helicopters on the Overland track

[north-north-west]

How do you think the noise and exhaust from choppers and planes impact on wildlife? How much erosion at the water's edge is caused by floatplane landings? How much impact is caused by all the infrastructure and extra transport requirements for equipment and fuel?

You're kidding, aren't you?

People who walk the Overland track fly on aircraft and drive by car/bus to get there. We aren't talking about floatplane landings, we are talking about scenic flights in the Cradle Mountain/OT area.

No, I'm not.

Allow me to introduce you to a new word: 'cumulative'. To put it another way, the aircraft add to the pollution problem. A walker doesn't use fossil fuels. Aircraft do. Walkers don't make that much noise. Aircraft do. It's easier to limit the impact of walkers - in breadth at least - by building a track and keeping the bulk of them on it. When it comes to the Overland most, in fact, don't want to leave it. But aircraft - especially over the bush - have no such restraints. They can - and has been seen - do go wherever they want.

Ummmm, may I attempt to put a different perspective on the 'elitist' argument?

I'm deaf. I can no longer hear waterfalls or birdsong or the wind in the trees when I go bush. So what gives all you elitist people with good hearing the right to hear these things when so many of us can't? What gives you elitist visually capable people the right to see the views from your cute little air-conditioned chopper when a blind person can't?
May I suggest ....

You can but it's not.
It would perhaps be similar if a hearing person tried to suggest that the only way to experience wilderness was to hear it, or if a sighted person was to suggest that the only way to experience wilderness was to see it.
Similarly with walkers suggesting that the only infrastructure allowed is that which limits their impact.

You see a difference. I don't. Walkers see and (mostly) hear, and smell, and touch. They experience the place in a wide range of ways, and they do so much more slowly and thoroughly. All the airborne do is sit there and look.
If people are going to sit somewhere comfortable and look, they can look at photos and videos just about anywhere. You're not touching or feeling or smelling or hearing (apart from the engine) anything when you're up in the air, you're cut off from everything except the view; it's just an elitist (please excuse my use of your word) I-have-the-money-to-do-this way to tick something off a bucket list.

There are places where it isn't so much of an issue. But if we're promoting this as 'wilderness' how much of a wilderness is there when you have aircraft overhead every hour if not more often?

[MrWalker]

I could argue that campers cause enormous damage to the environment and camping should never be permitted in wilderness areas. Only day walkers allowed. Of course I can do extra long day walks so it's easy for me to suggest that, but since I'm being tolerant I'll permit you campers to mess up the wilderness and I don't mind anything flying overhead either.

[geoskid]

I could argue that campers cause enormous damage to the environment and camping should never be permitted in wilderness areas. Only day walkers allowed. Of course I can do extra long day walks so it's easy for me to suggest that, but since I'm being tolerant I'll permit you campers to mess up the wilderness and I don't mind anything flying overhead either.

+1 (not that I can do extra long day walks) I understand your point.

[geoskid]

Nnw- As an elitist bushwalker, wilderness is however I define it!
In that definition of course will be a requirement that I'm allowed to walk there, and it is to be serene- that is, I would view dimly the sound of helicopters, and if sighting other members of my own species could be kept to a minimum, that would be smashing. Eh what!

[corvus]

I am a long time walker /camper and cannot understand why an hourly chopper overflight would cause so much ire, I get them on a regular basis over my home and they are not a big deal I just a look up to see which one it is .
Have observed the rescue Chopper at close hand when it evacuated John Chapman from Pelion and it did not upset my "wilderness " experience ,have observed the service Choppers on many occasions whilst on the Track even enjoyed when on the top of Ossa that a fixed wing plane was beneath me .
I have no axe to grind nor argument to seek however why should those of us who are fit exclude those who are not or even shock horror those who are monetary richer than us(which I am not one of ) to spend money in our State ??
corvus

[stry]

NNW is doing a good job of expressing my thoughts , Nuts' posts are sensible and reasoned. As said previously I agree with stepbystep in and his subsequent posts in this thread haven't caused me to rethink that.

What concerns and really surprises me with this thread is the seriously dodgy thinking and spurious arguments.

How do we make the leap that because someone walks the Overland and accepts the management required flights, that person is being hypocrytical in opposing joy flights ??? Two separate issues.

How do we form the opinion that someone is not "allowed" to see something, when the reason they can't see that something is their own capabilities ?? What does "allowed" have to do with it ??

When did the impact of flights vs walkers arrive in the thread ??

The twisting of "sense of entitlement" and the use of the word "elitist" are truly taking us into the alluded to territory of a three year old.

It seems that any time any one is unable to have what they want today, the search for some one (else) to make responsible begins. The "isms" get trotted out (racism, elitism, mysoginysm etc, etc.) when the limitation on the activities of each of us, apart from legal restrictions, lie within ourselves. Wonderful distractions "isms" - used to skew all manner of discussion and silence all sorts of legitimate points of view.

We are all different. No amount of misplaced egalitarianism, or wishing it to be otherwise can change this.

I would really like to climb Federation Peak. I can't. If moves are initiated that dumb down that challenge and make it possible for me to do it, I will resist those moves. I could probably still wander around places such as Mt Bogong in winter, but do do so would not be smart for me. In the words of stepbystep, my "time has come" in regard to some of theses things, BUT I don't look to cry "not allowed" because the powers that be have not dumbed down these places to make my continued enjoyment of them possible.

The dumbing down can easily destroy those very qualities which are the attraction to all of us, regardless of our capabilities. This seems to be missed by the proponents of the flights.

I am saddened by the fact that so many of us, at least in this thread, seem to not get the essence of the wilderness experience.

Rules about flying heights are effectively unenforceable.

Whilst there must always be some flexibility, and the management of the OLT is a good example of this, there is also the "greater good" to be kept in mind.

[north-north-west]

I could argue that campers cause enormous damage to the environment and camping should never be permitted in wilderness areas. Only day walkers allowed. Of course I can do extra long day walks so it's easy for me to suggest that, but since I'm being tolerant I'll permit you campers to mess up the wilderness and I don't mind anything flying overhead either.

How? My toilet waste is buried. Tent sites are chosen on a variety of factors, not least of which is the ability of the ground to cope. Mostly, by the time I'm packed and ready to walk on, you can't even tell that a tent had been there. I don't wash dishes or myself whilst out there, so there's no water pollution. There are no food scraps left and all rubbish is carried out. Exactly how am I causing more damage than a non-camping walker?

What concerns and really surprises me with this thread is the seriously dodgy thinking and spurious arguments.

How do we make the leap that because someone walks the Overland and accepts the management required flights, that person is being hypocrytical in opposing joy flights ??? Two separate issues.

How do we form the opinion that someone is not "allowed" to see something, when the reason they can't see that something is their own capabilities ?? What does "allowed" have to do with it ??

When did the impact of flights vs walkers arrive in the thread ??

The twisting of "sense of entitlement" and the use of the word "elitist" are truly taking us into the alluded to territory of a three year old.

It seems that any time any one is unable to have what they want today, the search for some one (else) to make responsible begins. The "isms" get trotted out (racism, elitism, mysoginysm etc, etc.) when the limitation on the activities of each of us, apart from legal restrictions, lie within ourselves. Wonderful distractions "isms" - used to skew all manner of discussion and silence all sorts of legitimate points of view.

We are all different. No amount of misplaced egalitarianism, or wishing it to be otherwise can change this.

I would really like to climb Federation Peak. I can't. If moves are initiated that dumb down that challenge and make it possible for me to do it, I will resist those moves. I could probably still wander around places such as Mt Bogong in winter, but do do so would not be smart for me. In the words of stepbystep, my "time has come" in regard to some of theses things, BUT I don't look to cry "not allowed" because the powers that be have not dumbed down these places to make my continued enjoyment of them possible.

The dumbing down can easily destroy those very qualities which are the attraction to all of us, regardless of our capabilities. This seems to be missed by the proponents of the flights.

I am saddened by the fact that so many of us, at least in this thread, seem to not get the essence of the wilderness experience.

Rules about flying heights are effectively unenforceable.

Whilst there must always be some flexibility, and the management of the OLT is a good example of this, there is also the "greater good" to be kept in mind.

Well said, young man.

[geoskid]

I will bow out tonight stry, but respond tomorrow.
I will keep reading though.
I realise tho that people are talking past each other- probably not the ideal format for discussion, well not for me anyway.

[geoskid]

Oh jebus nnw, your not trying to be reasonable and aknowledge other points of view.
Now I'm out.

[north-north-west]

It's hard to acknowledge as reasonable a point of view that considers you elitist just because you still have the physical capacity to drag your aching, aging carcasse out bush, or because you find overt human intrusion (such as regular helicopter flights) in supposed wilderness areas highly unwelcome.

'Then again, maybe it's just because I'm never at my best after seeing the shrink.

[geoskid]

It's hard to acknowledge as reasonable a point of view that considers you elitist just because you still have the physical capacity to drag your aching, aging carcasse out bush, or because you find overt human intrusion (such as regular helicopter flights) in supposed wilderness areas highly unwelcome.

'Then again, maybe it's just because I'm never at my best after seeing the shrink.

Sorry Nnw, I don't mean to upset you- I hope your'e Ok.
Mark

[South_Aussie_Hiker]

You're not touching or feeling or smelling or hearing (apart from the engine) anything when you're up in the air,

Exactly. From a conservation point of view, how is this worse?

How do we make the leap that because someone walks the Overland and accepts the management required flights, that person is being hypocrytical in opposing joy flights ??? Two separate issues.

Because that's the reality.
Those duckboards - hundreds of kilograms per metre - all choppered in.
Those toilets - tonnes and tonnes of waste per season - all choppered out.
Those huts - tonnes and tonnes of concrete, timber, tools, workers, fixings - choppered in and out.
You should see the work on Frenhman's at the moment. Hundreds and hundreds of bags of heavy gravel choppered in and then compacted into the ground.
I walk these tracks too, so I'm partly to blame. But I don't think for a second that what I'm doing is any better or less damaging to the environment than people flying overhead.

It seems that any time any one is unable to have what they want today, the search for some one (else) to make responsible begins.

I'd agree with this. Like people who can't have these tracks to themselves with no noise.

I-have-the-money-to-do-this way

Reading between the lines, is this why you despise joy flights so much? Perhaps it's an incredibly poor person who has saved for months. Why does the cost or how people choose to spend it particularly matter?

This is the view from space of the tracks around kitchen hut. I'm partly responsible for this, like every other hiker, and I feel ashamed. I don't for a second think I am having less impact than a scenic flight, or think it should purely be the realm of walkers alone.

What's next, ban Google from taking pictures from space?

[stry]

You seem to quite simply not be comprehending what has been posted SAH.

If I have read and understood the posts correctly, the opposition to low flying joy flights is based on the resulting further diminution of the intangible and difficult to define "wilderness experience" This experience appears to mean different things to different people, and have varying levels of relevance to different people. Perhaps some have not been fortunate enough to be exposed to it.

You have introduced, and are doggedly pursuing, a comparison of terrestrial impact caused by what have become necessary management actions as compared to unnecessary joy flights.

Comparing the negatives of what has become necessary with what is not, is as illogical as debate gets. You are effectively saying that because of the existence of management activities, there should be no opposition to further degradation of the experience in the form of unnecessary joy flights.

Unsound thinking.

[MrWalker]

"wilderness experience"..... appears to mean different things to different people, and have varying levels of relevance to different people. Perhaps some have not been fortunate enough to be exposed to it.

This seems to be the problem here.
If we want to keep the wilderness as untouched as possible we would fly over it but not go into it.
If we wanted to actually see and experience areas where hardly anyone has been for many years, we could arrange to be dropped off in some remote location (by helicopter or floatplane) and get picked up later in the day, or a few days later. The closest any of the new ideas come to this is a proposal to take people by floatplane to an island on a remote lake, although I think the idea is to have some nice accommodation on the island, rather than use a different one every day.
There is the similar option of flying in to Melaleuca and walking out at Cockle Creek. If the objectors to the above idea are consistent I expect to hear soon about them all lying on the runway there to stop any planes landing.
These methods may not get you off on your own, so it might be like one of my day walks where I was almost 30km from the nearest road, but found it too crowded so moved on. I guess Hartnett Falls is often busy around the middle of the day.
However, if you mainly want to be off by yourself, I have walked for 30km on the Tasmanian Trail and not seen any person, vehicle or building from when I was dropped off to when I was picked up at the end of the day. But that is not wildnerness.

So maybe we need to divide the wilderness up a bit into no-fly zones, no camping areas, no ground contact, trackless bush, walkers only, trail bikes, camel riders, etc. Would that keep everyone happy?

[tastrax]

The closest any of the new ideas come to this is a proposal to take people by floatplane to an island on a remote lake, although I think the idea is to have some nice accommodation on the island, rather than use a different one every day.

So maybe we need to divide the wilderness up a bit into no-fly zones, no camping areas, no ground contact, trackless bush, walkers only, trail bikes, camel riders, etc. Would that keep everyone happy?

In respect of the first idea there are allowances in the draft WHA Plan to land people at Lake Judd(floatplane), Helicopter on the Frankland Range (despite no proposal yet surfacing for any activity in this area), I suspect helicopters landings at a few locations around Cradle Mountain and another proposal for landing by helicopter on the Gallagher Plateau in the SWNP.

http://cg.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_ ... _OHern.pdf
http://cg.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_ ... Direen.pdf

There are already "Fly Neighbourly" agreements in a few locations in Tasmania (Cradle Mountain and Melaleuca/SW Scenic flights)

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?W ... c=PC_90456

2 days left and still 5 proposals not released - http://cg.tas.gov.au/?a=98614

[philm]

A few year back we drove into the Grand Canyon. About 20 miles out we were buzzed by planes and helicopters and this continued until we reached the Canyon. The noise and constant fly buys really destroyed what is a natural wonder.
There needs to be balance but lets keep the Overland and the reserve to walkers!

[RonK]

In 2003 I visited Everest for the 50th anniversary. As we walked up the Khumbu Valley a large Russian made helicopter made multiple trips as it ferried equipment to EBC.
I didn't think it detracted from the experience at all.
As I sat high above EBC at Kala Patar, I watched the helicopter crash as it attemped to take off. Sadly the pilot was killed.
Returning to Lukla the monastery was in full mourning for the pilot. Praying, chanting, blowing horns and beating drums all night. Tragic circumstances, but dare I say it, all part of the rich tapestry of life.
On a spring crossing of the OT a helicopter was servicing the huts along the track. It would have flown over a dozen or more times between Waterfall Valley and Kia Ora. Did it detract from my walk? Err no, it didn't bother me at all.

[walkerchris77]

Mr Walker, Hiking Noob, walkerchris77 and MickeyB you don't wouldn't t. These places are special BECAUSE people can't access it easily. That's ok. Mt Ossa doesn't give a *&%$#! these people don't see it. Neither should you. Keep it special for *&^%$# sake!

Mmmm. Lol maybe people should not set off their plb then if they are in trouble.

My wife and i spend about $2500 around cradle mountain lodge putting money into the local community. And your worried about a helicopter flight. Ha. The funniest thing i found was the amout of wood boards put down for everyone to walk on. How many trees were cut down for that.

also we were only allowed to fly into certain areas and only during certain times.. We also met an older couple in the 80s that wanted to see the area. Im pretty sure they would not have done the 65km walk so a quick chopper flight made their trip.

Last edited by walkerchris77 on Wed 11 Mar, 2015 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Nuts]

So maybe we need to divide the wilderness up a bit into no-fly zones, no camping areas, no ground contact, trackless bush, walkers only, trail bikes, camel riders, etc. Would that keep everyone happy?

No! I want minimal impact!! That's what we all agreed on right, boundaries.. they are already a mess!

I'm particularly surprised the old codgers don't get it, given the benefit of hindsight. Not all former public servants here surely?
Minimal impact, not tailored to suit, not by public choice, a bit here, my cousins fly fishing school there, my mates chopper rides (who's promised me a few flights)- No unnecessary impact, a concept, ideal, management guideline, boundary..

How about detractors provide their facts as to the benefits? of their support or 'call for change', the points appear (at least quantitatively) based on assumption or sentiment.

(PS. no, one an hour on a good day on the OLT is not particularly devastating in itself but almost aside from the point).

[MrWalker]

Right. Minimal impact it is.
Not only no camping (sorry NNW), no churning up the mud, squashing the plants and no boardwalks either. So no walking. Anywhere. And no overflights except in emergency.

We will have an electric (quiet) monorail. On pylons to keep it above the wildlife. It can run down the overland track, across to Frenchmans Cap, down past Mt Anne, along the Port Davey track and along to Cockle Creek. It will pay for itself in no time and have "minimal impact".

[South_Aussie_Hiker]

It doesn't bother me either, RonK, but we are all different.

I guess I stand there and appreciate that the people (who may or may not be capable of walking the track) in the helicopter have every bit as much right to see it as I do. They don't complain about my huts, I won't complain about their noise. I guess I don't think it's all about me?

Gustav Weindorfer was apparently wrong? Why did he proclaim it should be a park for THE PEOPLE for all time? Oh that's right, because he wanted it protected AND enjoyed. That's why it didn't say a park for the "fit and able hikers" for all time.

Stry, please don't talk down to me. I very well comprehend the argument being made, and accept WHY people have their preconceived expectation about what a wilderness experience should or shouldn't be for them.

If I have read and understood the posts correctly, the opposition to low flying joy flights is based on the resulting further diminution of the intangible and difficult to define "wilderness experience" This experience appears to mean different things to different people, and have varying levels of relevance to different people. Perhaps some have not been fortunate enough to be exposed to it.

They aren't "low flying". In fact low flying requires specific CASA approval. In addition, the fly neighbourly policy in place puts aircraft well ABOVE what would be the normal minimum vertical and horizontal separation from terrain. As for wilderness experience, it is as you say difficult to define, simply because different people have a different concept of what that means. A helicopter flight over the world heritage area IS the wilderness experience for many people. Just because you define any aircraft noise to be diminishing your "wilderness experience", doesn't mean it diminishes everyone else's. In fact, banning or severely restricting flights would diminish the "wilderness experience" of many hundreds or thousands of people who may never see it as a result.

Comparing the negatives of what has become necessary with what is not, is as illogical as debate gets. You are effectively saying that because of the existence of management activities, there should be no opposition to further degradation of the experience in the form of unnecessary joy flights.

Um... Wrong. Firstly, don't tell me what I am saying. The comparison was simply to highlight that a lot of the helicopter noise is a result of hikers themselves. In fact I'd imagine the vast majority of all annual helicopter operations south of Waterfall Valley (and the associated tranquility reducing noise) is the responsibility of hikers. Hikers who rely on helicopter operations complaining about joy flights ruining tranquility is a bit rich, don't you think?
Secondly, "unnecessary" joy flights? Why are they unnecessary? Because you say so? Walking the track could also be considered "unnecessary".
Thirdly, I'm not advocating "no opposition" to further "degradation", and I object to "degradation". No where did I say joy flights should be a free for all. If you have trouble reading or translating my posts or feel the need you have to try and explain to me what I'm conprehending, please PM and I can offer a further explanation.

An additional Parks or conservation fee for helicopter flights in the WHA which goes directly into conservation - yes.
Continual consultation with Parks and traditional owners on fly neighbourly type arrangements - flight routes, altitudes, times of day to be avoided etc etc - yes.
Parks only approved helicopter operators who meet sustainability culture or conservation type criteria - yes.
Severely restricting or prohibiting joy flights because of the ears of hikers (ie slightly improving their "wilderness experience" by denying others their's) - no.

Last edited by South_Aussie_Hiker on Wed 11 Mar, 2015 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Nuts]

I don't really relate to the walker v's overflight thing you guys seem to be having. Yes, walker impacts are likely even worse but they are existing.. a burden. They also have nothing to do with 'commercial exploitation', bushwalkers (or those being honest) aren't particularly pretending the bush benefits for their passing. A better analogy would be a proliferation of recreational drone use, coz it's fun and could generate 'economy'. Would a drone buzzing your head every hour be a problem? every half hour? etc Would it be ok if they pay a fee (that somehow manages to find it's way back to the bush). How often can you tell yourself ('you', not me, the answers and how this bodes for Tasmanian wilderness are obvious, with some close involvement) 'it's for the greater good' before pausing to consider such an assumption?

(PS. Not that I want an argument either, it's good to discuss these issues, it's good to see people alive and kicking on here )

[MrWalker]

Nuts
I agree with you about the drones. They are likely to be a much worse problem than helicopters. I could walk along the track carrying my drone and whenever I see something interesting off track a bit I could send my drone over to take some close up pics of whatever it is.

[zorro]

There appears to be a lot of people out there who really are missing the point. To the few out there who actually support helicopters flying them and their entourage around wilderness areas, why do you need to do it south down Cradle Valley? Can't you stick to Cradle Mtn.? Why don't care about the annoyance you are causing other people? Do you get your jollies knowing you can? I was taught something very early in life " you can do anything you like in this life, but when it impacts on other people in a negative way, this is considered selfish." The OT is a unique wilderness walk and wilderness means exactly that! It is not the monotonous thumping drone a helicopter creates. I think a lot of you have your heads in the clouds, and think stuff everyone else! Please, everyone who agrees it is against the grain of their bushwalking experience, contact Parks and let them know how you feel. Maybe these other people will take their Safari suits, and socks & sandals elsewhere.

[norts]

My thoughts, aren't most of the walkers on the OLT tourists, Tasmanians would be in the minority, I dont think they came to Tassie to be buzzed by sightseeing choppers. I understand we need the chopper to look after the infrastructure and i dont have a problem with that.
It annoyed me in the US that at night I could here trains at night on the AT( it's a mournful sound late at night, I do love the sound) but it took away the feeling of remoteness.
We are getting ppl to Tassie because it is unspoilt and remote, on the whole our views are not that much better than anywhere else, its the setting they are in.

Norts

[corvus]

Why the sudden interest and angst in Chopper flights over Cradle from memory they have been available as scenic flights for well over 10 years ??

[MrWalker]

Why the sudden interest and angst in Chopper flights over Cradle from memory they have been available as scenic flights for well over 10 years ??

Some people are concerned that there will be an increase in helicopter and float plane flights as a result of the tourist enterprises that may start soon. So if they find the current level of noise unacceptable, then any increase is totally unacceptable.

I don't think anyone should go to Cradle Mountain and expect peace and tranquility and the same could apply to Lake St Clair, where we already have a boat chugging up and down the lake several times a day. But it might be reasonable to expect peace and quiet in other areas, so we might need to consider whether the current "Fly Neighbourly Advice" is adequate. For example the Melaleuca flights go round the coast one way, then back right across Federation Peak. That's fine for me because I'm not going to be out at Federation Peak, but it would be nice not to have regular flights buzzing round Mt Ossa or Mt Jerusalem (for example), although I can see that some people might like to see those areas, so some sort of quota of x visits per year might be arranged.

[stry]

Some people are concerned that there will be an increase in helicopter and float plane flights as a result of the tourist enterprises that may start soon. So if they find the current level of noise unacceptable, then any increase is totally unacceptable.

I don't think anyone should go to Cradle Mountain and expect peace and tranquility and the same could apply to Lake St Clair, where we already have a boat chugging up and down the lake several times a day. But it might be reasonable to expect peace and quiet in other areas, so we might need to consider whether the current "Fly Neighbourly Advice" is adequate. For example the Melaleuca flights go round the coast one way, then back right across Federation Peak. That's fine for me because I'm not going to be out at Federation Peak, but it would be nice not to have regular flights buzzing round Mt Ossa or Mt Jerusalem (for example), although I can see that some people might like to see those areas, so some sort of quota of x visits per year might be arranged.

Sensible post

[RonK]

There appears to be a lot of people out there who really are missing the point. To the few out there who actually support helicopters flying them and their entourage around wilderness areas, why do you need to do it south down Cradle Valley? Can't you stick to Cradle Mtn.? Why don't care about the annoyance you are causing other people? Do you get your jollies knowing you can? I was taught something very early in life " you can do anything you like in this life, but when it impacts on other people in a negative way, this is considered selfish." The OT is a unique wilderness walk and wilderness means exactly that! It is not the monotonous thumping drone a helicopter creates. I think a lot of you have your heads in the clouds, and think stuff everyone else! Please, everyone who agrees it is against the grain of their bushwalking experience, contact Parks and let them know how you feel. Maybe these other people will take their Safari suits, and socks & sandals elsewhere.

A knife cuts both ways.

[stepbystep]

Some people are concerned that there will be an increase in helicopter and float plane flights as a result of the tourist enterprises that may start soon. So if they find the current level of noise unacceptable, then any increase is totally unacceptable.

I don't think anyone should go to Cradle Mountain and expect peace and tranquility and the same could apply to Lake St Clair, where we already have a boat chugging up and down the lake several times a day. But it might be reasonable to expect peace and quiet in other areas, so we might need to consider whether the current "Fly Neighbourly Advice" is adequate. For example the Melaleuca flights go round the coast one way, then back right across Federation Peak. That's fine for me because I'm not going to be out at Federation Peak, but it would be nice not to have regular flights buzzing round Mt Ossa or Mt Jerusalem (for example), although I can see that some people might like to see those areas, so some sort of quota of x visits per year might be arranged.

Sensible post

Agreed! Many jump to the conclusion that because some(me) don't want the air traffic doubled, tripled or expanded ten fold, twenty fold, we therefore are intolerant of the realities of park infrastructure, which is designed to provide access. Lord knows I understand what's involved when there's no infrastructure and for 95% of folk that's not a pleasant wilderness experience. Currently there is a heli joyflight that does a circuit over Cradle/Barn and although I don't like it, I accept it, kinda wanna do it too. There's also seaplanes landing on Leeawuleena, and a ferry that zips up and down most(some) days. I can live with that. Between those two places is 'The Reserve' a magnificent area with Tassie's highest mountains and an infinite number of places to visit and 'connect' it's also got 4 days of great walking for the OLT crowd and other than logistical support it's free of the machinery of everyday life. The OLT is a transformative journey for many. Lets make sure it's not a place that is buzzed every half hour. Just go overseas and check out the theme parks of nature. We have the chance to remain unique, just one chance.