Who’s Qualified to Fly Edith’s Gap?

[Ward Odenwald]

Now that the closest field to takeoff has been improved, we need to openly discuss its benefits/limitations and the flying expertise needed to ensure safe flying. At this site (like most), PG fliers and HG pilots are faced with overlapping challenges and unique issues that are directly related to glider performance and weather conditions. From my perspective: the LZ now appears to be ideal for PG landings - provided they can penetrate to it and have enough altitude over the LZ for safe landing approaches away from the Mason’s home; for HG pilots, its another “can of worms”. While the upper narrow area (closest to the Mason’s home) is reasonably flat, the rest of the field is a gentle (but significant) sloping hill that extends to the road below. As Brian mentioned in an earlier thread, the hill is a dominant issue for HG pilots especially for those that fly double-surfaced gliders and prompted his advice about landing a HG uphill with a downwind or crosswind approach along the lower end of the hill. With light SE surface winds that appears to be the best possible approach. However, I was left with the impression yesterday that the ~400 ft ridge at the downwind side of the field that rises immediately on the other side of the road (shown in krryerson’s second-to-last posted image on the “work party” thread) will trigger significant leeside turbulence in anything but light wind conditions during a downwind or crosswind approach. My gut feeling is that HG pilots (especially those that fly double-surfaced gliders) should consider this field only after they have run out of alternative options and especially avoid it during mid-day thermal and/or strong-ridge lift conditions that would suggest leeside turbulence in the LZ. As for single-surfaced gliders, Brian (an experienced pilot) has recently demonstrated that it can be done in light surface winds. So now comes the $64 question, if we believe that flying safety is directly linked to keeping flying sites, do we limit landing at this LZ to experienced pilots flying single-surfaced gliders? As usual - my opinions are often not the best, but close enough to trigger responses. It’s my hope that PG pilots will also add their opinions/advice by discussing their concerns about who’s qualified to fly Edith’s Gap? Ward

PS: wind direction indicators in the LZ are going to be a very, very important!

[Matthew]

Pilot flight requirements for a new or altered CHGPA site are made via a consensus of the CHGPA BOD, and MHGA BOD where applicable, based upon input from Observers.

If interested in actively participating on flying site requirements, it is suggested that you visit the site first and become either an Observer or a member of the CHGPA Board of Directors.

Matthew

[Danny Brotto]

Seriously Matthew?

Ward is expressing his concerns about what is essentially a new and likely technical LZ and you blow off his input? His concerns have to do with SAFETY and in my thinking they are accurate.

While I have not visited the site, from the photos it appears that 1) it looks like a fairly long glide to that primary open area and 2) the topography looks fairly lumpy down there. There are some data points from recent flights coming in which seem to substantiate these 2 items.

Ward has not called for limiting flying there just that perhaps we proceed with caution until the particulars of the site can be sussed out.

But then again, my (and most other people here's) thinking doesn't count because
1) I'm not a BOD member or
2) I'm not an Observer (stopped that years ago due to "nervosity".)

Danny Brotto

[Matthew]

Again, the procedures for establishing site restrictions are clearly laid out in my previous email.

Matthew

[Dan T]

I think that now is the right time to get input from anyone who has the desire to participate in the dialog. While the elected representatives of both the CHGPA and MHPA might be the ones chartered to make the final decision I don't think this is the right time to preclude anyone from contributing to the dialog. There were a lot of people who contributed their time and muscles to opening this site. They got a good look at it. I believe that they are as qualified as anyone to express an opinion on it and they should be entitled to do so.

In my opinion it should remain an H3/P3 site until we have gained some more collective experience in varying conditions on the ground. I think the time will come when the experienced pilots consider it to be not much more difficult than landing cross wind at the Pulpit.

Dan

[Matthew]

OK. I'll play along...

I suggest that we write it up in the site guide as follows for Edith's Gap--

P3 or P2 with Observer. H3 with RLF. ALL PILOTS REQUIRED TO WALK LZ PRIOR TO FIRST FLIGHT AT THIS SITE. (And then the usual info on parking restrictions in the LZ and at launch, as well as any other landowner requirements and/or launch area restrictions as laid out by the forest service.)

Matthew

[deveil]

It seems that, through some misunderstanding perhaps, there are two wholly different things being addressed, one not having much of anything to do with the other. Maybe, if necessary, a separate thread should be developed and Ward's discussion starter not be further encumbered.

[RichH]

First off I think the Chgpa did an excellent job clearing the field and my hats off to the crew who did an incredible job.. I think the new improved field has made a very exceptable landing area for PG's..I think Ward's concerns though are well founded especially for the HG pilots. Based on the many issues that will face a HG pilot landing in this field should be considered H3 and above.(Based on the size field, slope, direction and power lines, barns etc..) . I think allowing H2 to fly at this site will result in some unfortunate circumstances..

[dbodner]

I'm not sure that H2 vs H3 is the issue. Sure, it'd be crazy to throw off a H2 there on his first high flight. But, I could just as easily see an experienced 2 handle it fine as a 3 blowing it.

Perhaps, resurrecting a point Ward made, we limit it to SS gliders--at least at first while we gain some data points, and maybe only for H3s. Then re-visit it, both for H-level and type of glider. It might be that anyone who has the ability to stuff the bar on a SS glider can handle it fine. It'd be nice to get some experience doing cross-field landings as well as up-hill landings before we set a policy in stone.

[Dan T]

The most skillful pilots in our club are almost all flying high performance double surface gliders. It makes no sense to attempt to exclude them from flying the site. It makes much more sense to encourage them to fly it and provide recommendations to the rest of us based upon their experience.

[XCanytime]

Taking a look at the LZ on the satellite, and hearing the descriptions from pilots whose inputs I trust, I would only fly the site when it's big time soarable and ESE/SE, pretty much guaranteeing a ridge run to the SW to much better LZ options. Bacil

[lbunner]

Have you all considered the field just to the ESE of the LZ you cleared? It runs NE to SW but is flat for 550'. I'd much rather try landing there in a double surface glider that deal with the significant slope at Mason's.

[brianvh]

Having landed there, I think H3 with double surface gliders can make their own evaluations on whether or not to use it. I hazard they will use their judgement to land there during non-thermally periods and when it's SE. I also think an experienced H2 in a single surface is fully competent to land there during non-thermally periods.

If you can throw a H2 in a single surface off Daniels, you can do it at Edith's Gap, there's just a narrower range of conditions under which it's appropriate. And any H3 should be fully qualified to make their own decisions about whether they want to try it. I'd say definitely H3, H2/observer...but be careful on that second one. Conditions, conditions, conditions.

The only fear is pilots coming in from outside the community. Make it clear that guidance should be sought from local pilots before attempting to land there.

[RichH]

Brian I disagree on the H2 statement ..from the looks of this site it would be putting H2's in jeopardy. We have plenty of acceptable sites with landing fields far less difficult to navigate than Edith's Gaps landing field for H2's to cut thier teeth on. I just dont see the reason to add the risk..If you are a H2 go to sites where you can focus on building your skill sets with confidence and gives you some added room for adjustment if the conditions are a bit more troublesome than predicted. Build your skills move on up to a H3 than consider more difficult sites...

[brianvh]

Not a new H2 by any means. God no. The type who is getting close to H3 who you'd feel comfortable throwing off Daniel's. That's a very technical site, and to be honest an advanced H2 often lands better than H3 and H4: they've recently come out of their sled run phase and are much more current with landings.

[mcelrah]

I thought the PG observers rated Edith's as P3 only - not P2 with observer. Did that change with the LZ clearing?

I'm willing to listen to what Ward has to say. Other landowners showed up at the initial launch clearing and offered their fields, so the one Larry mentions may be available. The LZ(s) need to be pioneered by proficient hang-glider pilots on various wings and in various conditions to gather more experience. "Looks good: you go first…"

- Hugh

[Dan T]

Matthew previously matter of factly pointed out that the CHGPA rules state that it is the CHGPA BOD's job to rate the sites based upon input from the observers (not intended to exclude anyone else who can express an informed opinion). I think it's time for the BOD to make the call. We can always change it as we gain more experience with the site.

I haven't yet flown it in a PG yet. I flew it once with another pilot long ago. On that day he wound up in the trees and I managed to squeak into a small field well to the right of launch white knuckled close to the trees the whole way. My opinion is that it should be a P3/H3 and above only until we gain a bit more experience with the site. A less experienced pilot than Krista would almost certainly not have had the non-event outcome that she managed to pull off.

So how about it BOD let's get a decision?

[mingram]

The PG observers who have flown the site, before the LZ was cleared, thought it should be rated P2 with RLF sign-off. The LZ is no longer restricted for PG now that it's been cleared since it's easily reachable in moderate winds. As long as we explain the approach to the LZ to stay at the top end of it and to test penetration for reaching the LZ I think it's suitable for P2s with Observer.

[sailin]

In response to DanT asking the BOD for a site rating for Ediths Gap, which was in response to Matthew stating that the BOD sets the site rating:

If someone can please point me to the document that gives the BOD this authority and responsibility I would appreciate it. It makes sense that the BOD would be involved in this process... in part.....but probably only after conferring with other Region 9 Observers. Just can't seem to find anything that says the BOD has this authority. Maybe some of the people that have been here much longer than me can point me in the right direction.

My initial feeling from seeing this site (and this is after the clearing)...but NOT Flying it..........is that it is an H3 site. Knowing very little about Paragliding I hesitate to have an opinion on that specific rating.......but, seems somewhat technical and I would think in any sort of thermic or wind conditions that a P2 could get themselves in trouble rather quickly.

thanks,
Jon

[markc]

Such sturm-und-drang! *smile*

As one of the few (HG) pilots who has actually flown this site, PRIOR to the clearing of the launch, and PRIOR to the availability of an LZ that's even **visible** from launch.... I've just got to say "Yikes, take a chill-pill people!".

Look, I've been there, when **very experienced** HG pilots have gotten into difficulty at Edith's. Sometimes when I've been flying, and sometimes when I've elected not to fly. Luckily, those incidents involved (mostly) aluminum damage, rather than serious pilot damage.

Was there a huge debate and discussion about who is/is-not qualified to fly the site, back then, when it was HG-only?

No! Nothing!! Nada!!!

Not to say that's necessarily a _good_ thing.... But I must admit that I'm more than a bit bemused by the fact that there's this sudden rush to quantify the required qualifications to fly Edith's.

I *DO* get it, of course, we don't want pilots getting into trouble at a newly re-opened site, no matter what type of wing they're flying. But, just a modest proposal here... Can we gain some experience, and collect some input from HG and PG Observers, and involve the CHGPA BOD, in order to come up with some sensible guidelines?

And can those most-interested please make their concerns known at CHGPA meetings, or by contacting the CHGPA BOD, and possibly even check-out the site in person, on a flying day?

Edith's is an awesome site, and it's going to be a joy to fly for everyone. We do need to be respectful of its limitations, but let's keep things in perspective, eh?

MarkC

[RichH]

The reason no one commented about the HG incidents at the time about a little know site and the HG incidents that occurred there (Edith'd prior to improvements) is that very few of us knew about them!! The argument to leave this discussion up to the BOD or Capital meetings etc..is not in totally keeping with our communities philosophy of self-regulation.. The input in this forum has been very enlightening and very useful. Its obvious the improvements made to the landing field at Edith's Gap has made it easier for PG pilots but the concerns brought up by very experienced HG pilots (most with thousands of hours of flying experience )in this forum should be taken into serious consideration. Making Edith's Gap a H2 site would be in my opinion would be a huge mistake. How long do you think the Forest Service is going to support our activities in the National Forest when PG/HG start having tree landings, blown launches, or impacting obstacles in the landing field? I can tell you when Park service or Forest Service rescue teams ( which I've been a member of) are called out repeatedly to respond to HG or PG incidents the superintendent of the Park or National Forest will have to respond with a plan to limit or cancel those activities. I've seen ridiculous statements in this forum accusing pilots with valid concerns as being "excessively nervous" or to "just chill". Its time for this flying community to take a serious look at recent activities at our flying sites and take preventive actions to prevent or minimize there impact in the future.The argument to wait until we have more experience before we make a decision makes no sense at all.

[brianvh]

First off, I totally agree with the wisdom of limiting Edith's Gap to H3 until a good level of experience has been built up.

But I feel the discussion sometimes implicitly confuses a H2 site with a H2/observer site. Only experienced H2 will be going off under the guidance of an observer, under appropriate conditions with conservative words in their ears (maybe I'm assuming too much). We don't have the statistics we should, but I'd hazard if you look at the incident/flight ratio for experienced H2s, it will be lower than the incident/flight ratio for new H3s. Think back, when did you have most of your safety incidents? I'm not trying to strongly argue for it being eventually a H2/observer sight, just putting the thought it out there as something that's not completely stupid.

[markc]

Whoops, my apologies, the tone of my last post was probably a bit too flippant given the importance of this topic.

RichH, the incidents of which I speak predate the existence of these forums. They occurred when all we had was an email listserv, and when club meetings were a monthly event (with regular face2face discussions about flights, both good and not-so-good, *including* flights at Edith's). Unless I'm mistaken, you hadn't (re)connected with the club at that point in time?

I am *not* suggesting that Edith's should be an H2/P2 site, an H2/P2 site with Observer, or an H3/P3 site.

In my opinion, things are still very much in flux, and it's way early in the game to be deciding exactly how the site will be managed.

So I urge that those who feel most strongly about this do some/all of the following:

Visit the site
Fly the site
Talk with observers who've flown the site
Talk to pilots who've flown the site.
Communicate concerns at club meetings and to the BOD

Sure, discuss these things here too.... but please realize the limitations of using a text forum in order to communicate the physical realities of a newly reopened site.

Forum-based debate is valuable... But so too is direct/personal experience of a flying site's characteristics, and/or a conversation with someone who has that experience.

MarkC

[Mobius1]

"The argument to wait until we have more experience before we make a decision makes no sense at all." -user RichH

Please explain a little further if you would like. I understand this was your concluding sentence, so it was described throughout the post, but based on what you said so far, I disagree.

There should be no problem making the final call using the forums (perhaps one short post containing an official public vote from the BOD w/ observer input they have considered cited [assuming that’s how it’s done, sailin]). However, it seems a little early to block out input. No H2’s will be flying there until a bunch of H10’s check it out, even if the site was declared an H1 site right now. Therefore, it makes 0 changes to the number of incidents that occur if we wait for some gurus to log weather vs. flyability over the next few months.

So far, several experienced pilots have seen the LZ and do not think it is safely landable routinely for an H2, even with an observer tasting conditions. This may be what you are referring to in order to justify finalizing the decision now. If so, then I still think that it would be hard to tell the full story of an LZ without actually flying it. Other than that, I understand two specific flight tests stand out to those making the decision: one HG and one PG. The one HG flight hit some sink and got to the field too low for an H2 of any skill level to perform a landing within the top end of their comfort zone. This was accentuated by a PG retelling of a weather related/ incorrect turn related lethargic glide.

Those descriptions stand out above all the PG’s that land there consistently with little issue. We definitely need some HG surveys. I’m not sure how the majority of medium and high time pilots feel about the launch yet, but it may also end up being too challenging for an H2 to negotiate while other factors of the site are compounded (if the wind hits a certain way, for instance). Any site w/ bad conditions can kill a pilot. Even Taylor Farm would probably become Russian roulette w/ a tailwind.

This does not mean to stop debating until the explorers get back, if we continue until news gets here, we will be more efficient in receiving their feedback instead of starting from scratch once it arrives.

Mobi

[lbunner]

Mark, your last post almost encourages H2's to go fly the site while we try to figure out what the rating should be. I know this was not your intent but I think the whole premise behind this discussion is to ensure pilot safety. For this reason alone, the site should be restricted until more experience and data is acquired. We don't need someone getting hurt at a new site at a new LZ (with such gracious owners). I personally would be hesitant to land my T2C there as the slope (as seen on GE) appears to be just a little too steep and I have no experience landing uphill downwind. I still like the long field just to the SE of this one that is flat as a table and reasonably long.