Cascade Skyline Project

[Deimos]

A few days ago I was asked to help with the new Bridal Falls gondola project called Cascade Skyline (CS).

At this time I am interested in what questions you may have for the CS partners. Please email them to me this week.

Hopefully in the next week or so, I will be able to meet with them to discuss what our options are for a new launch.

Tom Clark
em tom@deimospg.com
bridalparagliding.com

[Martin]

Why would we need a new launch?.... would be my first question.

Are they damaging or creating a hazard for current launch?

Martin

[Martin]

No answer?

Seemed like a straightforward question, Does this operation create a hazard for the current launch?

Will this corporation take over control/access of the Upper launch?

Will it cut off access/use of the site to pilots not prepared to sign off corporate waivers to use our crown lands wilderness?

Will the corporation cut off use/control of our LZ (and its agreement)?

Are we likely to see a special elite corporate driven "Grouse Mountain Team" style club (with commercial entities taking control of the site)?

Does this corporation have any written legal obligation to accommodate our activity?

The WCSC should not loose focus (because of this bright shiny proposal ) that the clubs first order of business is the preservation of our sport.

Martin Henry
(past and all washed up, HPAC/ACVL president, WCSC president, member and director, hang and para pilot.... for 45+ years... and a grumpy old man ... )

[Martin Zak]

There was over an hour-long presentation and a long Q&A session at the meeting. I think the presentation was very well thought out and address pretty much all questions asked above. Maybe worth joining next time

The summary is approximately (somebody please correct me if I am wrong):

The current lower launch won't be usable (there will be a gondola leg going right through there).

The upper launch will be a couple of hundred meters from the upper gondola station.

The launch will be maintained/operated by the club and the club will regulate it (because it is the most competent entity). The presenter believes that the purpose of the gondola company is to operate the gondola not to regulate paragliding.

The LZ is a dedicated strip further from the gondola bottom station and next to the parking lot. I don't recall who will maintain it or regulate it.

There was not any mention of a contract/obligation to my knowledge to preserve paragliding. The presenter was very invested in and dedicated to preserving paragliding in the area.

I am not sure whether the meeting was recorded, perhaps James has the recording. I think is worth watching no matter what your opinion on the matter is.

It will be a wast recreation area that seems to be really needed in the valley. There will be hiking, snowshoeing, x-country skiing, and more. There won't be helicopters operating (they are against it).

I hope this helps to clarify.

[Deimos]

Hi Martin,

You have some good questions.

My plan now is to collect all questions then meet with Jayson to get his thoughts.
The Jayson presentation answered many of these questions already.

I don't believe that the present lower Bridal launch will be effected in any way.
The Upper Launch will also remain as is (but this could change).

Regards
tc

[Martin]

Well, why don't we clear up this one question...

Will we keep or our current launch? (conflicting statements above).

For sure, running a cable down the face of the mountain will drastically change how the site will be flown, you can expect further restrictions to protect the investment. Easy access to "another" launch may not necessarily be a good thing, especially when it is controlled by profit driven corporation.

Martin

[Claudia]

I didn't join the online meeting but as far as I know Lower Bridal launch will not be effected.
Some adjustments will have to be made to flight paths to the west.

[Martin]

Thanks Claudia but it would be nice to have clear picture of this project, including the placement of the towers.

A quick search online produces plenty of press release stuff and few bits and pieces of government applications but nothing "concrete" which I'm sure your going to need if your positioning towers on the mountain (pun intended).

On aspect of the BFGC (Bridal Falls Gondola Corporation) is a complete lack of recognition of our use of the area. Save for a quote from Tyler, we are not even recognized as a user group.

I disagree that any tram lines suspended down the face of the mountain will have a minor effect. If you add in mandatory vertical and horizontal minimums (which I'm sure the BFGC would mandate as a operating criteria), traffic through the area will suffer restrictive consequences.

I'm not arguing there will not be benefits to having high mountain access but we should not be trading anything to gain one over the other. I have been flying this site for more than 45 years and the biggest mistake we ever made was not fighting harder to maintain our access. When Forestry deactivated the front road over the saddle, we gave up access to the saddle and the high ground, a huge mistake. Right now I believe the lower launch is in jeopardy because there is no evidence suggesting otherwise.

The same goes for our LZ. The BFGC put in their proposal a 600-700 car "park" (so much for Eco friendly). Who do you think is going to loose out when it comes to parking for a profit based operation or landing for a bunch of freeloading pilots? Speaking of the LZ..... there is talk it will be moved? Before we cave in to that idea to accommodate the corp, we should appreciate just how special this LZ is, amazingly smooth airflow, a buffer to the east (trees to catch wayward students) and at the same time Eco friendly. Moving anywhere could drastically change the safety of the LZ.

I also believe pilots should have an understanding of the scope of this operation and their land use applications. (as per one of their applications)

For sure we should have our eyes wide open or potentially will be left out of the process.

Martin

[Claudia]

Couple of comments:

Fraser Valley pilots have been in contact with the project developers for several months and many of us (including myself) have been talking to these contact pilots. WCSC Newsletter: 'The WCSC is working with the Bridal Falls Gondola project team to develop and enhance the flying infrastructure at Bridal Falls. The project includes funding to create pilot parking, enlarge the Landing Zone and re-open Codeine Ridge (upper Bridal Launch). Local WCSC pilots are being consulted in the development and envision a model similar to flying sites in Europe.'

I wouldn’t call it ‘complete lack of recognition of our use of the area’ when a proponent of the project makes themselves available for an online meeting and discussion with club members.

Do you mean the washed out road across the Archibald slope when you say we should have fought harder for maintaining access to Upper Launch? As far as I know recreational tenures don’t come with guaranty for access and or duty for anybody to maintain and rebuild roads.

And thanks for calling the Grouse Mountain Flying Team ‘Elite’ . You can be ‘Elite’ too… as long as you have an intermediate rating and in case you don’t know any of the club members fly a few check flights with one of us... launch and LZ really are ‘intermediate’. So the GMFT should be called a 'special intermediate style club' (I haven't encountered the corporate driven part).

[Martin]

Couple of comments:

Fraser Valley pilots have been in contact with the project developers for several months and many of us (including myself) have been talking to these contact pilots. WCSC Newsletter: 'The WCSC is working with the Bridal Falls Gondola project team to develop and enhance the flying infrastructure at Bridal Falls. The project includes funding to create pilot parking, enlarge the Landing Zone and re-open Codeine Ridge (upper Bridal Launch). Local WCSC pilots are being consulted in the development and envision a model similar to flying sites in Europe.'

I wouldn’t call it ‘complete lack of recognition of our use of the area’ when a proponent of the project makes themselves available for an online meeting and discussion with club members.

Do you mean the washed out road across the Archibald slope when you say we should have fought harder for maintaining access to Upper Launch? As far as I know recreational tenures don’t come with guaranty for access and or duty for anybody to maintain and rebuild roads.

And thanks for calling the Grouse Mountain Flying Team ‘Elite’ . You can be ‘Elite’ too… as long as you have an intermediate rating and in case you don’t know any of the club members fly a few check flights with one of us... launch and LZ really are ‘intermediate’. So the GMFT should be called a 'special intermediate style club' (I haven't encountered the corporate driven part).

Well, I have asked multiple times here on our little club web/forum and have yet to see anything posted on exactly where the towers and or proposed "hazard to air navigation" will be placed. You would think with all the consultation, something would be available?

True... I mistakenly suggested there has been a complete lack of consultation and you have correctly pointed out they did make themselves available for a meeting. Perhaps I should have said, they told some in our community what they are doing... as such, still a long ways from a "consultation".

Yes, the washed out road as you referenced was part of several sections of Forestry roads that due to budget cuts and lack of public interest were decommissioned, critically so was the access on the backside of the mountain. This was the beginning of logging/decommission/logging cycles. With a little more effort we may have been able maintain access to the upper and saddle launches and possibly the Archibald shoulder/gravel pit launch.

Funny your comment about recreational tenures... seems the BFGC is planning on taking control of a massive amount of crown land with the intent of controlling all motorized traffic (Quads, Snowmobiles, motorcycles)... that is, as I understand it? This suggest that if for example the BFGC decides they don't like us anymore, given the massive grab of "crown" back country they are trying to grab they could kick us out? What assurances do we have that will not happen? Sure, they might be all smiles and chuckles right now but hang a PG on one of their towers and see how long that lasts?

Rumors of where the tram line will be placed are out there, in my opinion they may cause some real safety concerns for the launch we have now. Hopefully someone will post the actual plan and prove me wrong.

I will leave the GMFT "Elite" comment alone, there is some history that goes with the comment but most in our club are not old enough to care

Martin

[Claudia]

Maps with the proposed placement were shown at the Zoom meeting. Since I did not join the meeting this is second or third hand info.
The proposed routing shown was along Alan's Ridge to the saddle. If this is the case the distance to launch would be 600-700 meters and would IMO not pose a risk to launching from Lower Launch. It will however likely effect our usual route thermaling up at Alan's ridge and especially flying to Upper Launch and would require higher altitudes than used currently. This may especially effect the usual PG return route along terrain coming back from Elk, Gloria and Upper. I'm sure Jason would share this info with you.

The WCSC club tenure at Lower Bridal is well outside the proposed area so I assume loosing it would be very unlikely.

And even if we are too young (thanks for pointing out the age-difference, made me feel at least 10 years younger ) to know the old history; I would suggest that 'not knowing' doesn't equal 'not caring'.

[Martin]

Claudia,

I agree, the tower placement for the first leg will not effect our launch. (I have been provided some images of the proposed route).

The second lift and facility placement will block any low level routes west and both placements will create a safety hazard when flying from the west low and trying to leave the mountain low to return to the LZ. Is it a big hazard? No, but it is something that will change the site.

Of course I don't suggest you don't care .... "us old people" have acquired a bit of wisdom with the years (hope that helps you feel better?), and it's a resource that is often overlooked.

I'm deeply concerned anytime a private entity/business "uses" our crown lands (including logging and mining). The BFGC is going to grab a massive area to build their operation. They will set rules and control access. Yes, it looks like a great deal to have this convenient access but it should not be blindly embraced.

I recently had a conversation with a US pilot regarding a popular ski/lift operation that has suddenly demanded an increase in liability insurance (and the company as several locations where flying is involved). Coverage from the insurance markets is available but the local club will see the insurance costs that will result in as much as a $800 PER MEMBER increase to the local club members.

I don't believe it is a good idea to let the BFGC take control of our access without our concerns being addressed (or at least voiced). I suggest it would be prudent for the club to make our concerns known to the government and I suggest that we should be pushing to have the upper launch tenured to the club and not the BFGC (which may make for an excellent liability "firewall" for the BFGC). If the club does not want to make any waves, individual pilots and users of the this recreational area should at the very least, voice their concerns.

Martin

[James604]

Martin, I absolutely understand all your concerns here. You've raised some valuable points. I really, really, sincerely wish you attended the presentation, given your very valid concerns, as PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THEM WERE REVIEWED IN GREAT DETAIL. FOLLOWED BY A NO TIME LIMIT Q&A SESISION WITH THE DEVELOPER who was more than willing to answer anything. Personally, I have put in a shit load of time, as have many other formal and informal volunteers, in order to ensure our interests as a club and flying community are being represented. The developer has allocated approximately $50k within their budget for free flight improvements, clearly indicating the level of commitment to integrating us as a user group. They've requested that the club manage intangible aspects of the free-flying project elements, such as developing policies/processes for access and use etc. Which we are doing, but we can always use more help and input from passionate, knowledgeable, and interested people such as yourself. Care to volunteer and help shape the outcome?

This is an awesome opportunity for the club to dramatically increase accessibility to a prime launch site in the fraser valley. This alone will remove a huge hurdle to growing the sport locally. The a key reason free flight is so much more popular in Europe than North America is that you don't have to bounce around in the back of a pickup for 45 min (if you can find one to ride in) to access a nice launch. Our existing launches and launch access will remain. The gondola cables aret any more a hazard than the trees around them. Nothing is being blindly embraced - quite the opposite - we're working hard for the best outcome for the club and community, and you're welcome to pitch in to help. And, PLEASE, attend the next meeting if you can.

[Martin]

James!

Thanks and sorry I could not attend the information session. Tell you what, I will come up with a short list of questions you can present to BFGC and we can post the response on this forum? (I prefer the public forum as the questions reflect the effects of the proposal and public access).

BTW... no offense intended but you don't need to tell "me" about time spent tilting and windmills

Thanks for your efforts,

Martin

[Rob Samplonius]

Just when I decide to get back into flying some wise guy comes up with a plan to cover the hill side with gondola towers. Doh.

I've missed slaloming my glider between the tree tops and now you're going to want me to actually maintain some ground clearance.

Okay enough fun. Martin Henry has a point. Hammer out the details of what the expectations are before joining Team Gondola. For example not only where will the cables be but also how high AGL. How much clearance do they want us to maintain? Cost of pass to ride? Annual ride pass fees? Parking fees? Cooperation agreements where they want the club to pony up funds? Change to property taxes and tenure fees ? (Will these go up dramatically?)

Insist on details. Get them to sign a legally binding document (hire a good lawyer not necessarily the cheapest one)

These gondola organizations are corporate. That means that they will do things a corporate way. That isn't necessarily bad just that the only way corporate memory works is through documentation.