Improving The Woodstock Launch

[Dan T]

I've interacted with Cameron at the USFS off and on for several months on the Edith's Gap reopening effort. He is very supportive of our sport. Like many people in public service he has more demands on his time than he can adequately address. As a result it is important that we take the initiative to coordinate with him and not expect him to remember to touch base with us.

The last time I spoke with him I asked him if he had ever seen a launch at Woodstock. He replied that he had not but he would love to and asked me to let him know when we are flying there again. I assume his work week is monday through friday so it would be best to invite him when you are going out on a weekday. Please feel free to give him a call at the USFS at Edinburg. I'm sure he'd welcome the invitation. Please be on your best behavior and take extra care to make conservative decisions when choosing a launch cycle.

Dan T

PS, as most of you know I was elected Region 9 co-director. I appreciate your participation in the election process and I am hopeful that I can represent our Region faithfully.

PPS, I'm currently basking in the sunshine in the Florida Keys.

[RichH]

Dan I'll touch base with him in a couple of weeks..I'm hoping you can help me gather the clubs support to pull this off..Rich

[lbunner]

What an excellent offer, Matt! Would it be possible to get you and your CEO up to launch to check out what we want to do and then make recommendations? The club should take advantage of your experience so we make this a "once and done" event.

[Lostgriz]

What an excellent offer, Matt! Would it be possible to get you and your CEO up to launch to check out what we want to do and then make recommendations? The club should take advantage of your experience so we make this a "once and done" event.

We would be happy to. I would probably try to schedule so that one of my subs could visit the site at the same time to make recommendations as well. If there are any sketches of what you would like to do, it would be good to get those. I will work on scheduling a time that we can walk the launch and let you know.

Any sketches/pictures could be emailed to mattc@trinitygc.us

Matt

[deveil]

and while we're on the subject of most-excellent-awesomeness, let's not be forgetting Gary Smith who got us launched in this direction!

[RichH]

I missed that post earlier..that is a fantastic offer..cant wait to get this project started..I think its going to make the launch a much better place..Cameron has the plans I drew up earlier but I'm sure we can adjust them as long as the materials are natural and blend into the surrounding area I think we will be good to go..Its great to see the support that every one is offering..We may want to get together to hammer out some further thoughts an materials and costs..I'm fairly wide open and wouldnt mind making the drive up to D.C. ..Any thoughts? Matt ..If u like I can send you my initial drawings I'm sure you will have alot to add..and Gary S..thanks for your input keep it coming..Rich

[Lostgriz]

I missed that post earlier..that is a fantastic offer..cant wait to get this project started..I think its going to make the launch a much better place..Cameron has the plans I drew up earlier but I'm sure we can adjust them as long as the materials are natural and blend into the surrounding area I think we will be good to go..Its great to see the support that every one is offering..We may want to get together to hammer out some further thoughts an materials and costs..I'm fairly wide open and wouldnt mind making the drive up to D.C. ..Any thoughts? Matt ..If u like I can send you my initial drawings I'm sure you will have alot to add..and Gary S..thanks for your input keep it coming..Rich

Rich, why don't you send me the drawings that you have and I will work on getting a site visit scheduled with our CEO (Flip) and hopefully one of our site contractors. I will let you know when we have a date figured that will work.

Thanks,

Matt

[RichH]

Matt I'll send what I have..lookk for them tomorrow..Rich

[pink_albatross]

Oooh... I hope I am not too late to the party.
Thanks Rich and Matt for spearheading this!

I was wondering if you could consider us PG pilots and if you can propose taking out some of the PG wing eating trees on either side of the slot, where the slot narrows (approximately by the left big rock that we sit on). This is quite a bit further up from where HG pilots typically launch from, so it might not be something that you have thought about. In general we'd be grateful to have a MUCH wider slot (ideally twice as wide) than there is now.

Thanks
-- ellis

[Lostgriz]

I may be able to survey the site with my buddy this weekend, depending on how our wrestling schedule shakes out. I will confirm. I think the consensus is that while we are doing this, we should shoot for our wishlist of improvements and then scale back as the Forrest Service requires and finances constrain us. I have actually never walked the launch, only been to the tower once. When I am there I was going to look at possible trail improvements, or is the trail good now?

Can anyone give a guesstimate to how many launches HG and PG are made here per year? Of course this number would vary wildly, but considering visiting pilots included, I would be interested to hear some guesses. Would these improvements increase the use of this site? Would more PGs be flying here if the slot was wider, or would it just be nicer for those that are already flying this site? What about HGs?

Just Curious....

[Ward Odenwald]

I agree with ellis! A “MUCH” wider slot (at least twice as wide) would be ideal. It’s all about the physics of fluid dynamics. Anything that smoothes airflow up the slot is a significant part of the safe-launch equation. I’m confident that the solution for the runway design will come from Rich's and Matt’s efforts. As for Matt’s questions raised in his recent post, any improvements that enhance safety will ultimately increase use but flying conditions (wind direction, speed and instability) will be the determining factor and that unknown keeps user stats a guess. Let us know when you need our help. Ward

[markc]

Lessee.... On a _really_ good month, I might fly WS four times. If the entire year was all-Woodstock-all-the-time, that would yield 48 flights. Let's round that to 50.

But of course, there are months when I don't fly WS at all. So let's cut that 50 flights to less than half : 20 per year.

When I fly, there are always at least a handful of other pilots out there with me. And there are often as many as 15 other pilots. So let's say that the average is 10 : That gets us to 200 flights per year.

However, my flying is usually on the weekends, and I usually don't cross paths with weekday flyers and visiting pilots. So let's hand-wave and say that they add another 50 flights per year, for 250 total.

But wait, there's the PG pilots! On any given weekend that I'm out there, the number of PGers is usually less than the HGers. But there are many *other* occasions when conditions are more favorable for PGs, and I'm not even at the site. So I think one could make a pretty good argument that the PG contingent doubles the total number of flights per year, to 500.

That's a lot of flying, averaging well over a flight per day, and I honestly think it's a relatively conservative figure.

Launch improvements could only increase those numbers. And if the improvements extend to significantly changing the size of the slot... Wow, that could really bump those numbers up.

A significantly wider slot would make a *huge*difference: much safer, much smoother, much more pilot-friendly. But don't forget that there are benefits to non-pilots as well! Hikers, birders, mountain bikers, and families would enjoy a much more expansive view from the launch area, and the larger slot would encourage more picnicking and sightseeing. There might be downsides from that activity, but perhaps we could plan for trash/recycling bins, and perhaps CHGPA members could spear-head efforts to keep the site clean and inviting.

If a significantly larger slot really is a possibility, then I'd also suggest that we give thought to native species that are low-and-slow growing, that would provide a degree of protection in the event of a blown launch, and that would make the site more welcoming to visitors. Mountain laurel? Azalea? Rhododendron? Wild grasses? A bit of planning could make a lot of difference here, and would certainly beat astroturf.

MarkC

[JohnE]

What a great bunch of ideas from the group! I am very happy to see the support by all of helping to meet the needs of PGers, as well as HGers.

As a new P-2 who is reluctant to fly out of a narrow slot (yet), I can attest that I have never attempted Woodstock and know that a wider slot would be safer and more inviting to me. If USFS is interested in increasing the use and activity at that location (for HG, PG, birders, hikers, etc.), then shooting for the moon now while we have their attention is a great idea. I hope that those who are dealing directly with the USFS on this will have a chat about safety and fluid dynamics and how the slot improvements will increase safety as well as site utilization.

I have requested of USFS to attend their chainsaw school (or some similarly named training class) and would be happy to help do some clearing, when I am allowed. In the interest of keeping the area clean and beautiful, I will also donate and install a sign (to be approved by USFS) which might say something such as "Enjoy this beautiful site, but please take nothing but photos and leave nothing but memories". And then maybe we should put a trash can right there! Increasing site utilization will certainly increase trash, so any of us who take out any when we go will surely earn good karma points. I don't mind doing it when I go to the Pulpit, and won't mind when I finally fly Woodstock.

MarK, it would be wonderful to have the USFS identify native species that would work in the slot (and perhaps point us toward sources of supply). There are woodland meadow species that could certainly work! I would be happy to dedicate some time to planting them, if that were to be possible.

PS That's an impressive amount of math to be doing at nearly 2 a.m., Mark!

[JohnE]

double post - sorry

[deveil]

plan considerations:

if significantly widening the slot, would there be reason to widen predominantly to the left or right or keep the current center as center, e.g. does the ridge curve to the left or right, is there a terrain feature out in front of launch that should be considered.

moving launch position up the hill to better accommodate pg launching - would it be beneficial/preferable to extend the bottom of the slot to effect the same benefit.

would moving launch uphill affect the protected setup area.

if improvements to the launch run are, for whatever reason, limited to those now being considered, would other desirable wish-list improvements need to be considered before proceeding.
———————

don’t get me wrong, i think that it’s damn exciting that all these improvements to the Woodstock launch are being considered and that there is a good chance of having, if not all, at least some of them happening.

i would think that the improved vista, the fact that the safe launch needs of paragliders weren’t even considered when the launch needs were originally presented to the park service would be big selling points.

[deveil]

i think that it’s damn exciting that all these improvements to the Woodstock launch are being considered.

reminds me of the good ole days when we were all kicked up in doing the original improvements to the site.

[Lostgriz]

After i get a chance to survey the site, I will put together a drawing that I think reflects our wishlist of improvements. I will post that drawing for everyone to review and comment. We can then quickly revise the drawing to reflect the groups ideal vision for the site. Once we have a good plan, then we can figure out what it will cost. If necessary, we would then do a final draft that reflects what we can actually afford. At this point, we can get back in front of the powers that be and sell it. I was curious about the usage numbers, because I really feel that we can use that information to help sell this. In addition to the number of flights, think about; how long this site has been used, non pilot use like spectators and drivers, the number of trips down the trail head, blah, blah. All of this information will be nice fluff for our next meeting with the FS.

These are just my random thoughts. I am happy to help in any way that I can. Please note that I am just the new guy and am in no way intending to step on any toes. Anything I say is based on assumptions and good intentions; so If I am off the mark on anything in this process, don't hesitate to correct me.

Matt

[lbunner]

Great enthusiasm, I wouldn't want to diminish that. Remember Rich has already spoken with the forest service. The initial agreement is to improve the launch run and remove a few trees. The meeting he had with them did not discuss widening the slot to make it more paragliderable (is that a word?). Although it could come to this down the road, I'd say let's get our foot in the door first and work toward a long term plan second.

[Lostgriz]

Based on the little bit that I heard of the meeting Rich had, it sounded like they were pretty accomodating. It would certainely be good for Rich to weigh in on how open he thinks they will be to a more comprehensive list of improvements. I will give Rich a call to discuss.

What does the group think regarding the scope of this project? Please weigh-in with your thoughts. Would you prefer to go for everything we can now and see where the FS and our finances constrain us or would you prefer to make this a multi phase project withe a series of improvements being made over time? Please substantiate your thoughts. There is no wrong answer here, just looking for a group concensus.

[sailin]

Here is my thoughts:

I like Woodstock....a lot. While I think there is certainly some room for improvement in terms of launch run length and MAYBE some widening, maybe,.....I don't think a complete facelift of this mountain is in order here. When improving the launch, I would like to err on the side of less is better. This is a wonderful site........"overdevelopment" is not necessarily "better" here.

Just one man's opinion....you asked

Jon

[dbodner]

I haven't heard any proposals I think would be a bad idea. I think the PG improvements will only help the HGs, too. Therefore, I suggest putting them all on the permission list. Let the USFS decide what they won't give permission for.

Implementation is a different problem. Lack of money (either ours or USFS) may force us to prioritize. But better to have permission to do something we can't do than the ability to do something we don't have permission for.

I personally would like to be able to back up the HG launch point. I think we could get another 30 feet or so without it impinging on the setup area. (Am I crazy, or has the HG launch point moved downhill in the past few years?)

[RichH]

I think it would be wise to take this one step at a time..I do think the Forest Service is accommodating but only because I kept my requests within the scope of trail maintenance (utilizing existing materials/ and cutting down trees that are impacting our current operation..I pointed out 6-8 of the largest trees at the end of the slot and mostly on the left of the slot). If we go outside those terms I fear we will have to go through a review process that could take a lot more time and bring us under the scrutiny of the Regional Leadership..I went for what we could get done now with little or no review from Regional Supervisors..With that being said: I wouldn't exclude anything that's being added, it just might take more time..I'd like to move forward on what has been discussed with the Forest Service already and then open the door to further discussion about significantly widening the slot. I'm getting excellent feedback from Matt and Gary S on some of the materials and design issues..Hopefully I can get together with Matt and Gary and we can put together a reasonable construction plan..

[mcgowantk]

Rich

I think your approach is the best one. I also would defer to your experience with meeting with the Forest Service. Let me add my thanks for taking this one - and thanks to Gary and Matt.

Tom McGowan

[XCanytime]

While I do not disagree with some simple improvements to the runway and obstacles being removed left or right of the centerline, these and removing a few trees will not remove the sheer fact that blown launches will continue to occur due to poor launch technique and poor choice of a launch cycle. These are the real fundamental issues raised by the two blown launches in 5 days at Woodstock. A few years ago I proposed to the local forest ranger that to improve visibility into the true wind direction above the treeline (in order to improve safety by enabling pilots to choose better launch cycles) that he allow us to place a windsock on a pole clamped to the top trunk of one of the trees at the SW corner of the slot. The Hyner club sites of Sacramento and 501 (Bethel) have windsocks at the western corners of those 2 slot launches. I have flown Sacramento regularly since 1993 and that windsock at the W corner of that slot is key to choosing a safe launch cycle. I wrote my best promotion ever on our sport and its positive impact on the environment, etc., etc. to the forest ranger but I was quickly rebuffed by the ranger. Bacil

[markc]

Perhaps the early-AM hours of my previous post (translation: "after a few beers!") impacted my expectations for the suggested WS improvements just a bit.

In an ideal world, the slot would be much bigger. But we don't own the launch, and so we've got to expect that the powers-that-be will prefer incremental change. I'd do the same in their shoes... After all, we're just one of the forest's user-communities.

And if that's simply the way it is, then I'm in Bacil's camp : Ultimately, it is up to the pilots who are flying the site to make good decisions about the launch cycles that they choose. If we can't have an idyllic launch, significantly different than what we have now.... Then good decision-making is paramount, and that will never change.

So perhaps the better approach is to start small and build good relationships, with the hope that we can work together with the Forest Service to implement on-going improvements to the site. I still think that we should suggest trash/recycle containers (parking lot, at launch, or both), and the possibility that CHGPA could help pay for those improvements (provided the membership agrees). Bottom line: If we're a _partner_ , as opposed to merely another user/consumer, then everyone will benefit: Pilots, visitors, and the Forest Service.

MarkC