Forum Replies Created
You can click on the pictures of the Board members at: https://crestlinesoaring.org/club-info/member-directory/ to send any of them an e-mail.
I don’t know… you look a lot like the guy on the right…
All the daily and overall results are available at AirTribune
Zac, Bruce, Owen, Gavin (on a PG), Ken and Gary were the top 6.
My thoughts were less suspicious. We fortunately have an actual architect to bring us options. In fact the work already donated would probably cost somewhere in the high 4 or low 5-figures to get us the options, renderings, and pricing if we had to go contract for it. If he brings us a design with a $57K price tag I have every confidence it can be built for that (well, other than the generally crazy price increases we are seeing in building materials, but that impacts all options).
My concern was that the structure of the current vote/poll seems unlikely to lead to a meaningful result. Hopefully I’m proven incorrect in that assessment.
We have a LOT of work to do to get a new structure. Let’s get the oars moving in one direction and appreciate the contributions, thoughts, ideas, offers to volunteer and donations from all the members of our team.
Good luck to us all,
AlanMay 24, 2021 at 8:07 PM in reply to: Incident report – Hangglider unplanned landing Regionals #12665
Were they under instruction on radio, or just under instruction? Unclear from the first couple of posts.
Nothing in particular towards Option 7 or suggesting modifications. It just seems unlikely that this current poll can yield much in terms of moving the process forward. With votes for an open metal building scattered across 4 alternatives, and votes for the swooping, more enclosed structure split 2 ways, hard to see how there will be much clarity in the results.
Of course I could be entirely wrong and there is overwhelming support for 1 option. Perhaps there is a plan (that I missed) to whittle down the alternatives (maybe a re-vote on the top 2 or 3 options).
Suggestions and offers of donations and assistance are coming in, so we are doing something worthwhile.
I attempted this comment before, but I’ll try to be more clear.
This poll seems to be trying to pick a single solution when we haven’t even settled on a general type of design. The results are likely to be very unclear to everyone involved. We have 3 general types of design (maybe 4 with the post above regarding Sylmar):
1) Open metal structure (4 variations)
2) Swooping structure with more enclosed space (2 variations)
3) Structure with a deck
How will anyone be able interpret the results? Getting bound up in color, slope of roof, or even the specifics of which tasks we can find expertise within our ranks, all seem very pre-mature until we have a chosen a general design.
My 2 cents…
So for any practical purpose we have 3 design options in this poll:
1) Open metal structure (options 1, 5, 6). Price something more than the $35K for material, but with a cap at 63K;
2) Steel structure with observation deck (option 2). Price cap at $90K;
3) Curving structure with more enclosed area (options 3, 4). Price $55K – $58K depending on material and phasing.
If we could narrow to one design, that would be a good first step. Price difference at this stage is only significant between the decked and non-decked options.
My 2 cents…
Is option 1 a “Fully installed” version of options 5 and 6?
Jerome re-packed my Quantum 330: https://www.expandingknowledge.com/Jerome/PG/School/Main.htm
Re: insurance, Gary is correct. The policy is available online to all USHPA members and refers to both the flight proficiency rating and special skill endorsements of the pilot. Also could be under the supervision of an instructor.
“The scales seem to be messed up on BLtop and BLdepth too.” The problem turned out to be that some of the scales were pre-set to specific values. I’ve changed them to scale according to the output values. If some of them look better the other way, please let me know. Easy to switch now that the reason has been identified.
Today I think we just about figured out the issue with the SRTM data. Waiting on confirmation from the Netherlands.
Also, the Meteograms are now available from the Windgram site. Radio button to switch between the two formats.
I see what you mean. The actual point values seem correct (available from right click), but the scale tops out way too early and a lot of area is at the top color. Probably a holdover from the work done in Europe. The data is converted, but the scaling itself needs to change. Having a top of 3000 is ok when it is meters, but not when it’s feet…