Pulpit Launch - Decision Time for MHGA and CHGPA

[XCanytime]

Janni,
Any hang glider pilot who launches from the existing paraglider launch is reducing his recovery distance horizontally and vertically from any upset in pitch and roll. That is an indisputable fact. Whether somebody successfully launches from the existing paraglider launch or has a less than perfect launch from the ramp(s) is immaterial. I applaud the efforts that have been made so far by the pilots who are interested in improving the slope characteristics. Input from a lot of the experienced pilots in the area (hang glider pilots and paraglider pilots) on the slope characteristics should be sought and integrated into the requirements of the project before acquiring a final quote from whomever, and then it has to be presented to the board. What are the real benefits of improving this slope? Will it really make more pilots fly the Pulpit?

Bacil

[Danny Brotto]

The Pulpit Site is managed by the collective BOD’s of the CHGPA and the MHGA. A general membership vote is not needed for approval (although the respective Boards may request input from their membership and put such decision up for vote if that’s how they want to handle it.)

The monies for such a project should come from the Pulpit Treasury and not from the clubs’ treasuries; that’s what the Pulpit Treasury is there for. The Pulpit Treasury is distinct and independent from the clubs’ treasuries. If individuals want to contribute, then I’m sure it would be appreciated. I believe that contributions via the CHGPA as an intermediary would be tax deductible because of that club’s tax status incorporation.

Danny Brotto

[RedBaron]

Could we have a few details of the plan and its authors?

Not sure I understand the question but I believe the plan has been laid out here. The authors of the plan have spent decades in the construction business. Gregory has partaked in building HG launches from scratch in Greece.

I still call this a paraglider launch.

Fine by me. Worst case scenario: We'll end up with a much improved PG launch and a total of three HG pilots launching from there. Worth 5 grand in my book.

Any hang glider pilot who launches from the existing paraglider launch is reducing his recovery distance horizontally and vertically from any upset in pitch and roll.

Yes, the characteristics and limitations of a slope launch.

Input from a lot of the experienced pilots in the area (hang glider pilots and paraglider pilots) on the slope characteristics should be sought and integrated into the requirements of the project before acquiring a final quote from whomever

This has been tried by Matthew. Please revisit
http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.p ... pit+launch
and be dazzled by the wealth of information put forth by the experienced pilots.

Let's have a meeting, discuss and vote on this. Yes or no, it's really that simple.

[mcelrah]

Seems to me we *are* having a discussion (to be continued "live" on 24 April) and receiving input.

Janni, Bacil, Krys, Greg (are you there?): would the cost be linear per additional ton of fill material? In other words, if we wanted to build it higher, is it just a per-truck-load cost, (or does the pile become unstable?) or is the site prep and retaining wall a fixed cost, so building higher would not be that much more? I am envisioning (anybody got a photo/drawing of the current launch we could be looking at) raising the area in the middle as high as the rock(s) on the left (or else breaking them down to some intermediate height)...

- Hugh

[brianvh]

I'd like to suggest to members of the joint BOD that they not put in a final vote until they've gone back to take a look at the site with the plan in mind. We only remember things we need to, and the geometrical details involved in this plan are likely to be fuzzy.

When you look at it, also think about the alternatives: the Bacil/Hugh plan of filling up to the rock level, Ellis's level all the way across plan, and of course my universally ignored plan of turning the left launch into a slope.

the contractors will totally trash the hillside and camping area (could we convince them to dribble some gravel on the parking lot?). So this would have to be done either long before or right after the Pulpit fly-in.

[mcelrah]

Ellis was advocating the same thing as you for the left launch, I think, but I detect resistance to that from the HG side. We want to make this a consensus (but not necessarily unanimity) so haven't given it much more play. Feel free to reiterate your idea and see if we can persuade the left ramp supporters...I agree our discussion would be better grounded if we had drawings and/or photos to work with. Isn't that generally how contractors work? - Hugh

[brianvh]

No no no! Ellis is NOT suggesting the same thing.

She wants to level the left side to match the middle.

I want to leave the left side intact, and dump fill on top of the existing rocks to create a slope the same height as the ramp.

This MIGHT take less volume than filling in the gap between the rocks. I don't know because the slope may fall away below the ramp more than the present PG pad does. The ramp could be left as the runway, with rubble and gravel filling around it so that there is a wide slope around it at the same level. The retaining wall could be supported by the metal understructure of the ramp. It's sheer genius, I tell ya.

Not even remotely the same as leveling the left side.

[pink_albatross]

Gotta run, but just to clear up any confusion: I'm all for Brian's proposal!
No lowering of launch, please.
Would love to have old launch height, but slope, from the left most extreme side (to the left of old ramp) all the way to the right ramp.

(maybe confusion arose, because i said that additional height would not be necessary for PG launch. It would however be nice)

[brianvh]

Actually, that's Hugh and Bacil's proposal, not mine. The confusion about the Ellis proposal arose because you talked about moving the rocks as well as saying more height was not needed.

My proposal is like the full slope clear across, except that I'd just do it around the left slope where the rocks already provide the height. Less fill, less work, ramp metal provides some structure, and may be wide enough if you fill in around the ramp and include the rocks.

[brianvh]

Dave Bodner; how far to the left of launch does our property extend? I seem to remember the left launch is right on the edge.
Maybe I could work this out from your trapezoid/pentagon/whatever it was, but I couldn't.

[RedBaron]

Now look,

it's not Christmas and we weren't asking for a wish list. We made a proposal that will undoubtly be a major improvement of the pad, we got quotes for it, I put it up for discussion here. The things you're discussing now will be outrageously expensive, they require a different proposal and new quotes. You're more than welcome to provide those.

Glen told there may be a meeting on the 27th of this month to vote on our proposal. I hope the date will be announced here. I also think it may be worthwhile to hold it at the Pulpit, seems like some of you don't even remember what it looks like up there.

[brianvh]

Can we put a pavilion up over launch? I'm tired up potatoing in the sun.

And little pop-up footloops for the wirecrew so they don't have to tie in.

We could probably make money off the birdwatchers if we ran a power line from the bar and put in a soda machine.

[Dave Proctor]

The geography of the Pulpit is unlike any other slope launch in the area. Most slope launches are either very steep or increase in slope as you get away. If you have any kind of problem immediately after launch you get some time to recover as the mountain falls away. This is not the case at the Pulpit. The slope of the Pulpit in front of launch is not that steep and does not get significantly steeper. The information that has been presented so far has not been enough to get a complete picture of what is planned. I just went back and re-read Janni's posts and all I see is that the area between the ramps will be filled in, some of the large boulders will be moved, and there will be some sort of fencing placed down below to extend the slope further down the hill. No mention of how far down the hill or the new height at the top, or the roll-off at the bottom of the new slope.
I asked about the authors because none of the experienced pilots in the region that I have talked to have been consulted on the design. As far as I know the only people creating the plan are Janni, Glenn, and Gregory. Are there others involved? When we did the right ramp we talked to every experienced pilot in the area. Has a civil engineer been consulted? I know we have at least one CE in the club, maybe others. Has anyone set up a bunch of streamers down there at various altitudes to see what the air is doing right in front of where you are planning on launching?
Excellent points made by RIchard Hays on both design and liability (can you tell Rich's business is insurance . I share RIchard's fears that this new launch will have a warm and fuzzy look to less experienced pilots when it may in fact end up being less safe.
I know we can build a safer PG launch. I still don't know about a better HG launch without a mega-effort (beyond the funds available).
PS My recollection is that our property does not go very far to the left of the old ramp.

DaveP

[mcelrah]

The 27th is a Monday. And we want to have the meeting at the site? That would be good - but on a weekend. - Hugh
P.S. I appreciate the impatience and wanting to just take the bull by the horns and git-er-done - but you can't expect the Boards to just cough up the money for a take-it-or-leave-it proposal. There will be a lot of consideration of alternatives.

[RedBaron]

You're raising excellent points, Dave. A CE has not been consulted because a) they're usually not interested in this type of work b) consultation comes at a price and c) whoever the pilot(s) with a degree in CE'ing are, they are either not active pilots anymore and thus absent from CHGPA.org or not interested either. The CE I talked to told me it would be very hard if not impossible to contract a CE for this, let alone super expensive. Who's going to advance the money? How many quotes, debates and meetings would that take? Given the clubs' dual and beaurocratic structure and lack of energy you need to ask yourself the question if there actually is any other way than the one I'm trying to promote here. If anybody here thinks they can handle this in a better way, step forward and do it.

We got a quote for equipment, material and 2 days' labour if I'm informed correctly (kinda hard staying involved when you are in OZ). I'm honestly not sure how far we can extend the bottom and whether an extension will be neccessary. But I think we all agree that this plan will improve PG safety, no?

The slope is what it is, Dave. Changing that will require mega effort and mega moolah. It's been demonstrated over and over again that a HG can launch from there with no problem in reasonable and straight-in winds. The community's reluctance to accept that is based on poor ramp launches, paranoia and status quo clinginess. And, nobody will be forced to launch from the pad. HG pilots will not be in the slightest affected by the changes unless you find rocks as pretty as Brian does.

[markc]

First, I'd like to commend everyone for keeping this debate constructive and civil.
Some want to charge ahead with the project, and some want to proceed cautiously.
Both of those attitudes have their place, and it will benefit this discussion if people
try to see things from others' perspectives.

I have two comments: a) Post some photos of the launch area(s) that are under
consideration for improvement. From multiple angles, so that slope and fill
requirements can be discussed a bit more easily. No, this isn't a substitute for
a meeting on-site, or for formal plans... But it might make it easier to convey
the ideas that are on the table. b) I haven't seen anything about a retaining wall
in the quotes (thus far). My impression is that filling in the slot between the
ramps would perhaps double the amount of material already dumped. Would the
very minimal retaining wall which is there now be up to the task of handling that
much more fill & weight? There's already some erosion occurring in the slot.
Might be due solely to rain runoff and lack of vegetation, but that should be confirmed.

Cheers,

MarkC

PS: Personally, if conditions were STFI@15 and we had a slope-launch option,
I would like that very much. There are many days when there are too few pilots
for a ramp wire crew. And a mid-week flight on a good XC day? That's going to be
hard to arrange unless the last two pilots at least have SOME chance of
getting into the air.

[brianvh]

I think I'll arrive at the Pulpit painfully late friday night on the way to Shawn's party. I'll bring my computer and a measuring tape, make some morning measurements, draw some diagrams, and send them to the Cav to post. No promise of accuracy.

[brianvh]

I may remember to take pictures too.

[brianvh]

ooog. Looking like rain, may scratch that plan.

[hepcat1989]

.

[pink_albatross]

I want to second Mark C.'s commendation on the civil debate on this topic despite some differences in opinions and miscommunications (some on my part. I am sorry).
I would also like to thank Bacil for posting the quote and the parameters of the quote.

It seems to me from this discussion, that we are all in agreement that we would like to do something to make the launch safer for paragliding. Obviously there are members of the club (PG pilots seem to be a shy bunch, please excuse) who very much appreciate this. And I am one. Thank you!

Now to clear up some of the confusion caused by me regarding what it takes to make the PG launch safer:
If we can not remove the left ramp (or use it the way Brian envisions it - love that proposal), but we still want to significantly improve safety for PG launches, IMO requires raising the slope to about the top level of the rocks. This would create one continuous pad between the left to the right ramp and raise the compression zone. The rocks can stay to provide stability to the infill and reduce material needed for the fill. Not having to remove the rocks will reduce the costs required to raise the slope between the ramps.

-- ellis

[brianvh]

My concern with removing the rocks in the contracted proposal is that there's no way to go backwards. If we want to later fill up to rock level (either my left side cap or the splendidly ambitious Bacil/Ellis/Hugh fill all the way across), we will have lost the rocks as an anchor point.

I don't think anyone would disagree about the safety aspects of the fill-to-ramp-level idea, and it may be worth the significantly greater cost.

Though I think the contracted plan would be an improvement for PG, it could stand in the way of bigger improvements.

[Dave Proctor]

During planning on the right ramp project I spent a day on-site doing an informal survey of the property in front of launch. Right now almost all of my office stuff is jammed into one room during renovations, but I will see if I can find the data. I think I may have given a copy to Joe Gregor as well. This includes height data for the area.

DaveP

[Dan T]

Cross posted from PG forum:

Now is the time for the PG only members of the club to weigh in. Without their active participation and contributions towards the project it seems that this initiative is well intended but misguided. Short of the "top of the ramp" proposals it doesn't seem to offer much to the HG community.

Would our money be better spend acquiring a 50 year easement providing us with access and landing rights at a suitable landing field? Loss of a suitable landing field would render all of our efforts at the Pulpit and Woodstock in vein.

Dan T
en route to Bulgaria in pursuit of a second set of wings.

[dbodner]

Considering what $5k will buy us, I gotta believe that making the ridge all one level would be way more money than that, probably way more than the Pulpit has. It might be a nice goal, but I don't see the groundswell of support to raise that kind of money.

I also believe the loss of the rocks is being exaggerated. No one's going to pulverize those rocks completely for $5k. I think they're only knocking off some of the protrusions.

Janni's proposal won't be a perfect HG launch, but it'll be better. I can't say if it'll improve the launch for PG, maybe not. Lastly, I don't think it'll foreclose any future options should someone win the lottery.