My impressions on paragliding from the Pulpit

[Flying Lobster]

While I haven't had as much experience with launching paragliders from the Pulpit as others, I think I've flown there enough times to perhaps make a few observations and suggestions.

My feeling is that in higher wind velocities there is a tendancy for more switchy air once the canopy gets up around the height of the ramps. Thus, it is possible to experience a side gust to suddenly yaw or spin the glider to the side even if you get a smooth straight in inflation. It seems that inflating further down the slope mitigates this somewhat--but this introduces the problems of a narrower and shorter launch.

I believe extending the area by 5 to 10 feet in front of the present slope will make the launch much safer. In my opinion, a potentially serious accident is going to happen sooner or later in its present configuration. Perhaps a ramp/platform can be built to overcome the problems of the rocks below and extend the effective launch run distance.

Let the flames begin...

marc

[Spark]

No Comment.

[Spark]

While I haven't had as much experience with launching paragliders from the Pulpit as others, I think I've flown there enough times to perhaps make a few observations and suggestions.

My feeling is that in higher wind velocities there is a tendancy for more switchy air once the canopy gets up around the height of the ramps. Thus, it is possible to experience a side gust to suddenly yaw or spin the glider to the side even if you get a smooth straight in inflation. It seems that inflating further down the slope mitigates this somewhat--but this introduces the problems of a narrower and shorter launch.

I believe extending the area by 5 to 10 feet in front of the present slope will make the launch much safer. In my opinion, a potentially serious accident is going to happen sooner or later in its present configuration. Perhaps a ramp/platform can be built to overcome the problems of the rocks below and extend the effective launch run distance.

Let the flames begin...

marc

I guess I will comment after all. I was just being lazy

I can't imagine why your comments would evoke flames . In fact, I share your concerns. However, I am not convinced that changing/improving the launch area will prevent the incidents you predict.

I went through my Log book and see that I have 32 launches from the Pulpit. Aproximately 8 of those have been in winds between 12 and 15, and half in winds between 8 and 12. Four of those launches were 'unpleasant', and those were in higher winds and corsswind conditions.

My experience is that the Pulpit can be challenging and dangerous in certain conditions, such as crosswinds or gusty winds, or high winds.

I believe that we will eventually have a significant PG injury/accident at Pulpit, REGARDLESS of what we do to improve the launch. I think we will be most effective at reducing the probability of such incidents by cultivating proper Judgement regarding weather conditions. To a lesser extent, we may be able to reduce risk by improving the launch.

I have witnessed low-airtime pilots exhibit multiple 'good' launches from the Pulpit. Yesterday is an example. The Pulpit Fly in is another. I believe that two key areas for reducing the risk of an incident are a) having proper ground handling skills, and b) properly assessing the conditions.

We will often encounter thermal/corsswind-induced 'side gusts' at our launches. Split-second responses are frequently required to prevent a mishap. IMO, the best mitigation strategy for reducing risk at launch is ground handling practice. E.g. before I launched my new wing from the Pulpit, I spent three sessions (an hour or more each) kiting my glider.

I suspect we all know that certain activities are inherently riskier. Perhaps those activities can be avoided. It has been demonstrated that, although achievable under certain conditions, forward launches are much riskier due to the limited running space. Tandem forward launches raise the risk a notch higher.

We have recently heard a suggestion that forward launches at Woodstock are risky ... perhaps forward launches at the Pulpit should be regarded in a similar light.

Likewise, launching in winds above 'X' or crosswinds greater than 'Y' are also riskier. Perhaps we can agree on the parameters and develop guidelines to assist pilots in evaluating appropriate conditions.

I would like to be able to improve the launch at Pulpit. I believe that the most effective approach would be to construct a retaining wall below the existing one, and to extend the launch (as you suggest) as well as to raise the exisiting launch by at least two feet. This will require several hundred tons of additional fill materials, at least four days of work , and could cost $2K or more.

I'm concerned that construction of a ramp to extend the PG launch would disturb the airflow and generate a rotor.

While I believe that the current launch area is serving us well (when we select the proper launch conditions), however I would be pleased to engage in an effort to improve the launch.

I look forward to other opinions on this matter.

[Marcel Dettling]

My 2 cents: I always set up my glider and start the launch procedure as close to the lower end of the launch area as possible (except in winds below 10mph, but I only launched once in such light winds). The reason for this is that I'm usually more concerned about being dragged/blown back to the setup/parking area, than that I'm concerned about the rocks out front.

I've never experienced severe problems with crosswinds or gusts at the Pupit. Maybe launching from lower down on the slope helps, but I'm not sure about this.

One problem when launching low is that the clean area is hardly wide enough for the wingspan of my glider. There's a risk that lines get caught by roots or rocks. Improving that might help.

Cheers,

Marcel

[Flying Lobster]

Of course solid pilots with lots of skills can surmise and deal with conditions at the Pulpit--but if the club is going to adopt a policy of letting P0's and P1's and low airtime P2's launch from there--then it only makes sense to improve the launch so that it is more forgiving. Just because a certain number of pilots have succeeded with it so far does not neccessarily mean that the site is proven safe. This is not to say that the existing launch, and the efforts by those who made it possible, was not a significant step forward.

BTW, a high percentage of the club's most serious hang gliding accidents with injuries--and a fairly recent fatality--have been at the Pulpit.

marc

[Spark]

Of course solid pilots with lots of skills can surmise and deal with conditions at the Pulpit--but if the club is going to adopt a policy of letting P0's and P1's and low airtime P2's launch from there--then it only makes sense to improve the launch so that it is more forgiving. Just because a certain number of pilots have succeeded with it so far does not neccessarily mean that the site is proven safe. This is not to say that the existing launch, and the efforts by those who made it possible, was not a significant step forward.

BTW, a high percentage of the club's most serious hang gliding accidents with injuries--and a fairly recent fatality--have been at the Pulpit.

marc

What I said before still stands firm.

I agree that the launch should be improved. No argument.

You said a few things that beg for a 'retort':

... Just because a certain number of pilots have succeeded with it so far does not neccessarily mean that the site is proven safe.

No one has suggested that Pulpit (or any other site) has been or can be 'proven safe'. IMO, the phrase 'proven safe' is ridiculous in any context involving flight.

Of course solid pilots with lots of skills can surmise and deal with conditions at the Pulpit ...

Agreed. As I said before, Judgement, Conditions and Skills are key risk mitigation factors.

... --but if the club is going to adopt a policy of letting P0's and P1's and low airtime P2's launch from there--then it only makes sense to improve the launch so that it is more forgiving.

No problem with improving the launch. However, no one has proposed policy suggesting P0's launch from the Pulpit. Nor has anyone proposed a policy that involves unsupervised flight by P1 or P2 pilots.

I'm wondering why you mention low airtime P2's ... there should be no issue with low airtime P2 (or H2) pilots flying from the Pulpit under appropriate conditions and with observer. I sincerely hope you aren't proposing that we add some arbitrary flight experience requirement for P2s flying the Pulpit.

Since you raise the 'policy' issue, I'll provide the audience with some background regarding the proposed guidance:

The USHGA P2 rating (SOP 104.01.B.15) requires that students demonstrate 360 degree turns in both directions at various speeds and bank angles.

Based on 'concern' about the propriety and safety of flights that I have sponsored from the Pulpit ... according to Matthew, concerns that were expressed by those wishing to remain anonymous ... I have made a proposal that

when conditions are appropriate, a
USHGA-rated PG instructor should be able to sponsor the flights of USHGA-rated P1 students with appropriate skills from Pulpit or Bills Hill.

I made this proposal because P1 pilots need altitude to gain the skills required for P2.

So, Marc. Do we need to improve the Pulpit launch before the Club 'lets' me sponsor another flight by Daniel at the Pulpit?

Are you willing to pitch in and help? I'm ready if you are.

[Flying Lobster]

I'm not going to address the appropriateness of you or any other instructor using their judgement as the barometer for judging whether or not an inexperienced pilot should be allowed to fly off of the Pulpit. That's for the club to decide, which, since it owns the site, does in fact "let" you (or any other instructor) do this.

I'd balance the arguement of "Well, I can't (or haven't bothered) to find an alternative lower site to fly 360's within the recommended operating limitations of beginner/student pilots with the questions: 1) Are your students able to recognize and deal with small/large asymetrics and possible partial/full frontals at possibly fairly low altitudes; and 2) can they deal with the possibility of a reserve deployment if necessary?

These are not suggested "arbitrary hassles" to give you or your students a hard time flying off the Pulpit--but widely recognized necessary skills for flying mountain sites with potential turbulence--and the Pulpit definitely fits that description.

Improving the launch area will help minimize the risk levels to all levels of pilots, but especially those with less experience who are especially vulnerable if "things don't go quite right."

Incidentally, I think you've come a very long way in a short time as a paraglider pilot and are an asset to the community as an instructor.

I am not hotshot pilot--but I have been flying paragliders for twenty years as of 2006 and have flown sites all over the US and Europe, and believe I have gained some insight into site conditions/evaluation. I've also been an instructor since 1993 and because I've seen and personally experienced alot of what can go wrong I've become more conservative over the years.

And, having said all that, just to show that I'm trying to be objective about risk assessment, my choice of going through with the tandem the other day at the Pulpit was probably a poor one--not so much because I wasn't willing to personally accept the consequences of a challenging situation myself--but because I was exposing my student passenger to greater risks that he likely was not able to understand and quantify.

marc

[hang_pilot]

Money for additional improvements of the PG launch at Pulpit was allocated in a unanimous vote at the Spring joint board of directors meeting (CHGPA/MHGA).

We wanted to have the work done prior to the Pulpit fly-in, but when that didn't happen the project lost some momentum. Matthew and Spark, would you please put your heads together and bring in whoever else you want to give you advice? When you have a plan, I'll help recruit worker bees.

~Daniel