Pulpit Launch - Decision Time for MHGA and CHGPA

[RedBaron]

Dan, Brian, Ellis. By throwing in new ideas with no considerations of costs, practicality and comon sense you're hurting this serious attempt at improving the Pulpit site. This discussion is not about leasing a landing field and it's not about building a new hill on top of the pad. Please start your own thread if you would like to put your own plans up for consideration. Competition is always good.
The issue of a retaining wall is a concern I share and I'm glad it transpired through this discussion. We will contact the contractor and discuss this on site. Right now our plan is to pulverize the boulders to football size rocks and use some of those alonge with chain-link fence and bigger rocks at the bottom to retain new material added. Our plan also includes extending the bottom by 40-60 feet. This may require a stronger build, something we admittedly haven't given enough thought. Depending on the contractor's expert opinion this may result in a new quote and add a couple thousand to the existing one. I will post the day we will meet here and encourage everybody to tag along to address concerns, express ideas and see for themselves. This is something that cannot be evaluated in front of a computer.
Again, the notion that we're trying to build something for the PG community is wrong. We're driven by the neccessity of adding a slope launch option to the two ramps. Anybody who thinks you can't safely launch from the pad is wrong, but it will always be a technical one as are most of our launches. The PG pilots will benefit because the new pad would give them lateral and vertical space for launches that are less than perfect, and it would dimish the danger of breaking a vertebra on one of those boulders. That happened very recently.

[Flying Lobster]

Your first sentence describing the ramp was: "The new launch area will be much safer for PG take-off and, at last, perfectly safe for HG launches."

But now you say: "Again, the notion that we're trying to build something for the PG community is wrong.."

Forgiving me for thinking this had anything to do with PG's.

marc

[Flying Lobster]

Your first sentence describing the ramp was: "The new launch area will be much safer for PG take-off and, at last, perfectly safe for HG launches."

But now you say: "Again, the notion that we're trying to build something for the PG community is wrong.."

Forgive me for thinking this had anything to do with PG's.

marc

[RedBaron]

We both know that the Pulpit isn't a popular site for PG pilots for the problems this plan is trying to address.
So, where's the contradicion and, given the fact that I spent the second half of that paragraph repeating the benefits for PG pilots, why are you so blatantly quoting me out of context?

[pink_albatross]

I am really confused now. Are we or are we not trying to improve the launch for paragliding?
-- ellis

[brianvh]

My idea is pure common sense and cost sensitive. The left ramp area is already elevated. Fill around it to bring it all up to the same level: may actually result in a better slope for about the same cost. It's extremely pertinent in showing that there may be an alternative when people vote on the single contracted plan. Of course it is not nearly as thought out as the one you propose.

The question of what is the effect of adding 40-60 feet the end depends on how it is done. (btw, how was anyone to know this was part of the plan before you finally stated it??) If it simply follows the present contour filling in the crevices in the rocks, I'm not sure it will really result in a safe launch, even if it reduces the chances of being mutilated on a sharp boulder. If the whole thing is elevated above the present contours, it very possibly would make a safer launch. My estimations for 85 tons suggests the first possibility. What is the detailed plan? You seem to be saying the details aren't there yet.

I think the fact that you're actually trying to do something is great, and I'm honestly not trying to discourage it. I just think it isn't ready for a decision yet...Dave P's points are very much on target. You're doing the right thing: fill out the details and get a new bid.

[Dan T]

Janni,

While I admire your tenacity and willingness to go to the considerable effort that it takes to undertake an initiative like the one you propose, I think that your effort to suppress a discussion of other alternatives is misguided. This discussion is fundamentally about how to spend the clubs scarce financial resources towards increasing our opportunities to safely fly our sites. Other than Brian and Ellis's rather more ambitious suggestions, I have not heard a compelling argument that elevating the slot will do so. Neither am I persuaded that this is the best use of the club's funds.

Since I cannot be there in person, at this time I request that a "no" vote be submitted on my behalf. I'll change that to a yes if someone can demonstrate that a slope launch with a starting height equal to the left hand ramp can be constructed at a price that is within the club's means to pay for it.

Dan T
in Kuwait

[RedBaron]

It's extremely pertinent in showing that there may be an alternative when people vote on the single contracted plan.

I agree 100%. Great. When will you be able to put a price tag on it? Will you be at the meeting presenting your proposal? If not it's just drivel Brian. Typing ideas away is the easiest thing in the world and leads to zero results.

My idea is pure common sense and cost sensitive.

Prove it.

I'm not sure it will really result in a safe launch, even if it reduces the chances of being mutilated on a sharp boulder.

What's your definition of safety then?

I just think it isn't ready for a decision yet...Dave P's points are very much on target. You're doing the right thing: fill out the details and get a new bid.

I agree 100%. Will do. Finding holes, making changes and amendments was one of the reasons I put it up for discussion here. I believe in transparency and constructive criticism. Again, I'm in Sydney. My hands are tied right now.

I think that your effort to suppress a discussion of other alternatives is misguided.

Apologies. When do you think will you be able to find a suitable field that's up for grabs? It's an alternative I'm very interested in. Let's discuss it Dan and see what you're gonna do about it when you're back.

I request that a "no" vote be submitted on my behalf.

Fair enough.

[Flying Lobster]

Janni--I don't know what you mean by quoting you out of context--I simply quoted what you yourself wrote. I'm all for improving the launch area (though I have no real say since I'm not a current member) because it truly is a safety issue with the most impact on reducing the risk for paragliders. If the decision were up to me I'd say go for it.

The clubs have already invested time, money and effort into building the wooden ramps and I think it's going to be a tough uphill battle--so to speak--because they work for the most part safely for hang gliding. I think using the PG argument is far more compelling because from that context there is a safety problem associated with the existing pad and general use protocols. I feel that arguing from the point of view of improving hang gliding diminishes the chances of getting the much-needed improvements approved.

marc

[brianvh]

"My idea is pure common sense and cost sensitive.

Prove it."

I'll stop by the burg on my way back from Shawn's party on sunday and make measurements on the left ramp. It very well may prove too ambitious, but the numbers will provide some reality.

[Flying Lobster]

Janni,

While I admire your tenacity and willingness to go to the considerable effort that it takes to undertake an initiative like the one you propose, I think that your effort to suppress a discussion of other alternatives is misguided. This discussion is fundamentally about how to spend the clubs scarce financial resources towards increasing our opportunities to safely fly our sites. Other than Brian and Ellis's rather more ambitious suggestions, I have not heard a compelling argument that elevating the slot will do so. Neither am I persuaded that this is the best use of the club's funds.

Since I cannot be there in person, at this time I request that a "no" vote be submitted on my behalf. I'll change that to a yes if someone can demonstrate that a slope launch with a starting height equal to the left hand ramp can be constructed at a price that is within the club's means to pay for it.

Dan T
in Kuwait

Heya Dan--

As a paraglider pilot in training your "vote" is contradictory to the interests of promoting safe PG launches in the club. Why is that?

marc

[jimrooney]

Been lurking on this one...
I wish I were there to have a first hand look at things, it can be difficult to form an opinion without doing so. Pictures would help a great deal (for everyone) in that respect.

I've only been to the pulpit on a handful of occasions and it was before my PG days. So while I know the site, it's all a bit fogy.

From the outside, there does seem to be a theme of a modest proposal that kicked off some pie in the sky talk. Seems to be where a lot of this thread's gone.

I'll be quite honest that I've not been super keen to trek out to fly the Pulpit in PG cuz it did not look like a very inviting PG launch. The thought of that changing starts the gears turning

Hope ya'll get where ya wana be.
If someone could get some pics up, I'd be happy to add whatever limited info I can. I'm heading back just a touch too late for this at the moment (end of the month).

Jim

[RedBaron]

There is no support from the PG community. Many don't even know the site, too many dangers lurking at that launch.

We'll meet with the guys, take photos and fill you all in on the points that clearly need to be addressed. I would again like to thank DaveP and MarkC for being very helpful.

We will make a presentation at the club meeting and I will be excited to see how we stack up against alternative proposals made by the competition. I'm a bit worried about the LZ purchase proposal and the no vote cast, seems like they've got a real joker up their sleeves.

[Tamas]

Sorry guys that we (PG community) haven’t participated too much in the discussion... I can just write in my own name, which doesn’t necessarily reflect the whole PG community’s opinion, but YES, it would be GREAT to be able to have a couple more steps at launch! At the moment it’s narrow and very short. I have had very nice flights at Pulpit, and I like the site, but launch can be very challenging. Obviously the best would be if we could turn Pulpit into a nice Alpine launch area, but realistically, the original plan would SIGNIFICANTLY improve all aspects of the launch for paragliders.

Tamas

[brianvh]

I now support the basic Glen/Gregory/Janni plan, assuming the information I got from Shawn reflects the true plan.

there were some misconceptions that needed to be removed, done by talking to Shawn Rae about the plan details (and assuming what he told me is correct) and actually going to look at the launch site with the plan in mind. I am addressing hang glider concerns only in this post, and will mainly compare the pad to the old ramp. For the new pilots, "new ramp" refers to the large ramp on the right, "old ramp" refers to the smaller ramp on the left.

MISCONCEPTION: all rocks to the right and left of the gravel would be removed, as stated in Janni's original post.

Shawn thinks that only those next to the new ramp will be removed. I don't give a rat's ass about them, I say blast them to kingdom come. I DO care about the rocks next to the old ramp. They have major personality. These probably don't have to be touched, or lightly shaped at most.

The current pad is 25-30 feet wide. Extending it to the new ramp by pulverizing the boulders next to it would double this width to about 50 feet. Launching from the new middle means you are out of wind shadow both of the big boulders next to the old ramp and the new ramp unless you have more than a moderate cross wind. It's no worse than woodstock.

MISCONCEPTION: the current pad is significantly lower than the old ramp.

The pad has a slope very close to that of the old ramp, but is about 8 feet lower. It extends about 10 feet further both in the forward and backwards direction, providing much more run out. Whether 8 feet altitude is significant depends on the details of the slope, discussed below.

MISCONCEPTION: even if graded, the current ridge geometry at launch is inappropriate for a slope launch.

When standing on the ramps, we tend to look out and forward, and don't see what the slope does right at the lip. if you stand at the edge of the paraglider pad, you see that the slope descends at a fairly steep 45 degree angle for 50-60 feet altitude drop (I'm totally estimating here). I'd call this part of the slope comparable to the steep part of Oregon Ridge. After this is the flat part that Dave Proctor referred to, but to my eyes it pretty much matches a HG glide angle. After about 200 feet of this glide angle part (another complete estimate) the ridge falls away again.

If this was a training hill, someone standing at the top would easily make it over the 200 foot flatter region since it slopes gently downwards. The ramp being 8 feet higher but 10 feet further back simply matches the slope, so it's like adding 8 feet to the top of the training hill. Remember that the PG (and some HG) have been flying away from this "training hill" without fear of crashing into the trees below.

This is purely subjective, but I feel with a 5 mph wind and good clearance on either wingtip, I'd feel perfectly safe launching from the pad, especially if a couple more feet were added and the biggest rocks below were smashed.

--------------------
So Janni, does your plan really call for removing the boulders next to the old ramp? I see no need. I'd expend the effort instead at raising the pad a few feet so that people will accept that 6 feet lower with much longer runout is as good as the ramp. The idea of grading for 30-40 below the present pad makes it extra inviting.

The details need more chewing over, it's not ready for a yes or no vote, but I think it's generally a workable idea and I apologize for casting aspersions on it before I got another look at the site. (just leave the boulders next to the old ramp alone!)

My old turn-the-boulders-into-a-slope-launch plan is actually more feasible than I thought since they already define a slope, but since I feel comfortable with the improved pad I'll hereby stop mentioning it. Too complex.

[brianvh]

Correction: the best way to see the shape of the ridge is to stand below the old ramp and look at the slope from the side.

[jimrooney]

Brian... you didn't bring a camera???

[mcelrah]

Brian,

What is so wonderful about a big rock on the left that could cause you grievous bodily harm if you got swung into it (in a PG) as happened to Matthew, resulting in a broken back?

- Hugh

[brianvh]

Jim:
I don't think a camera conveys 3-D information well at all: I have yet to see a photo of any launch that tells what it would be like to launch there. You just have to be there. Diagrams actually do a better job of getting it across than photos, but I'm too lazy and I don't have the slope surveyed in any case.

Anyway, if you clear the rocks next to the new ramp, you would have 10+ feet clear on either side of your HG wing during the launch run. This is the width of an average bedroom. And it slopes like the present old ramp. A PG would have 3 bedrooms width on either side of their body: twice as much as now.

Dave Proctor brought up the flat area in front of launch. But it's no worse than Kennedy, and perhaps no worse than Dickey's though I've seen that launch only once. Both of them I wouldn't have launched off if I didn't see others do it first. I think the PG flights have demonstrated that the flat part is not as bad as it looks.

I know it sounds crazy that I'd reverse an opinion just by going and looking once more at a place I've been to dozens of times already, so I suggest others do the same.

Hugh: I don't think the rocks are an issue since you will have 50-60 feet to play with after removing the rocks on the right. Matthew only had 25 feet. I don't want to remove them because they are a major part of the Pulpit landscape, so why remove them if you don't have to? Next you'll be complaining about the ramps.

[brianvh]

PS: go up there and stand at the dividing line between the gravel pad and the rocks to the right. This is where you would be launching. I think you'll see the big rocks to the left are not an issue.

Anyway, everyone please look before you vote, don't trust your memory: you only remember what's necessary to the previous situation. I don't have BOD voting privileges, but I do care about the site.

[RedBaron]

Thanks for making the trip and actually looking into this, Brian.
I want to see all the big rocks annihilated for the reason Hugh pointed out. Since they will be used as fill-in and retaining wall material they should all be destroyed.
I don't see the need for 3-D slope diagramms, aerial pictures taken from reconnaissance planes and X-ray analysis at all given the fact that, I repeat, Gregory has safely launched from the pad several dozens of times.
I will, however, take pictures and try my best to help pilots visulaize what the site and the pad in particular look like, here and at the meeting.

[brianvh]

I think you could reduce the amount of work and get the pad higher with the fill you have by not taking out the rocks. Anyway, I'm just one voice, I've made my case and will leave it at that.

[mcelrah]

Yup, remove the rocks and I'll complain about the ramps, the rock field down below, the shallowness of the launch, too hot, too cold, too cross, too much/little wind velocity, my back/knee/head hurts, I need a new glider, the drive to Pulpit is too far, there are no good restaurants in Mercersburg, we shudda gone to High Rock/Woodstock, there's corn/cornstocks/mud in the LZ, it's overcast/blue, everybody got ahead of me in line, I have to be the first one to launch, my radio doesn't work, people are talking too much on the radio, there are no thermals, the lift is scary strong...

[hepcat1989]

.

[hepcat1989]

.