Flying at Dickey Ridge -- Protocol

Post by **charlieg** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:24 pm

Recent posts indicate that Dickey's appears, given the right wind, to be the new launch site of choice for paragliders in Northern Virginia (and vicinity). However, my copy of the Mid Atlantic Site Guide indicates that Dickey's is only approved for hang gliders -- but my Dickey Ridge page is dated 11/23/03, so things have obviously changed since then.
From what I've gathered from the posts, it appears that:
. Dickey's is a P-3 site
. No observer rules have been established to allow P-2's
. To fly at Dickey's a waver must be on file with the NPS. Waver can be found on CHGPA website and consists of 2 documents -- an Application for Special Use Permit - Hang Gliding (along with a copy of your USHGA card); and a Release; along with a check for $23. Waver will take several weeks to process.
Have I got this right? And does it make sense for P-2's aspiring to be P-3's to go ahead and apply for the waver with their P-2 card so they're ready to fly there without having to wait once they get their P-3? Or must you have a P-3 to even apply for the waver?
Thanks,
Charlie

Post by **Matthew** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:14 pm

Yes, Dickie's is a P3 or H3 only site. Previously the only way a PG pilot could fly was if he or she had a H3 rating. But thanks to the efforts of Sparky, Tom C. and a paragliding forest ranger at the park, the rules have been amended last year to allow P3s to fly there too. So in order to get a permit to fly at Shenandoah National Park, you have to have either a P3 or H3 rating.

Matthew

Spark · Post by **Spark** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:44 am

Dickey Ridge is a very challenging launch, for PG or HG.

Any incident could place this site at risk for closure.

I do not recommend that pilots attempt to launch a PG there without first mastering their kiting and launch skills at another site. It is equally important to have sufficient experience and judgement to know when conditions are suitable for launch, and suitable for making it to the LZ.

While the current minimum requirement is for a P3, the site requires strong P3 skills and judgement. Given that this site is so sensitive, it may be prudent to recommend that the NPS increase the minimum required rating to advanced (P4) next year. I believe this move would be in the best interests of the community and will help to reduce the risk of losing this site.

All thoughts and observations are welcome.

'Spark

Flying Lobster · Post by **Flying Lobster** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:49 am

Of the SNP's three launches (Miller's head, Hogback and Dickies) Dickies is definitely the easiest of the three (I've flown all three).

Dickies is rather tight, but the real challenge is recognizing the conditions in the air and being able to respond appropriately. The valley out front can get big--both thermals and winds can increase unexpectedly affecting your glide.

I'd be reluctant to mess with the park service at all--access is so tenative as is and could lead to questions of parity between hang gliding and paragliding ratings.

The club could instead adopt a policy of recommending early pilots be accompanied by those experienced with the site.

marc

Post by **charlieg** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:06 pm

Gee Sparky -- you really know how to make me real popular with all the P-3's out there -- I know not to ever ask THAT kind of question again!

And I also know to not even THINK about flying at Dickey's until I've got LOTS of hours under my belt as a P-3 (or maybe even P-4)!
Charlie

Marcel Dettling · Post by **Marcel Dettling** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 5:25 pm

Spark wrote:I do not recommend that pilots attempt to launch a PG there without first mastering their kiting and launch skills at another site. It is equally important to have sufficient experience and judgement to know when conditions are suitable for launch, and suitable for making it to the LZ.

I don't disagree here, but (especially the second part of) this statement is so general, that it applies to most sites around here. I don't think that it's more difficult to figure out how the conditions are at Dickeys, compared to the Pulpit, Woodstock or Bills Hill. What's concerning the glide, i.e. making it to the LZ, Dickeys is one of the friendliest sites around here. The back end of the landing field is only about 3.5:1, clearly less than any other site I have flown here, except for Woodstock and Fairgrounds.

Moreover, I wouldn't say that launching at Dickeys bears much bigger risks than Woodstock or the Pulpit. All three have nasty terrain really close out front. What is true, you can more easily end up with your wing in the trees at Dickeys, they are very close on all sides. On the other hand, even in very good soaring/thermal conditions, the conditions at launch usually are not too gusty or strong.

Spark wrote:While the current minimum requirement is for a P3, the site requires strong P3 skills and judgement. Given that this site is so sensitive, it may be prudent to recommend that the NPS increase the minimum required rating to advanced (P4) next year.

I don't think this is necessary. I believe that the P3 pilots I know can safely fly this site, so other P3 pilots should be able, too. Of course there's less of a chance that an incident happens if only P4 pilots are allowed to fly it - but that's mainly because it will be flown less frequently.

I agree that it would be a pity to lose the site. But is it going to happen so quickly? Cars crash, bikers have accidents on Skyline Drive. They don't shut it down either. Well, coming from a country where I can launch my PG from any place that seems suitable, or where a experienced P2 equivalent pilot can legally launch at midday in Fiesch with booming 10m/s thermals just out front, I'm maybe not sensitive enough in such things. But I clearly prefer self responsibility over laws and regulations...

Cheers,

Marcel

Post by **Matthew** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:57 pm

But I clearly prefer self responsibility over laws and regulations...

Cheers,

Marcel

*********

Well Marcel,

This is America-- The Land of the Free. We have rules and regulations for everything. Disobey-- we'll throw you in jail. Disagree-- we'll sue your ass. Tell your friends on the phone in Europe-- we're listening!!!

Matthew

Spark · Post by **Spark** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:14 pm

charlieg wrote:Gee Sparky -- you really know how to make me real popular with all the P-3's out there -- I know not to ever ask THAT kind of question again!
And I also know to not even THINK about flying at Dickey's until I've got LOTS of hours under my belt as a P-3 (or maybe even P-4)!
Charlie

Charlie, There was nothing wrong with your questions at all. My message wasn't directed at you or intended to embarrass you. I'm sorry if it seemed so.

'Spark

Post by **charlieg** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:21 pm

Sparky -- the website clearly needs a nifty emoticon for "tongue in cheek" -- maybe it's the "wink." I was just trying to be clever in my second post. No offense taken, or red faces either. Thanks for responding.
Charlie

Spark · Post by **Spark** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:10 am

Since we are discussing protocol for Dickey Ridge, it should be understood that our agreement to fly there includes no provision for landing anywhere other than the designated LZ.

While experienced pilots may be able to land on top safely in appropriate conditions, doing so places the site at risk. For those who have not been there, the top of the mountain houses an important aviation navigation facility.

In my opinion, the convenience of top landing is not worth the risk. I sincerely hope that others would agree.

Although this should not require explicit mention, I propose that we adopt a strict policy that under no circumstances should pilots land on top.

Does anyone disagree with this proposal?

'Spark

Flying Lobster · Post by **Flying Lobster** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:41 am

Sparky-- I am at a loss as to why you have a sudden interest in enforcing tighter flying restrictions at one mountain site--while at the same time you embrace a policy of chucking P-0's and P-1's off another mountain site.

This seems rather inconsistent to me. What's up with that?

marc

Marcel Dettling · Post by **Marcel Dettling** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:31 am

Maybe, we should just advertise toplandings in the right way to the NPS. They certainly fit better into their policy of preserving the nature than landings at the bottom. No additional traffic, no noise, no pollution.

A retrieve from the LZ burns around an extra half a gallon of gas.

Marcel

Post by **mcelrah** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:37 am

Allen,
Are you talking about the Linden VOR? In that case, the problem
may go away with time: with the advent of GPS, the FAA is anxious to
shut down the VOR system. AOPA and others are resisting, but the
argument isn't about whether to shut them down, just how soon.

- Hugh

Spark · Post by **Spark** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:44 am

Flying Lobster wrote:Sparky-- I am at a loss as to why you have a sudden interest in enforcing tighter flying restrictions at one mountain site--while at the same time you embrace a policy of chucking P-0's and P-1's off another mountain site.

This seems rather inconsistent to me. What's up with that?

marc

Marc,

Your characterization is misleading, innaccurate, and unfair.

I negotiated the agreement with NPS regarding paragliding. NPS does not allow us to top land - I am suggesting that we honor that requirement so that we do not lose the site. Is that not rational?

Regarding your personal attack, here is my response.

I have removed myself (i.e. unsubscribed) from no less than three lists, specifically to avoid your repeated negativity and willful malice.

Note the absence of a 'smiley face'.

'Spark

Marcel Dettling · Post by **Marcel Dettling** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:59 am

Spark,

Although your post above wasn't addressed towards me: I don't think you've done anything wrong with your mentoring of novice pilots at the Pulpit. I know you as a very prudent instructor and I have, on multiple occasions, witnessed such student flights from the Pulpit. All of them happened in sufficiently calm and benign conditions, were totally safe and absolutely free of any incidents. I have seen plenty of dangerous actions at the Pulpit, but in none of them, any of your students were involved. There is nothing else to say than a big thanks to Spark for all his efforts in this regard!

I see Sparks point about the legal status of toplandings at Dickey Ridge. It's just a bummer that they are forbidden. It would be simple enough to land there, it would be convenient, it would add to the fun. Moreover, there are plenty of hikers resting near the VOR, or other people loitering around, so a few PGs occasionally toplanding there wouldn't hurt. So, this restriction doesn't make a lot of sense in my opinion, but currently it's there and I concur with the opinion that toplandings threaten our access to the site, at least if any incidents happen or authorities observe them.

Lastly, I don't second Sparks opinion that only P4's should be allowed to fly from Dickey Ridge. I think it should be accessible to anyone who has the skills to fly it, and I think a P3 is enough to do so. Independent of any ratings, every pilot should be responsible and mature enough to stay away from launching if the conditions seem questionable, or if they exceed the personal skill level. But that's something we cannot enforce by putting up new rules.

Cheers,

Marcel

Flying Lobster · Post by **Flying Lobster** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:29 pm

Spark wrote:
Flying Lobster wrote:Sparky-- I am at a loss as to why you have a sudden interest in enforcing tighter flying restrictions at one mountain site--while at the same time you embrace a policy of chucking P-0's and P-1's off another mountain site.

This seems rather inconsistent to me. What's up with that?

marc
Marc,

Your characterization is misleading, innaccurate, and unfair.

I negotiated the agreement with NPS regarding paragliding. NPS does not allow us to top land - I am suggesting that we honor that requirement so that we do not lose the site. Is that not rational?

Regarding your personal attack, here is my response.

I have removed myself (i.e. unsubscribed) from no less than three lists, specifically to avoid your repeated negativity and willful malice.

Note the absence of a 'smiley face'.

'Spark

Sorry you take it that way, but if I'm mistating the facts--then you state where and when and how I'm misrepresenting things. Just accusing me of that doesn't make it so.

On this very thread you state twice the desire for further restrictions for paragliders. I geniunely do not understand why you take this somewhat "overprotective" stance considering your liberal attitudes towards other sites. If you take it as personal attack--nothing I can do about that, I just call 'em as I see the facts.

I was the first to fly paragliders in the SNP over ten years ago. I did in fact contact the rangers and talked to Judy Taylor at the time, recieving permission mainly because I already had a valid hang gliding permit, and probably because they really didn't know the difference between paragliders and hang gliders at the time.

As for the permit itself, I know that it used to require that a designated "LZ on record" be used with each launch area. I do not know exactly if this means that a pilot HAS to land there if they launch from the respective launches. I have personally gone xc on a paraglider several times from Dickies and Miller's Head (never landing on NPS land)--is this to be interpreted as a violation of the permit?

My experience with the NPS has been that in general they don't like to mess with a wide variety of rules and restrictions, but prefer that we as a supposedly self-governing group take care of that stuff on our own.

As for landing on or near the nav beacon (which I've never done) I don't know if that's explicitly prohibited--though from my point of view I don't even like flying over the launch--in my opinion you never can be sure if an aircraft--any aircraft--might not be shooting an instrument approach even in VFR conditions.

My opinion is its better to stir up the water at a club meeting first before going to the Feds.

marc

PS--I've only been on one other club list--must be someone out there impersonating me.

Post by **mcelrah** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:48 pm

If you get high over the VOR there is a "greater chance" of having an
encounter with an airplane since they tend - or at least used to,
before GPS - to converge on the NAVAID. Still, there is the "big
sky, small aircraft" factor. I'm not addressing the top-landing/
skill requirement issues since I've never been there and don't have
the skills for it under any construction of the protocol. - Hugh

Flying Lobster · Post by **Flying Lobster** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 7:46 pm

Spark wrote:
Flying Lobster wrote:Sparky-- I am at a loss as to why you have a sudden interest in enforcing tighter flying restrictions at one mountain site--while at the same time you embrace a policy of chucking P-0's and P-1's off another mountain site.

This seems rather inconsistent to me. What's up with that?

marc
Marc,

Your characterization is misleading, innaccurate, and unfair.

I negotiated the agreement with NPS regarding paragliding. NPS does not allow us to top land - I am suggesting that we honor that requirement so that we do not lose the site. Is that not rational?

Regarding your personal attack, here is my response.

I have removed myself (i.e. unsubscribed) from no less than three lists, specifically to avoid your repeated negativity and willful malice.

Note the absence of a 'smiley face'.

'Spark

My comment was never meant to imply that Sparky is an unsafe instructor--I think he is an asset to the area and paragliding in the region benefits from his contributions--both as an instructor--as well as his unique position as an employee of the National Park (Dept. of the Interior). I agree with his position that we must carefully observe the Park's prohibitions against toplandings.

marc

Spark · Post by **Spark** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:18 am

Spark wrote:
Flying Lobster wrote:Sparky-- I am at a loss as to why you have a sudden interest in enforcing tighter flying restrictions at one mountain site--while at the same time you embrace a policy of chucking P-0's and P-1's off another mountain site.

This seems rather inconsistent to me. What's up with that?

marc
Marc,

Your characterization is misleading, innaccurate, and unfair.

I negotiated the agreement with NPS regarding paragliding. NPS does not allow us to top land - I am suggesting that we honor that requirement so that we do not lose the site. Is that not rational?

Regarding your personal attack, here is my response.

I have removed myself (i.e. unsubscribed) from no less than three lists, specifically to avoid your repeated negativity and willful malice.

Note the absence of a 'smiley face'.

'Spark

Marc,

I've given much thought to my previous response. My response to you was inappropriate and served no constructive purpose. I offer my apology to you and the readership.

I believe that our Forums are extremely valuable to our community, but the value is quickly lost during negative exchanges such as this.

I want this to be an environment where readers and contributors are safe from unconstructive criticism or hostility, and therefore I renew a committment to posting only content this is factual, informative and constructive.

'Spark

Flying Lobster · Post by **Flying Lobster** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:05 pm

Spark wrote:
I want this to be an environment where readers and contributors are safe from unconstructive criticism or hostility, and therefore I renew a committment to posting only content this is factual, informative and constructive.

'Spark

What's the fun in that?

Just kidding

You're a better man than me.

marc

Flying Lobster · Post by **Flying Lobster** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:49 pm

Spark wrote:
Spark wrote:
Flying Lobster wrote:Sparky-- I am at a loss as to why you have a sudden interest in enforcing tighter flying restrictions at one mountain site--while at the same time you embrace a policy of chucking P-0's and P-1's off another mountain site.

This seems rather inconsistent to me. What's up with that?

marc
Marc,

Your characterization is misleading, innaccurate, and unfair.

I negotiated the agreement with NPS regarding paragliding. NPS does not allow us to top land - I am suggesting that we honor that requirement so that we do not lose the site. Is that not rational?

Regarding your personal attack, here is my response.

I have removed myself (i.e. unsubscribed) from no less than three lists, specifically to avoid your repeated negativity and willful malice.

Note the absence of a 'smiley face'.

'Spark
Marc,

I've given much thought to my previous response. My response to you was inappropriate and served no constructive purpose. I offer my apology to you and the readership.

I believe that our Forums are extremely valuable to our community, but the value is quickly lost during negative exchanges such as this.

I want this to be an environment where readers and contributors are safe from unconstructive criticism or hostility, and therefore I renew a committment to posting only content this is factual, informative and constructive.

'Spark

No apology necessary--trading insults and half-truths is the reason most people use and read the Internet anyway!

Just kidding. Mostly.

Seriously, though, take a look at the volumes of flames that constantly go back and forth between me and Marco on the general discussion concerning political discussions. I know it irritates alot of people--and in general I don't agree with hardly anything Marco says--but I enjoy his unending commentaries, and I respect him for voicing his opinions and standing up for what he believes in.

Might I suggest a six pack or two of good beer?

marc

Post by **mcelrah** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 6:03 pm

...than I.

Flying Lobster · Post by **Flying Lobster** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:05 pm

mcelrah wrote:...than I.

you too?

chgpa.org