Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a hang-glider/paraglider pilot, and I support the submission made by the New Zealand Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association on the proposed content of the first National Conservation Policy Statement.
Hang gliding and paragliding are non-motorised, foot-launched recreational activities. Pilots generally walk to a launch site carrying their equipment, launch on foot, and land on foot. Our physical use of public conservation land is therefore essentially the same as tramping or mountaineering than to the operation of helicopters, aeroplanes or other powered aircraft.
We have been doing this on public conservation land in New Zealand for over 50 years.
The central problem for recreational, non-motorised, foot launched hang-gliding and paragliding in New Zealand is that existing conservation legislation and General Policies provide some nuance over the difference between powered and non-powered aircraft, but the rules for conservation land itself have largely failed to make this distinction.
This error has resulted in a quiet, low-impact recreational activity being treated the same as noisy, fuel-laden, and disruptive motorised helicopters and planes - i.e. often prohibited or exceptional on public land.
I support the objective of simplifying conservation planning, reducing duplication and improving concession processing. The proposed NCPS can solve much of the present problem, but only if the distinction between motorised aircraft and recreational, non-motorised, foot-launched HG/PG is carried consistently through the policies, glossary, visitor zones and appendices to avoid derogating from the Act and individual interpretation.
I ask that the NCPS expressly require area plans, visitor-zone descriptions, guidance and operational documents to distinguish motorised aircraft from non-motorised, foot-launched hang gliding and paragliding. Restrictions developed to manage helicopters or other powered aircraft should not automatically be applied to HG/PG activities. Recreational HG/PG, including instruction, needs to be a pre-approved concession activity.
Visitor zones should be based on actual effects and visitor experiences rather than broad labels. Foot-launched HG/PG is compatible in principle with visitor amenity, high, medium and low visitor zones. It is not “motorised access”. A pilot flying into or out of an area in a paraglider or hang glider is undertaking the recreational activity itself, not using a powered aircraft to gain access.
Commercial tandem flying, guided HG/PG, competitions over 100 pilots should also be assessed according to their actual effects at launch and landing sites. These activities should be included in the NCPS’s pre-approved or standardised pre-assessment pathways rather than being assessed under policies designed for powered aviation. Commercial HG/PG supports employment, outdoor recreation and tourism, particularly in places such as Queenstown and Wānaka, while generally requiring no permanent infrastructure or exclusive occupation of conservation land.
The glossary should include clear definitions of “motorised aircraft” and “non-motorised, foot-launched hang gliding and paragliding”. Whenever the NCPS or an area plan uses the word “aircraft”, it should make clear whether it refers to motorised aircraft, non-motorised foot-launched aircraft, or both.
Hang gliding and paragliding have taken place on public conservation land in New Zealand for decades. These are quiet, low-impact activities that allow people to experience and appreciate conservation land in a unique way. The new NCPS provides an opportunity to correct the long-standing category error of treating all aircraft as though they create the same effects.
I therefore ask that the final NCPS adopt the amendments sought by the NZHGPA submission and consistently recognise the difference between powered aircraft and non-motorised, foot-launched hang gliding and paragliding.
Yours faithfully,