Woodstock Friday 10/29

[lbunner]

I share Matthews concern for newer pilots in that they must be very careful on marginal days to not get caught up in the emotion of flying when their skill set isn't up to the conditions (hopefully I'm not reading too much into his comments). On the other hand, I firmly believe in "you won't know unless you go". This is part of the learning curve for pilots. I have been to flying sites many times over the years where conditions were not up to my skill level. I learned through experiencing the conditions (both in the air and on the ground) what was acceptable and what was beyond my ability. This experience has allowed me to be able to pick the right days to go flying with a high degree of accuracy. I've only been skunked on one day (Pulpit) in my five years in PA. Let's all be safe out there!

[XCanytime]

OK Bacil. But I stand by my orignal theme--

going out with the intention to fly early in the day-- or during peak heating of the day-- when the forecast is for gusts to 30mph, even at Woodstock, is UNACCPETABLY DANGEROUS!

Matthew

I agree. You really want to know why I went to Woodstock early on Friday? We were having our house painted and I wanted to get the glider and equipment out of the line of fire, so to speak. I really had no intention of flying, but asked Jesse to meet up with me mainly so he could experience how strong the atmosphere can get from the ground, and with the slight chance that the forecast was off a little. With the winds aloft forecast from Ann, I knew that there was a high probability that there would be wave, so Jesse and I talked flying, meteorology, wave conditions, etc. etc. Hangar flying. Lots was learned.

Now here's the agree/disagree part. You have some forecast source that you use that you trust. There are many forecast sources and they always don't agree with each other. Some may say gusts to 30, some might say no gusts at all. Which one do you trust? Some pilots may go to a site with the intention of flying, and their "trusted" source disagrees with your source. There is no harm in going to a site, not flying, and taking a data point: actual conditions versus forecasted conditions from your "trusted" source.

I do appreciate your concern, even if the delivery is sometimes in a Dr. Doom format . Bacil

[RichH]

You know Woodstock used to be a Hang 4 rated site for a reason..(im not advocating that) but as benign as Woodstock can be it can also be a very challenging place to fly in higher winds..The ridge contains several unsuspecting issues..A cross from either direction can and will rotate up in the slot and give the appearence of straight in conditions..A trip up to the top of the tower to get a better feel for the direction is always avised..2nd. A westerly cross can produce rotor turbulance along the ridge and even some out in front of the ridge due to the many ridges and hills cut into the Mtn by the river below..making a landing in those kind of conditions an exciting experience ..That is why it was given an advanced rating shortly after it was first opened in the late 70"s..I could go on, but suffice it to say I believe new Hang 2's would be better served getting their first flights at a more forgiving site than woodstock..3rd. I think we have to get over this "you were not there" business..Our organization has been anaylizing accidents for years in the hope of preventing future accidents and increasing awearness..many times there have been no eye witnesses to the actual event but it doesnt stop us from looking at the circumstances and drawing some conclusions based on the facts of the occurrance.. We all want to fly safer!! and listening to advice and learning from other experienced pilots is a key learning tool in all types of flying..Rich Hiegel #26209

[deveil]

You know Woodstock used to be a Hang 4 rated site for a reason. ..That is why it was given an advanced rating shortly after it was first opened in the late 70"s...

just a point of clarification: the slot that was opened in the 70's was the one at/near the power lines - the one opened by vic powell.
the current launch was opened by greg mick of the central virginia club. he lived in harrisonburg when i knew him. the current launch was opened in the late if not mid 80's. very shortly after it was opened, when i was an H3, i flew there with john middleton, christy huddle, george stebbins, and one or two others. it's never had any restrictions on ratings that i remember. if the original site had restrictions it probably was because it was such a shallow grade (no?).

gary

[deveil]

actually, i was most likely an H2 at the time. pretty sure.

gary

[deveil]

also, i think the 'being there' that was being talked about in this discussion pertained to knowing what the conditions were at a given place, on a given day, at a given time.

gary

[RichH]

Yes the original launch was about 3/4 of a mile north of todays launch and yes it was not as steep and yes it was a narrower slot and yes it was originally a hang 4 site..Matter of Fact my first flight there was with Les King and some of the original crew..and I was invited there since I was a new Hang four and that was in 1981..The 4 rating to fly Woodstock had not as much to do with the launch but that the conditions at woodstock demanded more seasoned judgement skills..At the time we were flying gliders with lower glide angels 7/1 and it was easy to get into trouble there and if you went down in the trees in one of the gaps it would be a difficult retrival ..Also flying the ridge (to rt 33) meant you knew how to navigate the gaps in all wind directions..So the original group who flew it often, deceided to give it a higher rating than the other local sites..It wasnt long before that rating fell by the wayside (which I agree with by the way) and became a H3 ..not sure what it is today ..H3/or H2 w?observor I suppose..The point is, as I mentioned earlier there are some issues at Woodstock that at times can be very difficult on a new H2 and my suggestion is simply there are better choices ..Woodstock can be very benign in the right conditions but it can also be very scary place to the inexperienced pilot..One of the scarest flights that I have seen on the east coast was a flight by a pilot named Joe Sherman who made the mistake of launching in a westerly cross at woodstock..Like I said most of the time Woodstock is a very easy and pleasant place to fly and with proper guidence I believe a H2 can fly there rather easily in the right conditions..but higher winds (nearing 20) with a cross even a slight cross woodstock can become a different animal..Rich Hiegel #26209

[deveil]

yep, in the past i'd seen several exciting launches. one of the most experience pilots at that time got hit coming out of the slot and rolled 90 degrees at treetop level. another bounced off of a tree trunk on the right before continuing on. gotta always be prepared to have an unintended course deviation coming out of there.
cheers,
gary

[mcelrah]

Look, I appreciate *constructive* criticism delivered in a diplomatic way - especially in private, which is generally considered appropriate. (I received some feedback on my own flying in such a way that I will look carefully at my technique from now on.) But Monday-morning armchair quarterbacking based only on "what I read on the internet" is less than helpful. I have written above that conditions had declined considerably and over a significant period of time before we launched even a H3 in a higher-performance glider much less a H2 in a Falcon. The actual observed wind conditions were not available to the critics. Reading the weather - on the internet and on-site - is an art. Being an observer and mentor (there is a new USHPA program for mentors - not sure what the difference is) is a matter of stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility. And once the H2 pilot has launched, the flight is in his/her hands alone (and the wind gods'); the observer has to be able to deal with the fact that he/she is not in control of the H2 or conditions. Second guessing, without full information, the one who has taken on the responsibility of observing, is fundamentally offensive - as it is to criticize a solo pilot publicly based on hearsay. If you feel so strongly that an observer is promoting dangerous practices, you should take it up with the appointing official (the regional examiner, Rich Hays). If you have expertise to offer, get appointed as an observer, come on out and help. We have a good crop of eager new pilots this year. - Hugh

[RichH]

I wasnt refering to the launches that you were observing.. I actually heard the conditions had died down and that those launches were perfectly acceptable conditions at the time.. but simply adding my 2 cents on the site..

[mcelrah]

Thanks for the clarification. - Hugh

[deveil]

hopefully that will put this thread to bed.

gary