Sylmar Hang Gliding Association

It will prove disappointing. If grass is a must, worth a visit here:

http://www.greenleenursery.com/main.htm

John Greenlee is THE expert on grasses and ground covers of all kinds. Take some soil and some LZ photos there and chat with him. I could do it, but not till after next week. Native grass could work, but will be tall, 12-18", and dry and scratchy, not lush and close cropped, like everyone wants it.

Grasses are generally sold in plugs, which look ridiculous when first planted, like the old style hair transplants. Very expensive, because you need so damn many of them. I wasn't kidding when I said no one can walk on it for a long time. If they do, it will die.

The available sod varieties: Marathon, Medallion etc. will not do well in the LZ. The only thing that might work is some sort of Bermuda, but it will turn brown in the winter. Available only as seed, I think.

Hydroseeding is another option, when a seed and nutrient slurry is sprayed over the area. Expensive.

Any grass planting will require constant watering, especially in summer, up to 8 times a day to keep it damp, until the root system develops. Even then, to keep it green will require a lot of watering. The water bill will be eye-popping.

I don't mean to be negative, just telling it like it is. I don't know what the solution is. The specs demanded are brutal. The DG idea was not a bad one. Just needs some sort of edging or border to keep it looking neat.

Recycled rubber?:

http://www.groundrubber.com/

http://www.groundrubber.com/playground.htm

http://www.groundrubber.com/landscape.htm

Used in horse arenas too. Soft, low dust. Maybe someone could ask the Fire Department if this would be a good material.

Although I like DG a lot, I agree that it's tougher to contain and when compacted properly, it's almost as hard on the knees as concrete. Try as hard as I can and still can't find a workable solution other than wood chips or some form of vegetation ground cover. Wood chips may become the best option, even though I get a stomach ache just thinking about it. I trust that any vegetation will be difficult to establish out there, but I'm not certain that it will be impossible.

Thursday I went to the LZ and did a lot of measuring and analysis with Joe Greblo. We realized the 200 ft line is way out to the center of the H4 runway at the entrance gate (the houses' closest point)( I call the pinch point). We decided a good faith compromised line that goes from the windsock over the glider container to the north streamer. This will seam intrusive but it is still well under 200ft. It would create a reasonable line that would separate active runway (do not play zone) from the people and kids safe zone west of it. I marked it with the cones in a nice straight line. I hope nobody messes with it until members give it a try. In addition I laid down a H4 runway center line from the north streamer to the landing spot with three rubber mats that I painted white. The idea being that a good legal final approach would be directly over the north streamer to the landing spot. A lot of H4s like to go well over the 200ft line to approach with a more easterly heading. This is old school, shows your age and breaks the 200 ft. rule. I know, I know, I'm an a-hole, but besides that.

More recent H4s (after the jurassic) like me learned to land in the H2-3 LZ and are used to landing crosswind and going right up that ramp is an easy approach, not to mention a nearly 1800 ft. runway with an uphill happy ending. The wind funnels right down that H2-3 runway. If we all used this approach there would be no 200 ft issue. Just a suggestion. I will avoid other H4s for a while to protect my life just for suggesting this blasphemy.

Anyway I'm hoping we can at least try the new layout for a while. My objectives are simple. Make the landing approaches legal, safe and consistent. The LZ is a funky shape with a serious obstacle on every side. I think we need to standardize the approaches for safety. We have had a lot of unfortunate ones lately, and I think this a big part of the problem. Our very small and dangerous LZ requires a little more discipline than most others. We need to figure out the safest legal approach and then all use that. H2s and 3s will keep doing your perfect landings without ever coming near the 200ft. line. (How do they do it?)

We are exploring more permanent marking methods for use after we agree on the best layout. Here is the current layout as I left it Thursday, it's not final just an experiment. Please give it a try. It's not really much different.

BTW none of this precludes the grass runway idea, just where to put it and the approach to it. I love grass. Some are exploring the feasibility of drilling a well which would make a virtual Haight/Ashbury of grass possible at very low cost.

Here is my preferred LZ with the approach that I and many others use and that I would like to see standard. With a grass strip for tandems and soft knees!

Before the fire, the cones were pretty close to the red line in the most recent posting (Rev E). I know because I spent a lot of time putting down a cable and attaching some of the cones to it. The cones had been "migrating" as pilots put them back after high winds. Each time, they fudged it more and more reducing the margin to the houses. So I put down the marker cable. More of a perlon rope, actually. This rope is almost certainly gone now. BUT, it might be a good idea to put one down so that when the Santa Ana winds blow the cones around, they can be put back. Once things are settled, I can do that.

Filling in that small triangle might be a good idea. Lots of pilots have issues there. Especially when the wind is more East even than normal.

A well? I tried to get folks interested in that when I was the president. I got shot down faster than one of Dick Cheney's hunting buddies. I'm told that the water is already owned, and not by us. But, if we can get it legally, it is a GREAT idea. We could probably have as much grass on top as we wanted. At least as long as we added enough soil. The stuff we have is terrible. I'm told by a landscape Architect that while we would still have a high water bill, it could be lowered significantly if we had a foot of real soil. Even nine inches would help. Something with lots of organics in it to hold water. If we are going to redo the lawn, that would be the time to put in the soil. A real pain to do it later...

DG doesn't seem to me to be a very good idea. Too hard. But maybe I'm just a wuss.

As for H4s entering the forbidden zone, please note that there are many who don't. But there definitely are some who do. I can think of a few by name in both categories.

And thanks for all this analysis. I'd love to see a "cleanup" in the layout. Note that the displayed "center runway" line sends overshoots into the fence instead of into the overshoot area, though.

On the well question,

I've been doing the research on the subject as mentioned in an earlier post by Glenn. Shot down or not I think it's worth the research and until I'm told by an expert in the subject (none in the club as far as I know) I'm less willing to be talked out of the idea. It's my understanding the club water bill may be as much as $5000 a year. If so that's a good number to start with when considering the cost of the drilling and pump

I believe the idea actually has a lot of merit. We DO NOT need to own the water right, to use the water, we only need water "usage" rights. If the water hasn't reached full appropriation then we may have a chance. Since our use is for irrigation and we're zoned agriculturally, then we may have an even better chance of getting the drilling permit.

I could care less about what type of grass or natural cover the tree huggers want, I think grass offers the best long-term solution for the LZ, especially if the water can come from a well. However, nothing is gonna grow if there's no water.

Here's some information that appears to indicate that a well in Sylmar is completely possible.

LA Water Plan
CA Water Code
San Fernando Valley Groundwater Basin Info
Map of ground water basins
Groundwater in California
California Well Standards

Ground water is surface water

Chip (and all),

That would be wonderful. As I said, I tried to get this started before, but was unable to convince other BOD members.

Grant Hoag has some expertise in this area. I don't know how much. He's the one who told me it wasn't worth pursuing. Maybe he missed something. I sure hope so. On the other hand, he may know something that we don't. It might be worth a talk. (I think, but am not sure, that he said it was already fully subscribed/appropriated. I have no idea how he got this information, and cannot vouch for it even if my memory is right.)

Good luck on this. I agree that it could be a very good thing, and could not only give us good grass, but save money in the long run. In the short run, it would cost, of course.

For whatever it is worth, I think it should be pursued. If you want to do so, I'm all for it.

Oh, and if we are just pumping it out and putting in on the plants, I have no problem using grass. Even though it isn't native. We should use a drought tolerant variety, but grass is the perfect solution here. And IF we get a well, we should talk to the Crestline folks about how they put theirs in. It is truly nice as many of you know.

I am probably naive, however doesn't the BOD represent us and our wants? I am not convinced it's the BOD that needs to be behind this. It's the members.

The forum is a great tool (one you unfortunately didn't have while serving on the BOD, George). If the membership wants something to happen and it's within our capability, then it's the BOD's RESPONSIBILITY to take steps to get it done, no?

I'll pursue the research on the water well for irrigation purposes, with the added benefit to the community of creating a fire barrier and to prevent slope erosion on the wash hillsides.

From the maps and the other source links I provided it looks to me that the water isn't completely appropriated and the water isn't all that deep (less than 200'). I want to speak with a contractor for the area and ask them about the permitting process and how many other San Fernando valley AG areas have wells. I hope to use that information to understand the likely feasibility of a well being drilled.

Greblo also suggested that if a well was possible, partnering with SIBL to split the cost of the exploration and drilling would be worth pursuing.

Hey, Chip. Thanks for doing all this. I think it is a good thing, and hope it works out.

I agree about the BOD. The issue was that they became convinced that we had no chance of doing it legally. That may have been wrong. But given that they thought it wasn't possible to do without stealing someone's water, their decision was probably right. I wanted to find someone willing to do the research but nobody volunteered despite some arm twisting, and I was over-subscribed. Thus it fell by the wayside. Sometimes it takes someone with the desire and the time. Clearly we now have that, for which I'm grateful.

BTW, at the time, there was no member interest that I could determine. I asked around and folks mostly said stuff like "That would be nice but it isn't all that important, we have water now, right?" I'd bet that has changed after the recent fire.

I'd be surprised if the water was deep. The dam is upstream, and while it isn't full, it has water in it. And the flow (even underground) is from there to the LZ. And dry stream-beds usually have shallow water. Not always, of course, but usually.

One last comment. I dealt with a well on a property in the Antelope Valley a couple of years ago. The well had gone dry. The neighbor's well was 50 feet deeper, and had plenty of water. He claimed that the water started 30 feet above where he was drawing it from (and 20 feet deeper than the dry well.) The point is this: We should drill deeper than we think necessary. Obviously not hugely so, but the water table does go up and down. I'm sure anyone we hire to drill will know all that stuff. I've just exhausted my knowledge with this paragraph.

Jesse,

I'm confused - I know, what else is new!

Basically, I think what you are saying is that without extensive work (aka $$$) the soil in the LZ won't support grass. Yet clearly there are sections that look reasonably nice - or at least "acceptable" to most people. This area being along the line of trees. I'm guessing that this might be because there is an overlap of sprinkler coverage resulting in extra water and that there is shade which reduces evaperation.

Also, have you seen the Andy Jackson LZ? They have recently expanded the grass area and although it is slow to fill in - the progress seems decent. From what I've seen of the "soil" and brief comments from Rob McKenzie - I suspect that the soil at SHGA is far superior to what CSS has to work with.

All this makes me think that water, water, and more water is capable of overcoming the short falls in the composition of the SHGA soil.

What the CSS has going for it is 15,000 gallons a day of free water.

Curious what your thoughts are on this?

If the SHGA had more water (aka - a well or the willingness to spend significantly more money on water) would / could this overcome the problems?

Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

Don

Look at the aerial pictures: the area that is worst is the area that gets zero shade and also has the highest foot traffic. AJ is the same, look at the base of the bunny slope and the rest of the typical landing area there. You just don't notice as much because the breakdown area is so far away....

The LZ at Andy jackson is proper landfill, I am guessing the drainage is much better and the soil is probably not as concrete-like as ours.

Yes, of course lots of free water will help. But the soil should be turned and amended to insure long lasting grass. This work can be done either by hand or with a Bobcat sort of machine. Soil amender would run few hundred dollars.

Then the sod would need time to establish itself before landing on it. Not sure how that would work. It could be done on a piecemeal basis I suppose.

Establishing regular borders will help too, to keep it looking neat and tidy. Outside the border can be another, non-plant material, like the ground up rubber or something. this will help it to look like an LZ and not a field with ratty edges. Grade it to give a definite edge. Details like this help more than you might guess.

AJ looks good because it is a regular green wedge shape in the landscape. It just feels like a landing strip. Cool, soft and inviting. An oasis. Isn't that what we are looking for?

The sprinklers needs to be looked at too. In the high summer, even one or two days without water can kill grass. Regular repair, feeding and reseeding will be necessary as well.

If done half-assed then it will be a disappointment to everyone.

Labor is always the big cost, and that we have for (almost) free, right? There is a reason that golf courses and polo fields cost so much to maintain.

Don wrote:Jesse,

I'm confused - I know, what else is new!

Basically, I think what you are saying is that without extensive work (aka $$$) the soil in the LZ won't support grass. Yet clearly there are sections that look reasonably nice - or at least "acceptable" to most people. This area being along the line of trees. I'm guessing that this might be because there is an overlap of sprinkler coverage resulting in extra water and that there is shade which reduces evaperation.

Also, have you seen the Andy Jackson LZ? They have recently expanded the grass area and although it is slow to fill in - the progress seems decent. From what I've seen of the "soil" and brief comments from Rob McKenzie - I suspect that the soil at SHGA is far superior to what CSS has to work with.

All this makes me think that water, water, and more water is capable of overcoming the short falls in the composition of the SHGA soil.

What the CSS has going for it is 15,000 gallons a day of free water.

Curious what your thoughts are on this?

If the SHGA had more water (aka - a well or the willingness to spend significantly more money on water) would / could this overcome the problems?

Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

Don

Yep, you can make up for a lot with extra (a lot extra) water. But the fact remains that you can cut your water use in half (or get much greener lawn for the same water) with proper soil.

And I was there when CSS installed their grass (both the first time and the most recent one.) They laid down a very nice layer of something that was clearly organic and thicker than the junk we have. And their underlying ground is (as mentioned by JBBenson) less compactified (is that a word?) than ours.

One other item: It was mentioned that even a couple of days without water can kill grass in a hot spell. Grass will last through the hot spell much better and longer if their are deep roots. Deep roots require deep soil. Shallow roots mean that the grass lives from paycheck to paycheck (so to speak.) Deep roots mean that it has a cash reserve. It is not uncommon in this kind of climate that the root systems grow most in the winter and early spring.

Can we put in more grass with no or very little extra soil? Yep. Will it live? Probably. Will it take much more water and look like we did it on the cheap? Definitely. In the long run, it is cheaper to put down soil than to keep paying for ever more water. We will still need lots of water, we live in that type of climate. But we can get better grass and/or use less water just by putting down some good-old-fashioned soil/compost/mulch. (Whatever you want to call it. The sand/dust that the LZ is made of is NOT it.)

Regarding white lines: Soccer fields, which often are a combination of grass and dirt, use simple spray-can gear as below. The lines have to be redone frequently but it's very easy to do and takes only the time to walk the line. You'd probably have to repaint the lines every weekend to look good.

But it's fun to do and gives instant gratification.

http://www.equipmentbag.com/pages/fieldliner.html