Flyfunston

Hang glider pilots have an ongoing problem with dogs biting us, and also pooping in our set up area. Pedestrian traffic along the sand trail also presents a constant challenge for pilots trying to land.
The GGNRA wants to help us resolve these issues!

I have suggested a possible relocation of the sand trail to route dogs and people away from our set up and landing areas. The GGNRA is open to the idea but Federal and State laws mandate that ANY new trail work has to meet ADA specifications and be built similar to the existing rock path on the south side of the parking lot. The parks department would have to invest between 20K to 50k, depending on what route we present, and since they have little or no funding, the shorter the trail the better. In addition, a shorter trail is more likely to be accepted by the general public. In any case, fencing would be required to keep pedestrians on the path. GGNRA suggests installing wood post and cable fencing along the inside edge of the trail. They would use taller fencing along the parking lot and lower fencing in the LZ. The low fencing would have to be just high enough to keep someone from easily lifting a leg over, so a 2.5’ to 3’ high fence would be required.

There are pros and cons to any design but we need to make sure that we don’t make matters worse overall. Some points to consider:
- Would a 2.5’ to 3’ fence be an acceptable obstacle in the LZ?
- Would the new design direct pedestrians into a better or worse area? Specifically, would they be in the way of a glider doing a low 270 approach?
- Would the new design put pedestrians in the way of a rigid wing on a long final, or would the higher performance gliders be able to land nearer the chips since the sand trail would be gone?

Please study the map found here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/srskypuppy/4846169701/
Legend: The existing sand trail is red, new trails are blue, tall fence is yellow, low fence is green.

This has to be a club decision so we need as many pilots as possible to review this concept. I will layout the alternate path with short wood lath and green flagging. Please walk the alignment, and also fly some low approaches over it with the idea of 5’ or 6’ tall pedestrians walking the path. I will install a number of 6’ tall streamers so we can easily visualize the height of pedestrians.
If this alignment becomes reality, pilots might need to wait for a break in pedestrian traffic before making a low approach, but since we are already doing this to land on the chips, the new alignment might not be any different in that aspect.

Please send feedback to Steve Rodrigues: srskypuppy at earthlink dot net.
Please attend the next Fellow Feathers meeting for discussion. Thank you!

I agree with the notion of creating an ADA-compliant trail.

On the other hand, a fence with any solidity is a phenomenally bad idea, especially if it runs through the LZ. Not only are there other options, but a fence tall enough to actually stop a dog from getting over it is also too tall for pilots on approach.

Daniel

the fence would not be high enough stop a dog, only be there to discourage pedestrians from getting off the trail.

We could first try using cones and rope, fall back on something else if that fails.

PS, I hope to be at the Fort by 11:30 or noon today, could use a hand with the cones and stuff if anyone has a few minutes.

IMHO
the new trail alignment is in an acceptable location for the majority of flying days.
You're doing a great job working this out with Parks , Steve.
I wonder if a flexible fence post could be used ; like a piece of PVC with a spring for a base.
as for height, 2.5 ' high would be a maximum for any rope. the posts,
if flexible could be 3' high.

My opinion-
You will never stop people from walking along the current path (what you show as red) because it goes direct from the end of the parking lot to the trail. You may divert some people, but not all.

Currently we have people walking across the end of the LZ. With the new trail I fear we would have people walking across the end of the LZ AND through the middle.

It also appears that the section of the proposed trail that goes East-West is right in an area that people frequently land in. Not all pilots land on launch all the time and a rock/asphalt path through the LZ could be a hazard.

Sorry to sound critical, but those are my concerns.

I like the general idea at first glance.

Here's an idea - Put in the 4' fence as shown, but put cones and rope for most of the green line, and only a short span of 3' fence at the end of the path by the cliff. I think that would route pedestrians well enough, and it would create less of a hazard for pilots flying through or walking gliders through after landing in northy wind. What do you think?

Diver Dave

I spent all yesterday laying out the proposed trail and talking to as many pilots as I could. Please take a quick walk along the proposed trail, it looks a lot different from the LZ looking back at launch. I put out 4 orange cones with PVC sticks and lime green streamers so everyone can have an easy time finding the small wood stakes with green flagging.

The feeling so far is that a hard fence in the LZ is out of the question even if it is low. Others expressed concern over a hard trail in the LZ, and that a tall fence along the parking lot would separate pilots from public and eliminate the nice interactions we now have.

The most convincing argument I'm hearing is that unless there is a ridiculous and unacceptable amount of fencing, people will go around it and cut across the LZ wherever they feel like. This would wind up being worse than the current trail that at least has most people consolidated in one area.

One other idea is to keep massaging the sand trail until it is at an optimum location. Since the GGNRA is behind us, we wouldn’t have to worry about how far we move it. This option would not require any funding and should appeal to the treasurers of both GGNRA and FF.

One thing I think everyone agrees on is that we should move the drinking fountain/dog water station farther from our HG area. The GGNRA is planning to build bathrooms and a drinking fountain at the NE corner of the parking lot, but this could take several years to complete. In the mean time I think we should relocate the existing fountain to either the NW corner of the parking lot, or 30’ or 40’ east of its present location. Please take a look at these two areas so we can reach consensus.

We need to have more pilots walk the areas in question so I’ll postpone my response to the GGNRA until after our club meeting on August 10. Please attend and participate, I think we can expect a lively discussion!

The GGNRA wants to help us improve our flying site and it would be a shame to pass up an opportunity like this. Let’s all keep looking at possibilities and figure out our best course of action!

My opinion (also)...

The current trail that leads from the dog watering station to the sand stairs is adequate for both pedestrian and pilot needs. Fellow Feathers has done a great job of clearly marking the launch area, and I've noticed far fewer pedestrian issues at launch, as well, as a result.

The notion of building a walkway / trail into the LZ as indicated on this thread pose far more hazards to both pedestrians and pilots than it is worth. More problems would be created than already exist IMO.

I'd like to encourage the Club to maintain the existing trail as is in the interest of pilot and public safety.

Chris

Just create a "landing on launch sign off", to show pilots have the skills/judgment (to know when not to land on launch (do another pass or land in back))....
problem solved...
Diev

What do you think of this?

I agree with chris about the current layout of the path from the water fountain to the steps being the best path for everyone, but honestly (and I watched this for hours yesterday from the sky and ground) that most pilots land behind the trail anyway or come close to the trail for better Air....

So why not push the trail closer to launch say 20-25 feet and have it coned off with rope, put up signs that make it CLEAR to anyone ventureing into our area that you must STOP and wait for someone to tell them its safe to walk accross the path.

Adding 25 more feet to the desired landing area would lesson the chance of pilot/person walking issues...

A higher roped off fence would be nice from the water fountain all the way to the clubhouse corner keeping people (or less people) out of the feild.

I know the conditions of people VS pilots changes from day to day and I know most of us are trying to do the best we can but If we manage it a little closer with an actual person (??someone not flying etc??) it would make our chances of an issue much less... Ive said it before, Yosemite has a launch instructor right, Hat Creek, Slide etc etc etc... someone specific is usually there to oversee launch.... the hard part is having a full time person (wont work) or in shifts, (hard to schedule) So for me I think the group of pilots there, standing around, talking, etc etc must have an understanding that ONE OF US? has to be monitoring the area and paying attention to pilots landing and people comming and going through launch...

What do you thinK?

Rob

I’m siding with keeping the sand trail where it is, maybe with some minor adjustments. We can slide it one way or another depending on the needs of the majority. It’s almost far enough back now that most pilots can land on the chips, and the others still have room to land in the rear LZ. This will take some time to prove out.

It may also help to run another line of cones and rope parallel to the first, maybe 6 feet away, thinking that if the trail feels narrower to pedestrians they might keep moving more and congregate less in our flight path. There would have to be breaks in the rope for us to walk through, and pilots would have to stand the cones back up if they knocked them down, but we need to do this anyway.

I’d also like to put small plastic signs on the cones reminding people they are crossing an active landing zone but that is up for discussion.

I believe that an intermediate rated pilot, let alone an advanced pilot, should be able to miss the sand trail 7 days a week without ever coming close to people. It might sound harsh, but perhaps pilots who complain about the 25’ rule should really be looking at their spot landing skills or their judgment.

What do you think about a launch/trail monitor(s) when there are enough pilots in the setup/lounge area not flying?

I dont see anything changing unless we have some sort of pilot help in keeping the path clear of walkers that have no clue of incomming gliders, and if they shoud walk accrooss of not?

Its not allways the pilot,some people walk on the trail at the worst time.... if left up to the public to figure it out we loose because there will be an incident, great pilot or not, sht happens and we need to do more to lower our chances of an issue.

Remember.... we came close to loosing our site due to someone being where they shouldnt and we know it happens easily. Its our responsability to do everything possible so it never happens again.... ( at least lets shoot for that)

Steve Rodrigues wrote:It might sound harsh, but perhaps pilots who complain about the 25’ rule should really be looking at their spot landing skills or their judgment.

Bingo!

Im shocked to tell you the truth, 200+ people have read this thread and only a few opinons or ideas? How many people do we have in this club?

We have CHANGED nothing since the last big incident involving a pilot and people standing on launch.. NOTHING

Steve made it pretty clear, ""Pedestrian traffic along the sand trail also presents a constant challenge for pilots trying to land.
The GGNRA wants to help us resolve these issues!""

OK.... simple, the GNNRA has an ISSUE!! Traffic, people, pilots, landing

The issue is obvilously 2 seperate things, people wandering onto launch or walking on the trail when someone has started a landing approach, there is no supervission, no person to be accountable. We know it will happen eventually so it is our responsability to CHANGE something. pilots standing around or lounging /not flying need to come together somehow, someway and agree that someone is watching the trail/pilots landing as well as people wandering onto launch. Do you have a better idea?

About the pilots responsability??? 25' rule??
Responsabilty is somthing you strive for and do your best, but honestly, Who hasnt watched a H4 pilot come in too far and either land practicly on a dog walker or just overshoot landing and have to keep flying? Not to mention the growing number of new H3 pilots that are still getting used to or learning how land safely anywhere they want in the feild.... We absoloutly can NEVER rely on pilots to land exactly where they want/or should. Its absurd to say there will never be an incident/pilot error.

I dont care how good a pilot you are (we are ) some point in time something will happen and if we dont have a soild plan (which is what the GNNRA is expecting from us) WERE ARE ALL GOING TO LOOK LIKE FKNG IDIOTS AND PISS THEM OFF AGAIN, OR WORSE, THEY WILL GIVE US THE MIDDLE FINGER AND SAY GOODBYE, GO FIND ANOTHER HOME....

This is important to me as it should be to everyone who flys at funston, I really am shocked at the lack of responces to this issue and others and would like to see more involvment by pilots who are capable of helping out in anyway you can with the needs of the club. (there are many, just pick one)

A good example, and not to toot my own horn because I dont need any pat on the back.... In the past year i have flown only 2 times, but managed to put over 150 hours into fixing the clubhouse with help from only 2 people (van P and larry C) Yeah.. WTF? considering the amount of people in this club that are somewhat local the lack of help is unreal... (and yeah, I know, some people cant do certain types of work and thats cool, the lack of interest to do anything for the club is what kills me.)

Please Make time for the club, help out in any way possible, get involved with helping and not just flying, its not fair to the pilots who are trying to make things better for everyone.

A few points -

1. When the GGNRA is willing to build us a fence and all that, we need to notice that they are extending us an offer for exclusive use of more area. Right now they recognize our exclusive use in the launch area only, as we have park authority behind us in making pedestrians get out of there whenever there's HG activity. Although the particular plan of a fence might not be appropriate, it would be totally foolish of us to ignore the general offer. How can we take advantage of this?

3. The GGNRA wants us to improve safety with pedestrian traffic. If we don't do this, do you have a better idea? Ignoring their concerns, and having an incident because of our negligence, is the best way to get shut down. Anyone who has watched landings over a few weekends knows that a pedestrian is likely going to get hit soon. We've been here 20 years, but I don't think all of us understand that we can and will get shut down if one of us screws up badly enough. Personally I don't like the idea of a designated pedestrian watcher to shoo them away, as I don't think there would be enough volunteers for the job, so it would only be effective sometimes, but at least it's an idea, and we do need something. I'm also considering running for an officer position so I can start issuing suspensions, which I think would help.

2. Right now, new H3s and visiting pilots learn to turn onto final approach at any random spot over the LZ and maybe have a plan of one of either landing short of the path with a spot landing or landing past it, hopefully avoiding pedestrians on the way through. With the new path location, they would just set up the start of their final approach over the new path. Only minimal checking for pedestrians would be required, and spot landing skills would be mostly irrelevant. Yes, some of us might have to modify our approaches in some conditions, but overall it would greatly simplify things.

4. Some pilots are concerned about the structure of the path, so let's make sure we're all on the same page. As I understand Steve's original post, it's just a matter of a rock path like along the south side of the parking lot, not any sort of raised wooden platform like the one leading to the observation deck. A rock path with cones shouldn't present any obstacle to pilots who find themselves in ground effect over it or having to walk through it any more than the current one is an obstacle. Am I misunderstanding it as far as ADA requirements?

Thanks for the feedback from everyone! I really appreciate Dave for stepping forward to help run the club. We need more guys like him!

I recommend that we go with the trail alternative that will be the easiest to implement, have the lowest cost in terms of both financial and political debt, and has the best likely hood of success.

First, Re-define the existing sand trail with two rows of roped cones. It will take some discussion to decide whether to move all or part of the trail west, east, or leave as is.

Second, Add trail signage to have pedestrians watch for gliders on approach.

Third, Move the drinking fountain to the NW corner of the parking lot.

Fourth, Designate three spot landing areas so pilots have targets to aim at.

Fifth, Have GGNRA install a trail along the west edge of the parking lot, from the SW corner of the parking lot to the NW corner of the parking lot, including a berm to keep rain water from entering our chip area and eroding the cliff. This will create a well defined path from the sand trail to the new drinking fountain.

If these measures don’t work to our satisfaction, we can always take another look at tougher alternatives.

See you at the meeting tomorrow, 7:30 PM!