Pulpit Launch - Decision Time for MHGA and CHGPA

[RedBaron]

Okay, I'll be gone for two weeks so I'm posting now. I encouraged Glen and Gregory to contact three local contractors on putting quotes together re turning the area between the two ramps into a nice slope launch. The work will include:
> detruction of boulders and big rocks right and left of the gravel
> filling the space in with gravel to utilize the entire area (~60 feet) between the 2 ramps
> bottom extension of the slope
The new launch area will be much safer for PG take-off and, at last, perfectly safe for HG launches. The first quote just came in and runs at $5900. 1/3 of it would be down payment. Don't know about the other two yet, but this is good enough to give you an idea of what it will cost the two clubs. Glen, Gregory and I offer to supervise the work and make sure it will meet the criteria of an efficient and convenient slope launch with great safety margins. Glen and Gregory have tremendous experience and I'm confident their knowledge and skills will satisfy every pilot's needs. All three of us are extremely driven to make this happen sooner than later.
All pilots who are in favor of this are more than welcome to give their vote a voice now and I urge the decision makers of both clubs to get their checkbooks ready. Reminder: With the number of active pilots plummeting is has become increasingly difficult to fly this XC site, the only one that is owned by both clubs.

[hepcat1989]

.

[brianvh]

Not that I'm really an active member of the clubs anymore, but....

How much of that quote is destruction of the rocks? Is destruction of the rocks really necessary given that hang gliders already launch there? Would partial destruction be acceptable?

I'm kinda fond of those rocks, and if preserving them in whole or part saves money I'm all for it.

[dbodner]

Here's how I see it happening.

When the last quote comes in, select your winner. It might be the cheapest. But if you think the cheapest guy is a flake, you probably don't want to deal with him. We might also want to call previous customers and ask for their experience.

When we have a winner and a dollar figure, the two clubs' boards of directors need to vote on it. If a majority goes for it, I'll be authorized to cut a check. As a point of reference, there's enough money in the Pulpit checking account to pay for the 1st quote. Previously the combined boards had approved on improving the paraglider ramp, but only to the tune of $500 or $600. That's why we need a new vote.

Maybe we can aim for the two clubs' boards to vote by the next CHGPA meeting in late April.

If anyone sees it differently, let's hash it out.

David Bodner
Pulpit Treasurer

[dbodner]

Brian,

My impression from speaking with Gregory is that removing the rocks is real easy (and probably cheap) for guys with the right equipment. The rocks will be included in the fill.

Not sure how much of the rocks will be demolished and what will remain. I'd guess if there's nothing to be gained from removing a particular rock, it'll remain.

[pink_albatross]

Yeah, you go!
Awesome... Something is going to get done!

I do second Brian's sentiment about the rocks though. Would it be possible to just move the rocks maybe to the entrance of the property or line the edge of the woods?

Another thing: would it be possible to take out the left ramp (the older lower one with the rotting boards) and include that area into the launch? That would give clean airflow on launch. Right now if it is not coming in perfectly straight there is noticeable rotor coming off the two ramps, which makes launching quite technical (especially for PG). Removing the left ramp and including that area into the launch would not only allow two pilots to get ready at the same time and then launch without assistance (not simultaneously), but also make the site P2 friendly. I am not sure that counts in the HG forum, but we do have PG pilots in the club, this *is* a club site and I think making a club site friendly for up and coming pilots is a worthwhile endeavor.

-- ellis

[brianvh]

Not sure moving the rocks would be worthwhile, by the time it's made to look good it would cost through the wazoo. If they can't stay where they are, they may as well be used as fill. But remember to move the Bill Bennett memorial plaque.

Since the land around the left ramp is higher, why not remove that ramp and turn that slope into a launch? Wouldn't have to build up as much, just get it even with the rocks. It would be nice to build on the work already done between the ramps, but if it saves work in the long run it may be worth it to incorporate the rocks into the fill volume without the need to demolish them. Not sure about the geometry, may actually take more fill once you move away from the lip.

How much elevation was planned to be added to the gravel between the ramps?

[brianvh]

BTW - my proposal is different from Ellis' in that instead of levelling the left ramp area, I say keep it and build it up into a slope launch, using the rocks in present form instead of crushing them. It would be higher than the present proposal.

For the area between the ramps, put in stadium seating and a popcorn machine.

[RedBaron]

No other quotes in yet. I do not share the sentiments about the rocks. Moving the rocks will be difficult, pricey and just not worth it. A safe slope launch is all I personally care about.

Is destruction of the rocks really necessary given that hang gliders already launch there?

I believe it is. HG's do not launch there. I tried once and had to inch my way out of the slot. Still clipped a rock with my wing tip. I walked the area with Glen and Gregory and we believe that for safety reasons we need as much space as the area between the two ramps provides, which is ample. The wingspan of my glider is 35 feet for example, I would like to double that.

would it be possible to take out the left ramp

That was also my initial idea but I got the impression that most pilots are against that. With the area between the ramps as big as it is there's no need really, and that old ramp still hast its purpose on northerly days.

[brianvh]

But if you turned the left ramp into a slope, you still have the north launch capability, and nearly the same height. Like I said, I don't know if the volume of material works out, but if the rocks are built up sideways rather than destroyed, it might be less work. Extend the rocks mainly to the left, and a little to the right; build up in the launch direction to make a slope.

[brianvh]

Or maybe even easier: build up enough pad for a paraglider to lay out, build a wider but shorter ramp for runoff.

Because the rocks are nearly the same height as the left ramp, it makes sense to me to use them rather than demolish them. But I may not be remembering the layout precisely.

[Dave Proctor]

"perfectly safe for HG launches"
Anytime I read absolute statements like this it makes me wonder. It *might* be perfectly safe. It might be too low and the air too trashy. I believe that the current PG launch is not adequate for HG and..let's just say, less than ideal for PG. I would love to have a better slope launch for either/both HG/PG. I just want to see some research into what we are planning before we rush off and do it. When we rebuilt the right ramp one of our main concerns was to make the ramp as high as possible to get into cleaner air and give some height for recovery. Has a civil engineer been consulted? The nightmare scenario is that some of this fill washes down the hill onto neighboring land, the Pulpit gets sued and we loose the property. Put together a complete proposal and present it to the board.

DaveP

[Matthew]

We spent 6K on the new ramp and all the labor and design was done by pilots. So $5900 seems like a pretty good deal to me.

Let's put it to a vote at the meeting.

Matthew

[Dave Proctor]

1) My recollection is that the new right ramp cost about $4K, most of which was donations from individuals.
2) Put *what* to a vote. How can you vote on a non-proposal??? I realize that you just want the club to give you carte blanc to do whatever you want, but that is not how it works. Someone (anyone) puts together a proposal and presents it to the joint board. That is how the new ramp got built. We did a lot of research, came up with estimates, put together a proposal and presented it to the joint board where it was approved.

Wasn't the current PG launch modification approved by the joint board?

DaveP

[brianvh]

Dave's memory is good.

The original proposal was $6K, in the joint board meeting Fred Permenter pointed out that pressure treated lumber would last about 30 years, which is as long as HG had been in existence, and ideas for good launches had evolved in that time and may continue to do so. $2K could be saved by replacing the metal framework with lumber, which was done.

Such major work deserves major discussion and joint approval. The ramp project got that. In the current case there may be several good scenarios, and perhaps they would each need a contractor quote before final decisions are made. Perhaps the current one would be selected, but in all likelyhood it will evolve in discussion.

I still think it should be built on top of the existing rocks and replace the left ramp, but what do I know?

[XCanytime]

It is unnecessary to remove the old ramp. The simplest thing to do is build a "land bridge" between the ramps to serve as a slope launch with serious erosion control. The height of the slope should try to be as high as the old ramp, so that the ramp serves as an "extension" of the slope. The KISS principle at its best, and it should keep the cost down.

Bacil

[lbunner]

We should the Tennessee Tree Toppers as an example of how to go about building a ramp. Although we are talking fill here not lumber, the principle remains the same. Take the time to develop a sound plan then get the bids and take it to the board. We certainly don't want to screw up what is already a great HG launch.

[dbodner]

Dave P,

Don't worry, there won't be any checks cut until and unless a majority of the joint boards vote for the project. I don't think Matthew was suggesting otherwise.

I, too, have concerns about fill washing down the hill. When we were talking about bringing in more truckloads of fill, I said we might need a properly engineered retaining wall. My fears are somewhat mitigated. Instead of doing it ourselves, we'd be hiring a firm with practical experience, if not credentials. I know, that may not be good enough for some folks, but it makes me feel better. Further, I pulled out the plat, and I think we own a lot more downhill than I initially realized.

BORING Part:
Our 5 acres forms a rough pentagon, with its base on the road. From the road, it's 106' NW to a stone pile, just shy of the Fulton County line. We then go another 403' to another stone pile at the "shoulder" point of the pentagon. From the shoulder, we veer left for another 308' to the top point of the pentagon. The border on the other side is roughly a mirror image.

I used to think the second stone pile was the original pulpit, where the new ramp is. But it's gotta be first stone pile. The county line is probably the top of the ridge, and it's just beyond the first stone pile. That means we own 4 to 5 times as much land on the other side of the ridge as on the set-up area side. And the top point of the pentagon is directly in front of the PG launch. I eyeball it at 550' to 600' from the ridge. That's an awful lot of wash, and there ain't a whole lot down there.

To properly engineer this project is probably more money than we have or want to spend. Depending on what we hear, Janni's proposal could be a good, reasonably safe, compromise.

[Spark]

Although I am no longer an active club member, I have considered this idea many times since we developed the PG launch. Once I speculated that any construction of windmills along the ridge might provide the means of obtaining the required fill material (at no cost)

It occurs to me that one rock that absolutely must be preserved is the rock with the memorial plaque for Bill B.

I also believe a retaining wall will be required and I believe that it should be a carefully planned ( if not engineered ) solution. The retaining wall would need to be in place before the fill material is delivered.

Another important consideration is getting the fill material up the hill to the dump location. When we were researching bringing in the material for the PG launch, I recall that we could not find a truck that could - or would - back up that hill. I recall that it took two (albeit small) front loaders several hours to haul all that material up the hill and dump it. Driving the loaders up the hill was not easy.

Perhaps it would make sense to include a plan to develop a crude road to the top with a single switchback. This would allow the material to be dumped closer to the final destination.

The amount of material required to raise the slope to the level of the old ramp will be several times larger than what was used before. Unless the material were dumped up top, it would need to be stored remporarily in the setup and parking areas and would dominate those areas, restricting parking and setup until properly distributed.

One final thought ... once an appropriate design was determined and the costs firmly established, perhaps it might make sense to seek support from the Foundation for Free Flight. http://www.foundationforfreeflight.org/

[Matthew]

Ugh!!! This is as bad as when we put in the new ramp.

Janni is getting bids. He's actually doing something. He'll bring the bids and the proposals to a meeting and we will vote on it. MHGA also has to vote on it. If a plan is approved by both clubs, then it's a go. If you want to do somehting to help, then do something to help. Contact Janni and offer your assitance. Or you could volunteer to serve on the BOD. Previous service does not exclude you.

Matthew

[bustedwing2]

I like Bacils idea best,the old ramp is sometimes the best choice. RichB

[deveil]

ah what the heck, might as well chime in (i actually sent in my dues for this year(!).
my take on the discussion so far is that spark's analysis and critique of various suggestions is pretty thorough from a practical perspective.
garyD

[pink_albatross]

Just to pipe up for the PGs and to explain the predicament, which unless you are biwingual, is an unnatural one for the HG pilot to think of:
currently the problem is not so much that there is not enough room to lay out (there is), but what happens, when you inflate your wing. For take off, PG pilots not only have to consider the air on the ground, but also the air 20 feet up.

Air is just about never coming in perfectly straight at the Pulpit, although it may seem so, standing between the ramps. But launch is sheltered between the ramps both decreasing the wind (in even a teeny cross) as well as funneling it up the slope. This however only goes for the first 10(?) feet. So, while pulling up your wing above the ramps, it moves from the sheltered straight in air into the true airflow and you will have to adjust to the changing conditions without having the luxury of moving sideways. Otherwise you can get simultaneously yanked backwards, upwards and to the side. Backwards is a problem, if it's too far, because you can easily get into the rotor behind the hill, get a collapse and come down hard. The sideways danger I don't have to explain to anybody familiar with the site. Upwards means you'll have to fly backwards for a bit until you get out front. It can be very dangerous when combined with one of the other two. So, you see, one or two of the scenarios are sufficient to get you in trouble, but all three could just as easily happen simultaneously. This makes it very tricky to launch in most conditions, IMHO. (in light to no winds there's the problem of not enough run out area).

This is why I am in favor of creating a take off which is wide and open (removing the left ramp) and one continuous area/slope. In order to expand flyable conditions range to light and no wind launches, I am also in favor of creating a long slope long enough to both lay out the wing as well as be able to run at least 5 steps.

After talking to Janni, who has after all taken off from the PG launch and after seeing and having several Pulpit flights on the PG, I feel that raising the slope (5?10?15 feet?)is not crucial in order to bag those nice soaring flights. I think it would be sufficient to just remove the left ramp and then fill in the slope to make it nice and smooth As fond as I am of the rocks, I am fonder of flying and not spending a fortune. Leaving the rocks on the slope should help with the retention of fill material, no? disclaimer: i am not a structural engineer and have no practical experience with slope building either.

-- ellis

[XCanytime]

The raising of the slope 5/10/15 feet means that your boneless wing is going to be 5/10/15 feet higher in the airstream when you inflate to launch. The Pulpit topography, being wide open on a treeless knob, guarantees that the wind a good bit of the time will be stronger 5/10/15 feet higher. Which translates to an even more difficult launch scenario for a PG. However, if the slope is extended well forward you could launch "out front" of the ramps in the cleaner air and get those 5 steps in. With the info that Dave provided that the terminal point of the property is 550' to 600' in front of the PG launch, filling an area in below to create a slope would be the ticket for both HG and PG. If the Egyptians could build the pyramids, we should be able to do that .

Bacil

[brianvh]

Personally I wouldn't feel safe launching HG there until the slope is about 5 feet higher, like the ramp. When inflated the PG have their wings up about where the HG are going off the ramp, as Bacil observed. Smoothing out the rocks and only raising the PG launch a couple feet would create a HG hazard IMHO because it may lull people into a dicey launch with rocks at the bottom. Noting Ellis' remarks (and the opinions of half the people who have seen it) It's already a pretty good PG hazard.

How high will the contracted plan raise launch? (he asks a second time).