High Rock structure in need of repair

[dbodner]

Unless some kind of retaining wall is put in place the gravel will keep eroding down by the steps, rendering any step construction a Sisyphian enterprise. I'd suggest railroad ties anchored to the rocks somehow.

If we demolish, the gravel is history, anyway. I personally feel that's how it's gonna go. But, I defer to others.

[mcelrah]

Yup, it's pretty clear that putting a bandaid on the old structure ain't gonna work. The authorities seem to be willing to go with a "deck" type ramp and make the permitting easy, plus Dan Tuckwiler has access to a treasure-trove of resources for executing it, so I think that's the path of least resistance.

Dan, I am willing to stay involved and help in any way I can, but my main role was liaison with the county. Now that you have made direct contact, don't feel as if you have to go through me. "Speed the plough!"

Matthew, are you going to contact USHPA/Fund for Free Flight? See the magazine article by Jon James, chairman of the USHPA site management committee, which calls out the Pulpit and High Rock as insured sites.

What do we think about putting some kind of "Danger: Sheer Cliff ahead!" signs on the steps leading up to the ramp?

- Hugh

[brianvh]

"If we demolish, the gravel is history, anyway. I personally feel that's how it's gonna go. But, I defer to others."

I was referring to the gravel at the bottom of the steps. 10 years ago we had to add steps. Now if we kept the present cube we would need to add another step, and any steps to the ramp will need to be added to in time. These is due to gravel eroding in the area where we do final hang checks. That area will need a retaining wall, and perhaps an entire leveled terrace - any slope like we have at present will erode. One flat terrace at the level of the top of the rocks that we presently step over to get from setup area to hang check area. More work, but it will last if anchored to rock and filled with gravel, and if creosote impregnated railroad ties are used. Just a suggestion to think about.

[brianvh]

If you build the framework for the terrace first, then all concrete and gravel from the demolishment can be dumped in there to fill it up, rather than thrown over the edge. I think the parks department would prefer that, and it would save money by reducing the amount of gravel we'd have to purchase. Concrete chunks packed at the bottom edges where the walls would leak smaller gravel would be good, saving money on purchase of larger rocks, and the concrete has to come off first anyway! It all dovetails beautifully.

[mcelrah]

I'm certainly willing to entertain all alternatives at this pre-design stage, but the momentum appears to be behind a pseudo-wooden deck-like ramp with steps to match across the entire back edge a la the new Pulpit ramp - or a "back ramp" a la the old Pulpit ramp. The Fiberon (TM) material is on offer for $10/board, regardless of length - 6-inches wide, same price whether 10 feet or 20 feet - I guess it's remaindered stuff. So the materials cost would be quite low - 60 boards = $600 (plus whatever the supporting structure will cost). Dan's company has experience building with this material on top of a regular pressure-treated timber framework anchored in concrete footers, and he's already recruited his design guy to do CAD drawings (on his own time, natch) that can be presented to the county. Moreover, he thinks he can recruit actual construction guys from his company to supervise our unskilled volunteer effort on building day (a case of beer as a thank-you may be in order - or maybe a free tandem ride in the spring). The idea is to demolish all of the cube structure as unsalvageable, leaving only the historic masonry, which will form part of the foundation of the new ramp. Hoping to get some county help for the demo...
Concrete doesn't set below 50 degrees, so need to hurry before winter comes. High Rock is probably closed as a flying site already until we fix it...
I see that I have a large e-mail from Danny, but it's too big to read on my Blackberry. Gonna wait and see what he has to say... - Hugh

[brianvh]

Will these steps go all the way to the rocks right above the setup area? If so I guess there's no need for a terrace. If not, the terrace is still needed.

I'd also think about how the base of the steps will be anchored. If they don't go down to bedrock then a sandbox should be built so the gravel holding everything up doesn't erode and leave the understructure hanging. Whether it's in front or below the steps, the existing gravel erosion will be an issue that shouldn't be ignored.

I don't know if Kelvin is still current with tandems. We might arrange a quid pro quo with Shawn McDuff: several tandems for several years membership in the clubs. He always joins, so the trade makes sense.

[DanTuck]

If we build it only as wide as the inside pillars, it will be a few feet wider than the cube is now. It would be roughly 30' wide. And Hugh's got it. The idea is to build the stairs or ramp back down to the rocks that are just up past the set up area as you walk up to the launch using the solid rock to anchor. The elevation drop from the top of the pillars to that rock is rougly 6 feet. Attached are a couple of very quick sketches (existing and the idea)which also illustrate why it will be exceedingly difficult to make this PG launchable. The walk up to the block is from an angle. To build the deck straight back from the block as would be needed to lay out a PG, would be a monumental task which I believe is beyond the realistic scope of this project. I think it would be best if we could all (anyone who wants to be involved and those with intimate knowledge of the Rock) meet up at the site this weekend or as soon as possible to discuss this. Being there is a lot better than trying to remember what everything looks like.

[mcelrah]

Lotta people going to Highland for Halloween but could go to the rock before or after (Friday or Sunday).

- Hugh

[dbodner]

I think Dan's right about a PGable ramp probably not being doable. We might be able to make it wide enough, but deep enough would be absolutely huge. I'd like to see it done, but do PGers disagree?

The gravel in the setup area and under the current steps has pretty much completed its exodus leaving the hardpack and rock exposed. As I think Dan and Hugh were implying, we work with the natural stone there, not try to corral the gravel.

As far as visiting the Rock, I know I won't be at the Highland Halloween, so maybe I can make it.

As far as demolition is concerned, I wonder if we could convince the county to do it on the assumption that their pros would be less likely to damage the historic columns underpinning the cube. On the other hand, I could see that backfiring on us, too.

[pink_albatross]

Obviously it would be nice to have the deck PG-able. We'd need, I think, 35 feet. Where would that put the steps?
-- ellis

[mcelrah]

Danny,

I see you sent me an e-mail, but it gets truncated for too much length. Please resend your work phone and I will call you - or call me at 502 509-7125.

- Hugh

[DanTuck]

Obviously it would be nice to have the deck PG-able. We'd need, I think, 35 feet. Where would that put the steps?
-- ellis

It would be great if we could make it happen and we may be able to come up with a good solution. The problem is the huge gulley that is off to the right of the walk up area. We would have to bridge over it and that is no easy task. Right now, the width of the cube is about 24' and the depth from front to back is about 18'. We can widen it a bit if we cover up the entire middle 4 pillars. But to get it big enough for PG, we'd have to double the depth and widen it more (at least the back half of the ramp). The stairs would have to be even more massive...but, again, if we could come up with something to make it work, let's do it! The other thing that would have to be overcome is the two trees that overhang the back half of the cube. They would have to be cut down in order to inflate a PG. These sketches are not to scale but they really aren't all that far off either.

[brianvh]

PGer's do inflation at the Fairgrounds, which is also a cliff launch, but they have a lot more room to play with. Will inflating on a constricted area next to a cliff be a safety issue?

[mcelrah]

I have done cliff launches in light air out in Colorado, but then I sledded. I am polling the PG list for advice from wiser heads. One question is whether with a vertical component to the wind coming up the cliff in stronger conditions, the wing will dive, or worse, stall? One saving grace is that the wing is 15-20 feet above the ramp in launch configuration... Got any PG friends from Ellenville and the new ramp there? - Hugh

[mcelrah]

The fact that the area is constricted IS nervous-making, but many of our sites are like that: High Point, Dickie's, the place I was in Colorado. Ya just gotta be ready to abort if the wing goes funky on ya... - Hugh

[brianvh]

None of those (except perhaps the place in colorado?) is next to a cliff that will kill you, no questions asked if you go over without an inflated wing. I seem to remember at fairgrounds the PG would inflate a good 10 feet back, and if it worked then move forward. Wouldn't have that option at High Rock unless we built the county an amphitheatre they could use to enjoy the view. I'm no PG pilot, but the thought of doing an inflation close to a cliff edge generating trashy air would really scare me.

[Spark]

I know this is none of my busines, but I feel compelled to say this:

IMO, HR could never be modified to be an acceptable PG launch. I have given this much consideration over several years and I do not think there is a way to reliably and repeatedly get a PG canopy into the airflow, without making major changes like tree removal and blasting rocks. Even if a PG could get inflated, the kind of winds that are often seen there would prevent many PG pilots from making it to the LZ.

I won't say any more except that I am concerned that a PG launch at HR will imminently result in death or serious injury and potential loss of the site.

[mcelrah]

Yup, so maybe we keep trying to identify the owner and clear the slope to the right of the cube. The thing that makes the new Pulpit gravel ramp so nice is that it is that "amphitheater" you mention. We are also learning the best techniques for launching there. For example, some people's PGs would flap around while they were waiting for a cycle. Ellis told me to let it build a wall and it would be stable (it helped that the wind was steady and moderate). (Maybe this is old hat to some, but I learned something...) So if the High Rock ramp can be made at all PG-able, we may evolve technique for it. As it is, the design of the new ramp will reflect our current hang-glider launch technique with current equipment, so, for example, it looks like we will delete the grating in front.
- Hugh
P.S. Actually, Sparky, I/we really appreciate your input on this. We are feeling our way here. Through Dan Tuckwiler, we have stumbled on a bonanza of energy and design/construction skills, but we still need technical advice on the aerodynamics of the ramp. If it is elevated above the underlying rock, do we need to have a facia to reduce burble from wind hitting the underside of the deck?

[Danny Brotto]

If the new platform is that, a flatish platform w/o a rolling radial design, I think it wise to maintain the grate AKA nose man platform.

First I can not stress enough the number of times I've seen wuffos walk up and jump with the thinking that the grate is there.

Second the areodynanics of the new platform may allow launching into higher winds for which a nose man position could be helpful (as it was with the previous structure on occasion.)

Danny Brotto

[mcgowantk]

I agree that modifying the ramp to try to accomodate paragliders is very risky. However, I am sure many members of the club would be interested in creating a slot launch near by. One option that we discussed at the meeting was identifying a landowner and approaching them for permission. Let's do a ramp consistent with what we have now and continue to pursue the slot launch too.

Tom McGowan

[stevek]

A contrarian view: I don't think we need or should do much of anything. The main problem is that the gravel on which the concrete was originally poured has subsided. But it has been that way for years. The most glaring problem is the concrete step. A 3" gap between the step and the gravel appeared within a year of completion. I worried about it. I don't anymore.

We need a new rock at the bottom of the steps. This has progressed from a short person issue to a short and medium-size person issue. Hopefully, we can all come together on this.

I think a slot would be great. Not sure I would want to fly a PG there. Long ways out.

The whole issue of legal liability for Washington County is important. Any new structure opens that question. What we have has been there for a long time. That is good. It withstood a legal challenge. Also good. Leave it. Patch it if need be.

[mcelrah]

Well, but the expertise and materials on offer are for "wooden" deck construction - and the county appears to have spontaneously opened that as a way forward. Where is the concrete/stone masonry expert? If *someone* can generate some energy (quickness) behind an alternative solution, please do. The floor is open. If we can get a Fiberon deck built before winter, I'm not going to argue... - Hugh

[mcelrah]

P.S. With respect to glide to the High Rock LZ: someone said this past weekend "current paragliders are now at approximately Falcon performance".

[brianvh]

Steve of course has good points. It was hard to tell from descriptions of the the conversations with the county whether they actually prefer a ramp over a block structure. If they have no preference then the momentum is behind the ramp. But if they would prefer solid masonry it may be worth waiting for. Hugh, Dan, any indications?

[brianvh]

btw steve, the main issue is NOT the eroding gravel by the steps. The main issue is liability from a crumbling structure near the edge of a cliff. Though the first thought was to patch it, the second thought was that it may not be a structure that would hold together with exterior patching.