Pulpit Launch - Decision Time for MHGA and CHGPA

[brianvh]

I was responding to the possible contracted plan, not Bacil's. Bacil's plan might work if a long enough slope is created, covering rocks on the way. A ramp sized slope with no recovery drop room could be bad.

[Spark]

Foks, I owe an apology here. I really don't have any right to comment on this topic. Please disregard my previous post and I'll refrain from any such future indiscretions.

Cheers,

'Spark

[mcgowantk]

To add my take on this: First, thanks to the folks who are looking into this. It is an interesting idea and worth considering. I am interested in seeing the proposal. Improving the paraglider launch would be a good idea and if it was launchable by hang gliders, so much the better. However, $5000 is a lot of money and if we go forward with the project, we should solicit donations similar to when we built the new ramp. If it will substantially improve the launch for paragliders, I am sure they will demonstrate their support for the project and the club.

I am not in favor of knocking down the old ramp without a firm plan and funding to replace it with a hang glider launch. The ramp is in good shape and will last for many more years. It also has features that can make it a better option than the new ramp. In fact, the last couple of times I flew there, I believe I went off the old ramp.

I am not sure that the current bids contemplate knocking down the old ramp. One reason for discussing the plan is to see how it can be improved and who is willing to support the project with time and money. So I want to see the plans and see how much money we can raise for this project before saying which way we should go.

Let's hope we get to fly this weekend.

Tom McGowan

[RedBaron]

Thanks for the many ideas and very valid concerns. People tend to forget how much space there is between the two ramps, they don't need to be touched. While I don't buy into the trashy air argument it is of utmost importance to make sure the new launch won't get washed thin. Agreed. Building a ramp on top of the rocks (if I understand correctly) defeats the purpose of being sel-launcheable, unless we're talking a ramp big enough to blow the budget entirely. Too expensive, an expansion of what exists already is the most reasoanble thing to do and can be done in a very cost-effective and safe way. This is not rocket science. A proposal will be presented to the clubs considering the concerns raised by Dave and Tom.

-emailing from Moyes land

[brianvh]

"Foks, I owe an apology here. I really don't have any right to comment on this topic. Please disregard my previous post and I'll refrain from any such future indiscretions."

Hey Sparky, as a main mover and shaker (literally!) in the construction of the current paraglider pad, your insights are valuable. I have less right than you to comment, though I now only fly the pulpit about once a year.

[Dave Proctor]

I'll second Tom's appreciation for the people undertaking this effort. I will offer to assist this endeavor in whatever way is needed. While I am an electrical engineer, and not a mechanical or civil, I usually have some good ideas. I know that the PG launch can be improved and there may be a chance to get a good HG launch in the process. One thing we did with the right ramp project was to solicit pledges for donations during the design process. It has been a long time, but I think we had pledges for about $2K at proposal time and ended up with $2500 in donations by the time the project was done (I am sure someone with a real memory can correct . Janni- if you want my help let me know, if you want me to butt out do the same. I won't be offended.

Let's go fly,

DaveP

[pink_albatross]

Great to see all the discussion going on!

And Sparky, sounds like someone sent you some nasty pm. Here's one pilot who appreciates your input though! You are familiar with the site and you are an accomplished pilot making intelligent remarks and that's enough for me.

On to my point: I do not feel that raising the slope is necessary for PG. Janni had a nice flight on his HG from the PG launch, so it might not be necessary for HG either. However, if you are set on a raised slope, it would not present a big problem for PG launches, despite the possibly faster air over the top. After all, we do hope to eventually fly in that air. It would be easier for PG to launch further down, but we could always move further down the slope to launch from there, provided the bottom of the slope is still at about same level as where it is now.

I am not sure if extending the slope significantly further down (other than a few more steps for the PG) would be beneficial. If I remember correctly, the slope sort of levels out below launch. If you are suckered into running further downhill, just because the slope goes down that far, will you have enough altitude to clear the shelf? A concern especially in light winds, when you are both most likely to run further down the slope *and* it is most likely that you won't find ridgelift.

As a PG pilot I would still like to see the old ramp removed to make room for a wider launch with cleaner air (i.e. no spillage over the ramps). If angled properly, this should still allow Northish launches and would eliminate the need for HG to have wirecrew in most conditions.

-- ellis
edited later: (would have liked to remove, but that would not be fair to subsequent posters) very important: if we are not removing any ramps, it is important to raise the PG launch to the level of the surrounding rocks to make it significantly safer for PG. Sorry for the confusion.

[Richard Hays]

Regardless of what happens, whoever does the work at the site MUST provide the clubs with a Certificate of Insurance. We should also request to be named an "Additional Named Insured" which is not essentially imperative but doesn't hurt.

This will shift any liability related claims to the contractors' insurance company, should there be one. The Certificate should show no less than 1,000,000 in coverage by an A-rated insurance carrier under the GL section, and also show Workers Compensation coverage. This should all be verified before ANY work begins on the property ! Otherwise...we could end up sued by an employee of the contractor if they got hurt, or by another property owner, or whomever. Don't think stuff like that can happen? Get real. I deal with it every day. F'instance...what if the contractor brought his equipment up, started to move stuff around, and then just disappeared...leaving everything in shambles and access blocked ? We'd be screwed without some sort of recourse. And...what if he brought in fill that was contaminated material, causing an EPA issue? Not a pretty picture.

Additionally; a signed contract specifying work to be done must be acquired vs. a "handshake" type buddy-buddy agreement.

That said; I'll now throw my two cents worth in on the ramp project. First of all, as discussed with Glen recently and with those who attended the join board meeting, I'm all in favor of it. But only if it results in a viable launch for BOTH hanggliders and paragliders. The exsisting Pulpit ramp launches provide a the bare minimum for launching hanggliders safely out of the slot. Tragic accidents have occured there due to weak launches ( combined with turbulence ) without sufficient room to dive and recover. The Pulpit "aint" High Rock. Lowering the take-off point for hanggliders by design in contrast to the exsisting ramps and being content with it would be a big mistake in my opinion. Launches from the
( new ) running launch have been dicey at best and not for the weak of heart. To improve it and make it safe, it MUST be raised significantly and angled properly to provide an adequete run-out. Remember; this new launch will be eyed by most as the preferred "easy" launch and in fact it may not be at all. Ultimately it will become a 6,000. 00 unknown until completed and flown repeatedly. Don't forget...the trees out in front aren't getting smaller. The slot in time will become more cavernous. Having the proper height for the running launch vs. barely doable is a must. Elevations should be specified and agreed upon and noted on the contract. And...if the contractor balks at providing us with either proof of insurance or a detailed contract, then we should immediately reject that individual and walk away.

And don't forget the lessons learned at High Rock. The whole launch dynamic changed when we went from a ramp launch to a filled launch pad. The lower position and shallow angle of the pad made launches more difficult, not easier.

Richard Hays
Prez. MHGA

[Spark]

Great to see all the discussion going on!

And Sparky, sounds like someone sent you some nasty pm. Here's one pilot who appreciates your input though! You are familiar with the site and you are an accomplished pilot making intelligent remarks and that's enough for me.
...-- ellis

Nope, nobody sent me a nasty PM I just don't want to seemy like a meddler.

Folks have contributed many valid and valuable suggestions/ideas in this thread. When y'all get the costs and other details nailed down, I'd like to contibute to the building fund.

[Dan T]

Have the monowingal paraglider pilots weighed in on this subject? I haven't noticed a single post from them. It seems that they would be the biggest beneficiaries of this initiative, and therefore seems that they should be willing to participate in the discussion and the effort.

Perhaps this discussion should be crossed posted so that they get a chance to participate.

How many dues paying monowingal paraglider pilots do we have in the club now?

Dan T

[dbodner]

How many dues paying monowingal paraglider pilots do we have in the club now?

In 08 there were 15, more or less. Heavily outweighed by the Hs and bi's

[RedBaron]

Dave, you're more than welcome to help (as is everybody else).
Tree height will be no more a concern than it is already. It can be managed. I've yet to see a pilot launch in a trashy cycle that would make recovery room a life-saving way out (in contrast to HR). I launched in clean air there, Gregory had nothing but good launches on his HPAT (he never launches from the ramp).
Everybody please keep in mind that this projects's goal is to provide a safe launch for PG's and a safe BACK-UP (!) slope launch for HG's. Many of the suggestions are all well and fair; they are, however, costly and complicated to implement. I'd like nothing better than a big massive radial ramp spanning the entire area. As Richard said, let's stay real and find a simple solution everybody can live with.

[Flying Lobster]

Perhaps I can add some clarity to this discussion.

While i know nothing about the recent activities that led up to the proposal for launch improvement--I do have a pretty fair idea of the Pulpit launches from both the paraglider and hang glider perspectives.

The real issue for paragliders, IMO, is what constitutes a safe paraglider launch and whether or not the present one meets those criteria. For those of you that do not fly paragliders, in general an ideal launch is one that allows the pilot to do the initial inflation and stabilization and then a safe launch run which allows for adjustment in case of crosswind/turbulence. The present launch "pad" is lacking in both respects, and while a good P4 with current ground handling practice may deal with the conditions most of the time, the fact is that the launch, due to it's location on the ridge, wind patterns, topography out front etc. is a technically challenging one (and I believe the history of hang gliding accidents alone bear this out) and thus the physical limitations of the launch demand a fair amount of luck in conditions other than fairly moderate, fairly straight in winds.

Because the paraglider is higher up it isn't quite as vulnerable to lower-level turbulence as a hang glider is--but by the same token it is more likely to get "snatched" and lofted by the compression over the top or gusted from the sides. Although the paraglide contingent probably isn't going to like me (or agree) for my saying this--but the present layout is not a safe one in terms of general paragliding operations, IMO. I'm really surprised that there hasn't been a serious PG accident there yet.

So, IMO, the first step isn't whether or not the Army Corps of Engineers needs to be consulted for technical expertise or whether the project needs to be insured against the possibility of Al Queda crashing an airliner into the construction crew--but whether or not the club(s) wish to support paragliding activities at all, at what level, and whether or not they wish to make the necessary improvements (as they did for hang gliding) to make the launch safer for a wider range of pilots.

marc

PS--heya Sparky--how's it going out west?

[lbunner]

Being just a hang glider pilot, I don't really see why something needs to be done to the Pulpit launches. I'm quite surprised at the energy behind this from the hang gliding contingent. Maybe I don't get it. Is there an advantage to making a safer HG launch between the ramps? What is it?

[Flying Lobster]

Being just a hang glider pilot, I don't really see why something needs to be done to the Pulpit launches. I'm quite surprised at the energy behind this from the hang gliding contingent. Maybe I don't get it. Is there an advantage to making a safer HG launch between the ramps? What is it?

I don't think this should be viewed as a hang glider improvement project--but one of paragliding improvement. The PG launch may or may not be useable by HG's as well (though I tend to agree with Richard about the dangers of lower-level hang gliding launches there), but the real reason for investing the time and resources into this project (as I see it) is to make a safer paragliding launch. The existing PARAGLIDE launch has safety issues which should be addressed if the clubs wish to continue having general access to paragliders. Simple as that.

marc

[XCanytime]

Larry,
I think there is a little more to it than just improving the launch slot to increase the safety for the paragliders. There is also I believe the latent desire to make the paraglider launch friendlier to a hang glider so the hang glider pilot can launch from there w/o a full wire crew requirement and have some more room between the wingtips and the rocks on either side. This has always been somewhat of a thorn in the side of flying the Pulpit, the full wire crew requirement on the ramps in moderate to strong conditions. It seems to deter more frequent flying there. There have been some that have launched a hang glider from the paraglider launch. I am not one of them, and I won't when you have two ramps that are much safer (with a full wire crew).

Bacil

[bustedwing2]

Although I don't remember who the pilot was about 2 years or so ago I do remember seeing a paraglider pilot kiting his(her?) wing from atop the big ramp.Hmmmmm.... Hey Spark,as an acomplished long time pilot with intimate knowledge of the local sites and the pilots here your insight and opinions are always valued,feel free to fire away. RichB

[RedBaron]

Just talked to Glen, there is a second quote for $4600. The third quote never came in it seems.
The proposal made to the clubs will, as stated in my first post, pertain to extending the gravel launch horizontally and vertically to utilize the entire area between the ramps. Natural rock formation at the bottom and some fence material (don't remember what it's called) will ensure that fill-in won't be washed out. I suggest a joint club meeting asap to vote on this.

[mcelrah]

I think part of the impetus for this project is that it's getting harder and harder to get a quorum for full wire crew.

The next CHGPA general meeting is 24 April, 8 PM at Matthew and Karen's house.
We will be electing new officers, but I see no reason to exclude MHGA-only members from a discussion of this important project, if they will drive to Takoma Park.

If we need to schedule a second joint meeting someplace further north, so be it.

- Hugh

[pnadams]

Can some one post the 'work instructions' for the quotes?

[brianvh]

good call, paul.

I still haven't seen how much the pad is to be elevated. If the elevation is not extremely significant (5 feet) then I agree with Marc: this is purely a PG improvement. Lengthening out front could allow less elevation and still be HG friendly, but that would take a lot more fill.

[RedBaron]

I think part of the impetus for this project is that it's getting harder and harder to get a quorum for full wire crew.

Thanks, Hugh. Right now a pilot of Gregory's caliber and size has no problem at all launching from the pad. I know pilots who call him crazy while having worse launches off the ramps, go figure. My sample size is only 1 but I got off and up without any problems re turbulence, too. While I understand the concerns about "low-level" turbulence I wonder what they're based on on a W day. The WS launch is very technical and rotory in W winds, yet we opt for that every time we can't get enough people to fly the Pulpit. Same for HR. I got hammered for speaking out against flying HR in cross winds.
This project will benefit all PG pilots and every HG pilot who doesn't mind trying something new. Who knows, you might like standing on solid ground. I did.

[XCanytime]

Here are the instructions from the quote from David H. Martin Excavating, Inc. out of Chambersburg, PA:

1. Remove rock as per job meeting with Jeryl Martin.
2. Use small track hoe to downsize and level runway area.
3. Furnish and grade 85 tons of 2A Mod stone on new takeoff area.
4. The existing dirt runway is to be covered with new stone.
5. The new regraded area on the North and South will match the existing takeoff area.

---- $4,590.00

Not included:

1. Permits or fees.
2. Seeding or mulching.

Bacil

[Dave Proctor]

I hate to be a PITA here but... We are getting quotes so we obviously have already have a plan. Could we have a few details of the plan and its authors?

Thanks,
DaveP

[brianvh]

By my rough estimation (I use metric because it's about a million times easier) a pad 17 meters wide by 5 m long filled with 85 tons of stone with a density 3 times that of water will raise the pad about 1/3 m, or 1 foot. Since it will not be perfectly compacted and some fill will be added from the rocks to the side, we may be looking at about 2 feet higher.

I still call this a paraglider launch.