Mt Wellington/kunanyi launch - information and update

Mt Wellington launch info sheet

A Brief history

People have been flying the mountain since the 80’s
There has been talk of an established launch for over 20 years
A Mt Wellington committee was formed in the 90’s to look into making a better launch.
Plans were drawn and a funding commitment even obtained from SAFA - with an historical paper copy of the proposal in our archives
That committee no longer exists and the initiative picked up by THPA members
The THPA has met with HCC and MWT numerous times over the years.
An agreement was made with Mount Wellington Trust (MWT) a few years ago to allow “trial flights” for 12 months from next to Hangies Rock. A launch was cleared and flights were made
Progress on a new launch has been discussed at a number of AGM’s

--Challenges with the current situation

We are currently on very thin ice while flying the mountain. There isn’t a proper contractual agreement in place and MWT are being incredibly generous in allowing us to do what is essentially our own self-regulated thing up there.
We have been flying the test site for way longer than the agreed 12-month period and MWT have asked about its suitability (which led to the “reawakening” of the launch project.)
We have been flying from the upper launch without the blessing of MWT - however they are aware of this launch and have indicated that they will not turn a blind eye to it forever. They are not happy with the high risk profile of this site above the road.

Hangies Rock area

The shallow angle of the PG launch next to Hangies means it is tricky to take off in lighter winds
It also has a much smaller layout area than the Upper launch
It has rotor from the Hangie rock
The HG pilots don’t like Hangies either as it’s a raised natural platform that is very narrow. It doesn’t really have a long enough run or enough fall at the end of it. The aerology and terrain means it’s really only suited to beginner gliders for launch, but they don’t have the performance to land anywhere but Cascade, which is a very difficult landing for HG.
Performance HG are a sketchy option on Hangies Rock due to rotor and risk of tip stall and crash
It’s also a pretty solid carry for HG from the car to Hangies Rock
At the moment Hangies is the only launch for HG
MWT do not like the man-made foot ramp on the uphill side of Hangies Rock. Pretty sure it wouldn’t stand up if they asked for an engineers report!

Upper launch

The Upper launch was never approved or condoned by MWT
At a meeting with the MWT in 2018 Carl was present to hear the surprise from their representative that we were even flying from it, citing the obvious danger of the road-crossing, but they have been flexible enough to turn a blind eye to it since. That will all disappear if there is an incident - or possibly before if they deem the risk to them too great!
An “incident” could be as simple as a video from a tourist on the road of a pilot launching. Fortunately all pilot videos in the public domain have so far minimised the road danger
MWT disapprove of the vegetation clearing that has happened on Upper launch without their consent, so they are a bit on edge about it already
Upper launch isn’t suitable AT ALL for HG
Upper launch is a very tricky launch for PG. You need exceptional ground-handling skills to inflate and kite your wing, a really solid launch run and great agility to navigate the rocks at the edge of the platform, then great wing control to time a swoop above the wire safety barrier on the road edge if you’re a bit slow or low, and then stay away from the powerline. A spotter is needed to ensure there are no cars coming, or you will almost certainly hit them on launch.
The aerology can be a bit weird there, launching from a wind-shadowed eddy on the flat area at the top of two steep steps separated by the width of the road
The PG5 rating is very real and entirely appropriate, meaning it’s not available to many pilots

--Landing Zones

The Cascade Brewery LZ agreement is in the process of being formalised, with a draft contract received for (essentially) unrestricted use for 3 years, with the THPA having an option to renew for 2 further 3-year periods. We will be given 6-months notice if that contract is to be terminated early for any reason.
Cascade is considered a high-intermediate to advanced landing for HG because of the slope, surrounding trees , fences and narrow field
Glenorchy tip has been used as a LZ in the past but isn’t great either
The committee is currently looking into other LZ’s in Glenorchy (around the Tolosa MTB park area)
We are working to secure (ideally) multiple LZ’s as part of the greater project

--Good things about current situation

The high rating and difficulty of launch filters out those who might not be capable of handling the challenges thrown up during the rest of the flight
There is a real “wilderness” and “adventure” feel to flying there, despite the road and towers
The high rating and difficulty level make it a lofty goal for newer pilots to aspire to

--Info about the proposed new launch

Will be purpose built to our design spec, in the best spot available
Will be constructed from natural materials to blend in, except for the fabricated HG ramp at the bottom edge - which will still be blended as best possible through material finish etc
We can get government funding - if all our ducks are lined up correctly
The full proposal document is here https://www.thpa.org.au/documents although this is not a definite final design
Will be on the lower side of the road, removing three huge risk factors - road, safety barrier and powerlines.
Proposed site seems to have good aerology, which we hope to test with RC models and ground handling a PG
Will suit both PG and HG
Ramon has stated that he has no intention at present to operate commercially from the mountain, but would like to do recreational tandems with family and friends
This doesn’t prevent a commercial operator from using the launch in the future. This is being assessed by the THPA.

--What’s the deal with this grant/funding?

In mid-2020 the committee found out about a round of government funding for up to $50,000 with the “Level the Playing Field” program. With only 3 weeks to get an application in they put a proposal together and submitted it. The current committee also agrees that members should have been notified as soon as possible afterwards when the application was done and dusted; This was an oversight - however we are all volunteers and have limited time and resources.
The grant is for an amount of up to $50k, and tops up whatever funds we contribute
The funding application failed on the grounds that the club had essentially no funds available to contribute to the project and was relying almost entirely on grant money to get the project done
The association was encouraged to apply again for the next round and increase the amount of “starter funding” we could contribute - the minimum expectation stated in this grant round is 15%, with preference given to projects contributing a higher percentage.
Applications for round 2 are open now and close 6 September
We still only have about $14000 in the account, well short of what’s needed for a successful application. Of course we are not keen to put all of our funds into one project, and would prefer to have this capital on hand for other sites and overhead.

--There’s more!

Part of the grant funding will be allocated to “Project Management” which is an essential service for a project like this
Paragliding Tasmania (Ramon) and Mike have proposed that they are contracted to be the project managers and consultants and charge an appropriate fee (around $8k combined)
A larger amount will likely have to be paid to outsource that role in any case - and they will most likely have no background in paragliding or air sports
Project Management will use the funds for expenses pertinent to the project and then once the project is complete they will donate any money left over to the THPA for general use
This way we have Project Managers that understand what is required and what we need rather than a general project management company who will inevitably stuff it up
Why? Ramon and Mike both want a better launch for the benefit of all members and to ensure the project results in the THPA getting what it wants and needs from the project
Their intentions are on record here and the committee will ensure that their involvement with the project is carried out transparently
They are both happy to remove themselves from that arrangement if it is generally thought to not be appropriate
The THPA committee supports pilots filling the project management role, so if anyone else with project management experience is interested feel free to throw your hat in the ring to provide a quote.

--Mount Wellington Cable Car Co

The THPA has very recently had an informal offer for part-funding (being approximately half the project total cost) from the Mount Wellington Cable Car Company. The details of this offer were very informal and off the cuff. The THPA is in further discussion to see if this offer will be formalised and what the terms of the offer will be. As soon as we have a firm outline of the offer, we will release full details to all members.
Without a cash injection like this, the Grant has almost no chance of success
ALL members will be given a chance to vote on this
From what we know, there are three possible scenarios to consider:
- If the grant is approved and we build our ramp, MWCCCo will have no need to build a launch ramp on their own site, as is currently included in their proposed development
- If our THPA grant fails and MWCCCo project goes ahead, they will build a ramp themselves next to their facility. It is on their plans and will be a large fabricated ramp near the cable car terminal. If they build it, it’s highly likely MWT will allow us to fly ONLY from it and ban use of our existing launches. From preliminary drawings it looks like it might not be ideal for flying from: It has to be built on their lease area and as such it’s close to the buildings and cable car itself in an area above the Organ Pipes, so the aerology will likely be pretty turbulent
- If the grant fails and MWCCCo project fails we will be at status quo (i.e. still with a launch that has no security)

The committee will let you all know of any more details as they arise.

If you'd like to provide feedback please email committee@thpa.org.au

We will reply to all questions.

****17/08/21 UPDATE TO ADD QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS****

Q: If this launch goes ahead will we still be allowed to fly from other sites on the mountain in the eyes of the MWT/HCC?

A: We cannot speak for the stakeholders – this has not been discussed at present – nor was there any plan to raise this issue. At present, and in the future, we are governed by the Wellington Park Management Plan. If any stakeholder raises this issue or proposes any change, we would need to deal with it then. The Wellington Park Management plan (2013) states: "Hang gliding and paragliding launching is permitted in the Parks except in the Remote Zone and the Drinking Water Catchment Zone. The mountain is considered a challenging location because of its altitude, unique setting and wind directions."

The Wellington Park regulations 2019 (15(3)) states: "A person may launch a hang-glider or paraglider in Wellington Park if the launching of that hang-glider or paraglider is in accordance with a management plan."

https://www.wellingtonpark.org.au/management-plan/

https://www.legislation.tas.gov.au/view/html/current/sr-2019-013#GS15@EN

Q: Will club members be able to see the cascade landing zone contract prior to it being signed?

A: The landing zone contract has been written and recently provided to us by Asahi Beverages who now own the land. It is their own deed that we need to accept in order to get an agreement in place - given there is no current written agreement in place at all.
The committee members have all appraised the document and are unanimous in our acceptance of the terms. We have also forwarded it to SAFA for their acceptance as far as it relates to them. This is an association administrative responsibility as detailed in our constitution.

If members were to vet each and every document and process of the THPA it would take an eternity to carry on general business and provide outcomes in any area. Members are welcome and encouraged to join the committee when the opportunity arises if they want to be across all documents and day to day operations. This is one of the many functions and responsibilities of the committee, as detailed in the constitution. In its capacity, the committee will only enter into an agreement that is either equal to, or better than any current arrangement. Should that not be possible, any matter would be raised for feedback of members.

Q: Can you upload it somewhere now if it hasn't already been put up?

A: All members will be able to access a copy of this document once it has been finalised and uploaded to the THPA official documents area.

Q: What does it (LZ agreement) say about recreational and commercial tandems landing there?

A: It refers to all members of the THPA being able to use the current LZ for the period of the agreement. There is no differentiation between solo paragliding, tandem or hang gliding.

Q: At what point was the safety committee consulted and did they agree that the site would be down rated with a new launch?

A: The safety committee wasn’t officially consulted and no agreement has been made to down rate the new launch. However, prior to the submission of the proposal to the grants team, the Safety Committee was aware of the Executive’s (2020) application to improve the launch on kunanyi/Mt Wellington, and they welcomed the initiative to make this site safer.
The idea of potentially being able to lower the rating of the new launch came from informal discussions with SSO and SO’s and were presented in the proposal to increase our chances of securing the grant. We could have potentially chosen better wording in the proposal in relation to this. The main project focus is to improve safety and inclusivity - which undeniably a new launch would achieve. Assessment of the new launch will only be possible, safety-wise, after the launch completion.
It is not a foregone conclusion, the final rating will not be known until AFTER launch completion. There are certainly many points to consider during the process of re rating the site, but it is speculation to say that it would or would not have a rating change.
Regardless, the earliest time to take this project to the safety committee for further input would be once funding was secured. Without sufficient funding the project is impossible, so it would be counter productive to do it before this.

Any reference to the re rating and potential numbers are based on the possible potential of the site being fully reached. It was important to demonstrate this in our grant application to ensure the best chance of securing the grant. As to whether the site is re rated, that is outside of the scope of the project. The main project focus is to improve safety and inclusivity - which undeniably a new launch would achieve.

Q: What will happen to the clubs 'no tandems off the mountain' stance? Is this going to be amended? (I don't know if this was ever written anywhere but it's what I was clearly told when I started by the old hands).

A: The position of the THPA executive as discussed in 2018 is as follows (note: in 2018, the Safety Committee didn't exist yet): "Sport and commercial tandem operations are approved by the THPA in Tasmania, with the exception of kunanyi/Mt. Wellington (in its current state the launch is judged unsuitable)".

The THPA has not discussed altering the previous statement. However, because this statement was based on the unsuitable launch condition of kunanyi/Mt. Wellington, if the launch improved, it would be fair to review it.
Recreational tandem pilots recently expressed their will to fly from kunanyi/Mt Wellington if the launch improves. In the right order, reassessing the THPA position for tandem flight will be possible only after improving the launch and consultation with the Safety Committee. No commercial tandem operators have approached the THPA in relation to fly kunanyi/Mt. Wellington.

Q: Does the club see a conflict of interest in their executive members pushing to support a project, which if goes ahead will directly financially benefit those members in their personal/professional capacity?

A: This question is ambiguous, however we will attempt to answer it in the ways in which we believe it could be being implied:

1. If the question relates to the proposed project management quotation by Paragliding Tas, for Ramon and Michael to manage the project for a sum of $6,538.96, the following needs to be considered. This project will run for a significant and unknown period of time. It will incur real costs as well as time costs and other related project costs. To put this sum in perspective (and assuming the project took only two months – of which it has taken well more than already) this would amount to less than $410/week per member in their capacity of project management. After costs, and tax this would likely result in $100/member per week. Again, this assumes a tiny 8 week project period. If anyone knows of any other project manager who has an intimate knowledge of our sports who is prepared to work on the project for a gross annualised salary of $21,320 we would be very keen to open discussion with them. On this point, the committee sees no conflict of interest, nor even recognises this as any financial incentive worthy of the time and effort that will be required to be invested by the members in question.

2. If the question relates to the possible future gain that a paragliding business could gain from running commercial tandems from the mountain, the following needs to be considered. Ramon has stated that he has no plans at this point in time to run commercial tandems from the mountain. He is however an independent business and if he changed his view on this in the future, it would still need to go through the THPA and all stakeholders to seek their acceptance as an appropriate use. We believe that to imply a conflict of interest on the basis that there may possibly be an opportunity for paragliding Tasmania to run tandems in future is not a fair or reasonable implication.

Q: Had the fact Ramon and Michael were going to be paid as part of building the launch been made public to the club before the latest update? Or was it only after I asked?

A: As there has been no grant funding secured, and the project is still in the “proposal” stage, nothing has been made public in relation to this. As has been stated, the proposal was the result of a rapid process to meet a grant deadline. In the instance that the grant had been awarded, then we would have called a general meeting for the purpose of discussing all details with the members and seeking feedback and suggestions.

Q: Is the club willing to acknowledge that the launch proposal submitted for funding had misleading and factually incorrect information regarding the future prospects of flying from Mt Wellington in order to make the proposal more appealing and likely to get funding? I am referring to selling the site as if it is potentially the next Annecy. Are the executive of the club happy that for any future proposals in the name of the THPA that we use this as an ongoing ethical precedent and lie to sound better on paper if it means we'll get more funding?

A: As has been mentioned already – the reference to Annecy is for the purpose of drawing a mental image of grandeur – nothing else. It is simply marketing. We do not understand the fixation on this point as a “lie” or otherwise. This is common practice in written presentations designed to add some buzz or wow factor.

Q: I'm quite amazed that every time things get heated in whatever format, the club and the exec reveal a new layer of information from behind the scenes that makes it even more complicated and makes everyone involved look even less trustworthy.

A: There have been no “revelations of layers” - the one shortcoming was that - with the extremely short deadline between putting pen to paper and submitting the proposal for grant funding consideration - the proposal was not uploaded to a place where members could see it if they so desired. With that said, the document is exactly that, a proposal - not a development application. It is not a fixed agreement or set of terms that must be adhered to. It is purely a step in working towards a final launch plan.

If the grant application had been successful - that would have been the stage at which the committee would have called a special meeting to go over all aspects of the project and discuss it with members for feedback and ideas - BEFORE any final plan was drafted or any development applications were submitted.

The committee has been put in place to manage the affairs of the THPA. We are not here to report on every tiny detail of every day's duties – that would be nigh on a full time paid position in itself. Instead, the role of the committee is to undertake all “behind the scenes” duties, and - at the right time and where appropriate in every process - disclose relevant information or call for member input or feedback where applicable.
The Mt Wellington launch project has been clearly discussed and disclosed at many AGM’s, SGM’s and forum posts since 2011 (which is as far back as we have checked the records, however the first launch document submitted to stakeholders was in 1999). It is unreasonable to make claims of a lack of transparency or erode trust by claiming that there has not been disclosure, when clearly there has. Most recently, this exact project was discussed and minuted at both the 2020 and 2021 AGM’s. It is noted that most members who have made claims of an underhanded approach being taken with regards to this project have either not attended these AGM’s or read the minutes.