. that reason, panicularly 

duringncains....,..,whcnbitds=ontheir 

ncsss. either incubuinc 'IP or protceUng or 

fading their }OWl& When swdcd, they an 

jwnpupquiddy,ausinc'IP""l"U"&tof.all 

out of the- and to brak or be loR. 

"Also, thcloudnoiocan beasuaaandan 

alfoatheirnonnalbchmcx.ldon'twanttobe 

anthropomorpiUc. but what )OU an aD the 

llO 

birds' m.uc:rn.&J insr:in...'U an gt1 di.uupu:d by 

srraa. They forg<r to f...! their young. 10 

CO<ncbadt to ncso. Some of thio is speculation, of course. It's difF'ICUlr co ptO¥e. • 

HdicoptcrRi~tsow:rtheHW!au..futl< 

donococ.curalfrtqucntlyaslhqdoOYCf.J.tCU 

in the national pork. Wau norcd. The r.fucc Q fn::qucndy clouded in. '"Thcrt" an: no sp«· 

ra~.-u.brvnterfallsorochcrsc.mcry- jwc aaa 

and .lCft:S of ~n focen: he said. Evm $0, 

W:w bdievc:s: thai 1h.: hdicoph.-n. :u-c dinurbing to 1hc cmbngcrcd birds of the: n:fu~. 

"~~·sot cuupk of 1hinp 3bout hdk:oplcn:. Finr, there's the no~ lhr: MIOJ'"d· UJDp-11· 

wop-11 is uunJ :uul.d.arming." 

S«ond, W.ss S>id, the fact of "'Y objca 

llyin~ over the.: biNs hrin~ on wh:..u h\': ,Jc. 

.sctiba.t ;b. the "'prn.bmr stimulus." 

'"H:awaii:m fOCC$t birds tuvc bc:cn p~ 

unin1hc:~hylu~:anJuwb., W;u.5~, 

"Nthcpn..J;alurstlyovcr thcy,n:.u..:;,~,~. 

Thls, too. is Jiuuptiw: 10 the fon::s,: birds.. 

Forchac~.uuns. Wussaid.hcis "bning 

tuw.l.llh~illl) IUr hdicaptcr ovcrfli~;hu to be 

excluded from the rdi.g< or timitcd to Hying 

:at la.sr !,000 nr more feet :above the= ..d\ige. • 

Sn.dWs fh<wi- As.sc::s:smcntsof th.: impact of ~rcnh nuiSC"on 

wUd.l.ifc outywhctc .J.tC rdativdy uncommon. 

Oncoftheoonsultantswhohasdoncthemon 

the mainland is Dout:Jas Gladwin, whooc linn, Sterna IWata, is based in Colorado.. 

In a 1<a21t tdcphonc intcM.w, Gladwin 

said stuc!M:s had found "'= baDe types of 

imp>ets on birds: physiolosicol, bchavionl, 

. a11d rcptoductM:, with all of them "'mcwhat 

mated. 

Noioc from =rfli&ha an triggcT sueh 

physiolosial changes as quidocncd rapira10<)1 and heart rarcs. changes in body chcmi.-

uy,and~tohcaring Thchc:uinj:dam­

·-chan.gcsin the duc:shold lnds;u. wtUc:h 

birds c:an dctca noise - may be temporary. 

buc so ions as ic lasts. can have~ Lmpaas 

on the alrcctcd animaL Mating behavior an 

be chanpl. as wdla. pr<dator-pr<y tdatioo-

>hipo. 

In the .,.. of bchaviot:tl cNngcs. noises 

have been "'-n to drive birds from their 

habiat, G~ said. "If ovcrfligha a.. ft.-

qumt <noucJ>, they rould pr<dudc the bitds' 

UJ<of prime habiaL • Bitdsdrivcn from their 

habiw an: aJ.o mon: likely 10 be killed ot 

injun:d while dislocated, he said. 

Finally, the impxa of noioc on b...ding 

··can kad to Wminishcd fcniliry ra•~ :and 

cw:nrual declines. in popubtion, Gladwin 

said. Whik thcrc is no< a lor of <Vidcncx th:at 

noUc iadf kills. '"there iii cvidt.ncr dw on 

bcinc disturbed. pomus wiU be drivm from 

their ,_ and kaw: their young apoxd tO 

pral.nurs." h< ..Jdo.-d. 

'Th.H;r/.iu 

On the Sis bland md on Maui, helicopters 

~y arry tourists 21 vinwlly trt•e-top 

Jc.v.d over ;atc~S lhar an: horne 10 rate .....d 

mdangcn:d birds. Wildc:mcss aR:U in two 

n<ltion:al p;arks- H: .. w:li'i Volanucs., on the 

Sis lsbnJ.anJ H.Jcalula,"" Moui- a.. noc 

thcunly2lf«tnl:an:::u. Olhcrsmsiti\'Car"OSon 

the Big b:IJ.nJ include ,he as.ooo-;acrc Hak.l.l;~u 

RctUgc:. rhe WOLill'Unu V;aU,:y Nacton.J E.mw· 

rinc: Rl"::l('.1rch A.cst:rvc, chc: ~:uc's N:uural Atca 

A.o..:tvd.&l Pu'u MW'<lb{n,loo:acrcudjoining VobltkS N..tcion:d &r\.) ;and J'lu'u u Umi 

(lo.1oo J&:rcs), :md the- new Pu'u W.J.'.lW3'.J. 

wiiJiit~ )JI\CIU,Iry, where the U.&IC ~ ('VCfl· 

tu:al.ly tu be ..1.bk tu n.~ncroJU~:c tu rhc wiiJ 

capcivc-rus...-d ctllbngcm.l bircb.. 

On Maui, bcsa&.:s Hak:dub N:ariun;l] f1-.uk. thc..·n.: OU"C: dk N.ttun: Cun ....... 'IY'.It\1..)'~ W.ailunkM 

Pn=v<, aJjoining the pork, and the lands on 

West Maui. ~~ Pu'u Kukui. tfur the Con.scrv;an.;.:y u~r.3i under 1hc: tate ~ ~.11ur.ll An:::a 

Panncnhip progr.un for M:uU L&nd21'Kl PincapplcCump:any. The scare's 7.soo-acn: H~wi 

Natur.d M.:..& Ro..:!'\'C '-s in E:.w Maui, alsu 

.lbunint; the no~rlorul pmc. The: u:uc's WC34: 

Maui N:uur.d Azo R.c::scrvc cocu~ of four 

p.ucds couling 6,700 .J.CftS. 

"Thm:i sp«u/a~Wn that 

~ d«line ofbinis is one of ~ rtiUDTIS for~ d«<iM ofp/mJa. • . 

Among the ~ spc<ia of birds 

foun.J in these mas an: the 'ak<pa. the 

'akiapob'3u, the HaW.J.i'i crrcpc:r, chc Maui 

CftqJC'fo the 'io (H:a.w..ii.an. hawk). d.c jo\a, me ncnc, and the polib {depict«! on P'l,'<t.).On 

the Big lsland. some: of the ame UQI arc 

inhab;t..J by thcmtbngc...d HawaWn ho..y 

bat, the #2te's only natiVe land rrwnmal. 

All of thcscan:asalooconain nariw: plana. 

including many that arc r.dcrally listed as 

cndlnr..,"ted or thrc:m:nt,U. Pbnu cannoc, of 

COLli$(,~ to noise in the same &:shionas 

animals, but they noncthclcss an be aft'<a<d. 

If natiV< birds ditappcu, the plana an lcoe 

their natunl po11in.rors - and thus their 

ability to toprodua. 

Accotdingto w .... rnanop:roftheH»Wau' 

Fo""' National Wildlik R.:fUc.. "k's quite 

likely """ the.<. a tdation bctwOcft ro.... birds and .-ndangcnal plants. In many ascs, 

birds an: their nonnal polfuwon. Bitds abo 

'!'....!......!. in their clroppinp. • 

"Thctc's "f"X"lation that the dcdinc of 

bitds is one of the ....,.,.,. liw the dcdinc of 

plants.. w... added. 
111 

TESTIMONY 

submitted to 

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS 

by 

David J. Leese, Ph.D., Vice President 

Citizens Against Noise 

November 18, 1993 

Good morning. My name is David Leese. I reside in 

Hawaii on the island of Maui (2695 Lia Place Haiku, HI 

96708) directly beneath an illegal, high-density 

helicopter flight corridor where upwards of 50 daily lowaltitude overflights occur on a route between Haleakala 

National Park and the Maui Airport. I am here to express 

my concerns as a private citizen. I am not a paid 

lobbyist. Travel to Washington has been financed by 

myself, as well as by the donations of private citizens. 

Long ago I chose Maui as my home because of its 

tranquility, and because of the nearby location of 

Haleakala National Park, internationally regarded as one 

of the quietest places on Earth. Since then, the small 

island of Maui has become saturated with aviation noise, 

particularly from tour helicopters, over nearly ever 

square inch of its 728 square miles. There is virtually 

no place for residents, or tourists, to find auditory 

1 
112 

peace except for that space set aside as wilderness in 

the volcanic crater of Haleakala National Park. 

Haleakala has traditionally been a place of peace and 

tranquility, a wild place where one's spirit can been 

enlarged through the experience of ethereal, absolute 

silence. Human beings require wildernesses as retreats 

from the pressure, noise, and pollution of our society. 

For 23 years I have found that retreat in Haleakala. 

But recently, as the consequence of an invasion by a 

plague of flying chain saws, Haleakala has been 

despoiled, taken from all the people who love it, by 

noise-polluting profit seekers who have scant concern for 

the impact of their actions on anything but their bottom 

line. Haleakala has been befouled by clattering 

machines, the incessant racket of which is as much an 

insult and desecration as a boom box would be inside a 

cathedral. 

In 1987 Congress mandated that aviation traffic over 

Haleakala be limited to a 9,500 1 AGL minimum ceiling. 

This regulation is no longer effective because, since 

1987, the sheer number of tour overflights of Haleakala 

has exploded beyond any reasonable proportion. Ten tour 

helicopter companies, with a fleet of over 30 machines, 

currently conduct continuous daily operations seven days 

a week, all year round. This activity is expected to 

2 
113 

DOUBLE within ten years. The impact of overflights of 

the Park is compounded by the size of the Park, one of 

the smallest in the nation, and by the crater's 

amphitheater configuration which produces acoustical 

amplification of any sound above or near it. Three or 

four helicopters are often overhead at once. To those on 

the ground - the vast majority of Park users - the sound 

is deafening. This activity goes on all day, all year 

round. Many people come to the Park for solitude. They 

are disappointed if they don't get it. To fulfill the 

desire of three or four people in a helicopter at the 

expense of scores on the ground is not fair. The claim 

which the helicopter operators make about leaving only a 

"temporary sound footprint" is not accurate. There are 

often lengthy stretches of time, upwards of an hour, 

when there is nothing audible inside Haleakala crater 

except the drone and blade slap of tour helicopters. 

Current aviation activity has turned a once silent 

wilderness into something resembling a war zone. The 

Park Service strictly regulates the nature of use of 

activities on the ground. Hikers are required to remain 

on marked trails. Bicycles are prohibited inside 

Haleakala Crater. Automobiles and buses do not have 

random access to the Parks. The time has come for the 

regulation of airborn use. Those who choose to 

experience the Parks from the air should not be exempt 

3 
114 

from the similar restrictions and prohibitions imposed on 

those who choose the more direct and up-close experience 

of the Parks on the ground. The legislation currently 

under review, while incomplete, addresses this problem. 

I have several things to say in its defense, and some 

recommendations for its improvement. 

The 1916 National Park Service Organic Act and the 

1964 Wilderness Act define wilderness as an area "which 

is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural 

conditions," and "which has outstanding opportunities for 

solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation." The 1978 Redwood Amendments to the Organic 

Act include the following statement pertaining to 

activities in the Parks: "The authorization of 

activities shall be construed • • in the light of the 

high public value and integrity of the National Park 

System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the 

values and purposes for which these various areas have 

been established " Many National Parks are 

recognized for tangible, historical, and cultural 

features, others for intangible qualities such as natural 

quiet, solitude, scenery, sounds of nature, and clear 

night skies. Regarding actions which compromise these 

intangible qualities (especially in wilderness areas), 

the National Park Service's Management Policies 

4 
115 

guidelines of 1988 state the following with regard to 

noise: "Activities causing excessive or unnecessary 

unnatural sounds in and adjacent to parks, including lowelevation aircraft overflight, will be monitored, and 

action taken to prevent or minimize unnatural sounds that 

adversely affect park resources or values or visitors' 

enjoyment of them. In accordance with 36 Code of 

Federal Regulations 2.12 the operation of motorized 

equipment or sound devices that create unreasonable audio 

disturbance will be prohibited." (Ch 4:18) 

H. R. 1696 offers an excellent opportunity to act on 

the above quoted guideline, and bring control over the 

operations of tour aviation in Hawaii's National Parks. 

Contrary to industry protestation, this can be done 

without adverse economic impact. The modest restrictions 

which 1696 impose DO NOT ban aviation from Park Lands. 

With 1696 in effect tourists will continue to enjoy 

marvelous views of select areas of Park Lands, but tour 

operators will be required to adopt more sensitive modes 

of operation. 

Finally, I wish to point out that for the 

handicapped helicopters are not the sole, or even the 

best, providers of "equal access" to the Parks. For the 

physically impaired, as well as everyone else, access is 

5 
116 

available by bus and by car. Only 2ru1 car rental company 

on Maui restricts its cars from being driven to the 

summit of Haleakala. Hawaii Volcanos National Park is 

readily accessible by automobile. 

It is my hope that the Subcommittee members will 

recognize the necessity of this legislation and the 

legitimacy of its attempt to restore ecological quality, 

peace, and wildness to the National Park lands in the 

State of Hawaii. It is time to put behind us the recent 

trend in deregulatory drift, especially regarding the 

aviation industry. The movement toward lightening the 

regulatory burden on air carriers has contributed to the 

serious degradation of the quality of our National Parks. 

For this legislation to be successful, rewording of it 

will be necessary 1) to clarify the Hawaii-specific 

nature of the act, and 2) to put teeth into the 

enforcement procedures of section 3 and 5 of the act. I 

recommend the inclusion of language which would empower 

and require the FAA (or - preferably - the National Park 

Service) to levy fines on tour operators of $5,000 and 1 

year pilot license suspension for first violations of the 

provisions of the act, and to levy $25,000 operator fines 

for second violations, as well as mandatory and permanent 

pilot license revocation. This would give the 

legislation the punch it currently lacks. The FAA, in 

6 
117 

conjunction with the EPA, is currently empowered by Title 

49 of u. s. Code Section 1431 (attached) to engage in 

"control and abatement of aircraft noise." H. R. 1696 

ought to unambiguously require the FAA and the EPA to 

engage in this process in a meaningful way. Also, H. R. 

1696 ought to require the FAA to carry out the 

environmental impact studies called for in Department of 

Transportation document 1051.10, Chapter 3 (paragraph 37, 

b) , and Appendix 3 (paragraph 3, a). Both these 

references are attached. 

I leave you with the words of the late novelist Wallace 

Stegner, Sierra Club leader and advocate of wilderness 

preservation. He stated, some 33 years ago, "I want to 

speak for the wilderness idea as something that has 

helped form our character and that has certainly shaped 

our history as a people. Something will have gone out of 

us as a people if we ever let the remaining wilderness be 

destroyed. [The wilderness] can be a means of reassuring 

ourselves of our sanity as creatures." It is my hope 

that sanity will prevail here today. Thank you for this 

chance to testify. 

7 
ll8 

49 U.S.C. Section l4ll 

§ .1431. Control' 

boom 

(a) For purposes of this se(tion: 

d sonic 

(1) The term "FAA" means Administrator of the Federal 

Aviation Administration. 

(2) The term "EP.'\" means" the Administrator of the Environ· 

mental Protection Aiency. 

C.-...JtatloD•I aUD ....... I -lac aD• re•'lllatlo .. J alft .. ft ef!W'tlftaatoa 

(h) (1) In order to afford present and· future relief ~d proteetion 

to the public health and welfare from aircra!t noise and "'lonic: boom. 

the FAA, after consultation with the Seeretary .of Transportation and 

with EPA, shall pNscribe and amend standards for the me&!urement 

of aircraft noise and .sonic boom and shall prescribe and amend such 

regulations aa the FAA may find necessary to provide for the control 

and abatement of a.ircraft noise and sonic boom, iDcludin~ the application of such standards and rerulationa in the iuuance, amendment, 

modification, suspension. or revoc:ation of any certificate authorized 

by this subchapter. No exemption with respect to any standard or 

regula.tion under thia aeetion may be aranted. under any proviaiori of 

thia chapter unless the FAA shall have consulted with EPA before 

such exemption is granted, except that if the F .4,.A determines that 

safety In alr commerce or air transportation requfrea that; aueh an exemption bt arante<l before EPA cau bt con.~ulted, the FAA abaU Q011-

sult with EPA as soon u ·practic:able alter Lhe exemption Is ~ted.. 

(2)· The FAA shall not lssue an orfrtnal type eertificate under section 1423(&) of thta title tor any alrcra.ft tor which substantial noise 

abatement can be achieved by pracribinl' staadarda and reaUiatJo111 in 

accordance wlth this section, unless he shall have prescribed standards 

and resrulations in a.ecordanee with thfa section which apply to auch 

aircraft and which protect the public from aircraft noise a.nd sonic 

boom, consistent with the considerations listed in· subsection (d) of 

this section. 
119 

Sllbllll .. loa of pnpoH4 reculaUou to J'A...\. 117' I!:PA.a palllleatloa.a hddnct 

· ft''lew of ""'e1'11to4 replaclo .. J repon &JI4 ,. • .,plcmaa.tal ropol't 

(c)(l) . Not earlier than the date of submission of the l'epOrt required by section 4906 of Title 42, EPA shalt submit to the F .. ~A proposed rerulat!ooa to provide such control and abatement of aircraft 

noise and sonic boom (includfnr control and abatement through the 

exereiae o! any of the FAA's resulatory authority over atr commerce 

or tnnspol'tation or over aircraft or airport operations) as EPA determines is necesaary to protect the public health and welfare. The 

FAA shall consider such proposed ~gulations submitted by EPA under this paragraph and shall, within thirty days of the date of its submission to the FAA. publish the proposed regulations in a notiee of 

proposed rulemalcinl'. Within sixty days after such publication, the 

FAA shall commence a hcarina at whieh interested persons shall be 

afforded an opportunity for oral (as well as written) presentatiou of 

data; viewa, .and arauments. Within a reasonable time after the conclusion of such hearin~r and after consultation wlth EPA, the FAA 

shall- · 

(A) in accordance with subsection (b) o! this section, prescribe 

regulations (i) aubetantially u t!ley were submitted by EPA, or 

(ii) which are a modi!icati.cu of the proposed regulatiorus submitted b:y EPA. or 

· (B) publiah i..n the Federal Rerister a notice that it ia not prescribin~ any regulation in response to EPA's s1.1bmisaion of pro-

"!>~:)o:Hi regulatlona, to1ether with a detailed explanatfpn proviclin1 

reasons for the ·4ecl8fon aot to prucribe auch -reaulatfo~ .. 

(2) If EPA hu reason to believe that the F AA'I action with ft. · apect to a regulation proposed b:r EPA under parqraph (1) (A) (fi) or 

(l)(B) of thla nbaeetfon doea not protect the public health and welfare from a!rctalt runs. or sonfe boom, eonaiatADt with the eonaiderations listed In aubatction (d) of tbfa aecUou, EPA shall couuJt\9ith 

the FAA and ma;y requeSt the FAA to review, anc1 report to EPA on, 

the actvlaability of praen'binl' th• naulatlon oriainally proposed by" 

EPA. Any such request lhall be · publlahed In the Federal Re,iater 

and ahaR include a detailed statement of the ln:formation on which it 

ia baaed. The FAA shall complete the review requested and shall roe. 

port to EPA within such time u EPA specltiea in the nquest, but 

such time specified may not be leu than ninety days from tlie date the 

request waa made. The FAA's report ahall be aceompanlecl by a deta.iled statement ot the FAA'• findings and the reuou for the FAA'a 

conduaions; ahaU ident.ffy any atat.met fil~ plli'I\Wlt to ueticm 

43JZ(2)(C) of Title 41 with NSpect to auch act!on of the FAA under 

paragraph (1) at thfa aubiec:tioD; and shall apeci!y wh«bv (ad 

where) such atatemata are ava.ilable for pubUc !Dapeetfon. The 

F AA'I repo11 lha1l bo pubUahed ID the Fedval Reaiater, except iD .a 

cu• in which EPA's ftqueat proposed ~fie action to be taken b7 

the i'AA, aDd the J!A.A'a r"eport indicate. aueb action wiU be tat-.. 
120 

(3) If. In the case of a matter described in paragraph (2) ot this 

subsection with respect to which no st:~tement is required to be filed 

under such section 4332(2)(C) ot Title 42, the report of the FAA indicates that the proposed regulation originally submitted by EPA 

should not be made, then EPA may r~quest the FAA to file a supple. 

mental report, which shall be published in the Federal Register within 

such a period as EPA may sp~cify (but such time specified shall no~ 

be less than ninety days from the date the request was made). and 

which shall contain a comparison a! (A) the environmental effects 

(including those which cannot be avoided) of the action actually taken 

by the FAA in response to EPA's proposed regulations, and (B) 

EPA's proposed regulations. 

(d) In prescribinr and amending standards and re~lations under 

this section, the FAA sha!l-

(1) consider relevant available data relating to aircraft noise 

and sonic boom, including the results. o! researCh, development, 

testing, and evaluation acti~ities conducted pursuant to this chapter and chapter 23 of Ulis title; 

(2) consult with sueh Federal, State, and interstate agencies as 

he deems appropria.te; 

(3) consider whether any propOsed standard.. or re~lation ia 

consistent with the bfghut degree of safety in &lr commerce or 

air ~portaUon in the public interest; --- · 

( 4) consider whether an:r propoaed at&Ddatc1 or -rep.l&Uon t. ~onomical)y reasonable, technologieally practicable, and appropri· 

ate for the p11rticular type of aircraft, aircraft eniine, applla.nee, 

or certificate to which it wiU apply; and 

(5) eonaider the extent to which such standard or reaulation 

will contribute to carrying out the purposes of this seetfon. 
121 

-'--•cl•••t. •oclllloauoa. ............ •• " ..... u ... or 

crrdflcatcl aotloe aacl appeal rlslat• 

(e) In any action to amand, modify, suspend, or revoke a certificata 

in which violation of aircraft noise or sonic boom standards or reiulations is at issue, the certificate holder shall have the same notice and 

appeal rights as are contained in section 1429 of this title, and In any 

appeal to the National Transportation Safety Board, the Board may 

amend, modify, or reverse the order of the FAA if it finds that control or abatement of aircraft noise or sonic boom and the public health 

and welfare do not require the affirmation or such order, or that such 

order is not consistent wit.h safety in air commerce or air transportation. • 

Pub.L. 8~726, Title VI, § 611, as added Pub.L. 9o-411, § 1, July 21, 

1968, 82 Stat. 895, ·and amended Pub.L 92-674, § 7(b), Oct. 27, 19'72, 

86 Stat. 1239. 

u~a "*••<bo•a•. Suboec:. (a). hb.t.. 

82-S':.f: &d.decl nbaec. (&). Pormu •ub-. 

I&) redtstJD&ted (b)(l). 

S11bMC. (b)(1), Pub.L. 02-6n rtd..a· 

aated fo1'11ler auhaee,. (a) aa aubMe. 

(b) (1) 'ad. Ill aub--. (b) (1) aa 10 ndM• 

1pate4 a4W nqu'-t tllac tu ~. 

Jnlabtrator of &"- l'eclenl At1Jottoa Ad· 

JI\!Jibtralloa eoan.lt wWL tu A.4m1111atn· 

tor ot Cbe l:a.UOameatal Proctcdoa. 

.a..,eiiCly btton pNI<!I'tbfDc &114 •-&a 

ataad&N &a4 adcle4 prori1ioq fw coa· K1)1tat10R Ill aoaaeett- wW& tb.e IRJll or 

e:empt1ou W1tll ,_peat to ltaJI4uU aal. 

.-rulauo. ua4u Uda MCtiO~a. Jl'o1111N11' 

aubseo. (b) n4..Spatll4 (4). 

Subaec. (11H2l. l'ub.L. ~• a44e4 au~M. (b)(t). J'o..,.... nb-. (b) nc!.es1patecl (d). 

BubMC. (C), Pub.L. 12-:Sit tdde4 

aa.bMO. (e). Former ·~ (e) redeaa• 

cate4 (e). 

s.-r~~op I'Hm!oa. S..tloa. 'l'(c) ol 

l'ub.L. 81-ITt pa-oviclecl Ul&t: 

"Ail-

"(1) lt&ad&H., l'llla. aa4 n,al&t16a1 

prucrlbed 'IIJI4er seet1oa. m at tile 

!o'Ntral .LTS&UOR AI:\ or liOI (~b.IS AI:• 

UCIII), Uf. 

"(J) e:umptiou. FUtll4 u&tr &JL:r 

p ... ..s.soa of Uae J'.a.ral .A.Ylatloe. .Mt 

or lilA (~ claapterJ, witll "'P8CC to 

slid. ~ nl-. IA4 ncaJ&tlou. 

wllldl ue bl etteet 'OR t"- date ot tU ea.· aetme~~t ot "II .t.et tOct. rr. lt'ill. dWl 

eoatmu Ia effect aceorti111 to tllelr tenu 1IAUl mo41&4. tum!a.a*- 11l• 

peneded, M& ulde. oe re.Pt&le4 bJ' ·&II& 

~aalalatntor of tJie J'ede.-1 .6.?fc.Uoa 

.umtaiatntlAa. 1zt. tU u:-=IM ot u.r uUaorltr'••eeted lA him. bra C!Out of aom· pet.U judadldioa, or br opentloa of 

law.• 

J:..clllla&lfto llhtoq. :ru lqial&tl"* 

· llstUT tlld PllrPOH Ill hb.L. 80-W. ... Subae.c. (4). Pub.L. DJ-a7t redealpated JAe1 tr.I.Coft COil&'• u4 A.dm.~e- p. 

former 111baec. (b) u (4). • 28111. See. alsO. Pub.:(.. ll-67f, :ar.2 u.s. 

lubMO. (e). hb.I.. H-ST4 nclatpatll4 Code Coil&'. aa4 ..&.4m.Xawa. p. UIIL. 

to•-• •-ill-, (<I)· .. t•)· 
122 

~~~J Supplencnt to 

~9 u.s.c. Section l~Jl 

§ 1431. Control and abatement of aircraft noise and 10nie boom . 

[See m4in volu1M for te::t of (G) and (b)) 

(c) Subll\laaloa of pro~ n,ulatlona to F.U b7 EPk pabllcado~ hearlnr. ~~., ot 

pnserlbH ,..ulatlons1 Rport an• eupp&.,....rdal "port · · 

(1) Not earlier than the date of submilaion of the report required by section 4906 

of Title 42, EPA shall aubtnit to the FAA propo&ed ~tiona to provide au.ch 

control and abatement of aircraft· noise and sonic boom (!lu:lud!ni control and 

abatement throu2h the exercise of any of the FAA'• regulatory autbority over sir 

commerce or transportation or over aircraft or airport operations) as EPA determine! is necessary to ~rot.ect the publie health and wel!are.- The FAA aball consider 

such proposed regulations submitted by EPA Ulldu thia panp-aph and shall, 'Mthm 

thirtr days of the date at ita subrnis&lon to the F A.A., publiah the propoted replao 

tions in a notice of proposed rulemaking. Within sixty dayt alter aucll publieatioD. 

the FAA shall commence a hearin11: at which interested peraons ahall be afforded &D 

opportunity for oral (a.a well aa written) present&tiona of data. viewa, and uromenta. 

Within niiltty d&,a.&fter the coilclusion of such hearinr and aftenoasilltatloa wfth· 

EPA. the FAA shall- · ·· · .: . . ~ •· : . . .. ';. · . . ·· .. (A) in ~ee with IUbsection (b) of this aeetfoD, prescribe reii:UlatioJII. (I) 

aub&tantially as" they were submitted by EPA, or (ii) which are a mocMeatfon of 

the proposed regulatiolllt aubmitted by i:P A, or · · · 

(B) publish in the Federal Reiister a notice that. it. il -~t presC'I"binc &DJ 

rerulation In respoDM to EPA'• submission of p:opoaed regulatioiss, toaethea' 

such 

with 

regulatioua 

a detailed uplanatiozi 

Gd a detailed 

providinr 

8ll&1ysis 

rea.sollS 

of and 

far 

~Dit 

the deciSion 

to all 4~zitat!oll

uot to ~ 

. Or-

~-'other information ,u1Hnitt2d bj-tM Euviroumctal Proiecdcm ~With" nell: :·:~~ "P:&~DS;·. : .. ... ·.-.. ·. . ·. :~:. :. · .•. , .·' :.; ... . ~ .. : ,; 

· .:,._··. . ~~. ' ~~ Nin f!Oiv.m4/or lff::t:C of(J/"'M. (I); .(d) _,n4lc)} ,· .- ~: ~ . . . ~. .. . .. . . . .. . . . . .. ,. . .. . . . ·- . 

(Aa ame11~ J"Qb.L. ~.: p, New'. a, lfl'l, 93 •t.. 8080.)·. · ~·.' • , .. .. : 

•. ;t• • • ; •·••••• e ' • • • •-.• •: ' • • • I • 

. ~ ·· .,,,.,.,.,.. : · . :·.,.BISTORICAL·AND STA'l'C'l'OBT NOTBS·.·· .... ., ~ .• · · .. ! 

lt7l A7.+-'.::~:~ ~ .-.;:-·: :: .... :· ,~ . :.\.: .. : ~,:: .:- ~~ilc:~ Soblcc..!~~). . .~· '$-1109; ~ · DOC.O act ~{IIDII« ~·.l30t ·oe·lJIII ·lid&. ~; ... ~lo!r·!'a NuauWe,~ Ia,... .. . . .... . · .. . . -··· priCIII:Iaa~ •. (A) llicl.ii&.IUbp--(11) .clde>h lola SWJ el 4lrcnft N-. .... :·. . . 

~Rialiq 10 die.~ Crt a~. ,........::..:... ~~.,;..;. ,·. 95-G ~ iw ,:W... aaibtil oCillforala~~ -- · · . ; - ... ~ .... -·--:- ,.__ . . .. . ... . . •. . lllldy:"bJ die SccrcCurol~ 111111 Mo otFii.dsoM ,. . . ~d ~.~~ 

Dati• 11114 ~ ollbc Sccre1aJ rdat.i ta · Aptq of aizcr8ft DCiiae ~=-fro. aa ~ • amlkllllfcc,. CIQePC lholt tii&ICd (0 gampgna.;. ---1ocalcd .la .. a sw. oa-t dlaa dae 

ac., ~ ~ oc- ·~ roe ~~uo . Slaw bl -nicll 111c II .lccaled. • rortl 

anloQa .liW&riall, Yll.ldld ill tU ~ bJ lhil criteria 111101 ~ ~-Ia, .. 

l1lllelo.opkr 1b a. eam.1 OQ& ., 1M A~·· qulnd die lbldr 10· be ·IUbmitlal lb eoa,rd lllc l'fJdcra1 Aviadoll ~ set- withiza aiM _.u "ol a.clwico, bill DO -Iaiii 

lioL~06.W(l) ot:!]lls · .. :, ·.-.. ·,·;· '·. ,. .• ' 64 ~ ~i ldfl,'-.... ~~ ~: . 

: JIOr ~ at_ccrt.1a tu!~ t\aiCdOal ell :: ~ Blltlli,· .. : : - . :. •. . :·:: ..... ··. tbe~orO!JIIIr~ott!lc Dqii:UDea1 ., •• , ..•• .. .,., .,._,. · .. . , ... 

at~ Jda&ia& IQ. -p!IGOO wtda 118.~ Jlor. llillorJ - ,..,_ at ~ 

cbapclr 

~~tO 

&ad * autborizadoDI .lbt ~~ llllpdm, JDCI.~~ Q11b • . p. ~-

7~. . 

ma:o.s.~ . : . . ·.. . .. CQaa. : . ..... .111111 :-: ~ 

., •. ~ -
123 

12/ll/83 :oso. 10 

(7) Has a s1gnit1canc tmp&ct on a1r quality or violatea the 

standards for air quality of the Envi~onmental Protection Agency or an affected loeality or Scate. 

(8) Has a significant i~pac: on water qu&licy or =ay contaminate 

a public wat.er supply systec. 

(9) Is inconsistent w1th an Federal, State, or local law or 

determination relating to the environment. 

(10) D1reccly or ind1reccly affecta human beings by creating a 

significant !~pact on the environment. 

(11) Has a significant icpact on price or unique farmlands or 

farmlanda of state or locAl importance. 

b, N& EIS is required not only when 

project itself ia a1&n1ficant, but &liD when 

proj>Osed project and other past, pruent and 

thu 

(1) lf approval of the ?ropoa~d action ~uld parmit further 

contamplated actions, the icpacts of thOee contemplated action$ and the 

proposed action m11st both be considered in detarminin& whether to prepare 

an EIS. 

(2) The action• which ara related to the propoaed action m&'/ be 

undertaken by any Federal or QOn•Federal acency or peraon. 

(3) If an EIS is required bacauee of the cumulati~e impact of the 

propoeed action and f~&tllre, related actions, no coca1tment may be aade with 

respect to the future actions pri~r to the procefsinc of the !IS 1t such 

co~~itment would foreclose or l1a1t the choice of alternative• or mitigating meaauraa which may~ taken. (Sae CEQ aec. 1506.1), 

c. !n caae of do~&bt aa to whether an EtS 1& naces•ary for a 

parti~11lar action. the re1ponsibla official or proaraa officer should con•ult with AEE-1 aad AGC-1. Raa1onal Airpo~t ~v1•iona con•ulc&~ioft 

under Order 5050.4 ohould be with ArP-600. 

38. OV!lVlEY OF ENVlRONM!RTAL ACTIONS. 

a. The procaaa for consideration of the environmental effect& of a 

proposed action involves a number of steps. beg1nn1na with aaaaa-.ent by 

the FAA or a~plicant of actions ·not cateaor1cally excluded. the relative 

responsibilities of the fAA are aummari%ed 1~ tbc follow1na paraarapha. 

Chap .3 

r'ar .37 Paae 23 
124 

12/5/86 

APPEIIDI:O: 3. Alii. TRAFFIC 

I. ENVIRONMENTAL li.ESPONS!BtLtTI!S. 

1050.10 CHC 3 

Appendix 3 

a. Regional Offices. Responsibility for environmtntal assessment and 

preparation of !IS 1s and FONSI's may be delegated to fiold facilities or 

retained vi thin the regional office, vtth asotltaneo fro• the Hold 

facilities. Regional offices and field facilities shall provide input to an 

• environmental assessment when requested by Air Traffic (AAT), Air Traffic 

Operations Service (ATO), Air Traffic Plans and RequireMents Service (ATII.) or 

othe"r services. 

b. Headquarter&. The offic~ originating the proposed syst&llVide action ia 

responsible for &&kina environmental asaeaamenta and preparina the FONSI'R and 

EIS'a. Input ~y be raqueatad fr01l resional offieaa and field facilities for an action originating within headquarters. 

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 011. FINDINGS OF NO SlGNTFICAIIT IMPACT. After 

completion of the environmental asaessment (including noiae analyses), the 

responaible official vill determine whether the proposed procedure vill require 

an EIS or FONSI or ia categorically excluded. 

3. ACTIONS SUBJECT TO ENVtli.ONHENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND PROCEDUII.ES. The following 

actions are su~jec~ to environMental •ssessaent and preparation of an !IS or 

FONSI. 

... " a. Mev or reyiaed air traffic control procedur•s vbtcb routinely route air X 

traffie over noise aensitive '''''at lea• than 3 ana feet ABOVE GBotnm LJVla. 

b. Special use airspace if tha floor of the proposed area is belov 3,000 

feet ABOVE GROUND LEV!L or if supersonic flight is anticipated at any 

altituda, This airspaea shall not be designated, established, or modified 

until: 

(1) The notice (NPII.M or non-rule circular) contains a ttat01ltnt 

suppliad by th• requeetina or ueina egency that they vtll serve •~ lead agency 

for purposes of compliance vith NEPA; (e.g., restricted airspace for military 

use); 

(2) The notice contains the nama and address, supplied by tha 

requesting or uain~ a~ency, of the office raproaentina the agane~ to which comments on tha environmental aspects can ba addreaaed (applicable only lf an 

!IS is to be filed by the reaueatina agency); 

(3) The notice eontaina the nAme and address, supplied by the 

requeating or uaina agency, of the office representina the agency to which commenta on ~ny land uae probl .. a ean be addressed (applicable only if special 

usa alrapaca extends to the surface); and 
125 

November 18, 1993 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, House 

Committee on Natural Resources 

TESTIMONY ON H.R. 1696, A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF 

AIRSPACE OVER NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM LANDS IN THE STATE OF HAWAII 

BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AND THE NATI ONAL PARK 

SERVICE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES . 

Mr . Chairman and Subcommittee Members; 

I am Bob DeCamp, President of the HAWAII HELICOPTER OPERATORS 

ASSOCIATION (H.H.O.A.) . On behalf of our members, I want t o 

thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Committee regarding 

H.R. 1696. 

H.H . O.A. represents 87% of the helicopter t our companies which 

operate 93% of the tour helicopters statewide. Membership has 

grown steadily since H.H.O.A.'s inception in 1987. We now include 100% of the companies on the islands of Maui and Hawaii, 

which H.R. 1696 would effect ~ Prior to Hurricane Iniki last 

year, the helicopter tour industry in Hawaii employed about 1000 

people directly and carried about 500,000 passengers annually. 

Over the years, the effects of overflights have been of concern 

to the community. In response, the industry implemented 

voluntary "Fly Neighborly" programs starting as early as 1985. 

The programs were based upon the original "Fly Neighborly" 

concept developed by the HELICOPTER ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL 

(HAI). H. H.O .A. 's Mandatory Fly Neighborly Program is the first 

of its kind in the country, with legally binding contractual 

agreements between the association and its members, along with 

similar agreements between members and their pilots. It was 

developed in 1990 by a consensus building process which included 

representatives of industry, FAA, State DOT, HAI, AOPA, federal, 

state, and county elected officials, citizen representatives from 

each island, the Sierra Club, and others. 

After much deliberation, taking such factors into account as the 

sound duration, the sound level, visual impact, prominent weather 

conditions, terrain, etc., a formula for the Mandatory Program was agreed upon. It's important to note that this was not an industry formulated plan, but one which the industry participated 

in developing and ultimately agreed to. 

It is a revolutionary concept, and though there is always room to 

improve, the program is highly regarded by local and national 

officials (see attached letter from Maui Mayor Linda Crockett 

1 

87-820 0 - 95 - 5 
126 

Lingle). Many residents have complimented its achievements. The 

voluntary and mandatory programs have twice won the HAI Community 

Servi ce Award. I mention all of this to illustrate that the 

industry has been taking a proactive approach for many years, and 

we intend to continue doing so; No program will satisfy 

everyone, but the Mandatory Fly Neighborly Program is designed to 

min i mi ze the effects of tour overflights to a reasonable degree. 

I turn now t o describe the circumstances which prompted the 

legislation we are discussing today. The chief cause stems fr om 

difficulties experienced on the "Big Island" of Hawaii since last 

year . It was p e rceived by some that helicopter tours were "tho ughtles s", that they were "invading people's privacy• and 

" v iolating their rights". What caused this perception? 

There were two key reasons. First, our program on the Big Island 

was ~ living up to what we or the community desired. Second, 

pe ople have not been adequately distinguishing between tour 

flights and those of DEA, police, NPS, private and others. 

Before I describe what caused our program on the Big Island to 

struggle and what we've done about it, I'd like to comment on the 

tremendous amount of non-tour flights, with which we are often 

unfairly grouped. There are a variety of other helicopters 

operating on the Island of Hawaii, including military, DEA, 

Nat i onal Guard, state Department of Land Natural Resources 

(DLNR), county, and private aircraft. Some of the tour operato rs 

a l so fly non-tour activities, such as line checks for utilities, 

search and rescue missions, and professional photography flights. 

A recent survey conducted by the FAA showed some astonishing 

numbers of DEA and other non-tour flights . Their figures show 

that the Drug Interdiction program on the Big Island (using 

helicopters fr om DEA, Army, National Guard, and tour operators as 

civilian contractors) consists of about 506 flight hours per 

month during about 218 flights . When the various other missions are added (police vice, state DLNR, USGS survey teams, and 

National Parl• Service), the total is approximately 639 hours and 

284 flights, most of which are "rural and remote areas where 

marijuana is grown centered in the Puna District". That averages 

about 10 flights and more than 20 flight hours per day! And that 

d oesn't even include the military helicopters on directed 

missions or training flights. I've provided a sampling of news 

articles relating to the marijuana topic. 

With so many DEA flights, it's no wonder citizens are tired of 

he l icopter overflights in that area, but it's not fair to 

attribute the problem to tour helicopters. DEA flights are by 

their nature very intrusive. For obvious reasons, pilots hover 

around, "up close and personal", for long periods of time, 

searching and eradicating. On the other hand, tour flights are 

on a strict schedule and have no time or desire to hover around 

2 
1~ 

residential areas. They want t o get to the remote scenic areas 

to maximize the passengers' enjoyment. I mention this because an 

important facet of Representative Mink's purpose for this 

legislation is to keep Hawaii "free from the noise and invasion 

of privacy of tour helicopters• that "residents beneath the 

flight paths" experience . Unfortunately, H.R. 1696 would not acc omplish this goal, as it does not address community 

overflights by tour, DEA, military, or other non-tour aircraft. 

Now, what caused our program on the Big Island to stumble? An 

unfortunate series of events contributed to the program's woes . 

1. In August, '92, our Helpline Representative for the Big 

Island, who was very experienced and was doing a good job of 

investigating and resolving problems, mo ved from Hawaii. 

Her replacement was hampered by being less experienced and 

by the effects of some of the following items. 

2. In September, '92, Hurricane Iniki closed down Kauai, 

causing many visitors to move their trips to other islands. 

This caused an increase in the number of helicopte r tours e n the Big Island. Additionally, Kauai companies moved their 

operations there in order to survive. 

3. Since the second half of '92, five additional companies 

started up on the Big Island, a doubling of the industry 

which multiplied the number of tour flights. A good portio~ 

of the tours originate in Hilo and proceed to the Puu Oo 

Vent, causing overflights of residences in the Puna 

District. 

4. Hurricane Iniki wiped out more than a third of 

H.H.O.A.'s operating revenues, as every member on Kauai ~as 

(temporarily) out of business due to damage and /or lack cf 

visitors. We did not bill them for a full year, and no~ ~; 

so only partially. This sudden decrease in funds placed • 

strain on all H.H.O.A. programs, including the Big Isla~d 

Helpline. Unfortunately, this was at the precise time ~~ e:. 

business increased on the Big Island. 

5. The industry experienced an abnormal number of accide~:3 

on the Big Island in late '92 1 early '93. Accidents always 

heighten community awareness, which in turn increases 

annoyance levels (or decreases acceptance levels). I shou l d 

mention that despite the aberration on the Big Island in 

'92, our statewide safety record was still better than the 

helicopter industry as a whole. 

The accident anomaly combined with increased traffic and 

decreased resources intensified unresolved problems on the Big 

Island. Our original '92 plan was unable to cope with the 

unusual circumstances. In fairness to the operators and pilots, 

3 
128 

we know that many of them did a fine job of following the 

program, despite our inability to monitor it as well as we would 

have liked. On the other hand, we know that there were 

infractions that we could not substantiate, and the ability to 

measure compliance is a key ingredient in the success of our program. 

Other problems with our program and their respective solutions are as follows: 

Problem: Insufficient regular communication between operators 

and pil ots themselves and between operators, pi lots and 

the public. 

So luti on: Unlike Kauai, Maui, and Oahu where operators are a l l 

located on one airport or are reasonably close, it i s 

difficult to get all Big Island operators/ pilo t s t o 

meetings when they are he l d on e i t he r side of t h e 

island. To correct this, H.H. O.A. has elected c o -

directors for the Big Island, instead of the usual 

single director. The co-directors, one for east-side 

and one for west-side operators, c oo r dinate i ssues and 

then conduct separate meetings on their side of the 

island. Members of the public are invited t o c o nve y 

t heir concerns at these meeti ngs. 

Probl em: No Helpline representative located on the Big Island. 

Solution: A Helpline representative is now located on the Big 

Island. The representative monitors overflights and 

communicates with operators/pilots and the publi c to 

resolve complaints. 

Problem: Insufficient direct monitoring of flights. 

So luti on: In addition to the Big Island Helpline representative 

who will spend a great deal of time monitoring flights, 

H.H.O.A. is testing an innovative new technology known 

as a Nuisance Abatement Performance Evaluation System 

(NAPES). Over two years ago, the industry initiated 

the process of finding, designing, and funding the 

testing and use of this system, which will vastly 

improve our ability to monitor the Fly Neighborly 

Program. Utilizing the national satellite Global 

Positioning System (GPS), NAPES electronically 

indicates the latitude, longitude, and altitude of 

aircraft providing a tremendous tool for managing our 

program. The test began this month. 

Problem: Because of recent accidents and other factors, many 

members of the community are under the misimpression 

4 
129 

that helicopter flights are unsafe. 

Solution: H.H.O.A. is taking measures to inform the public of the 

safety statistics of helicopter touring in Hawaii. For 

example, the preliminary figures for accident rates in 

the year 1992 show that the tour helicopter industry in 

Hawaii has again done better than the helicopter 

industry nationwide and general aviation. 

1992 ACCIDENT RATE PER 100,000 FLIGHT HOURS (PRELIMINARY) 

GENERAL AVIATION- 7.15 

HELICOPTERS, NATIONALLY - 6.9 

TOUR HELICOPTERS, HAWAII- 4.2 

Problem: Some residents have difficulty identifying which 

company they wish to lodge a complaint against. 

Solution: Operators on the Big Island ar now displaying large, 

two foot numbers, letters, or symbols on the underside 

of their aircraft to enhance identification. See 

attached photo. 

Problem: Hawaii Volcanos National Park had deep concerns about 

helicopter tour overflight safety and nuisance issues. 

Solution: We are awaiting final review by NPS on an agreement 

which addresses the NPS's concerns with specificity, 

rather than the broad brush approach within H.R. 1696. 

We ask that this Committee not support H.R. 1696, for the 

following reasons: 

1. The Bill does not address the concerns of the community 

regarding overflights of residences. It will, without 

question, increase overflights of populated areas by 

surviving companies. 

2. The Bill circumvents Federal Law 100-91, which is 

already in place and which is addressing the issues 

relating to Volcanoes National Park and Haleakala. Its 

findings will be out early next year. 

3. H.H.O.A., the NPS and the FAA are currently in final 

negotiations of an agreement which addresses the concerns of the parties. It is expected to be 

finalized by the end of this year. 

4. Many people are unable to view the parks in any other 

way, due to physical disabilities and inabilities, and 

5 
130 

often time constraints. Helicopters help the parks 

provide equal access, as businesses are required to do 

under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 

5. Only about 2000 people per year go "backwoods hiking" 

into the remote areas of Volcanos National Park. Over 

85,000 saw it by helicopter in 1992. To severely 

reduce or eliminate their ability to do so, as would be 

the case with H.R. 1696, would be a gross injustice. 

6. H.H.O.A. is taking steps to resolve issues of concern 

to the Big Island community, as it has done 

successfully on other islands, and which H.R. 1696 does 

not address. 

7. If H.R. 1696 becomes law, it will diminish tour quality 

and reduce competitiveness with other industries and 

therefore demand. This could have a devastating effect 

on some tour companies, forcing some out of business, 

meaning a loss of many jobs and tax revenues. 

8. The Hawaii County Council voted against support of H.R. 

1696 because, among other reasons, "some of the 

regulations are too extreme". We concur. 

In closing, I would like to point out that all of the steps 

H.H.O.A. members have taken over the years to mitigate nuisance 

problems relating to helicopter tour overflights have been taken 

by the industry without FAA regulation or legislation . Contrary 

to what a small, vocal, organized group would have you believe, 

our programs are quite effective. They don't satisfy all the 

people all the time, but they are the product of a cooperative 

effort between interested parties. When fully functional, they 

resolve the vast majority of nuisance concerns of the entire 

population. Now, with our improving relationship with the NPS, 

we will be applying the same principles to parks and wilderness areas . H.R. 1696 is premature if at all necessary. 

Thank you for this opportunity to address this committee. I will 

be happy to answer any questions you may have . 

HH1696.1 

6 
LINDA CROCKETT LINGLE 

M•vor 

TELEPHONE 243-7855 

Mr. Bob DeCamp, President 

131 

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR COUNTY OF MAUl 

WAILUKU, MAUl. HAWAII 96793 

April 16, 1993 

Hawaii Helicopter Operators Association 

i20 Kapaiuiu Place. Suite 2.14 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96819 ;. " 

Dear Mr. DeCamp: 

I would like to commend your Association's efforts on Maui. Over the 

years, helicopter operators have made a concerted and well-rounded effort to become 

better members of the Maui community. There is no doubt that the HHOA Mandatory 

Fly Neighborly Program has assisted them greatly in this endeavor. Prior to the 

program's implementation, it was difficult to monitor pilots' progress toward flying in a 

neighborly manner. Now, with the program's specific guidelines and telephone helpline 

for complaints. there is a more accurate means of gauging pilot compliance. 

Helicopter tours are known to be enjoyed by many tourists in Hawaii each 

year. At the same time, our residents have expressed concern about noise from 

overflights. The HHOA Mandatory Fly Neighborly Program developed a means to 

channel complaints to those responsible and to restrict flight patterns in sensitive areas. 

It is a fine example of industry working directly with community. 

I encourage you to continue this program and to continue your dialogue 

with the community regarding your program and their concerns. 

SL:jso 

c:\letter\508 

Sincerely, 

L.// /~;:7:- LINDAC~ Mayor, County of Maui 
132 

TOUR AIRCRAFI' WITH VOLUNTARY TWO FOOT NUMBER ON 

UNDERSIDE, FOR IMPROVED IDENTIFICATION 
HILO, Hawaii - Baoken and foes of helicopter-borne mari- juana raids Tuesday continued their debate before the Hawaii 

County Council's Finance Com· 

mit tee. 

A dozen policemen. repre- senting all four counties, testi- fied in favor of the raids by 

the federal. !'t:\t'"' ~ ·~ • :....,uu ty governmcr.LS. Hawaii County Assistant PoPuna pot planta zapped 

HlLO, Hawoii - State en- forcement officers ·destroyed 

9,976 marijuana plants in the Puna district Monday and yes- terday. Lenny Terlep, Hawaii Dis- trict chief of the division of Conservation and Resources EnCorcement. said the plants were from seedlings to eight feet and sprayed with a biode- gradable herbicide. Terlep said Big Island and Honolulu polite, the National Park Service, the Drug En- forcement Administration and Army were working together on the sweep, which is expected to "continue 6""' !U'Vergl more days. • ~I < 7 l:lli.J 

Terlep said the state opera- tion makes "every effort to avoid flying over any homes. • He said the noise inc:onv~ 

nience "Is only temporary until such time as marijuana is no longer grown on state lands. • 

133 

lice Chief Glenn Todd said if the suppression effort is less- ened, marijuana growers and shippers "will come back" to their higher production levels. .But a pro-marijuana group 

threatening to seek the impeachment of fi,·c Council 

members who support the raids said the raids have been a failure. 

Group spokesman Dwight 

Kondo added his contention that a success£ul eradication e!· fort would only steer people to more dangerous drugs. 

No action was taken Tuesday as the Finance Committee re- rri,·ccJ but took no action on a copy of pollee policies and 

rules for helicopter operations 

provided by Chief Victor Vier· ra at Councilman Keola Childs' request. 

9,976 plants eradicategr 2 7 199. Law eaforceiDent officers eradicated nearly 10,000 marijuana 

plants from state lands iD Puna during the first two days of Operation 

Wipeout 24: 

Lenny Tcrlep, Department of Land and Natural Resouces district 

chief of Olvision of Conservation and Resources Enforcement (DO· 

CARE), said the 9,976 plants ranged from seedlings to eigh1 feet tall. The operation uses a helicopter fitted with a spraying device that 

applies a biodegradeable bcrbicide, glyphosate, directly to targeted 

marijuana plants. DLNR and tbe Police Depanmcnt have received noise complaints from area residcacs and arc tryiDa to avoid flying over homes, Tcrlep 

said. 

.. Sometimes we bavc tO fly over residences while traveling from 

one area to another and we fly above SOO feet," he said. "The incon· 

vcnience is only temporary until such time as marijuana is no longer 

grown on state lands." In addition to DOCARE, officers from several agenc ies are parti· 

clapting in the operation, including Hawaii County Police Depart· 

ment, Haaolulu Police Department, National Park Service, U.S. Anny 

and Drua EnfoiCOmcnt AdnliDistration. Operation Wipeout 24 is scheduled to c:ontinue for several more 

days. 

. More Pot;raida ~rtcd ·' 

·--- (IICr u 1993 

Pollee recover 3,441 pot plants 

HILO, Hawaii - Big Island police yesterday ended two days of helicopter marijuana raida in Hila and Puna, destroying U27 pl"!ef- 2 3 1991 

Polic:e seized 3,441 marijuaua plantl during eradication effons yesterday iD the disuic:tS of Hilo and Puna. The operations were centered iD Kaumana and Volcano and 

in the Orchidland, Hawaiian Acres aDd Eclea Roc 

subdivisions. 

Assistins polic:e were enforcement officers from the state 

)epartment of Land and Natural Resoun;es. 

ln a related matter, Vice Lt. Charles Chai said three comaints of excessive helicopter noise were received during 

sterday's operation. Chai said helicopters creating "unnec:esy disturbances" may be reported to him at 961-2253. 

The raids produced no ar- rests, weapons or booby traps. 

Police LL Charles Chai said oeveral Puna subdivisions plus the Kaumana, Panaewa. Pi!- honua and Keaukaha neighbor- hoods of Hila were searched for marijuana plants. Planu seized raniJed . from seed1inga to six feet tall. 

· Big laland pollee were assir ted by state .· Department of Land and Natural Resources enforcement officen. 
134 

POLICE BEAT Jt:L ; a :193 

Big Isle pot sweep 

nets 36,060 plants 

11.8 gr~ of c~ne, two fire- arms and drug paraphernalia. 

A 14·year-old girl also was arrested but not charged. 

Hll..O, Hawaii - In the third day of their ·ongoing "marijuana maintenance mission, • Big Is· 

land· police destroyed 8,310 

marijuana plants and arrested three people in Volcano Friday afternoon. 

The raids were supported by Honolulu Police Department and U.S. Army unita on Frtday. Federal Drug Enforcement Ad· ministration agents were in· volved the first two days. 

The raids that began 

Wednesday have now resulted in pulling up or poisonmg of 36,060 plant& from Puruo to Ha· makua, pollee said. Plants ranged from seedlings to 9 feeL In Volcano, they arrested, but did not charge, a man and a woman, each 36, when police found 72 marijuana plants on 

their property and later seized 

Big Isle pollee arrest 3 on pot charges HILO - Pollee arrested two adulto and a teen-a- §: ger during the tltird day ofa mar1juana-eradlcatton • mwton yesterday, tltey said. They aho destroyed , 8,310 plan to in the Puna, Hilo, and Halllakua areu. _ Police arrested a J6.year old man, a J6.year-old woman, and a 14-year-old girl In Volcano after 72 5 plan~ were found growing on their property. --, Pohce aho.foand about 12 grams of cocaine, drug - paraphernalia, and two firearms In the bo...,_ The suspects were released pendlng grand jury action. Pollee arrested two men In Kalapana and HawaiIan Acres on Wednesday and recovered a 12-gauge shotgun. 

The tltree-<lay total tor the eradlcatton was 36,060 

plants, some of which were seized and othen poisoned In the field. 

Big IsLand police were assisted by Honolulu pollee 

and the U.S. Army. A8 Friday, July 16,19113 

Big Isle marijuana raids 

HILO, Hawati - State·led mariJUana raiders cla1med 162,161 plants durmg 'Opera· tion Wipeout 21" that ended yesterday in Kana. 

Lenny Terlep , Hawaii Dis· trict chief of the state Depart· ment of Land and !'-latural Re- sources' Conservation and Resources Enforcement Div1· s1on, said the raids selZed plants in five districts - North Kona, South Kona, Hamakua, North Kohala and North Hilo. The plants were yanked out by hand or killed by aertal he..- bicide spraying. -

-JUL 2 4 1?'11 

Big Isle marijuana 

raids net two arrests 

Hll..O, Hawaii - Big Island police conducting martJuana raids in three district.! Tuesdsy arrested two Puna men. de- stroyed 14.515 planta and dis- covered marijuana growing 1n Hamakua Sugar Co. fields in 

Hp"c,~~c":' hit six Puna subdlvl· 

slons, includlng Royal Garden., Honokaa and Panaewa outa11ie 

of i:t~~- said the planta ranged 

from seedlings to eight feeL Lt. Charles Chat, describing the operation as a "mainte- nance mission." said a 37-year- old man was arrested at. ~apana Black Sand · subdtVlston for drug and firearm VIOlations. Thtrty·five plants and a 12· 

gauge shotgun were seized as well as dried man]uana and 

drug paraphernaliL 

A 38·year-old Hawaii Acres subdivi1ion man was arrested for allegedly possesing 13S planta, dried marijuana anc drug paraphernalia. 

Both were releued pendlne formal charges by the prosecu· 

tor. 

'Tbree search warrants wert served but no one wu home a a Hawaiian Paradise Pari home where 25 plants from . 

to 4 !eet were seized. 

The police were jo~ned b: Honolulu police, the U.o.• Arm. and federal Drug Enforcemen 

Administration. 
More marijuana plants seized Police seized 5,125 marijuana planls ycslcrday, bringing lhc 

lolal number of illicil planls dcslroycd 10 9,597 over lwo conseculivc davs of eradicalion efforts. AU!; X 4 1>93 

Police said 

Puuco, Hono

beighl. Assis

Honolulu Pol

nistration and 

Polic~. seize 4,472 pot plants A marij~w eradication efforl yeslerday 'rcsulled io lbe deslruclion or seizure of 4,472 marijuana planiS io lbe dislricls 

of Puna, Hilo and Hamak.ua. AUC X J 1991 Police said lbc mission focused J4 lbe attU of Keaau, HawaiW. Pa,adisc Park, Ainaloa, Hawaiian Acres, Wainaku, 

Pepeekeo, Hakalau, Honomu, Kukuihaele, Paauilo and Ookala. 

ParlicipaniS included lhe Big Island and Honolulu police de· 

partmenl5, lhe Drug Enforccmenl AdminiSlralion and lhe Hawaii Army Nalional Guard. 

Policeaestroy marijuana Police rcpOflcd Wcdoosdaylbat oo lhe lUI day of a lhrcc-day mari- juana cradicalioa e&rl, 4,467 marijuana planiS were dcslrtlyed. 

The plaoll ranged io beigbllrom seedlings lo IS fccllaU and herbicide spray wu used 011 planllool uprooled. A!IC ~ ~ 1993 

Wednesday' a opcralloa focused oo lhe Pauku, Pepeekeo, lfoonmu, 

Hahbu, Waipo .. lci and Ku.kuihacle 11eu. 

Hoa.olulu Police Dcparlmcal, Drua Eato~ecmcol Adminhln.lion and Hawaii National Guard pcn.oaocl auaatc4 Uaa hlaad police in 1hc cffon lbat ocucd 14,064 pluta ower Wee ..lay a. 

AUG X 6 1?9

POLICE BE

.. . . . 

Second raid 

62,629. pot 

IIlLO, Hawaii :- 

previously unpubli

against marijuana 

lhe Big Island ne

plants by stale La

ment officials durin

of raids. O!licials said that 

day through yes

stale officers - w1t

lhc National Guard

forccmcnt Agency 

land and Honolulu 

destroyed lhe plant

districts, inciUihng 

North and Soulh lli

The plants ranged 

hng::~ to 12 feet and 

destroyed by biO

hcrt:»cldt!. 
More than 2,000 plants seized More lhu 2,000 awij- plaDII were sciud by police 

ywenlay ill l'uDa. .SfP , " ll<l~ Tile cnclicalloa milsioo wu focused ill Feb AdJ· Volcaao IUid Royal Hawaiian l!atates. 

A lOW .or 2,803 pi1111S up to 10 reet durin& tbc effort. 

Police received 1 complaint of belcopter. 

Police Lt. Cbulcs Cbai said the public should call him 11 

961·22!13 if helicoptcra make unnc=ssary noiu. 

Mcmbcra or tbc U.S. Army assii&ccl county police io tbe 

mlssioa. 

Pollee eelze 4,425 pot plants ·~-.. . .... l'-· I • ., I " . .• . "•I •• :t, -I 

Police c:uryiq 0111 marij- eraclicatioa efforts io Eul 

, = ~d!.o ~ r;,o, clay(: ~izcd. ~. ~ycd lEf! ,il~ciJ,l 

The plaats, wbicb IIDJcd in bcigbt from sccdlioas' to 12 

feet tall, were found Ia lbc districts of Ka'u, Puoa, Hilo and 

Nonla Hilo. The "marij11101 maiateoaocc milsion" focused on 

tbc arcu of Nulebu, Pablla, Hawaiian Acres, Fern Aores, 

Waiatca Houscloll, Piiboo111, Papaikou, Pepeekeo, Hakalau 

IUid Ninole. Police also llicd wanaots to scartb two homes in Hawaiian 

Acres. AI ooc bomc tbcy ancstccl a 49-ycu-old man and 

seized 17 marij- plaots up to 6 feet tall. AI tbc other 

bouse S2 marijuana plants up to 3\-1 feet tall were recovered. 

Assislio& police were tbc Hooolulu Police Department, Hawaii Army National Guard, U.S. Marshall's Office and the 

Drug Enforcement AdmioiWation. 

Cou

erad

J Oppon

hey'll pe

mpeach 

Jy Gordon 

fttluM He~•ld 

A $22,500 

o fight the 

., .. given fi

::Ounly Coun

But those 

:mmcnt cff

Naming thai 

mpeacbme

: 

)gainst the s

)crs . voting 

money. About 70 

them advoca

of marijuana

ing procee

against acc

came from 3

son spok

eradication. 

Accepting 

money to h

and other dr

lions is nol 

Jaaest cnliah:

dition to mor

county is ~h

the current 

But rau:ly

years, had t

display of n

the past f;,; w 
137 

Big Island Briefs AUG 2 0 1993 

Police pull up pakalolo . · Nearly 10,000 awijiWII plants, ranging in size from seedlings to 

10 feet tall, were seized during police raids iD Puna, Sout.b Hilo and 

Nort.b HUo subdivisioJII OD Wednesday. 

Police destroyed 9,282 plants iD the Fern Acres, Mountain View, 

Piibonua, Pauku, Papaikou, Waipunalei, Ookala and Ninole areas, 

according to repona. · ' 

Herbicide wu appUed to many of t.be planiS. 

Persoanel from the Hawaii County Pollee Department, Honolulu 

Police Department, t.be Drus Enforcement Administration, the U.S. 

Army and the Hawaii Army National Guard participated in the ongo· 

ing eradicatioa efforiS. ·, r 

The Honolulu Advertiser Friday, AUilUSt 20, 1993 A7 ; 

16,000 plants destroyed in 

Hilo, Puna marijuana raids 

HILO. Hawaii - Big Is- land police vice squad raid- ers said they destroyed another 6,500 or more marijuana plants in HUo and Puna yesterday. 

That brought the two-day 

haul in the . ongoing "marijuana maintenance operation • to nearly 16,000 plants 

ro f~g from seedlings to 

The areas covered included Puna subdivisions on the 

south to both active and 

"rubbiah cane• fields on the 

north. Most of the plants were sprayed with a herbicide, eliminating the need to airliCt the stalb and bum or bury the plants. 

Seven areas were attacked 

during the two-day, federally funded operation. 

Honolulu police, federal 

Drug Enforcement .Adminllltration agents, the Army 

and Hawaii National Guard 

supported B1J Wand police. 

_Ma,rljuana raid nets 9,282 plants 

Bil Is1aDd police led a "marijuana maintenance opention" 

in ih8 disuic:ts of Puua, South HUo and North Hilo yesterday. 

~ operatioD c:oac:aatrated. on Fern Acrea, Mouat.aiD View, 

Piiliinma, Paulw, PapailrDu, Waipuoalei, Ookala and NiDoole. 

': ..• Plaoll found in caoeflelds alonJ the HUo and Hamakua 

c.iouaa were destroyed by hcrbil:ide. accordina to. ,Vice Lt-•,593 CWiea aw.. Allli '1 ' 

:· · Joiniq polil:e in the operation wm~ officiala from t.be Hon-

. olulu Police Department, the federal Dnla Eaforcement Admi· 

nislratioll, the U.S. Army and the Hawaii Army National 

Guard. 
Operation· Wipeout.·hits' Puna· 

Uy llugh Clark AtJvcniw:r Uig bland Bureau 

IIlLO, lllwail - State ofli· ctals yesterday said they destroyed an estimated $62.5 mil· lion in marijuana plants that were seized yesterday in the ltrst day of Operation Wipeout 19 in Puna. · · 

Lenny Tcrlep, chief of the Department of Land and Natu· ral Hcsourccs' Division· of Con· scrvation and Resources En· forct>numt, said· 12,500 plants, estimated 10 have· a street val· 

uc or $a.ooo ~r plant, were destroyed. 

Among the seizures were a greenhouse and several seed boxes m the Puna io,orcst Reserve. Doth manual methods and biodegradable herbicide were used to destroy the 

II API~ 6 i993 

POLICE 

BEAT 

plants. 

Terlep Ald. he waa surprised 

by th~ amount of plant.s. that were planted in previously cui· tivated ar~· as well as newly cleared patches. He called the growers "per· sistent. When they clear patch· 

cs to cuJllvatc mariJuana, they harm the environment because allen spl'Cics move in and destroy our native planLS and ani- mals ... 

The stale was assisted in the 

31,410 plants destroyed. llY DLNR 

Big bland cnforc:cmcot offic:cn lasl week destroyed 31,410 

muijuana plants during Opcratioo Wipeout 13 lUI week, ac.-

couling 10 diSirict chief LeDDy Torlep. 1\Pfl 1 :s 1'.19.:) 

DOCARB worked with the federal Drug Enforcement Admini51ntion, lbe U.S. Manball'o Office, the National Park 

Service, the National Guard and couoly police oo the opera· 

tion which centered in Puna and Ka'u. · 

Manuol and aerial eradiattion lacliC5 were employed, Tcrlep 

said. 

operation by the Fedc

~nforccmcnl Admin

U.S. Marshal's Ofltcc

land pollee, Nalionctl P

vicc and NatiOnal Guar

Poli

State c

in the Big 

Lc:nny 

tion and 

day and T

The pla

Officer

said. 

Based 

$81.S mil

Mariju

move io a

Operal

county of
139 

November 18, 1993 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, House 

Committee on Natural Resources 

TESTIMONY ON H.R. 1696, A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION 

OF AIRSPACE OVER NATIONAL PARK SYSTEMS LANDS ON THE STATE 

OF HAWAII BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AND THE 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

My name is David Chevalier. I am the HHOA representative for Maui and am one 

of the founding members. I am also a Vietnam veteran helicopter pilot and part 

owner of Blue Hawaiian Helicopters along with my wife, Patti, her brother David 

Griffin and a native Hawaiian, Yvette Kahauolopua, who is also our office manager. 

We are a small owner-operator as are most of the companies in Hawaii. 

Over the years we have worked hard to achieve the goal of harmony between the 

helicopter tour business and Maui communities. Since 1986 we have sponsored a 

helicopter noise complaint line called the Helicopter Environmental Liaison Office. 

A local woman, Stephanie Sakagawa has been our paid representative for the past 

three years. We advertise our complaint line in the Maui News each week. We want 

to hear from people if there is a problem. All the helicopter tour companies meet the 

second Tuesday of each month and we discuss each noise complaint and try to 

eliminate, or at least alleviate, any negative impacts that we may cause. Co= unity 

members have always been able to attend these meetings. 

The first year of our program we had over 450 complaint calls. To date, this year, we 

have received less than 50. We have learned that although we can satisfy 98% of the 

people, there are those who we will never satisfy as long as we operate. We are not 

perfect but do our utmost to find a solution to every problem. We are completely 

sincere in our commitment to fly neighborly. It is hurtful and misleading for some 

of the anti-tourism, anti-helicopter people to portray us as uncaring and unresponsive 

to co=unity concerns. 

Although our organization and efforts are well known, problems with overflights of 

these national parks has not been brought to us as a serious issue over these past 

five years until we were blind-sided by HR1696. The National Park Service came to 

us only once to discuss problems. Ron Nagata, the Air Operations Officer for 

Haleakala came to one of our meetings about four years ago and asked us to fly 

further away from the visitor center and avoid direct overflights of the three visitor 

cabins within Haleakala. We did so. 
140 

November 18, 1993 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, 

House Committee on Natural Resources 

Page2 

Before our organization was formed this was a huge issue that we finally addressed 

with our noise abatement program in 1985. We voluntarily limited our overflight 

altitude ofHaleakala to 8500' and avoided flying near the visitor centers. Public law 

100-91 was never-the-less already in the works and soon mandated an altitude of 

9500' over the crater! Until the introduction ofHR1696 we had heard very little about 

complaints with park overflights. I believe that this legislation arose out of response 

to certain, very vocal citizens, concerned about residential overflights. They seem to 

believe that if we can no longer overfly the place that the tourists want most to see, 

that we won't be in the air U:l overfly their house either. In a Citizens Against Noise 

meeting that I attended six months ago this strategy was specifically discussed. I 

believe that this is incorrect, and that this legislation would actually increase the 

concentration of helicopters over residential areas as we are denied access to certain 

wilderness areas. 

You speak oflow flying aircraft. We don't have low flying aircraft over Haleakala. 

The crater floor averages about 6500' elevation which puts tour helicopters 3000 feet 

above possible hikers given the 9500 foot altitude that we are required to maintain. 

The visiU:lr center sits at the summit at 10,000 feet with a steep trail called sliding 

sands, leading down to the crater floor. The air at 10,000 is very thin and only tbose 

people of robust health are able to hike into it. We avoid flying near sliding sands 

trail. Most of our operations range from about the center of the crater (which 

measures 21 miles in circumference) to the far end, opposite that of the visitor 

centers. Last year over 173,000 people chose to view the crater from a helicopter. 

This number is exponentially higher than those that hiked the far-end trails. While 

we deeply sympathize with those who want total quiet and do our best to alleviate 

our impacts, there must be(some concession made by the few for the benefit of the 

many. 

From a preservation of natural resource~ point of view consider the impacts from foot 

traffic througffimt Haleakala. The trails show serious erosion. Native vegetation is 

trampled by foot and trash is often left behind. The national park is under intense 

pressure to erect yet another structure on the crater rim U:l acco=odate the toilet 

requirements of the visitors. Stopping helicopters from overflying the park could add 

another 170,000 more people driving to the rim. 
141 

November 18, 1993 Page 3 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

House Committee on Natural Resources 

This legislation is opposed by virtually the entire Hawaii visitor industry, the :'vlaui 

Chamber of Commerce and the mayor ofMaui county. On the basis of equal access 

precedents alone, how can you legally deny people, who could not physically see it 

otherwise, from the ability to experience :thm national park. Why deny anyone the 

freedom of choice? Rather, work with us to try and develop a solution that would be 

a win-win for everyone. How could you possibly say that such a solution could not 

be found when virtually no effort has been made to even try at the local level. 

In the past we have asked the National Park Service to advise us of any complaints. 

If there have been many complaints then they have not informed us of them. Please 

encourage the National Park Service to work with us, experiment with alternate 

routes and altitudes, and see if we can reach an accommodation before this heavy 

handed legislation is imposed. 

David Chevalier 

President 

Blue Hawaiian Helicopters 
The Honor~ble P<~tsy T. Mini< 

Congress of the United States 

House of Represent<ltives 

142 

MAUl CHAMBER 

OF COMMERCE 

2135 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington,D.C. 20515-1102 

Subject: H.R. 1696 & H .R.556 

Th<1nk you for your letter of July 2nd on this subject. 

The :vl<1ui Chamber of Commerce is an org<~nization compos<!d of over 1200 businesses 

on :vl11ui. Contrnry to your letter, by vote! of our Environmental Affnirs Committee, 

Government Affilirs Committee ~nd l3o<~rd of Directors, the M<~ui Chnmber of Comm<?rce 

hns tnken ~ position in opposition to pass<~ge of H.R. 1696. We fll<!l thM it thr<!W?ns the: 

welfare of <1 $20,000,000 industry on Maui, employing over 450 r<!sidcnts without sound 

scientific knowledge! of environmental concerns it attempts to .1 ddress. 

The Milui Ch<1mber of Comn1e:ce was never sultlld bv the Milui Countv Council oi 

Community Associations reJ~ti ve to views on the! ilbove subject and feel thilt the 

thair <~pp<~rent communicatio_l)4cu misrepresents our Ch11mber's position. 

----- T he helicopter industry on Maui has made an exemplary effort nt voluntnry noise 

mitigntion through its fly neighborly campnign over the lilst several c<~rs. This hils 

resulted in the reduction of complaints from over 450 p~r yenr to less th~n 30 to dnt<! in 

]993. M~n y of the 30 complaints ware from the silme individu~ls who demnnd nbsolute 

quiet as opposed to compromise. WrJ feel thilt if il simil~r c<~mpaign wns conducted on 

the l3 ig lsl<~nd, a similar r<!duction in noisa complnints would occur without costly and 

unnecessMy federnl rllguliltion. Some compl<~ints relating to Drug Enforct>ment Agency 

Flights wo uld howaver probably occur by necessity ilnd we would ancour<~ge the DEA 

to continue to do so. Pot growers hate helicopters. 

<~le<~kala Nntional Pnrk is enjoyed ench year by hundreds of thousilnds of visitors who 

tour it by helicopter, including the elderly nnd dis<~bled who would otherwise not be 

nble to enjoy its beauty. A frilction of this number hike the cr<~ter on foot. l person<~ll y 

have den~? it over 10 times and can attest to its difficulty for evan the most physic~lly 

fit. Hikers can and do transmit into the crilter seeds of introduc<ld species which Ciln 

cndangar the native fJcosystem. While I can hear thl' helicopters while hiking, I know 

11nd understand thnt I too impose perh11ps a greater imp«ct on the crater as I hike. 
143 

Page Two 

fiJ. 

The industry has ~mpased a 9500 foot flight level over the crater. The crater floor is 

~t the 6000 to 7500 foot level. Therefore they maintain an elevation of 2000 to 3500 feet 

over the impacted areas. This is not "thoughtless behavior" M described in your letter. 

l'crsonolly r do not believe th.at helicopters are contributing to extinction of n<ltive bird 

life. As you may know the destruction of·habitilt, invasion by <IVii\n discnses borne by 

mosquitoes, and introduced predators, including humnns, contributed to the majority of 

extinctions in native birds during Hawaii's history hundreds of years ago in most cnses. 

ContrMy to conventional hysteria, we are discovering some species thought extinct M 

the turn of this century, now nesting at Haleakala. While Hawilii is always cited in 

extinctions statistics, many neglect to identify when, how and by whom those extinctions 

took plnce. rt begiln with the first human contact with our islands. A situation which we 

c11nnot reverse. 

If the intent of the legislation is to reduce noise complaints, I believe it mily ilchicve the 

opposite result. Redirecting flights by mandate away from the natural wildarncss areas 

would tend to cause flights to be compressed into more populated areas nway from the 

n«tionnl p<~rks wilderness areas. We would see 11 rise in complaints from the !'OSidcntial 

nreas of the West Maui Mauntailu and the slopes of Haleakala outside of tha park 

boundMias which are more populated as the industry tries to comply with the proposed 

mandlltes by flying to ather areas. 

!Juring a time when bankruptcies are at a historic high and many on our island arc 

struggling to maintain their businesses and prC!serve whnt viable jobs rem~in, this 

legislntion ilppei\rs callous, burdensome, expensive to enforce nnd out of balnnce with 

the difficult realities of our times. 

There is also newer technology in the industry being tested in Hawaii today which may 

prove to be much quieter and resolve many of the complaints cited. It would be a shame 

to destroy a whale industry based on the complaints of a few. Plense reconsider your 

support of this measure in the interest of preserving jobs i\nd our struggling economy. 

Sincerely, 

Wayne N. Hedani 

President 

Mi\ui Chamber of Commerce 

cc Board of Directors, Maui Chamber of Commerce 

Board of DirC!ctors, Maui County Council of Community Associations 

Hawaii Congressional Delegation 
144 

HAWAII VISITORS BUREAl.i 

April 20, 1993 

Seruuor Daniel K. Inouye 

722 Han Senate Office Bldg. 

Washinsron, D.C. 20510-1102 

Dear Senaror, 

I wish you 10 be aware of how concerned I am about proposed legislation which would 

restrict helicopter flights over Haleak.ala Crater (HR 1696). I grant that there may be 

problems which need to be addressed in Volcanoes National Park on the Big Island, 

but surely the kind of solutions which have so well served Maui vis-a-vis helicopter 

fiyovers of Haleak.ala could be implemented ro good effect on the Big Island. The 

proposed broad brush Federallezislation is truly the wrong solution at the wrong time. 

Maui's helicopter tours represent a critical, and eminendy responsible , facet of our 

struggling visitor industry, and in addition our helicopter operarors are valued members 

of our community wbo always rise to the occasion whenever there is an emergency. 

Given the overwhelming importance of the Haleakala Oyover to their business, the 

proposed legislation has the potentialro rotally desttoy Sl8 million in Maui flighrseeing 

revenue ($36 million with multiplier, to say nothing of taX receipts), wither 250 jobs, 

and as a result erase the volunteer resources which enable Maui's much-praised DMA T 

(Disaster Medical Assistance Team) to function. 

I urge you to seek a local solution to the Big Island's problems and keep the airspace 

over Hawaii's magnificent national parks free for viewing. 

~t •t.: t \'tSI'fOtl.S BURE.•t.: • ·' CH.'\PTER OF HAWAtl VISITORS ~t:R~ 'C 

P.O. BOX li3tJ • ~.\HL LL'I. HI 96iJZ • PH: t808)871 -i>691 • ~'< : ~MHi.'J :'-i! f:f• 
145 

Thqmas L Thornton, M.D. 

P.O. Bas 745 

A/!.·n. Tum· 75002 

(214) 727-6494 

Th~ Honor ~blQ Pat~y T. ~ink 

United St4te$ Hou~e of f~~~esentativcs 

S~cond Oi~trict, Hawaii 

2135 Raybutn Hou~c 0ffit ~ilding 

wasr.1ng~on, D.c. zo,,:s-,u2 

Dear Co ngrc5swoman Mink~ 

April 27, 1993 

I have just returned tru.u a three week vacat1 ·n to Hawaii. It 

was my first time to r•turn in almost twenty ye .• rs, having lived 

on the i3lanCI o! Maul in the latot 1970 '" "'hi 1 .. teachLng at the 

Community College there and workin<J for the Sta t •· of Ha.wai 1' $ 

Health Oopal'tment as the Chief o! Child """ Aodolt~sct:nce 

Psychiatry at Children·~ Place, a branch of the Maui Mental 

Heal tl1 Department. ourl.ng my recent vacation, I ha~ the ao3 t 

exlularating and awe-insp:!.r1ng experiences of my life in being 

able to take the Ill.., Hawa11an Hel1copt:er exc~.:nnons around 

the ent.:.re island of" Maul and ov· the volcauo cratt!: ·m Hawali. 

I was able to stte firs~-nand poL·Llons of the islands I otherYi.s"' 

would never jlave been able to ••• and apprec~ate. I co:: oider 

:uyselt an active em.hronmental1st and trul'f believe t:l1 ese 

helicopcer flights ljave broadened ··•Y Ul' .1<>rscand1nq and 

appn ::: Hlt:~on o:! the 1!raqll& 8plendor and t1 :. ,·le ss beauty of 

our nat '.">n pz:'E- erved ~or all o! us in ou:r. St.;.;1te autl Nc1t...i.un.al 

Parks. r::-es1dent Theod~re Roosevelt was indee<.: a man of \IZ:8<lt 

vision and wisdom when he inacted tlle !aw "Jst"l>l i.o;;h.ing <.>ur 

Nat!.onal Park Service ta pr•serve the yrt:!ct.l ~cs.uty u! l ; • .is nw:...J.on 

!or all generations to come. Thank 9oodnees he had the foresight 

to def ine the tracts ot land 1n America's National Parks as 

public =-~otJe~ly with a vJ.e.•w to it:s pre:serv.,. tiV!" ~nd deve~opm.ent 

foL th~ ~urpcee e~ rectea~Lon and culture. 

I. wa:s CJrea.tlr :uulUen~d to lea~-n th.at you c5.r~ sP~nsorinq a bill 

to end all helicopter flights over our n~~:onal parks. I 

s~ncerely hope you wil~ recon!!ldt!r, bt:tc.a.use tan en~ to such 

!lights ·..:ill 1n no WilY protect the parks, but in fact will 

isolate ·ttlem and their qlorious heritag~ from ~o man y Americans. 

Nut only are the~e p~rtiuns of our P·~ks that ~c~ entirsly 

1JldC~~~~1b1e oth•r th•n by helicopte~ 1 b~ t t~ere ~re many 

Amer~can citizens and vi:siLor$ who .Are dl5alJle;,d, alUerly, 

medicall y handicapped or r~strict~d, o~ of to~ young an ags 

t.o c:avel l.nt.c t.he acces~1ble a:-eas of tlu~ par:k3 on toot.. Certain 

al:"eas, such as 1:he Hal.llkAla Crater on M"'u", are already being 

r~~er i solated by rept:al car companies t:h a~ !orbld in t!1e1r 

rental a9reesen~s trav~lin9 th• ro~d ~ th e ~racer in ~~e1r 

a\:~G:""'.Q :J~ . · ·:- .,. !)ec . . u~e o! t.!'Je wear on t.h ~ b":""ake.:s-. !:e..·,.·e had a 

~~':.::.~. 1 t-:19 ~'"ep13cerae~:':. i'nd :~::tv~!:-·-:·-:· *C·J;~eJ ;_ ... "V""r ;·Jl1 ·~· .:.~...:.;.an 
not. to t.~ke 

!lights over 

to exp~r ence 

146 

long hik~a o! any our nati nal parke 

their gl-d deur. 

type. Restricting 

would prevent r.y 

h!3licoptars 

tieing abla 

hope Lo mc.rv~ back t Hawaii !Some day in the nE- .lr fut.ure and 

would be <;JICr.mtly sadd ed 1! I ~auld 111 t tal: e my ·;hildren and 

<JrandchJ.ldren on }?elic p:.ar flights ove.- t!-'.r2 i !.lb• ..-..:iSI 1 tr-easure:;~ 

llo they too could exp rience thei.J: herLta<:J-= that is P"eserved 

in all our national pa ks as PrttSl.dent Roosevelt intendcJ There 

i:J ::so much cf our ma nificent natiOJ) 1.:5 physical h.t:aut.y that. 

car. ne·; er b<O fully a pr~ciated until viewed in ·,..:-$ tutality 

from above - in helico ter !lights. If w" hope fo1 our child.cen 

and thelr children to alue our lana ana v•cw 1t Wlth Yeverence 

and do a 11 in their plwer to continue to preserve 1 t . we mu~t 

allow thee~, all ot th m, regardless of age ot· ~n!irm;.t y, the 

opportun~ty to experl nca our national parks for themselves, 

by every ~afe mean~s~p~o~•~'~i~b~l;•~·==;;~~==~==~~~~~~~~~~--~--~~-- Curing my three and aj half years of 1l1tary service 1n the 

Utat.ec! States Air forc1, I served as a flight surqeon fot· the 

20TH 'Ia<.:Lical Fighte? ommand as a art o! our NA';:o r · . .rces in 

England. A" pad: ur '" flyin~ re irernents, I was e>epected to 

fly a m~nirnum of !our ours each onth in all typo~ o! aircraft 

statl.onet..l on my base. This, o -.:ourse, included L-tlng in the 

ba:5e helicopters wh!ch were o v1.tal to all rescue m1ss1ons. 

A~ pa.:t o! Lh., ... r dddy tra 1ng, the helicopters !lew ovar all 

parts v! Lll<1 En9lish co trya1da without a single compla~nt 

<.:>< suo,j~'"'l:l.on they caur. any type of harr.1 or no1se that was 

but.h .. .:,.uu., to wildlife people, or !arm anJ.mals. As a !li9ht 

surgeon, I was also r " on:sible Cor monitorlng all noise levels, 

as well a~ any thing el e that might prove to be ,. env ironmental 

h.:>zard, and I can assutoo you fr01:, A professional vanta9e point 

that the uoi~e f m a hlel i copter rc:~oacse.: s absolutely no dan9er 

to e1.t.he!:" the o1:a oc !Guua ln uur national parks. o:- :11S fact 

is on,. t ! ... t c: · u IJ" redllily verl!ied by the School o! ·rOIIFace 

Mt:nl.i..<.;.iUtS rooks Air Force ease 1n san Ant.onio, Tc.:..x.as, the 

American :l.cal Associat:ion, or the t;nv1ror.::1 entsl Protection 

1\gency. 

I beg you to recon:sid.r your po~.it.1on on hel.1copter t~19h'C• 

over our nat~onal parka'and t c withdraw your bill l1mit1nq those 

t~~yhL!:S a~ well as tl1e res :.:. ~·1ct1on on distancea helicopters 

cun !ly o!f A~er>cdn sho~elines. 

If ! can be of any furth.a:r assistcsnce in t.his m. • •··)r or in any 

matter conce~ning tl1~ p~~~~rvaliu11 of our sacred NA~~onal parks, 

or . Hawa.:..:. in partiCUl.lrl· please !eel free to contact m~>. I love 

thJ.:~ count::y antl will art.icipate in any w~y to prt:o . ·rve 1t.s 

natural beauty and \l$QUl Cii~ !uL- my generation o.lnd all 

9enerat~ r.r. ~ that followa 
147 

Sincerely, 

Thoma~ L. Thornton, ~-D~ 

cc; President Rill Clin{n c~ Pre5ident Al G re 

~e dk~r ol the Hou~ ot Representatives 

Secretary of the In erior, Mr. Bruce Babbitt 

Chairman, Natural R sources Commi.tL.,e, Mr. Geor9e Miller 

Mr. James Ridenour, o01rector, NatH't:a l P<>.rks and Wildlife 

Services 

S~nator Lloyd Rcnts~n 

Sen~tor Bob Krcuq~r 

Senator Pbil Graham~ 

Representative Sam 1?hn~on 

llepre!lentlltive Dick .Arm•:y 

RP.pr.P.~entative Joe ~rton R~present11.t1ve John 'Bryant 

Governor Anne Richais, State of Texas cver~or John Waiho 1 State of Hawaii 

L: :Hla Crookatt Li.no,! 1 Mayor, County of Maui 

Mr. Stanley Konq, P s1ucnt, Hawaii Visitor~ Bureau 

Mr. Roger Dubin, Ex ut:va Director, Maui v ,sitors Bureau 

Mr. Ken Johnston, Elljacutiva Diract.•: r, Hawai ~ Viait r.s Bureau 

Tom K1ely 1 Executiv~ Ulrector Walk~ki/Oahu V1s1tol As ,uc. 

Joan (.;Utl!p, Nationajl Director Of Meetings & Conv•wtiu''" 

Ma~le Semitekol, Ex~ut1ve Dlrector, Kouai Visitur~ Bu~&au 

National lleadquarter.a, American Asso·ciation ot Jtetired 

Persons 

Editor, MAUI, This ~ek Magazine 

Editor,"Lahaina New~ 

Cl'leryl Chae 'l'sutsum.C, Editor/Associate Publial'ler 

'rh• Ial,tndD of Aloha 

£d tor, Al.oha, The aazJ.naoC Kawai1 andthe ~...!.!.!£ 

Pe t er Dease, Chica9 Re9ional Director, HVB 

Gene Wilhelm, Los Aq.,eles Regional Director, !IV!I 

Bryan Murphy, New Yqrk Regional Director, HVB 

Anne tiOlt, San Frantsco aeq1onal Director, HVII 

John Takahaahi., J'"P R .. 91onal Directo•, HVB 

tielena Lee, Honq Ko Reylunal Director, HV8 Val~r~~ J. Arends, ~.x. D~rectQr, HVB 

Da v id Lovel~, Auscr~~A Regional Director, HVB 

claude Leru1eee, ae~1.um Rapre•ent .. l'-ive:=, HV5 

BE:rt P. Oll1··,! 1ar, C ada Sa1tt8 M.anagflr, HVB 

Hans Regh, Germany prese:nlaLlv~, HVJ3 

Ja e P. Sho, Kort=d Rt:! 1onul D1ructor, HVB 

C! ~rr y Lea, Malay$i~ Regional D1recto~, HVa 

..:ana tl1an :ll.ssons 1 Ne...,- z.ealand Reyiunal Oir~ctor, HVB 

A. .l.v J.Jto. Anq, SJ.ngopor~ Reqionol Director, UVD 

lln da Chiang, Td1w8n Reg1cnol Oirccto r f HVB 
148 

JAMESM.RATH """-'-

COU~"TY COU"'{C!L 

April 22, 199J 

The Honorable Patsy Mink 

County of Hawari. 

HawaJi Cot~nty Burldi11g 

25 .~upuni Strctt 

Hllo. Hawaii 96i20 

u.s. House of Represer.ta~:ves 

2135 Rayburn House Office Bldg. 

Washlngton, D.C. 20515 

Oear Rep:es~ntative Mi~k: 

r want to thank you for you: efforts that helped to destroy a 

10~ million dollar industry in Hawaii, helicopte~ and air tours. 

0:: behalf, of over 200 people that will lose their jobs on my 

Island, ! wou!d also like to thank you. They will now, as the 

Sugar Workers, ~o longer have to get up and go to work everyday. 

They can s:t in the comfort of th~ir Sec~ion 8 Sousing, watch 

daytime TV, and wait for the Welfare Caseworker to stop by. 

Your farsighted~ess in stopping Part 91 ope~ators !rom being in 

the Air Tour business has fully eliminated the chance for any 

:oca: peop~e from s~a:t~~g a smal~ business and gtowing. 

As our historic industries of sugar, cattle~ macadamia nut, 

coffee, fruits and flowgrs have taken a nose dive, it is nice ~o 

know that we are now rea:Ly working hard on the destr~ction of ':'our ism. 

I ca~ not stress hew impcrtant it is that the tourist nQt see t~e 

beauty of our Is!and. We do not want them returning to their homes and causing other paople to come. In no way, should they 

be allowed to see a~ active volcano from the comfort and s~fety 

of a tour helicopter or airplane. This may result in them having 

•the experience of a lifetime• ... and you Know how people are .... they wil: ~ell all their friends, and then we will have to put up with more ~appy tourists. 
Tbe Bonorabl~ Patsy Mink 

April 22, 1993 

Page Two (2) 

149 

In addition, the helicopter tours are causing a great deal of s~rtss for our pot growers. They are l iving under the constant worry that any hel i copter or plane, no matter how tar overhead, cou l d be 'Operation Gree sweep' . I am glad you have the vision to r ealize that thi s is our number one i ndustry, and that tourism s hould, rightfully, tak~ a back seat to t he pot growing i ndustry. 

I am overjoyed that we are restricting airspace. It i s critical 

that we elimi nate all ~reedoms that Americans enjoy. Airs pace, as you know, should be totally restricted !or birds. Just 

imagine how great it would be if we could eliminate all 

aircraft . That most assuredly would pu ~ a halt to this 

bot hersome tourism business. 

I gleefully await the day when we are all ftither government wor kers or supported by the government . All this bu ine ~ i~ 

really bothersome and unhealthy. 

I appla ud you in ignori~g t he statistics for Tour Helico~~~= 

saf ety . Pl ease, Patsy, don·~ ever let it come ~ut at~\$ ls one of the safest things you can do on acatio~. 

V! va the ~vul utio ! 

~-,th bes• regard:>, 

. 

h 

0 NCIL .. AN 

P .s. Hope you don't mine a bit of humor::: 

87-820 0 - 95 - 6 
·· - · .. ----·-- ··- -- . . ,. 1 . i · 

; .. ~ta-')3 • · · · · · • 

Plan to restrtct copters on Btg 

By Hagh Clark 

Adveniser Big Jsl•nd Buruu 

HILO, Hawaii - The Hawaii 

County Council yesterday 

killed a resolution backing a federal bill proposed by U.S. 

Rep. Patsy Mink to restrict helicopter rtlghts over Hawaii 

Volcanoes National Park. 

The resolution, Introduced by 

Councilwomen Keiko Bonk· 

Abramson and Helene Hale, waa rejeeted on a 7·2 vote af· 

ter heated debate with their 

sometime allies, Kona Republi· cans Jim Hath and Keola 

Childs. 

Hath, a pilot who was ac· cused by Bonk-Abramson of a conflict of interest, said the 

Mink bill represented "crazy 

over-regulation. • He said what ·is needed to curb abuses by 

tour pilots Is better Federal 

Aviation Administration regula· 

tion. 

Childs called the Mink bill a "sledgehammer" approach. He 

said lack of FAA presence on the Big Island Is the problem. 

Voting for the resolution were Bonk-Abramson and 

Hale, and voting against were Hath, 'Childs, Brian De Lima, 

Kalan! Schutte, James Arakaki, 

Tadashl Domingo, and Bob 

Rosehill. 

Hale said she was cmbar· 

rassed that her five Democratic 

male colleagues were abandon· 

lng Mink. De Lima shot back 

that he was not a knee-jerk 

partisan and was voting his 

conscience. Supporters of ttie re

were dismayed by th

saying that informal 

menta between helicop

panics and the national 

restrict flights over t

have been unenforceabl

De Lima said the Co

interested in passenger 

but believes an earlier 

tion urging the indu

work out a compromi

the national park is su

to deal. with the problem

But Dan Taylor, acti

superintendent of Haw

canoes National Par

most of the national 

complaints to helicopter 

nic~ have been deflecte

nored. 
151 

SUBCOMM!TIEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

HOUSE COMMITIEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

TESTIMONY ON HR 1696 

Given by ELLING HALVORSON 

NOVEMBER 18, 1993 

My name is Elling Halvorson. I am the President of Papillon Airways, Inc. 

which comprises Papillon Hawaiian Helicopters and Papillon Grand Canyon 

Helicopters. I also represent the Helicopter Association International as 

Chairman of the Helicopter Tour Operators Committee. 

Papillon Helicopters operates in Hawaii and Grand Canyon; therefore, I will be 

able to answer some questions regarding the Grand Canyon, if you so desire. 

I have been close to this issue for a long time and although I recognize that this 

hearing was established to discuss Mink Bill HR 1696 there has been much 

discussion today regarding the Grand Canyon and whether or not the 

regulations established at the Grand Canyon have worked and whether or not 

there has been compliance by the operators with regard to the Grand Canyon 

regulations. 

Inasmuch as questions were asked to others who did not have the answer on 

these issues, I would like to preface my remarks on the Mink Bill with a few 

comments regarding the Grand Canyon overflight issue. 

We have been flying helicopters in the Grand Canyon for well over thirty (30) 

years. Airplanes have been flying the Grand Canyon for nearly seventy (70) 

years, approximately the same length of time the National Park has been 

established. There was a time when the aviators flying the Grand Canyon were 

insensitive to the rights and desires of others who wanted to use the Canyon in 

a different way. I believe our company, and even myself, have been guilty of 

this. In approximately 1985 we operators at the Grand Canyon, became more 

sensitive to the overflight issues of sound in the Grand Canyon. In an effort to 

mitigate the impact on the Canyon, our company and all of the operators at the 

Grand Canyon who operated out of the Grand Canyon National Park Airport, 

attempted to satisfy the interests of the environmental community and the 

National Park Service, by re-routing all flights and eliminating flights over the 
152 

Bright Angel corridor, the Grand Canyon Village, and many other areas that 

the National Park Setvice indicated were sensitive. 

Legislation was passed in 1987 in the form of Public Law 100-91 directing the 

National Park Sexvice to substantially restore natural quiet to the Grand 

Canyon. I testify to you today, in unequivocal terms, that there has been 

substgptial restoration of natural quiet to the Grand Canyon National Park 

since the time that legislation was prompted to be passed for this issue. I 

recognize that most everyone involved in this issue at the present time was not 

involved at the Grand Canyon National Park when there was tour aircraft 

sound virtually everywhere. It is possible now, however, to go to the rim of the 

Grand Canyon, traverse the entire length of roads and outlooks without 

hearing aircraft noise. Only at the extreme ends will you find any impact of 

discernible aircraft noise from tour aircraft. 

In response to the question asked with reference to compliance, I am pleased to 

advise that on an overall basis there is better than ninety-seven percent (97%) 

compliance and that the violations of airspace are primarily by transient 

aircraft not familiar with the regulations. Compliance from the tour operators 

who regularly fly into the Grand Canyon is virtually one hundred percent 

(100%). It is rare that there is any violation, and when it has occurred, it has 

been unintentional or weather related. The industry is sensitive for the need to 

comply and has demonstrated willingness over and over again. 

Now I would like to speak to the Mink Bill by taking a little different approach 

than other speakers have taken. 

1. Why do people come to the Grand Caayon and take an aircraft 

flight? 

They do so, interestingly enough, for the same reasons people hike the 

Canyon or camp in the Canyon - and that is, to get a closer and more 

comprehensive meeting with nature. This is best expressed by the unsolicited 

comments in the guest register at each heliport or airplane operation. These 

comments range all the way from "spiritual" to "awesome· or "super natural" . 

The advent of the aircraft has given man the opportunity of a new perspective 

to behold the Canyon in an encompassing way. 

2. Eco-Touriam 

Only recently have people started to recognize that flying the Grand 

Canyon is, truly, the eco-sensitive way of viewing the Canyon. In this regard, I 

have received an unsolicited letter from a gentleman who is obviously employed 

in the environmental community. I thought this letter was significant because 

it expresses in an extremely cognizant manner how an aircraft tour fits into the 
153 

eco-tourism concej?t of preserving environmentally sensitive areas. I will read 

into the record two (2) paragraphs of that letter, but will attach the entire letter 

to my written statement: 

"I was particularly impressed by the ability of the tour to access remote and 

beautiful places in the interior mountains and secluded coastlines we passed 

over. Many of the places we saw could not have been otherwise seen. Having 

just participated (sic "in") a conference in Honolulu which dealt with nationally 

important environmental issues, including the emerging concept of eco-tourism, I 

realized ti!at a Papillon sightseeing tour fits perfectly into the eco-tourism model; it 

provides public access to a valuable resource without compromising the ecological 

integrity of the resource. 

A Papillon tour provides a visually and physically exciting experience, 

without the direct physical impact on the resource that attracts visitors in the first 

place. This protects the integrity of the ecosystems visited, and ensures the 

resource can be enjoyed by future generations of visitors. While eco-tourism is a 

relatively new concept, it appears Papillon has been promoting environmentally 

sensitive tourism all along." 

Often times we have to remind ourselves of the obvious, that aircraft do not 

create any trails; cause any resultant erosion, (which is a significant problem 

in certain of our national parks); there are no side trails or people wandering 

off trails to trample vegetation, leaving human waste behind, dropping refuse 

such as plastic, paper and metal; no people leaving foreign seeds, human 

scents, voices calling, echoes, etc. In a pure environmental approach to the 

subject there is even some question as to the advisability of having trails. in 

certain sensitive areas. ·. 

We heard one lady from the Sierra Club speak today who indicated numerous 

conclusions regarding the impact of aircraft on animals. I wish to respond that 

these are unfounded statements and that there has been no conclusive 

evidence that there is any biological effect on wildlife from aircraft noise. In 

fact, the U. S. Forest Service in the study they completed in 1992, concluded 

that overflights impose only negligible risks of consequential biological effects 

on wildlife. The Forest Service spent over a million dollars on this study and 

came to the same conclusion that has been established time and again in the 

past. I am enclosing, for the record, three (3) pages entitled "Rebuttal to Issue 

of Environmental Imoacts of Overflights". This rebuttal is from the National 

Forest Service study. 

3. Who fiiea iD Hawaii? 

There is a lot of speculation that the Pacific Rim visitors to Hawaii 

comprise the bulk of people flying. Actually, hat is not true. Eastbound traffic 
154 

to Hawaii provide!. approximately eight percent (8%) of the volume of people 

who take scenic helicopter tours in Hawaii. Ninety-two percent (92%) of all 

people who fly in Hawaii are citizens representing middle America people. They 

are the active, the inactive, the able, the lame, the young, and the elderly. They 

are a general cross section of all people in the United States. The cost of a 

helicopter flight in Hawaii is approximately the same as a round of golf, so 

anyone who can afford a round of golf can afford a helicopter flight in Hawaii. 

4. The economic impact. 

While Hawaii is experiencing a downturn in visitation and is desperately 

in need of more tourists, the discussion today centers around a bill that, if 

enacted, would severely damage the largest single elective activity that tourists 

select. Approximately nine dollars ($9.00) from every person who steps off an 

airplane in Hawaii goes toward a helicopter flight. It is extremely important for 

the hotels in Hawaii and the tourism industry of Hawaii to have high-quality 

activities of interest to the tourists. Contrary to what we heard this morning, I 

am sure there has never been a tourist who has refused to go to Hawaii 

because there are helicopter flights in Hawaii. To the contrary, there are 

virtually thousands of people who are excited about going to Hawaii because 

they can take a helicopter flight, they have done it before, or have been told by 

their peers what a wonderful and beautiful experience it is. More often than 

not it is the highlight of their Hawaiian vacation. This is a fact. 

5. What has the industry done? 

Has it responded to the complaints of noise? Yes. The complaints have 

come primarily from residential communities hear or on the route to the scenic 

areas shown by helicopter. In these areas the helicopter operators have 

established a fly neighborly program that has mandatory penalties, specific 

altitudes and stand-off distances around sensitive areas. This has worked very 

well in most locations. On the Big Island of Hawaii, however, I am advised that 

roughly one-third of the flight hours flown over the Big Island are flown by the 

public use sector, which is not tour operators. This includes the flights that 

are made continuously every day for drug interdiction, police work, military, 

rescue, etc. All of these flights are made at very low altitude and are oftentimes 

interpreted to be scenic tours. We have had a number of complaints regarding 

scenic tour operations when there have been no aircraft in the area. 

HHOA has established telephone hot lines for complaints. They have 

established a calibrated camera program whereby anyone who has repeated 

complaints is provided a camera calibrated to establish altitudes and stand-off 

distances. There have been numerous meetings with the F.A.A. and the National 

Park Service in an effort to formulate an agreement regarding the sensitive 

areas of the National Park. The Hawaii Flight Operators Association has 
155 

established strict mutes of departure, approach, and altitudes which are subject 

to change from time to time as problem areas may be redefined. 

Most recently the Hawaii Flight Operators Association has been installing the 

NAPES {Noise/ Nuisance Abatement Performance Evaluation System). This 

system provides continuous monitoring every few seconds of every aircraft that 

is so equipped. It reports the location and altitude within the very close 

tolerance of a few feet, which is superimposed on a map of the area flown. This 

system, when finally installed and operable, will be utilized on all tour aircraft 

to control location and altitude of each aircraft. It will be easy to establish any 

violations. HHOA has significant mandatory penalties for any violators. The 

penalties have been utilized in the past. HHOA also has advertised, monthly 

meetings at which time any people with complaints may feel free to meet with 

the operators and express their concerns or problems. The operators then, in 

good faith, respond. 

Finally, I would like to respond to the HB 1696 itself. The Bill, I believe, in its 

present form is ill-founded and should not be passed for the following reasons. 

A. It is redundant and counteractive at this point in time to Public 

Law 100-91 which provides that the National Park Service will 

submit a study and a plan to the Congress of the United States for 

action to substantially reduce aircraft noise at National Parks 

throughout the United States. This includes the state of Hawaii. 

It is not appropriate to present new legislation until that study is 

complete. 

B. The legislation as it presently exists has associated costs 

to administer and monitor. With the present attitude 

of conservative spending by the American citizens, it is not 

advisable for money to be allocated on this issue. It would 

increase the number of government employees needed for 

monitoring purposes. There is no benefit that could not 

be achieved by other cooperative means. 

C. Legislation always promotes conflict in the interpretation of the 

legislation and requires regulations on top of regulations. 

D. There is no provision of incentive for quiet aircraft. Quiet aircraft 

are coming. NASA last week announced a new design of 

rotor blades constructed from carbon fiber. They have a 

much lower sound threshold and have some absorptive qualities. 

The helicopter manufacturers are presently working on ways to 

reduce sound and are developing sound cancelling frequency 
156 

systeF.s to cancel the noise created by turning rotors and 

propellers. This technology is expanding very fast at the present 

time and we should not "'throw out the baby with the bath water", 

so to speak, because quiet aircraft ue comlDg. At such point in 

time there can be absolutely no more environmentally kind way to 

show Hawaiian visitors the beautiful sights, many of which are 

totally inaccessible by means other than aircraft. 

In closing, this legislation is not supported by the visitor industry of Hawaii. It 

is not supported by many of the people in Hawaii, including the 1,000 directly 

employed in the business. It is not supported by the mayor of Maui or the 

mayor of the Big Island. It is not supported by the Maui Chamber of 

Commerce or the Big Island Chamber of Commerce. It is not supported by the 

County Council of the Big Island. It is not supported by the Maui County 

Council. 

This legislation is not good for Hawaii. It is premature and does not have 

foresight for the future. 

_z;;}iiZZ~ili·~=·"" President and C.E.O. Papillon Airways, Inc. 

Chairman, H.A.I. Helicopter Tour Operators Committee 

EH/jdc 

Encjas stated 
August 11, !993 

Mr. Ellinz Halvorson 

Papillion Airw:.ys, Inc. 

12515 Willows Rd. N.E. 

Suite ZOO 

Kirkbnd, W A 9&034 

Dear. Mr. Halvorson; 

157 

'Trent ~ . .schnelder 

11 Si.xth Sb'oet 

'Wadtng ~twr. 'Nl! 11 7!1 z 

I wanted to share with you my impressions of the sightseeing tour my wife and 1 took on a 

Papillion helicopter while visiting the Hawaiian i~l~n<h reo;:enliy. First, I must say the tour 

was one of the highlight~ of the trip! Your ground and flight staff were courteous and 

professional, and made us feel welcome and secure throughout the e,xperience. The 

helicopter was comfortable and smooth in flight, and the sound track and pilot narration 

added greatly to our enjoyment of the flight. 

I was particularly impressed by the ability of the tour to access remote and beautiful places 

in the interior mountains :~.nd secluded coa.stlines we passed over. Many of the places we 

saw could not have been otherwise seen. Having just participated a conference in 

Honolulu which dealt with no.tiono.lly import>.nt environmenta.l issues, including the 

emerging concept of ec<Hourism, I realized that a Papillion sightseeing tour fits perfectly 

into the ec:o-tourism model; it provides public acce« to a valuable resource without 

compromising the ecological integrity of the resourf. 

The case study used at the conference was Hanauma Day, a popular diving spot on Oahu; 

while they are beginning to make progress in protecting the resource there, a quick visit 

shows the ecosystem is already degraded. By limiting the number of people they allow into 

the pule, the state is attempting co r~mblish th~ reef and fish populations, but the very 

fact that people still swim and dive there ensures that the system will never fully recover. 

A Papillion tour provides a visually and physically exciting experience, without the direct 

physical impact on the resource that amacr~ vi~iror~ in the first piau. This protects the 

integrity of the ecosystems visited, and ensures the r~ource can be enjoyed by fuc:ure 

generations of visitors. While ceo-tourism is a rdatively new concept. it appears Papillion 

bas been promoting environmentally sensitive tourism all along. 

Th3nk you for the opportunity to see part of Hawaii we would otherwise have missed! 

Sincerely, 

~!2.}c4~ · 

Trent R. Schneider 
158 

REBUITAL TO ISSUE OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF OVERFLIGHTS 

Mr. Chairman, in July 1992, the Forest Service 

submitted to Congress the most comprehensive study of 

overflights of wilderness areas which has ever been 

undertaken. I would like to quote some of the findings 

from that report. 

1. "Aircraft noise intrusions did not appreciably impair 

surveyed wilderness users ov~rall enjoyment of their 

visits to wilderness nor reduce their reported 

likelihood of repeat visits." 

2. "Overflights were only rarely cited as the least-liked 

feature of visits to wilderness." 
159 

-2-

3. ''between 1979 and 1989, [only] three incidents were 

reported in which aircraft were reported to have 

caused accidents to people on the ground .... " 

4. "the study led to the conclusion that overflights 

generally pose negligible risks of consequential 

biological effects on wildlife." 

5. "Many Americans, who cannot travel on foot or 

horseback, value and wish to see the beauties of 

wilderness. For such persons, scenic overflights may 

be the only experience available to them." 
160 

-3-

These studies, completed over a several year period at 

a cost of over a million dollars, provide ample evidence 

that statements about negative impacts of overflights are 

unfounded. 
161 

G R A N D c A N y 0 N T R u 

1400 16th Street, N. WI, Suite 300 

!X'usbinl{ton, D.C. 20036 

( 202 j 797- '542 9 

The Honorable Bruce F. Vento 

u. s. House of Representatives 

2304 Rayburn Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congressman Vento: 

December 7, 1993 

I was pleased to attend the hearing of the subcommittee 

on national parks, forests and public lands on November 18, 

1993 regarding HR 1696, proposed legislation to protec t 

units of the national park system in Hawaii from the adverse 

effects of noise from overflying aircraft. The Grand Canyon 

Trust attended the hearing because of our longstanding 

interes t and expe rience in the issue of overflights of 

national park lands on the Colorado Plateau, in particular 

increasing overflights at Grand Canyon National Park and the 

proposed expa nsion of helicopter facilities at Grand canyon 

Nationa l Pa rk Airport. 

As y o u are awa re , the FAA has granted nearly one 

mil lion doll a rs to the Arizona Department of Transportation 

(ADOT) to e xpand helicopter facilities at the airport 

immediately south of Grand canyon National Park, the primary 

purpo s e of which will be to accommodate increasing demand 

for air tours over the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon Trust 

believes that the proposed expansion violates the National 

Park Overflights Act and that the FAA's grant was in 

violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, Section 

4(f) of the Transportation Act , and FAA's own environme ntal 

guidelines. We believe it would be imprudent for the 

expansion to proceed until the National Park Service (NPS) •s 

studies of aircraft noise over the Grand Canyon a re 

completed, probably in the next two or three months. 

The record of the s ubcommittee hearing on November 18, 

1993 may n ot accurately reflect the extent of the NPS's and Department of the Interi or's efforts to work with the FAA to 

protect the natural quiet and solitude of the Grand Canyon, 

as mandated by the National Parks Overflights Act. NPS 

representatives have been diligent and unwavering in their 

efforts to prevent expansion of the helicopter tour 

operations until the NPS's noise studies are complete. As 

early as 1988, the NPS opposed the FAA grant to ADOT. In 

recent months, Department of the Interior representatives 

have written to and met with various members of the 

s T 
The Honorable Bruce F. Vento 

December 7, 1993 

Page 2 

162 

Department of Transportation and the FAA. At this time, there 

have been no formal responses at either the Department or agency 

level. In particular, on August 2, 1993, secretary of the 

Interior Bruce Babbitt wrote to Secretary of Transportation 

Federico Pena, requesting Secretary Pena to ensure that no 

expansion of helicopter operations occur until completion of the 

NPS studies. On July 30, 1993, National Park service Director 

Roger Kennedy wrote to Acting FAA Administrator Joseph Del Balzo 

asking the FAA to cooperate with the NPS in an agreement to allow 

helicopter operations to relocate to the airport without 

expansion. Most recer.tly, on October 25, 1993, Assistant 

Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks George 

Frampton wrote to FAA Administrator David Hinson asking for 

cooperation between the FAA and NPS as well. Copies of this 

correspondence are enclosed. 

Under existing law, the FAA clearly has the authority to regulate airspace to protect the environment, as well as to 

promote air traffic safety and commerce. With flights burgeoning over many units of the National Park system besides Grand Canyon, 

the FAA must recognize that these national treasures deserve 

protection from aircraft noise pollution and take appropriate 

action now. The FAA's failure to act to protect the Grand Canyon 

raises serious jurisdictional questions concerning the 

administration of airspace over units of the National Park 

System. 

The Grand Canyon Trust respectfully requests that the record 

of the November 18, 1993 subcommittee hearing be amended to reflect the strong efforts of both the National Park Service and 

Department of the Interior to elicit cooperation from the FAA and 

Department of Transportation in protecting the natural quiet of 

the Grand Canyon. Thank you. 

Enclosures 

cc: Sandy Scott V' 

Barbara West 

Destry Jarvis 

Wes Henry 

Sincerely, 

~~Galton Gale 

Director of Government Affairs 
1~ 

A G R E E M E N T 

between 

the HAWAII HELICOPTER OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, 

HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK, 

and the FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

This agreement is among and between the HAWAII HELICOPTER 

OPERATORS ASSOCIATION and its members, hereinafter referred to as "H.H.O.A.", the HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK, hereinafter 

referred to as "HVNP", and the FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

hereinafter referred to as "FAA". 

WHEREAS, it is the purpose of H.H.O.A. to promote sound abatement 

and air safety within the helicopter industry in HAWAII and to 

work with individuals, communities, private and public 

associations and agencies, and others, to resolve issues of concern relating to the helicopter industry in HAWAII, and 

WHEREAS, it is the purpose of the HVNP to promote the public use of and to administer Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, hereinafter 

referred to as "PARK", to conserve the scenery, the natural and 

historic objects, and the wildlife therein and to provide for the 

enjoyment of same in such manner and by such means as will leave 

them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations as provided for in the Act of August 25, 1916 (U.S.C. Section 1 et 

seq.), and 

WHEREAS, HVNP manages within its boundaries 123,000 acres of land 

designated for protection under the National Wilderness 

Preservation System, "where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does 

not remain." further, wilderness is, "an area of undeveloped 

Federal land retaining its primeval character and 

influence .•. affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the 

imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable .•. [and 

providing] outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive 

and unconfined type of recreation," as provided for in the Act of 

Congress, September 4, 1964 (PL 88-577), and 

WHEREAS, it is the function of the FAA to provide for the 

regulation and promotion of civil aviation in such manner as to 

best foster its development and safety, and to provide for the 

safe and efficient use of the airspace within the United States, as provided for in the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, and 

WHEREAS, the H.H.O.A., HVNP, and FAA recognize that helicopter 

tours provide an alternative means for visitors to enjoy certain areas of the PARK and a means to comply with Federal laws for 

providing equal access to the PARK by the disabled, elderly, 

etc., and 

1 
1M 

WHEREAS, tour helicopters flying at low altitudes may disrupt some visitors' enjoyment of the PARK, and may adversely affect 

native wildlife, and 

WHEREAS, the H.H.O.A., HVNP, and FAA, while recognizing the 

public freedom of transit of the navigable airspace, desire to 

act in cooperation to reduce potential problems relating to 

overflights of helicopter tours in the PARK. 

NOW THEREFORE, 

I. The H.H.O.A. agrees as follows: 

A. To conduct flights in accordance with the H.H.O.A., 

HVNP, FAA Helicopter Tour Management Plan, hereinafter 

referred to as the "PLAN", as revised. 

B. To incorporate the PLAN into the H.H.O.A. Mandatory Fly 

Neighborly Program. 

C. To instruct its pilots about this agreement in 

accordance with the H.H.O.A. Mandatory Fly Neighborly 

Program. 

D. To take action in the event of suspected and/or 

substantiated infractions of this agreement in 

accordance with the H.H.O.A. Mandatory Fly Neighborly 

Program. 

II. HVNP agrees as follows: 

A. To notify H.H.O.A. through its contact or the 

Helicopter Helpline of suspected infractions of this 

agreement. 

B. To notify the other parties if problems are found with 

this agreement or its effects. 

III. The FAA agrees as follows: 

A. To evaluate the effects of this agreement and to make 

recommendations, if necessary, relating to safety and 

air space management issues. 

B. To assist H.H.O .A. and HVNP in notifying other 

commercial, military, governmental, and private users of the airspace covered by this agreement of its 

provisions. 

C. Confirmation of and penalties for violations of the 

PLAN shall be handled by H.H.O.A., in accordance with 

the H.H.O.A. Mandatory Fly Neighborly Program. FAA 

2 
165 

will provide information to H.H.O.A. and work with 

H.H.O.A. to gather information which can be used in 

this endeavor. 

IV. The H.H.O.A., HVNP, and FAA jointly agree as follows: 

A. To meet as a group with the other parties annually, or more often if necessary, to review and/or revise this 

agreement. 

B. To designate one authorized representative each, who 

will prepare, review, and, when necessary, revise the 

PLAN on behalf of the parties. 

C. To abide by the conditions set forth in the PLAN. The 

definitions contained within this agreement also apply 

to the PLAN. 

D. Maintain ongoing communication with the other parties as it relates to this agreement and the PLAN. 

V. If any of the parties feels it is necessary to modify this 

agreement, they shall notify the other parties in writing of 

the specific change(s) desired, with proposed language and 

the reason(s) therefore. If the proposed change(s) require new flight corridors or patterns, the parties will negotiate 

them in a timely manner. The proposed change(s) shall 

become effective upon agreement of all the parties. 

VI. This agreement shall become effective on the latest 

signature date below and shall remain in effect 

indefinitely, unless one or more of the parties terminates 

involvement as outlined below. 

VII. Any party to this agreement may terminate involvement in it 

by providing thirty (30) days written notice to the other 

parties. In such case, this agreement will also terminate. 

VIII. For the purpose of facilitating communications in 

implementing this agreement, each party has identified 

the following key contact official: 

H.H.O.A. 

HVNP 

FAA 

3 
1~ 

HAWAII HELICOPTER OPERATORS ASSOCIATION 

By: Its_: __________________________________ _ 

Date 

HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK 

By: 

Its~:----------------------------------- Date 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

By : Its~:----------------------------------- Date 

HHHVNP.C1 3931-01 

4 
167 

HAWAII HELICOPTER OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, HAWAII VOLCANOES 

NATIONAL PARK, and FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

TOUR HELICOPTER MANAGEMENT PLAN 

This Tour Helicopter Management Plan ("PLAN") was prepared by the 

authorized representatives of H.H.O.A, HVNP, and FAA, as prescribed in Section IV. B. of the Agreement ("AGREEMENT") 

between them. · 

1. SUPERSEDURE AND EXEMPTIONS: No pilot will jeopardize the 

safety of his/her passengers or the general public to stay 

within the parameters outlined in this PLAN. The PLAN's 

procedures will be superseded when conditions of safety so dictate. No provision of this PLAN shall be interpreted or applied in any way contrary to the FARs. 

2. RESTRICTED AREAS AND MINIMUM STANDOFF DISTANCES: Restricted areas are defined in the H.H.O.A. Mandatory Fly Neighborly 

Program and are not the same as defined in the FARs. For 

the purpose of this agreement, a "Restricted Area" is one which contains air space identified by an area on the 

surface of the earth within which the flight of aircraft, 

while not wholly prohibited, is subject to restrictions. 

The action normally taken in Restricted Areas will be as follows: All helicopter tours will remain at a minimum 

standoff distance when flying in or around Restricted Areas. 

For further clarification, a tour must be flown at the 

minimum altitude above ground ("AGL") if the pilot must fly 

directly over a Restricted Area. If a pilot is in the 

vicinity of, but does not intend to enter a Restricted Area, 

he/she needs to remain the same minimum standoff distance 

away from the Restricted Area, regardless of flight 

altitude. 

There are two types of Restricted Areas applicable to this 

agreement and denoted on Exhibit A: 

R-1, Yellow; Minimum standoff distance of 1500 feet 

R-2, Pink; Minimum standoff distance of 3000 feet 

HVNP considers the Restricted Areas denoted on Exhibit A as sensitive to sight and sound of aircraft. Pilots are strongly advised not to enter Restricted Areas or the air 

space above them except under conditions described in Item 

1. above. 

3. PRIMARY, SECONDARY, AND TERTIARY CORRIDORS: Lines for 

primary (green), secondary (orange), and tertiary (blue) 

corridors do not depict exact routes, but rather the general 

passageway in which tour helicopters operate. Depending on 

1 
168 

specific locale, these corridors may be as narrow as one 

mile or as wide as five or more miles. Primary corridors 

are the first choice and are to be used the vast majority of 

the time. Secondary corridors are used as alternatives in 

the event weather conditions preclude the use of primary 

corridors. Tertiary corridors are usea as alternatives in 

the event weather conditions preclude the use of primary or 

secondary corridors. By their nature, secondary and 

tertiary corridors will, on an annualized basis, be used far 

less times than primary ones. 

A. The primary corridors within the PARK and denoted on 

Exhibit A are further described as follows: 

1) A corridor running north and south from the area 

of the Puu Oo vent to the area of Kamoamoa. 

2) For Volcano Heli-Tours only; A corridor from the 

Volcano Heli-Tour heliport, conforming to the 

provisions of the heliport permit as required by 

the County of Hawaii Planning Commission within 

one mile of the heliport, across the Ka'u Desert 

no nearer than 2000 feet to the Kilauea Crater and 

above the 2400 foot elevation contour south of the 

East Rift Restricted Area and north of the 

prominent cliff formation complex known as Hilina 

Pali and Holei Pali. 

B. The secondary corridors within the PARK and denoted on Exhibit A are further described as follows: 

1) For Volcano Heli-Tours only; A corridor west of 

the East Rift Zone, but no nearer than 2000 feet 

to the east of the Kilauea Crater. 

C. The tertiary corridors within the PARK and denoted on Exhibit A are further described as follows: 

1) A corridor immediately southeast (makai) of the 

power transmission l ·ines at the 4900-4600 foot 

elevation, where the PARK boundary is prominently 

delineated by fencelines. 

2) A corridor across the Ka'u Desert no nearer than 

2000 feet to the Kilauea Crater and above the 2400 

foot elevation contour south of the East Rift 

Restricted Area and north of the prominent cliff 

formation complex known as Hilina Pali and Holei 

Pali. 

3) A corridor west of the East Rift Zone, but no nearer than 2000 feet to the east of the Kilauea 

2 
169 

Crater. 

D. All PARK entry/exit points, which are marked with a red 

diamond on Exhibit A, shall be points for radio reports on a common-use air-to-air frequency established by the 

FAA. Pilots will report their position on said 

frequency when approaching these points, either when 

entering or exiting the PARK. In addition, radio 

reports will be made as appropriate at other commonly 

known identification points such as pali, riff, etc. 

4. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS AND VARIATIONS: 

A. Flights within areas of Hawaii Volcanoes National Park 

which are not designated in this PLAN as Restricted 

Areas shall conform to the following manner; 

1) All pilots shall comply with the FARs. 

2) Operation of the helicopter within the limitations 

and performance capabilities presented in the 

Rotorcraft Flight Manual is mandatory. The 

established hover ceiling shall not be exceeded 

and (except for approach to and transition from a hover) operation within the "avoid" area of the 

height-velocity diagram is prohibited. 

3) Operations shall not be conducted beyond engine 

out gliding distance of land. 

4) H.H.O.A. and FAA shall jointly develop a mutually 

acceptable "Brief Sheet• to demonstrate that 

necessary planning was accomplished prior to 

flights. Such form shall be utilized by each 

H.H.O.A. member, once before morning flights and once before afternoon flights. 

B. Wahaula Heiau; Helicopter tours will maintain a standoff distance of 1500 feet (R-1) when people are ~n 

the vicinity of or at the Heiau. Pilots are to notify 

each other by radio immediately upon observing people 

at the Heiau. The R-1 status is to remain in effect 

until such time as all persons have left the Heiau. 

The parties to this agreement understand that it is 

possible a pilot may not be aware that people are at 

the Heiau until the pilot is within the 1500 feet 

(particularly if it is the first flight after people 

have arrived at the Heiau) . The parties agree that, if 

necessary, they will work together to improve the 

systems of notification of pilots regarding the 

presence of people at the Heiau. 

3 
170 

C. Kamoamoa Lava Flow Area; Helicopter tours will 

maintain a standoff distance of one mile from the 

closure point of the Chain of Craters Road, as 

established by HVNP, or 1500 feet from the authorized 

viewing point east of said closure point, whichever is 

further east. Initially and whenever it changes, the 

viewing point will be communicated to H.H.O.A. or its 

designee for announcement to members. 

D. Helicopter tours may not visit areas within the 

Restricted Areas of this agreement where volcanic 

activity may develop after this agreement is 

consummated, until H. H.O.A., HVNP, and the FAA have 

negotiated mutually agreeable flight procedures. 

Negotiations for such procedures will be conducted by 

the parties in a timely manner. 

E. Flights over the PARK which are chartered by 

professional photographers, news videographers, etc., 

must be flown according to the provisions of this 

agreement, unless prior notification of such flights is 

given to HHOA and HVNP. At a minimum, the details will 

include the approximate location(s) of the job, its 

estimated start and finish times, the anticipated 

aircraft and pilot, and the number of people expected 

to be on board the aircraft. Should weather or other 

conditions dictate the need to delay or reschedule the 

job, the operator will notify the HVNP as soon as possible . 

F. Flights conducted for administrative, emergency, 

government, or other non-commercial purposes are not 

included under this PLAN. 

5. This PLAN may be amended or revised from time to time as 

conditions so require. Such changes will be reviewed, 

prepared, and incorporated into the PLAN on behalf of the 

parties to the AGREEMENT by their authorized 

representatives, upon said representatives' mutual 

agreement. 

E N 0 

HHHVNP.ClA 3931-01 

4 
171 

Intaraqency Aqreement 

between 

National Park Service, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Bureau of ~and Manaqeaent, and Federal Aviation Adainiatration 

This. interagency agreement is aJIIOng and between the National Park 

Service Of the oepar~nt of the Interior (NPS), the Fish and 

Wil4l.i!e Service of the Department of the Interior ( FWS) , the 

Bureau of. "Land ManaqUI8nt of the Departunt of the Interior 

(SLM), and the Federal Aviation Administration of the Department 

of Transportation (PAA). · · 

WHEREAS, it is the purpose of the NPS to administer Federal 

parks, monuments, and reservations, to conserve the scenery, the 

natural and historic objects, and the wildlife therein, and to · provide tor the enjoyaent of the same in such manner and by such means as Will leave them Unimpaired !or the enjoyment of future 

generations as provided for in the Act of Auqust 25, 1916 (16 

u.s.c. Section 1 et seq~) 

WHEREAS, it is the purpose of the FWS to operate and maintain 

certain Federal lands for the betterment of f.ish and wildlife 

resources, and for fish and wildlife research and fish culture, as provided for in the Rational Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 u.s.c. Section 661 et seq.), and the Fish 

and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 u.s.c. Section 742a et seq,). 

WHEREAS, it is the purpose of the BLM to administer designated 

wilderness areas for the permAnent qood of the whole people, and 

tor othe~ purposes, ·as part of the National Wilderness · Preservation System, as provided for in the Wilderness Act of 

September 3, 1964 (16 u.s.c. Section 1121, 1131-1136), and the 

Federal Land Policy and Manaqement Act of 1976 (43 u.s.c. Section 

1701); 

WHEREAS, it is the function of the PAA to manage the safe and 

efficient use of the navigable airspace of the United States, as provided for in the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 u.s.c. app. Section 1301 et seq.) 

WHEREAS, the NPS, FWS, and BLM manage lands for the purposes of 

wilderness preservation, protectinq natural, cultural, and ~ildlife resources, and for promotion of the public enjoyment and use of these resources. 

WHEREAS, the FAA, recognizing the values for whic.h NPS, FWS and 

BLM lands are managed, has established 2,000 feet above ground level (AGL) as the requested minimua altitude for aircratt flying in airspace over lands administered by the NPS, FWS and BLM. 
172 

WHEREAS, the auditory and visual int~usion of aircraft !lying at 

low altitudes is the source o! public complaint in certain areas administered by the NPS, fWS, and BLM. 

WHEREAS, aircraft !lying at low altitudes may pose a potential hazard ~o wildlife in certain areas administered by the NPS, FWS, 

and BLH. 

WHElt!:~; : •ircraft flying at low altitude.s over large concen~ations of. migratory birds may pose a potential safety 

hazard to~il9ts and passengers in certain areas administered by the NPS, FWS, and BLH. 

WHEREAS, the FAA, NPS, FWS, AND BLM, while recognizing the public 

freedom of transit of the navigable airspace, desire to act in 

cooperation to reduce the incidence of low-flying aircraft, 

including fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, ultralight vehicles, 

balloons, and gliders over NPS, FWS , and BLM administered land by 

seeking voluntary cooperation with the 2,000 feet AGL minimum 

altitude advisory. 

NOW THEREFORE: 

I • The ·NPs, FWS, and BLM agree: 

A. To identify specific field units where low-flying aircraft may constitute an adverse impact on resources and to convey specific information to 

the FAA for appropriate action as described in 

this agree.ent • 

B. · To develo~ and implement a standardized reporting 

system acceptable to the FAA to document instances 

of low-flying aircraft over NPS, FWS, or BLM 

administered lands. This reporting system will 

provide for transmittal of such documentation in a timely manner to the appropriate FAA Fli9ht 

Standards District Office . 

c. To develop training pro9rams and instructional 

materials for NPS, FWS, and BLM field personnel to 

enable them to recognize and report instances of 

low-flying aircraft in a competent and 

professional manner. The appropriate traini ng 

programs of the NPS, FWS, and BLM will expand to 

incorporate this subject matter into in-service 

training requirements. All agencies Will seek the 

assistance of FAA to help develop training curriculUIIIS. · 
173 

o. To make personnel available from the respective agencies to meet with the F~ and affected pilots 

to discuss resources management objectives and 

issues associated with low-flyinq aircraft 

quarterly. 

ii". The FAA a.greeu 

...• 

A. To c~unicate to pilots the concerns and 

objectives of the Ill'S, F(fs, and BLM about lowflying aircraft in specified areas, using advisories, bulletins, the PAA publication Ia! 

Ayiation Hsws, the ongoing •Accident Prevention 

Program• tor routine pilots contact, and other means of communication with pilots. To !.press 

upon pilots that pilot participation is strongly encouraged to ensure protection of resources and 

the enjoyment of natural areas by the public. 

8. To investigate instances of pilot deviations from 

the FAA-requested min!.um altitude over areas administered by . the HPS, l"WS, and BLM and take 

action to discourage deviations with the objective of reducing or eliminating such incidents-in these areas. 

C. To assist the Ill'S, FifS, and BLM in COINilunicating with the various agencies of the Department of 

Defense with reqard to military aircraft 

operations over ~S, rws, &Del 8LII adainistered areas. 

o. To make available to the HPS, FWS, and BLH, at the 

FAA Flight Standard District Offices, the status 

and results of the FAA's invastiqation of 

instances reported by the RPS, !WS, and BLH. 

E. To enlist the support of all aviation groups and 

organizations by requesting they disseminate 

intor.ation about problems associated with 

aircraft operating at low altitudes over areas administered by the HPS, PWS, and BLM. 

F. To assist NPS, FWS, and BLM personnel in combating problems associated with low-flying aireratt by participating in appropriate meetinqs at field and 

regional levels. 

III. The FAA, NPS, FWS, and BLM agree jointly1 

A. To assess severe situations where i~pacts of 

aircraft operations upon human, cultural, or natural resources are sufficiently serious to 
174 

warrant consideration of site-specific action by 

the FAA to minimize or eliminate the causes of 

such problems. 

B. ~o prepare public informational aateriala, 

including prin'ted .attar aod audio v.laual 

programs, for cOIUilunicat.lon to ~ilota liaing exJ.ating FAA pilot-contact ••tl.nga and programs, aviation periodicals, and other .aans of 

generatinq pilot underatanding of NPS, FWS, and 

BLK resource .anagem.nt objactivea. Where 

appropriate, the FAA, HPS, FWS, and BLH will share _ information on technique• of oonduc~~ng scientific 

atudies and data collection to facilitate 

understanding of the impact of aircraft operations on affected reaourcea. 

c. All the parties will work to define procedures for use at National Headquarters and field office 

levels to address overflight iasues over public lands area. 

IV. Por the purposes of facilitating communications in 

implementing this agreement, each party bas identified 

the following key contact officials: 

FAA 

Harold w. Becker 

M&Dager, Airspace-Rules and 

Aeronauti¥&1 Information Division, ATP-200 

(202) 267-3131 

NPS 

Wesley Henry 

Visitor services Diviaion 

Branch of Ranger Activities 

(202) 208-4874 

FWS 

David L. Olllen 

Assistant Director 

Refuges and Wildlife 

(202) 208-5333 

BLH 

Keith corrigall Wilderness Branch 

(202) 208-6064 
175 

v. If any of the part.ies det.ermines that. i.t. is necessary 

to modity thia MOU, the other parties shall be notified 

in writing of the specific change(•) desired, with 

proposed lanquaqe and the reaaon(s) therefore. The 

proposed ehanqea ahall become effective upon agreement 

ot all parties. 

v:t. Thil MOU shall beeo.e effeetiva on the last signature 

date below and shall n.aJ.n in effect until 

Deceaber 31, 1~99, or unleas otherwise rescinded by all 

signatory parties. 

VII. Any party to this agraeaent aay ter.inate involvement 

in the agreement by providing 60 days written notice to 

the other parties • · ' 

"-. 

nl.stratl.on 

;_qr<.r/9L 

Data 

NOV 18 1992 

Date 

~ 

,/M;/Clf> .. 
~~ 

us.~ 

....... ....._ MMIIIINIIaft 

176 

Advisory 

Circular 

W!jecl: D.lo: 10/19/84 

VISl!AL FLICIIT Rl!LES (VFR) FLIGiit l .. lboiM lly: AT0-230 

IIUil lfOISE-S!NSITI'n: AIU:AS 

l. PliRPOst. Thil aclvbory circuln ent:ouragu pilots maltina vn flishts near 

nois~iv• areas to fly at altitud .. bicher than the mini1111111 permitted by 

regulation end on !11&ht paths which will reduce aircraft noioe in ouch areas. · 

2. CANCELLATION. Advhory Circular 91-3611, vn. Fl1cht Nur Noi .. -Sentithe 

Araaa, elated March 19, 1982, is ctncel led. 

3. BACJt(;J0l1Nil. 

a. The ?acleral Aviation Adminiatration t:ontinually receive• complaint• 

concerning low flyin& aircraft over noiae-aensitive areaa. The•• complaint• have 

prompted requests for re&ulatory action 'Prohibiting low altitude fligbt over 

identified nohe-aantitive location•. tie beHave that a aat1tfactory aolution 

can be realilad by meana of a pilot / industry cooperative endeavor rathar than 

throuch the reculatory process. 

b. Incraaaed emphasis on improving the quality of the env1ro=ent require• 

continued effort to provide relief and proteetioo from dreraft noise. 

c:. Exee•aive aircraft noi!le ean reeult 1n d.iacomfort. 1neonvap1eace, or 

interference with the u•• and enjOYI!Ient of property, end can adveraely affect 

wile! life. lt it partieularly undesirable near outcloor ausbl1es of persona, 

churches, hoop1tah, oehooll, nurdn& llo111u, noiae-.. ndt111a residential arua, end National Park Areas vhich ehould be preaerved aa important h1ator1ct 

eultural, and natural aapecta of our national heri~ase. 

d. Adherence to the practice• described below vould be a practical 

1ndi.,.at1on of pilot eoncern for anviromaantal 1aprov .... ent, would build aupport 

for aviation, and foreotell poaa1ble r•&Ul&tory aetioa. 

4, VOLtnr.AilY PRACTICES. 

a - Avoidance of noioe-eenoiti~• areao, if praetical, ia preferable to 

overfli&ht at relatively low altitudao. 

b. Piloto operating fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft under VFl oYer 

noi .. -aendti1fe areu ahould ulo.a ••ery effort to fly aot leu than 2,000 t .. t 

above the eurfaca. weather peraitt1oa, eYen tbouah ·fliabt at a lover leYel .. , be 

conebtent with tha proYia1ona of Federal Aviation la&UlUiooa 91. 79, Kin~ 

Safe Altltudaa. 
177 

AC t1•36C 10/lt/84 

typical of DOt .. -eenaitf.va arue an: OUtdoor .... abliaa of pUeOIIe, &llurc:hea, 

boapitalo, ac:hoola, auntna ........ , reaidential arua deai&11&ted aa not .. .. ,aitive b7 airporu or h)' an airport uiaa c•patlbiUty plea or prO&II:'&a, and 

Mational Park Areaa (1nclu41n& Parka, Paraat, Priaitiva Areaa, Vtlc!eroeaa Araaa, 

llecreat1o11el Areas, lfaUoMl &auhoraa, .. t1oaal Xo11UIIa.nta, Natioul l.akaahoru, 

and National Wildlife '-efua• and lana• Arul). 

• For the purpose of tllil Adviaoey Circulal', the aurfaca of a llado.na1 Park Area 

11 defined a11 the hi& but terra1G vie hill Z, 000 feat laterall)' of the route C>f 

flilht, or the upper-molt ria C>f a caaron or· valley.• 

!lOti: the intent of the l,OOO feat rec-andatioo ia to uc!uea poteGtial 

iotarfaraGce vtth vtldlifa, and ca.plaiata of ooiaa diaturhaGcao froa lov-flyiaa 

aircraft in c:a~ona ad valley a. 

c. Duriq departure or arrival froa/to an airport, cUab after takeoff and 

ducnt for laGd1n& ahould be .... ao aa to avoid proloqad tltallt at lov 

altitude• Dear aoiaa-aaao1tiva araaa. 

d. Thlt procedure dou aot apply vMra 1t wuld c:oa!Uct vtth air traffic 

coatrol daaraGcU or illatructioal or vbara all altitude of lall tban Z,OOO feet 

1a conaidarad nac:uaary by a pilot in order to . ada,uudy axarc:f.aa hb or ber 

priaary reaponlib111c:r for aafe f11&bt. 

S. COOPZIIA'l'IVE ACTIOliS. A..ircraft oparaton, aviation a .. odatlona, airport 

.. aaaara, and otbara ·are aakad to aaa1et 1• iapl .. entln& the pro~•d~raa contained 

henb by p~blicidna thea a11d oUatdbuUq lGfonnion reaardiq knotl!\ 

aoha-aandtS.va araaa.-

~~,_ ._( -'\· 

a, J. Vaa Vural\ 

Aaaoc1ata Ada1Giatrator for 41r traffic, AAr-1 

faa• 2 P&ro 4 
178 

7HE SECRETHIY OF THE !STERtOR 

Honorable rederico Pena 

Secretary of Tranaportation 

Waahington, D. C. 20590 

Dear Mr. Secre~u~y: 

WASHINGTON 

It haa recently coma to my attention that approximately 25 acre& of 

new helicopter facilitil!& a-rf.l under development at Grand. Canyon 

National Park Ai.-rpor.t: in Tusayan, Arizona. 1n large part with grant 

funds from the FAA. On September 13, 1988, the FAA issued a grant 

agreement t.n Orand Canyon National Park Airport for AIP Project No. 

3-04-00151-06, for conetruct.inn ot! a new heliport, parking, and 

apron access road. The grant agr.1•u!ment offered to pay 91.06 

percent of the cost of. t.he project, or S952,l80. The primary 

function of these facilities wil J bl'! All an operating base for 

helicopter tours of Grand Canyon National Park. 

In the National Parke Ov~rfl ghts Act of 1987 (Public Law 100·511), 

Congreea recognized that •noiae associated with aircraft 

overflights at the Grand Canyon National Park is causing a 

significant adverae effect on the natural quiet and experience of 

the park," and di:reetad the Secret:ar.y of the Interior to su.bmit to 

the Administrator of the FAA. recommendat:ionll to provide for the 

"eubetantial reetoration" t:~f r.hat natural quiet and experience. 

Theae recommendations were contai.ned .tn the Aircraft Management 

Plan for Grand Canyon, Nationa l Park, anci were implemented by the 

Fhh as SPAR 50.2. The National Parks Overf.l.tght• Act directs the 

National Park Service (NPS) to ~r..,~are a report to congress 

(expected to be completed by the end of 1993) on the effectiveneae 

of SFAR 50.2 in achieving th~ At:llt:llt:nry goal of the "substantial 

reatoration of the natural quiet and experience of the park." 

In July 1992, the Senate Subcommittee on Aviation of the committee 

of Commerce, Science and Transportation h~ld nvl'!rAight hearings, 

conducted by Senator John McCain, on air tour oper#lt.i.nnA ~tt Grand 

Canyon. The NPS and other witneseee t:eAtified that the statutory 

goal hae not been achieved. A.i.rcraft noise and its impact on the 

visito:r experience a:re a function of fr.eq1.1ency and loudness. 

Seve:ral witneasaa teetified thllt lli.r t:our!l should be subject to use limite, ae are backcountry hikers, river tripe, and eve:ry other use of the park, and that aircraft should be requir.ed tn meet quiet 

aircraft technology standards . Thl'! number of overflight& has 

nearly doubled since the overflight noiee problem was recognized ·by 

Congress in 1987 . The conetr.ucti.cm of new helicopter facilit..i..es 

has the potential to increaae the capacity for. overf'l tghtA and thus 

will further negate the etatutory goal. 
179 

furihermore, in the Airport and Airway Safeey, capacity, Noise 

Improvement, and In1:ermodal Transportation Ac1: c! 1~92 (Public 

Law 102-581), Congress directed the FAA, in conjunction with the 

NPS and other aqencieA, to conduct a study of increased air trattic over the Grand canyon and to report the results to conqress, inoludinq forecasts at increases in air traffic throuqh 2010, 

estimates o! the carrying capacity of the airspace over Grand 

Canyon National Park and a plan to manage that airspace for 

aviation safety and to meet the requirements o! the National Parks ove~:f1ights Act for the "substantial restoration of the natural 

quiet and experience of tho;~ l"llrk." This study is currently 

underway, 

In thiA ~ontext, I request that you provide us with assurance that 

the newly consatructed facilities will only cater to existing 

operation• and that no further tunds will be provided to the 

airport for expansion of op~r111:ions until the following are completed: 

1. The NPS Final Report to Congress under the National Parks 

overtliqhta Act, particularly the section that will evaluate 

tho effectiveneae o! SFAR 50.2 in achieving the statutory goal; 

2. The FAA's report to Conqress (required by Public Law 102-

581) on the carrying capacity of airspace over the Grancl 

Canyon, including the pl3n to manaqe that airspace tor satety 

and to meet the requirements of Public Law 100-91; and 

3. A Part 150 study on the effact• ot increased operations on the NPS's and FAA'• efforts to meet the stated qoal ot Public 

Law 100-91 for the "substantial restoration of. tha natural 

quiet and experience of the park." 

I look forward to your response to this request. If you have any 

questions, please cont11ct Georqe Frampton at (202) 208-4416. Thank 

you. 
11/15/93 

180 

CONSERVATION COUNCIL 

for HAWAII "I o\ II HO'\RD A Ni l 0·\ Hl ' ( 11>\I'TI R • P.O ROX 2q23 • HONOl.LJLlJ . HI 96801 •18081 941-4974 

To: Aviation Subcommittee of Natural Resources Comm. 

From: Steven Lee Montgomery, Ph.D .. Board Member & NWF Rep. 

Subject: H R 1696 on Tour Helicopters & Parks 

Along with the other 500 members of our Council, I am a regular 

visitor to the wildlands of Hawaii, especially the National Parks. 

We give our full support to this bill to reduce the escalating 

damages to a major Park natural resource: quiet. 

The Park Service & State DOT require the aid of the Federal 

Aviation Administration to protect this resource, but the severity 

of the tour aircraft problem and the many delays in resolving it 

convince us that Congress must act. 

Congress acted to restore some quiet to the Grand Canyon Nat'l 

Park, and all terrestrial visitors have benefitted, plus, native 

wildlife behavior patterns were restored to normaL In Hawaii, the 

public interest requires a new policy to begin with your favorable 

action on this bilL 

Thank You . 

\ f,lh ' ,llfl/i,,lf' ,,f r/l o·.-.;,,,;,,,,,/\>\.'!1<1111'' /Pt/N,I/H>Il . ((' II ''·'l'rr v,lf•·ll•m-pr<lftl • '"1''''''/ inn . fl ll lllllf>d in 1950 

fnt s•l.uul "''<>HI• , . 1 '"'"'IV.Ifiun. f'IIVIfnnnH ·rtl,lllw,,/rh ,., ,,/ f•<io<.!finll. 

0