USFS / CHGPA Edith's Gap Project

[mingram]

NICE!

[mingram]

Video from that magic day courtesy of Paul Kiendl.

[pink_albatross]

$250k for an Edith's Gap LZ? That parcel is HUGE! It won't take much logging to create a huge HG LZ. Also, it looks as if the lot is not sloping steeply. Very nice. Quick turn-around to launch. Spitting distance to launch. Great potential for new pilots! And it has a club house on it! And if we can grow hay on the HG LZ, we can get that Virginia tax cut.

So, Mark C has pledged $10k. $240k to go (and maybe we can talk the owner down some, considering it's been on the market now for a bit)
I can't do $10k right now, but I pledge $5k.

$235k to go. Need 47 more pledges at $5k each or 235 at $1k each

Next!

[dbodner]

Ellis,

I remember someone saying there's a widow with a large, slighly overgrown parcel nearby who's happy to let us land on her property. I think that was at the last club meeting. So, with a little work and no money, we should be OK.

[pink_albatross]

Nice, I will use the money to buy a new wing instead

[tomceunen]

This is how the landing for the PG looks like in the field we can land in agreed by the owners.
It's the closed field that is very active during the day and down slope. In the evening with no wind it can be landed opposite, up slope.
http://www.youtube.com/edit?ns=1&featur ... oVi_yNXCsQ

[Ward Odenwald]

Tom, to view your video one has to establish an account via the link that you have provided. Can you post it directly so we can view it without the '"red tap." Thanks in advance. Ward

[tomceunen]

try this link
http://youtu.be/loVi_yNXCsQ

[Ward Odenwald]

Just watched both Tom’s Edith Gap landing video and the earlier video dated June 22, and now I’m in need of some help. I would like to understand why our club invested time, effort and $ to develop a launch site when the primary/only LZ (with no bailout fields nearby) is nothing more than someone’s extended narrow backyard surrounded by a sea of trees, flanking power lines and a home positioned along the downwind edge of the backyard. Just watching an experienced PG pilot (perhaps the best in region 9) navigate over the house, avoid the power lines and almost take out the garden tomato plants raises the obvious question – why develop a launch site when only a very select few club members have the talent and flying currency to consistently land safely in a backyard flanked with impressive obstacles? Maybe I don’t understand the gray-line between an LZ and someone’s backyard? I’m betting that the homeowner who gave permission to land knows little or nothing about the technical, physical or meteorological/thermal challenges of landing in a confined area. Here’s a question to ponder – if we lived in that house with our family, would we have agreed to have our backyard used as an LZ by many with questionable flying skills and/or little flying currency? At best the owner’s backyard represents a “last ditch” solution and not an LZ that rates the effort to build a launch. Without decent fields even remotely reachable to most PG pilots, the launch currently represents a rather seductive trap. Comments greatly appreciated. Ward

[Matthew]

Wow! You're negativity is really bumming me out man. A new site has been opened that was closed down for years. It's just a step in the process. Why did we fix up High Rock if the hay is is still high in the LZ?

There are other landing options if there is any little bit of ridge lift. And it's such a steep ridge that not much wind is needed for ridge soaring. HG pilots used to fly this site ten+ years ago when the only landing option was miles away in a low narrow field next to the river. Instead of complaining, why not put some effort into helping open up another LZ.

Matthew

[Ward Odenwald]

Sorry to upset you Matthew (really) but I’m concerned for the safety of most of the PG pilots that fly the site before the most important part of the equation is completed – a decent LZ. My guess is that the site was abandoned years ago due to LZ issues that have yet to be solved. From my armchair, the first step in the process to bringing back the site (in a safe-secure way), is developing safe landing conditions at the same time launch development is pursued. Just my opinion and possibly aligned with other club members. Ward

[jyoder111]

In my opinion the Edith's Gap clean-up day this summer was the best turn-out we've had for a club gathering in years and I don't think it required a large contribution in the way of club $$. Thanks to Patrick and other organizers, we had a tent, a sign, and generated a lot of interest from the local passersby and bikers coming through. Lots of PGs flew safely and I don't know of any landing problems in that LZ. Tom's video shows a more technical approach than many ended up using that day, and it's hard to get a good feel for other possible final approaches from that video. I'd be interesting in hearing from the PG crowd how safe they feel the LZ is now after getting to know it better. It does look a lot more technical than some, but I got the sense from watching that day that it is reasonable for PG. Would you be able to make it if you accidentally launched with a twisted line or other problem? I don't know...

I am bummed that such a beautiful site isn't accessible to HG just yet. The ridge looks amazing on the drive in! Hope we can figure out a easy-glide HG LZ.

Jesse

[lbunner]

I checked the site out again on Google Earth. I see no less than 6 flat fields within a 9:1 glide of the peak that are relatively flat. Three of them are across the river therefore are upslope slightly. I'm not sure what efforts have been taken to procure HG LZ's but there appear to be a lot of options. Has anyone checked with the landowners regarding HG LZ's?

[jmcclave]

I just noticed the posts from August that were generated from Tom's video of one of his EG landing. I have far less experience than Tom and I consider the current PG landing to be reasonable especially in the AM or PM conditions. It can be tricky midday in more thermal conditions but that is true with most of our current landing sites.

An easy improvements which I understand the landowner is considering (has agreed to?) is removing several of the small trees in the landing field.

I agree with the comments that the club should invest some energy (and perhaps $s) in developing a landing that works for hang gliders and that is also a safer PG site. I believe a person made an offer to Patrick Terry to allow a overgrown field that is below launch to be used in return for clearing it.

It would be great to discuss this topic at Fridays' meeting so we can continue to move forward on Edith Gap, Woodstock, etc.

Thanks,
Jim

[rlweber]

In my conversation with Bill and Elenore Mason, the owners of the field, we agreed on a common dislike of the trees/bush piles in the middle of the field. There was no proposal made regarding the removal of the offending brush/trees. However, if one was made and the club supplied the muscle I bet they would agree to it. He asked me if the power line at the edge of the field was a problem. He said he wanted to bushhog the field so the grass would be lower for us. They are extremely friendly and welcoming people. They want us to knock on their door or blow a car horn to let them know when we are flying so they can watch.

Randy

[RichH]

I can not see why making improvements to Woodstock launch took a back seat to openiing the Edith Gap site especially what Ive seen is a very tight landing field (havent seen it in person just the tape above and videos can be hard to tell the size etc..) ? Ive been out of the loop for awhile but I hope the club is making renewed efforts to imrove the erosion and running conditions of the launch area at the woodstock launch..

[Matthew]

Woodstock has not taken a back seat to anything. Patrick Terry has been working tireless on this project, as well as organizing the Edith's Gap project. An update on the progress for improvments at Woodstock was presented at the last meeting.

If you would like to continue to help with the efforts at Woodstock, I'm sure Patrick would be grateful-- as we should all be for his efforts in opening Edith's Gap!


Matthew

[dbodner]

Matthew's right. We're dealing with bureaucracies in both cases, so we have to jump on opportunities as they arise.

[Dan T]

The USFS is generally more amenable to supporting recreational uses on their administered lands than many other agencies. The USFS at Edith's Gap ranks among the best of the best in supporting our sport.

I've been traveling across the country and talking to numerous other clubs along the way as well as other Regional Directors of the USHPA. I've heard a few stories of testy relationships and a few others of official indifference. I haven't heard any where the USFS has cooperated more with a local chapter than we have here. We are fortunate to have the relationship that we do with the District office in Edinburg. Let's work to keep it that way.

Dan Tomlinson
Director USHPA Region 9

[brianvh]

That Edith's gap launch and ridge looks so beautiful I'd almost be tempted to launch and let the chips fall where they may as to landing. Not wise, but tempting.

If the shrubs and tree are removed in the spot where Tom is shown landing I think a single surface HG could pull it off, though dicey for double surface. The main discomfort is how far it is from launch. If you get drilled by sink are any bailouts closer?

[brianvh]

I should add that in google earth I'm seeing plenty of downwind uphill landings near launch, which is somewhat comforting if not exactly comfortable. Some of the fields look big enough to attempt such a thing, though. May break a few things before the community perfects this type of landing...