News
Update on kunanyi/Mt Wellington launch project from Ben Veasey
Tuesday, 23 November 2021
6/11/2021
Kunyani / Mt Wellington
Launch site planning update
As some of you may already know I made the difficult decision to not submit the grant proposal this year. Please know that I am in favour of the new launch site both personally and seeing it as in the best interest of the future of paragliding for Tasmania.
I came to take charge of preparing the grant proposal for submission very close to deadline. This in itself was not an issue as it could have been submitted as is with minor changes and addition. However, and as is with anything to do with individualism, I have my own best judgement as to how things should be done.
There were/are several red flags that raised early on;
- Public perception of development on the mountain
- Feasibility of construction
- Usability of such a launch when completed
Public perception
My biggest concern is and was, why as such a small segment of the population do we have the entitlement to do something that others do not. Well, you might argue that climbing, biking and adventure tourism already runs rampant on the mountain, and you would be correct. Unfortunately, this is an issue of the subjective (perceived) and not objective (fact). Because of the very noticeable impact this project will have, it is imperative that it is handled very sensitively and respectfully.
Feasibility of construction
There will be no car parking spot built next to the road as part of this project. You will be walking from the currently available parking, on a dedicated trail to the launch. This is not my choice, this is the result of a Geotech consultation (GeoNeon) and suitable contractor (next level mountain biking) indicating it is not possible. The bedrock is very shallow meaning you could start digging and have to start using dynamite (would never be allowed), and if you were to be successful the road would then be structurally compromised (meaning it would never get planning permission), and to start and fail would be an eye sore that we would never publicly recover from.
As a result of having the site measured out (for quote purposes, not by a surveyor) it became apparent that there is not enough material on site to form a launch. Even if we could use fill from creating a parking space it wouldn’t be enough. Bringing in fill means finding fill that matches in appearance and microbiology. Yes you read that right, any foreign material brought in has to have matching microbiology. This becomes extremely difficult and expensive very quickly. Delivering fill to site is almost only feasible by heli drop due to site access and road safety.
Because of these factors the design of the launch is being reinvestigated. The most likely option at this point is to have a modular deck built from FRP panel and preformed galv steel sections. It has already been designed and put out for bid by contractors all over Australia (at no cost). Any contractor deemed suitable will supply engineered plans for live load, shear and wind loading etc for the permit process. From information already received the cost is comparable to the quote average from contractors to build out of fill. 120k average for fill method (150k + 165k + 45k = 120k average) and 100k for prefab. Prefab also reduces cost in other areas as it has less impact on the site. If the size of the launch can be scaled down slightly it reduces cost a lot.
The suggestion of a prefab launch that can be removed leaving little to no sign of ever being there has been very well received by HCC and MWT. Word of mouth has it that it has a far greater chance of getting approved. The materials used would exceed requirements for fire rating. The FRP panel can be a suitable colour for surroundings. If ever the launch needs to be moved, say aerology, it can be. Or if we must remove it for some reason, we can take it to EHN or somewhere else.
Aside from these practical hurdles, there is also a lot more administrative work to be done. A project feasibility study needs to be composed including things that could go wrong and how they would be dealt with. Also, if we are to have the best possible chance of securing funding a project lifetime cost analysis is needed.
Usability of such a launch when complete
Perhaps the weakest component of this proposal is how much it could actually be used and by whom. Ideally we need data that can be put onto paper. This means a written report outlining how and why the rating would be lowered, data on how many days have suitable weather and perhaps a survey of national members to get commitment of usage.
Contact has been made with the GCC to secure a safer landing option that is easily in direct line of site from launch. One option being 1km closer and another the same distance as Cascade. These options would cut across potential daybreeze. The further option is wide open with minimal surrounding obstacles and can be approached any direction.
Obtaining a permit to install a weather station has begun with a surprising number of requirements reinforcing the future difficulties to be prepared for in getting a launch. For example, how do you plan on deterring vandalism? How long will it be there? With a history of onsite weather conditions we will have a far better picture of what to expect, especially if we can graph data from multiple locations thus enabling more rigid predictability.
In summary
I think we can do better. I alone made the decision to delay submission until it is widely agreed to be ready. I have delivered my analysis to the committee and supplied any information and answered any questions. The committee supported the action.
Please email me at ben.veasey@thpa.org.au as I don’t have time to discuss on the phone without prior arrangement.
Your Vice President,
Benjamin Veasey