Originally Posted by SkiStarr90
They dont have any authority to do so, and like the UN, even if they did they couldnt enforce it. I know the U S of A wouldnt listen.
If you read the Mainu Manifesto for which David provided a link, it implies that the only way FIS could "enforce" such a ban would be to refuse to saction FIS races or competitions in a COUNTRY (not an individual state in the case of the US) that allowed heli-skiing.
David, that obviously wouldn't have any impact at all on Nepal (or China, depending on how you look at these things) or several other countries where heli-skiing is starting to appear. It would have some impact on the US and Canada, but I suspect both of those countries probably wouldn't misss their FIS races all that much. Certainly not enough to regulate heli-skiing out of business, anyway.
I agree with you that heli-skiing is an egregious consumption of btu's. So is riding the Queen Mary (does it sail anymore?) for an ocean cruise. So is a major ski resort with all its associated traffic, snowmaking, snow grooming, and lift operations. What about indoor ski operations like Milton Keynes?
Of course, heli skiing is also a colossal PITA if you're hiking/skinning in an area that's also accessible by heli's - such as the Wasatch Range which is where the most bitter conflicts between backcountry skiers and heli skiers occur. In the case of many other US-based heli operations, however, there's very little conflict between self-propelled skiers and heli-borne ones.
Still, I don't think this question has anything to do with esthetics beyond the amount of energy consumed. If that's the issue, I agree with many others here that time will solve this problem and the amount of pollution generated by heli ops really doesn't matter much in the overall scheme of things.
Interesting question, though.