It's a very hot year so far and fires have already started in nearby mountains. I think we may not be as lucky as last year in avoiding a closure of the forest.
I remember hearing that the permit process for obtaining access to the launch at Towers is complete. Is that true? If so, what will it take to prove we are legally using the road? Should we be getting ready? Does the permit affect the Kagel launch for non-Hang 4 members or was it exclusive to Towers because of the pavement?
And what ever happened to the issue of access to Big T and Lukens? I thought the BOD was in conversations with a sympathetic Forest Service director or other power-wielding individual. Any update or is this a dead issue again?
Access to Launch During Forest Service Closure
Moderator: Chip
-
Lynn McLaughlin
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:08 pm
I am happy to see that you are interested. You have great questions...
Our (illustrious) VP, Larry Chamblee, along with many active Club members are in contact with the Forest Service. If you watch the home page on the web site you will note, under the Heroes section, our Forest Service Commitee is mentioned from time-to-time. So... this is NOT a dead issue.
As a result of many years of continued effort, donation of time and resources, the SHGA has established a solid relationship with the Forest Service. With every year that I organized a Community Day/Spring Air Festival, I included the Forest Service (among other agencies, like the FAA and Sylmar Land Use Committee) because we need them and they need us. We annually donate to maintain the road to launch and we donate our pilots and resources to keep the road clean and help with Condor reintroduction (as well as help w/crime watch... no really, ask Dana...).
Larry/Lisa/Ken have the most current updates on Towers permit process and other site preservation efforts. Let's ask them to update us when Larry's back in town and also at our next Club meeting in the LZ.
Soon we fly,
Lynn
Our (illustrious) VP, Larry Chamblee, along with many active Club members are in contact with the Forest Service. If you watch the home page on the web site you will note, under the Heroes section, our Forest Service Commitee is mentioned from time-to-time. So... this is NOT a dead issue.
As a result of many years of continued effort, donation of time and resources, the SHGA has established a solid relationship with the Forest Service. With every year that I organized a Community Day/Spring Air Festival, I included the Forest Service (among other agencies, like the FAA and Sylmar Land Use Committee) because we need them and they need us. We annually donate to maintain the road to launch and we donate our pilots and resources to keep the road clean and help with Condor reintroduction (as well as help w/crime watch... no really, ask Dana...).
Larry/Lisa/Ken have the most current updates on Towers permit process and other site preservation efforts. Let's ask them to update us when Larry's back in town and also at our next Club meeting in the LZ.
Soon we fly,
Lynn
Lukens and Big T Launches
Jim and all -
We did discuss the Big T and Lukens launches with the District Ranger.
The road access to Big T was closed about ten years ago (I can give you the exact date if you need it) because of "unsupervised night-time gatherings of young adults." The Ranger is not averse to permitting us to use the launch, so long as the Forest Service could monitor who is in the Forest, using what are ordinarily closed roads, in case of fire.
At our request, Jim Brown, who used to use the Big T launch a lot, hiked up to the Big T launch, and discovered that there is no vehicle-passable road access to the launch. The roads have been washed out and not repaired. Forest Service road maintenance is prioritized by firefighting needs and available budget.
We also could not find any demand in the club for the Big T launch, except by one or two pilots. Accordingly, we decided not to pursue an application for a permit for access to that launch, since we need to focus our limited volunteer efforts on projects that carry the greatest potential for benefit to the whole Club.
However now, with our state of the art website, it would be possible to canvas the members for their views on whether they would use Big T if we could convince the Forest Service to give us a permit and devote the necessary resources to fixing the road.
I personally have never launched Big T, and I'm not sure exactly where the launch is/was. My feeling is that if I want to soar Middle T and Big T, land in the Big T wash, I can just launch Kagel, try for Lukens and sink out, or throw my chute in Little T canyon.
Lukens - There is a road to launch, passable with 4-wheel drive. But access is always locked, since it passes through a Forest Service firefighting equipment staging area. The use of this site would require a Forest Service permit and access through the locked gate with some assurances that nobody would mess with the firefighting equipment or leave the gate open for others to do so.
As with Big T, the limited interest in the Lukens launch caused us to shelve our efforts with respect to that launch. This issue can always be reopened if there is a sufficient show of interest.
Personally, I'd like to reopen Mount Wilson. It's a great flying site with very high public visibility. However, this would require politicking with the City of Pasadena to make them repeal or modify the City's criminal ordinance against flying, landing or possessing a hang glider within the city. I'm looking for the time to put that effort together, but it's a ton of work, and we don't want it to be a half-assed effort. I would want to collect the support of the Forest Service (which owns the launch), the Pasadena City attorney (for liability issues) and the Mayor, who was in my French class last year.
We did discuss the Big T and Lukens launches with the District Ranger.
The road access to Big T was closed about ten years ago (I can give you the exact date if you need it) because of "unsupervised night-time gatherings of young adults." The Ranger is not averse to permitting us to use the launch, so long as the Forest Service could monitor who is in the Forest, using what are ordinarily closed roads, in case of fire.
At our request, Jim Brown, who used to use the Big T launch a lot, hiked up to the Big T launch, and discovered that there is no vehicle-passable road access to the launch. The roads have been washed out and not repaired. Forest Service road maintenance is prioritized by firefighting needs and available budget.
We also could not find any demand in the club for the Big T launch, except by one or two pilots. Accordingly, we decided not to pursue an application for a permit for access to that launch, since we need to focus our limited volunteer efforts on projects that carry the greatest potential for benefit to the whole Club.
However now, with our state of the art website, it would be possible to canvas the members for their views on whether they would use Big T if we could convince the Forest Service to give us a permit and devote the necessary resources to fixing the road.
I personally have never launched Big T, and I'm not sure exactly where the launch is/was. My feeling is that if I want to soar Middle T and Big T, land in the Big T wash, I can just launch Kagel, try for Lukens and sink out, or throw my chute in Little T canyon.
Lukens - There is a road to launch, passable with 4-wheel drive. But access is always locked, since it passes through a Forest Service firefighting equipment staging area. The use of this site would require a Forest Service permit and access through the locked gate with some assurances that nobody would mess with the firefighting equipment or leave the gate open for others to do so.
As with Big T, the limited interest in the Lukens launch caused us to shelve our efforts with respect to that launch. This issue can always be reopened if there is a sufficient show of interest.
Personally, I'd like to reopen Mount Wilson. It's a great flying site with very high public visibility. However, this would require politicking with the City of Pasadena to make them repeal or modify the City's criminal ordinance against flying, landing or possessing a hang glider within the city. I'm looking for the time to put that effort together, but it's a ton of work, and we don't want it to be a half-assed effort. I would want to collect the support of the Forest Service (which owns the launch), the Pasadena City attorney (for liability issues) and the Mayor, who was in my French class last year.
Soar With Prudent Passion
Larry Chamblee
Larry Chamblee
-
Lynn McLaughlin
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:08 pm
More Launches needed
I'm for either proposal since the road to Kagel may eventually wash out. The sooner efforts in opening more sites gets started the better.
Having towers helps the H4's but the other pilots are going to need something too. We may need to explore creating another launch near towers for newer pilots.
Having towers helps the H4's but the other pilots are going to need something too. We may need to explore creating another launch near towers for newer pilots.
-
Lynn McLaughlin
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:08 pm
Interesting proposal, Chip. You are right... we need to keep H2's & 3's in mind. Here's a question for Larry or anyone who may know:
What were the rating requirments (if any) for Lukens and/or Big T launches when they existed? What might they be today if we were to reopen them? Are there other possible, optional launch options in mind for H2's and 3's?
I am aware of conditional, instructor sign-off's for advanced H3's to launch Towers but that is all.
What were the rating requirments (if any) for Lukens and/or Big T launches when they existed? What might they be today if we were to reopen them? Are there other possible, optional launch options in mind for H2's and 3's?
I am aware of conditional, instructor sign-off's for advanced H3's to launch Towers but that is all.
Lukens vs Big T vs ???
I also support the opening of Lukens. If it wasn't for the road being impassible, I'd say that Big T was even better. I agree that we have to get started as soon as possible.
1) Lukens is a bit far from the Big T LZ (The only known safe LZ for Lukens without getting up.) I'd hesitate to allow anyone but H4s to launch there, but that's just my opinion, and I haven't researched it much.
2) Big T is a "fall-out-of-bed-easy" glide to the Big T LZ.
3) The Big T LZ is not a very good LZ as it is now, though. I think some "rock moving" could help if we get a launch over there.
4) Wilson should be a separate issue and should be pursued regardless of what we do with Lukens or Big T.
5) We need to deal with the crack in the Kagel road, not just give up. (See next post.)
1) Lukens is a bit far from the Big T LZ (The only known safe LZ for Lukens without getting up.) I'd hesitate to allow anyone but H4s to launch there, but that's just my opinion, and I haven't researched it much.
2) Big T is a "fall-out-of-bed-easy" glide to the Big T LZ.
3) The Big T LZ is not a very good LZ as it is now, though. I think some "rock moving" could help if we get a launch over there.
4) Wilson should be a separate issue and should be pursued regardless of what we do with Lukens or Big T.
5) We need to deal with the crack in the Kagel road, not just give up. (See next post.)
Fly High; Fly Far; Fly Safe -- George
Kagel road washout
We all know that unless we do something, the Kagel road will wash out eventually. That ravine that is forming isn't going to go away by itself.
I keep hearing people say that the "hole" or "ravine" or whatever is too big for us to do anything about. Maybe. But nobody has really researched it. If it is not fixed when (or better yet before) it washes out, then ONLY H4s and signed off H3s will be able to fly at Kagel. There goes the club in the long run. I doubt we'd survive that. I have put too much work into it to let that happen. (As have many many others.)
I think we need to either track down another accessible launch within easy glide of our LZ (unlikely) or deal with that "sulphurous, fuming crack in the earth." I don't care if it is expensive or if it takes a lot of work or both. It needs to be dealt with. I even have a few ideas of what we could do to solve this problem. Maybe my ideas won't work, but there are lots of smart people in the club who might have ideas that would. What do the rest of you think?
By the way, I am also on the Forest Service Committee and was on the board, Like Lisa and Larry, so I've been involved in these discussions from the start.
I keep hearing people say that the "hole" or "ravine" or whatever is too big for us to do anything about. Maybe. But nobody has really researched it. If it is not fixed when (or better yet before) it washes out, then ONLY H4s and signed off H3s will be able to fly at Kagel. There goes the club in the long run. I doubt we'd survive that. I have put too much work into it to let that happen. (As have many many others.)
I think we need to either track down another accessible launch within easy glide of our LZ (unlikely) or deal with that "sulphurous, fuming crack in the earth." I don't care if it is expensive or if it takes a lot of work or both. It needs to be dealt with. I even have a few ideas of what we could do to solve this problem. Maybe my ideas won't work, but there are lots of smart people in the club who might have ideas that would. What do the rest of you think?
By the way, I am also on the Forest Service Committee and was on the board, Like Lisa and Larry, so I've been involved in these discussions from the start.
Fly High; Fly Far; Fly Safe -- George
Site Preservation/Restoration/Pioneering
Lynn -
I don't know what the ratings were for Big T and Lukens. Maybe Greblo, Jim Brown or Bob LaFay know. As long as no one can get there in a vehicle, its academic, no?
Everyone else:
In addition to other things I do as a member of the Club's board, I'm willing to devote more than 100 hours of my time to Mt. Wilson, which is what I estimate it will take. But that won't help Novice and Intermediate Pilots, and I can't do more than what I can do. Someone else will have to take that on.
We need more than posts on the forum. We need volunteers who will make something happen. Saying, "I'm for reopening Avenue L," doesn't make it happen. The loss of that great site was a real blow to us. Fred Weinmann, George Stebbins and others put out great efforts to turn that around, but were not able to convince the landowner to let us launch there.
Some of you, who think efforts should be be started "the sooner the better" probably aren't aware of all the efforts that have been made throughout the years, and which are continuing. It's not a matter of "starting" efforts. It's about renewing and sticking with efforts over the long haul.
The first thing we have to do is find the volunteers who will actually spend their time and energy for the Club, as Chris Smith did with the website and Chippy has done with getting WIFI to the LZ, scoring competitions and as lots of members have done on cleanups and the like. As Ken did, spending many 30 hour weeks last year just in getting the new landing ramp done, and he's got a day job, too.
On the Towers Launch, I just sent Ken an image file of the permit the District Forest Ranger issued to the Club so that we can fly Towers even if the Forest is closed for fire danger. Ken will post it on the website so that drivers can print it out and take a copy up the hill, in case a Ranger or watchman at Towers questions our authority to be there. This was the result of lots of work by the Forest Service Committee.
I think we need a H-2 and H-3 Site Exploration Committee to scout out possible sites for the junior pilots and work with the Board to get them opened if possible. This will involve dealing with landowners to get permission, legal issues of premises liability, insurance and easement issues, and a wad of practical problems. Who is going to step up and do it?
Volunteers for the Committee?
Hello? Is this thing on?
I don't know what the ratings were for Big T and Lukens. Maybe Greblo, Jim Brown or Bob LaFay know. As long as no one can get there in a vehicle, its academic, no?
Everyone else:
In addition to other things I do as a member of the Club's board, I'm willing to devote more than 100 hours of my time to Mt. Wilson, which is what I estimate it will take. But that won't help Novice and Intermediate Pilots, and I can't do more than what I can do. Someone else will have to take that on.
We need more than posts on the forum. We need volunteers who will make something happen. Saying, "I'm for reopening Avenue L," doesn't make it happen. The loss of that great site was a real blow to us. Fred Weinmann, George Stebbins and others put out great efforts to turn that around, but were not able to convince the landowner to let us launch there.
Some of you, who think efforts should be be started "the sooner the better" probably aren't aware of all the efforts that have been made throughout the years, and which are continuing. It's not a matter of "starting" efforts. It's about renewing and sticking with efforts over the long haul.
The first thing we have to do is find the volunteers who will actually spend their time and energy for the Club, as Chris Smith did with the website and Chippy has done with getting WIFI to the LZ, scoring competitions and as lots of members have done on cleanups and the like. As Ken did, spending many 30 hour weeks last year just in getting the new landing ramp done, and he's got a day job, too.
On the Towers Launch, I just sent Ken an image file of the permit the District Forest Ranger issued to the Club so that we can fly Towers even if the Forest is closed for fire danger. Ken will post it on the website so that drivers can print it out and take a copy up the hill, in case a Ranger or watchman at Towers questions our authority to be there. This was the result of lots of work by the Forest Service Committee.
I think we need a H-2 and H-3 Site Exploration Committee to scout out possible sites for the junior pilots and work with the Board to get them opened if possible. This will involve dealing with landowners to get permission, legal issues of premises liability, insurance and easement issues, and a wad of practical problems. Who is going to step up and do it?
Volunteers for the Committee?
Hello? Is this thing on?
Soar With Prudent Passion
Larry Chamblee
Larry Chamblee
-
Ken Andrews
- Site Admin
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:22 pm
- Location: Pasadena
In case of fire...
In case of fire, we're prepared! If there is a "normal" closure of our section of the Angeles National Forest due to fire danger, H-4 pilots may still launch at Towers. Unfortunately, other pilots will still be out of luck, as will everyone if there's a "complete" forest closure.
For access to Towers, you'll need the combination to SHGA's padlock on the access gate (which Larry will be installing shortly), and a copy of our permit in case you're stopped. You can get the combination from any board member and print the permit by clicking here, or you can borrow a laminated permit from the LZ telephone box, with the padlock combination written on the back. Please don't smoke, of course, and keep catalytic converters away from dry grass.
For access to Towers, you'll need the combination to SHGA's padlock on the access gate (which Larry will be installing shortly), and a copy of our permit in case you're stopped. You can get the combination from any board member and print the permit by clicking here, or you can borrow a laminated permit from the LZ telephone box, with the padlock combination written on the back. Please don't smoke, of course, and keep catalytic converters away from dry grass.
-
Ken Andrews
- Site Admin
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:22 pm
- Location: Pasadena
Opening Mount Lukens
To open Mount Lukens to hang gliding, here are some of the projects that would need to be pursued.
<b>Scope out the site.</b> We need to know if there's a good road, what gates one would have to get through, and what work would be required to establish a launch. Would conditions allow Hang-2, Hang-3, and paraglider pilots, or only Hang-4 pilots? Is the LZ in the Big Tujunga wash visible from launch, or at least within an easy glide of launch? If not, are there any other landing options? Jim Brown and Jim Thompson may already have some of this information; otherwise, a trip up the mountain on foot or by bicycle is probably in order.
<b>Determine pilot interest.</b> By asking around in the LZ, see if there's enough interest to warrant the work. If people would only make a few flights per year there, it's probably not worth it; if it's a few dozen flights a year, then let's do it. If a Lukens launch would be suitable for Hang-3 pilots, then it might be very popular for meeting the "five flights at five sites" requirement for the Hang-4 rating.
<b>Begin discussion with the Forest Service.</b> We have a Forest Service committee (Lisa Wendt, Larry Chamblee, George Stebbins, and myself) that meets with representatives from the Forest Service on an irregular basis. If you're interested, come join us at the next meeting (which we'll probably schedule in the next couple weeks), and see how these work.
<b>See the project through to completion.</b> The one who leads the effort to open a site gets to fly it first!
<b>Scope out the site.</b> We need to know if there's a good road, what gates one would have to get through, and what work would be required to establish a launch. Would conditions allow Hang-2, Hang-3, and paraglider pilots, or only Hang-4 pilots? Is the LZ in the Big Tujunga wash visible from launch, or at least within an easy glide of launch? If not, are there any other landing options? Jim Brown and Jim Thompson may already have some of this information; otherwise, a trip up the mountain on foot or by bicycle is probably in order.
<b>Determine pilot interest.</b> By asking around in the LZ, see if there's enough interest to warrant the work. If people would only make a few flights per year there, it's probably not worth it; if it's a few dozen flights a year, then let's do it. If a Lukens launch would be suitable for Hang-3 pilots, then it might be very popular for meeting the "five flights at five sites" requirement for the Hang-4 rating.
<b>Begin discussion with the Forest Service.</b> We have a Forest Service committee (Lisa Wendt, Larry Chamblee, George Stebbins, and myself) that meets with representatives from the Forest Service on an irregular basis. If you're interested, come join us at the next meeting (which we'll probably schedule in the next couple weeks), and see how these work.
<b>See the project through to completion.</b> The one who leads the effort to open a site gets to fly it first!
I just returned from Yosemite yesterday and had this same conversation with George Stebbins and Lisa Wendt. We pretty much came up with the exact same list that you did Ken! I will scope out LZ's that are within glide of launch. Can some check with the Jim's if they have seen the launch and road? If not, perhaps we could have them bike up there and take some photos and video of the area.
H4
-
JT
Lukens and Big T Launch/Landing
My very distant recollection of the launch at Lukens was that it would probably require a Hang 3. Everything has to have changed in 30 years and the problem back then was over-growth even after a recent fire had denuded the mountain. Rob Burgis and Mike Hayden ride to the top of Lukens all the time and should be able to give an accurate estimation of the conditions now. Having flown to Lukens and back, I think the Big T wash is the only reasonable option for an LZ. The original, owned by the Gas company has long since been leveled for homes. Still, I don't think Falcons would have a problem making it to the wash. The launch would be somewhere between 4800 to 5K with the LZ around 1300 ASL. We could probably use a GPS to calculate the L/D required.
Big T launch was much more forgiving (Hang 2 with sign off) although the road is more treacherous. A young girl was killed when Bob Wills' SUV rolled over her on its way off the side when her boyfriend tried to impress her with his driving abilities. It sort of dampened the festivities at Bob Lefay's after the flying. As mentioned above, the LZ is a no-brainer. It just needs some attention and there is much greater risk of it washing away from time to time. The thing is that the Big T wash is not a great party site at this time. I believe that only means that more inexperienced pilots would use Big T or Lukens as starting points to go XC to Kagel. That is both good and bad and you all know the reasons for each already.
What is the road that seems to exist on the spine of the Big T range? Anyone?
The best reason for opening any other local sites was already mentioned, too. While most of the hotshots with blades will continue to flock to Kagel, up and coming pilots will find it easier to move up to higher ratings without travelling to sites 50, 75 or even hundreds of miles away. This is safer in some respects. The conditions at all the more local sites including Wilson are more similar to home (Kagel). The three sites offer a progression of difficulty that we sorely lack at this time (25 foot sand ridge to 2000 feet! Of course, the first transition isn't helped by these sites.). Eventually, as these pilots progress, they will be more familiar with the two closest XC destinations from Kagel. That would have helped my confidence when crossing the gaps! And we need more sites, period.
Larry, what is the first step you think we should take? Joe Greblo? Hungary, what do you think of the conditions? Some one ask him, he doesn't read this.
I'm willing to help and I think I'll start by asking Ken, Larry and George how we can get provisional access to the roads to go really scout things out. Just point me in the right direction. I'm afraid Wilson will have to wait if it means dueling with the Pasadena politicos. But it is more in range of Lukens at least.
This probably should be reposted as a poll or brought up a the next gathering which should be the Dockweiler bash. Lots of pilots and opinions is what is needed. Recruit the loudest to help.
Big T launch was much more forgiving (Hang 2 with sign off) although the road is more treacherous. A young girl was killed when Bob Wills' SUV rolled over her on its way off the side when her boyfriend tried to impress her with his driving abilities. It sort of dampened the festivities at Bob Lefay's after the flying. As mentioned above, the LZ is a no-brainer. It just needs some attention and there is much greater risk of it washing away from time to time. The thing is that the Big T wash is not a great party site at this time. I believe that only means that more inexperienced pilots would use Big T or Lukens as starting points to go XC to Kagel. That is both good and bad and you all know the reasons for each already.
What is the road that seems to exist on the spine of the Big T range? Anyone?
The best reason for opening any other local sites was already mentioned, too. While most of the hotshots with blades will continue to flock to Kagel, up and coming pilots will find it easier to move up to higher ratings without travelling to sites 50, 75 or even hundreds of miles away. This is safer in some respects. The conditions at all the more local sites including Wilson are more similar to home (Kagel). The three sites offer a progression of difficulty that we sorely lack at this time (25 foot sand ridge to 2000 feet! Of course, the first transition isn't helped by these sites.). Eventually, as these pilots progress, they will be more familiar with the two closest XC destinations from Kagel. That would have helped my confidence when crossing the gaps! And we need more sites, period.
Larry, what is the first step you think we should take? Joe Greblo? Hungary, what do you think of the conditions? Some one ask him, he doesn't read this.
I'm willing to help and I think I'll start by asking Ken, Larry and George how we can get provisional access to the roads to go really scout things out. Just point me in the right direction. I'm afraid Wilson will have to wait if it means dueling with the Pasadena politicos. But it is more in range of Lukens at least.
This probably should be reposted as a poll or brought up a the next gathering which should be the Dockweiler bash. Lots of pilots and opinions is what is needed. Recruit the loudest to help.
Protecting what we have
I agree that we should try and expand launch sites around the area, but I am particularly concerned with the ravine that threatens Kagel launch. As fixing the erosion is an unknown it is harder to get moving on it. But it seems that effort should first be put into protecting what we have gained, i.e. we already have a launch at kagel that works, before expanding it. I am willing to help, but quite frankly I don't know what the next step is. Does anyone know what type of profession would evaluate this type of condition? A public works engineer? Someone who builds or maintains logging roads. I am sure the park service goes through this a bunch, who do they call? I would be willing to contact people if I had some idea of whom to contact.
Time for H2s and H3s to step up
Lisa, Larry, George and Ken: Do you guys agree that this issue is big enough to invest some time into it? First steps would be to objectively assess the situation to see how serious it is and then base the next steps on that outcome. I am willing to take the lead and move this forward if you guys agree it is a good thing to do. What do you think? If we should contact the forest service how can I assist you or either do that on the clubs behalf?
-
Ken Andrews
- Site Admin
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:22 pm
- Location: Pasadena
Opening Lukens and Big T launches
Joseph and all: yes, I agree that the issue is big enough to invest some time into it. In fact, during previous meetings with our local Forest Service representatives, we have already discussed the possibility of opening Lukens and Big T launches, and I am confident that they would consider a well-prepared proposal.
Before going farther with those discussions, the SHGA must do its homework. Joseph, Jim, Rob, any of you can do this. You could spend next Saturday hiking up Mount Lukens to assess the road, access gates, and launch conditions. Drive the area and evaluate the local landing options. Discuss this with other pilots and estimate how many flights per year would be made there. These are the same projects I've already listed earlier in this thread. Instead of posting more messages here, is anyone willing to get out there and do the real work?
After that work is done, we'll have the facts necessary to write a proposal. Any of our already-overworked board members would then be happy to help with the writing. When this is done, we'll be ready to meet with the Forest Service.
Before going farther with those discussions, the SHGA must do its homework. Joseph, Jim, Rob, any of you can do this. You could spend next Saturday hiking up Mount Lukens to assess the road, access gates, and launch conditions. Drive the area and evaluate the local landing options. Discuss this with other pilots and estimate how many flights per year would be made there. These are the same projects I've already listed earlier in this thread. Instead of posting more messages here, is anyone willing to get out there and do the real work?
After that work is done, we'll have the facts necessary to write a proposal. Any of our already-overworked board members would then be happy to help with the writing. When this is done, we'll be ready to meet with the Forest Service.