Higher Tows for Training Flights [Archive]

View Full Version : Higher Tows for Training Flights

noel.wade

May 31st 12, 08:14 PM

As some of you know, I'm working on my CFIG (should get it after
contest season is over). But I have some strong disagreements with the
way my club handles instructing and so I'll be going my own way once I
have the cert. One area I've been thinking about a lot is our 3000-
foot "standard" tow. This seems to be a habitual height for a lot of
operations in the US; but just because it's a good height for catching
a thermal doesn't mean it's a good height for instructional tows...

Are there any clubs or operators out there that make high tows (say,
5000') for instructional flights? If so, can you provide any feedback
on how it works "in the real world"?

My thinking goes like this:
1) A high tow to 5000' doubles the "working band" for the
instructional flight. If you reserve 1000-1200' for the pattern, then
a 3000' tow gives you only 2000' (max) for maneuvers. A 5000' tow
gives you 4000' for maneuvers.

2) In the powered-airplane world, training flights are often set to
last 1-1.5 hours. This lets the student practice a maneuver multiple
times in a row and either work out some kinks or polish their skill.
With only a 2000' slice of air to use for a standard glider training-
flight, the student is often rushed to complete clearing turns and run
through a set of maneuvers just one time. There's little-to-no time
for multiple attempts. By contrast, a 4000' chunk of altitude gives
you about 18 minutes for maneuvering (assuming a roughly 220 fpm
descent-rate; which seems like a reasonable guesstimate for a training
aircraft doing a mix of turns, stalls, and min-sink maneuvering). 18
minutes should be enough time to let the student settle-in to the
flight and make 2 or 3 attempts at a couple of different maneuvers,
plus catch their breath and actually prepare to come into the landing
pattern (instead of trying to speed them through the checklist). I
think there's a tremendous amount of value in repeating a maneuver
multiple times in a single flight: it lets the pilot work through
issues, experience a sense of improvement, retain information better
(including muscle-memory), etc.

3) If the student is in early training (not able to handle the takeoff
or the landing), maximizing the "maneuvering" portion of the flight
really gives the student the best bang-for-their-buck. 5-8 minutes of
aerotow plus 3-5 minutes of landing means that - on a 3000' tow - the
student only has the stick for ~50% of the flight *at most* (less if
the instructor takes the stick to demonstrate anything). With a 5000'
tow the student has the stick in their hand for almost double the
amount of time (roughly 9-10 extra minutes). If you look at the tow
fees for most operations, an extra 2000' of altitude costs less than
the cost of a whole extra tow. Unless the student is at the point
where they're working on their landings (when they could be taking
pattern tows), this seems to be a better way to maximize student
practice and minimize their costs.

4) Time savings. If you're a student (or an instructor) trying to
slot into a long launch line and/or have good pre-flight and post-
flight briefings, you're going to need to be at the airport for 8-10
hours a day to get 3 flights in. During those 3 flights, you the
student might get 30-45 minutes "on the stick". A single 5000' tow
gives the student roughly 18-20 minutes "on the stick"; so they can
achieve the same amount of "stick time" in only 2 flights (two high
tows or one high and one "normal" tow). In today's busy, modern life,
I can see a compelling argument for instruction that allows busy
individuals to get 2 good flights in during a morning or afternoon
(i.e. half-day) session; rather than hanging at the airport all darn
day in the hopes of getting that third flight in before dinnertime
(and if they only get 2 flights in, their 20-25 minutes on the stick
is really close to a single high-tow flight, which they could have fit
in during a short 2-3 hour session at the airport).

The only obvious down-side to this scheme is that your towplane and
your two-seat glider cycles a little bit more slowly; but I firmly
believe that the glider community needs to stop focusing on quantity
of flights and start paying more attention to QUALITY of training.
Making competent pilots in fewer flights means they get to the fun
part of soaring more-quickly and are (hopefully) more-likely to stick
with the sport. And although you might get a couple of less students
in the air each day if they're all taking high tows, they're still
getting a good amount of air-time and (hopefully) earning their
license faster so that over a period of time (say a year), you wind up
training just as many (if not more) pilots as the "old method"
involving lower tows.

Any thoughts, comments, or flaws in my logic? Any "gotchas" I'm not
considering?

--Noel

Tony[_5_]

May 31st 12, 08:29 PM

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 2:14:18 PM UTC-5, noel.wade wrote:
> As some of you know, I'm working on my CFIG (should get it after
> contest season is over). But I have some strong disagreements with the
> way my club handles instructing and so I'll be going my own way once I
> have the cert. One area I've been thinking about a lot is our 3000-
> foot "standard" tow. This seems to be a habitual height for a lot of
> operations in the US; but just because it's a good height for catching
> a thermal doesn't mean it's a good height for instructional tows...
>
> Are there any clubs or operators out there that make high tows (say,
> 5000') for instructional flights? If so, can you provide any feedback
> on how it works "in the real world"?
>
> My thinking goes like this:
> 1) A high tow to 5000' doubles the "working band" for the
> instructional flight. If you reserve 1000-1200' for the pattern, then
> a 3000' tow gives you only 2000' (max) for maneuvers. A 5000' tow
> gives you 4000' for maneuvers.
>
> 2) In the powered-airplane world, training flights are often set to
> last 1-1.5 hours. This lets the student practice a maneuver multiple
> times in a row and either work out some kinks or polish their skill.
> With only a 2000' slice of air to use for a standard glider training-
> flight, the student is often rushed to complete clearing turns and run
> through a set of maneuvers just one time. There's little-to-no time
> for multiple attempts. By contrast, a 4000' chunk of altitude gives
> you about 18 minutes for maneuvering (assuming a roughly 220 fpm
> descent-rate; which seems like a reasonable guesstimate for a training
> aircraft doing a mix of turns, stalls, and min-sink maneuvering). 18
> minutes should be enough time to let the student settle-in to the
> flight and make 2 or 3 attempts at a couple of different maneuvers,
> plus catch their breath and actually prepare to come into the landing
> pattern (instead of trying to speed them through the checklist). I
> think there's a tremendous amount of value in repeating a maneuver
> multiple times in a single flight: it lets the pilot work through
> issues, experience a sense of improvement, retain information better
> (including muscle-memory), etc.
>
> 3) If the student is in early training (not able to handle the takeoff
> or the landing), maximizing the "maneuvering" portion of the flight
> really gives the student the best bang-for-their-buck. 5-8 minutes of
> aerotow plus 3-5 minutes of landing means that - on a 3000' tow - the
> student only has the stick for ~50% of the flight *at most* (less if
> the instructor takes the stick to demonstrate anything). With a 5000'
> tow the student has the stick in their hand for almost double the
> amount of time (roughly 9-10 extra minutes). If you look at the tow
> fees for most operations, an extra 2000' of altitude costs less than
> the cost of a whole extra tow. Unless the student is at the point
> where they're working on their landings (when they could be taking
> pattern tows), this seems to be a better way to maximize student
> practice and minimize their costs.
>
> 4) Time savings. If you're a student (or an instructor) trying to
> slot into a long launch line and/or have good pre-flight and post-
> flight briefings, you're going to need to be at the airport for 8-10
> hours a day to get 3 flights in. During those 3 flights, you the
> student might get 30-45 minutes "on the stick". A single 5000' tow
> gives the student roughly 18-20 minutes "on the stick"; so they can
> achieve the same amount of "stick time" in only 2 flights (two high
> tows or one high and one "normal" tow). In today's busy, modern life,
> I can see a compelling argument for instruction that allows busy
> individuals to get 2 good flights in during a morning or afternoon
> (i.e. half-day) session; rather than hanging at the airport all darn
> day in the hopes of getting that third flight in before dinnertime
> (and if they only get 2 flights in, their 20-25 minutes on the stick
> is really close to a single high-tow flight, which they could have fit
> in during a short 2-3 hour session at the airport).
>
> The only obvious down-side to this scheme is that your towplane and
> your two-seat glider cycles a little bit more slowly; but I firmly
> believe that the glider community needs to stop focusing on quantity
> of flights and start paying more attention to QUALITY of training.
> Making competent pilots in fewer flights means they get to the fun
> part of soaring more-quickly and are (hopefully) more-likely to stick
> with the sport. And although you might get a couple of less students
> in the air each day if they're all taking high tows, they're still
> getting a good amount of air-time and (hopefully) earning their
> license faster so that over a period of time (say a year), you wind up
> training just as many (if not more) pilots as the "old method"
> involving lower tows.
>
> Any thoughts, comments, or flaws in my logic? Any "gotchas" I'm not
> considering?
>
> --Noel

Noel,

Out here in the flatlands we have "standard" tow height of 2000 ft. Our club usually uses that as a maximum in the interest of time. Yes the student gets a shorter flight but we have one towplane and often a line waiting to take off. On the other side of town where I sometimes instruct typical operations are just the 2-33 going up for multiple training flights, not a line of single seaters going soaring as well, so tow height is up to the individual. I find that 3 or 4000 foot tows are nice for training purposes, for many of the reasons you state. More flight time per flight is nice and higher tows are often cheaper than more tows.

Matt McKrell

May 31st 12, 08:42 PM

On May 31, 3:29*pm, Tony > wrote:
> On Thursday, May 31, 2012 2:14:18 PM UTC-5, noel.wade wrote:
> > As some of you know, I'm working on my CFIG (should get it after
> > contest season is over). But I have some strong disagreements with the
> > way my club handles instructing and so I'll be going my own way once I
> > have the cert. *One area I've been thinking about a lot is our 3000-
> > foot "standard" tow. This seems to be a habitual height for a lot of
> > operations in the US; but just because it's a good height for catching
> > a thermal doesn't mean it's a good height for instructional tows...
>
> > Are there any clubs or operators out there that make high tows (say,
> > 5000') for instructional flights? If so, can you provide any feedback
> > on how it works "in the real world"?
>
> > My thinking goes like this:
> > 1) A high tow to 5000' doubles the "working band" for the
> > instructional flight. If you reserve 1000-1200' for the pattern, then
> > a 3000' tow gives you only 2000' (max) for maneuvers. A 5000' tow
> > gives you 4000' for maneuvers.
>
> > 2) In the powered-airplane world, training flights are often set to
> > last 1-1.5 hours. This lets the student practice a maneuver multiple
> > times in a row and either work out some kinks or polish their skill.
> > With only a 2000' slice of air to use for a standard glider training-
> > flight, the student is often rushed to complete clearing turns and run
> > through a set of maneuvers just one time. There's *little-to-no time
> > for multiple attempts. *By contrast, a 4000' chunk of altitude gives
> > you about 18 minutes for maneuvering (assuming a roughly 220 fpm
> > descent-rate; which seems like a reasonable guesstimate for a training
> > aircraft doing a mix of turns, stalls, and min-sink maneuvering). *18
> > minutes should be enough time to let the student settle-in to the
> > flight and make 2 or 3 attempts at a couple of different maneuvers,
> > plus catch their breath and actually prepare to come into the landing
> > pattern (instead of trying to speed them through the checklist). *I
> > think there's a tremendous amount of value in repeating a maneuver
> > multiple times in a single flight: it lets the pilot work through
> > issues, experience a sense of improvement, retain information better
> > (including muscle-memory), etc.
>
> > 3) If the student is in early training (not able to handle the takeoff
> > or the landing), maximizing the "maneuvering" portion of the flight
> > really gives the student the best bang-for-their-buck. *5-8 minutes of
> > aerotow plus 3-5 minutes of landing means that - on a 3000' tow - the
> > student only has the stick for ~50% of the flight *at most* (less if
> > the instructor takes the stick to demonstrate anything). *With a 5000'
> > tow the student has the stick in their hand for almost double the
> > amount of time (roughly 9-10 extra minutes). *If you look at the tow
> > fees for most operations, an extra 2000' of altitude costs less than
> > the cost of a whole extra tow. *Unless the student is at the point
> > where they're working on their landings (when they could be taking
> > pattern tows), this seems to be a better way to maximize student
> > practice and minimize their costs.
>
> > 4) Time savings. *If you're a student (or an instructor) trying to
> > slot into a long launch line and/or have good pre-flight and post-
> > flight briefings, you're going to need to be at the airport for 8-10
> > hours a day to get 3 flights in. *During those 3 flights, you the
> > student might get 30-45 minutes "on the stick". *A single 5000' tow
> > gives the student roughly 18-20 minutes "on the stick"; so they can
> > achieve the same amount of "stick time" in only 2 flights (two high
> > tows or one high and one "normal" tow). *In today's busy, modern life,
> > I can see a compelling argument for instruction that allows busy
> > individuals to get 2 good flights in during a morning or afternoon
> > (i.e. half-day) session; rather than hanging at the airport all darn
> > day in the hopes of getting that third flight in before dinnertime
> > (and if they only get 2 flights in, their 20-25 minutes on the stick
> > is really close to a single high-tow flight, which they could have fit
> > in during a short 2-3 hour session at the airport).
>
> > The only obvious down-side to this scheme is that your towplane and
> > your two-seat glider cycles a little bit more slowly; but I firmly
> > believe that the glider community needs to stop focusing on quantity
> > of flights and start paying more attention to QUALITY of training.
> > Making competent pilots in fewer flights means they get to the fun
> > part of soaring more-quickly and are (hopefully) more-likely to stick
> > with the sport. *And although you might get a couple of less students
> > in the air each day if they're all taking high tows, they're still
> > getting a good amount of air-time and (hopefully) earning their
> > license faster so that over a period of time (say a year), you wind up
> > training just as many (if not more) pilots as the "old method"
> > involving lower tows.
>
> > Any thoughts, comments, or flaws in my logic? *Any "gotchas" I'm not
> > considering?
>
> > --Noel
>
> Noel,
>
> Out here in the flatlands we have "standard" tow height of 2000 ft. *Our club usually uses that as a maximum in the interest of time. *Yes the student gets a shorter flight but we have one towplane and often a line waiting to take off. On the other side of town where I sometimes instruct typical operations are just the 2-33 going up for multiple training flights, not a line of single seaters going soaring as well, so tow height is up to the individual. *I find that 3 or 4000 foot tows are nice for training purposes, for many of the reasons you state. *More flight time per flight is nice and higher tows are often cheaper than more tows.

We've substituted prep with Condor for each lesson. Our students run
the lesson in the morning on the simulator and then usually
have the lesson nailed in the one flight later in the day. (They
*are* young aeronautic students, so maybe they're supposed to catch on
quicker.)

Another thing to consider, once a student has flown a few times, is to
have them work a thermal. This allows them to polish
their turn skills, develop their soaring skills, appreciate the fun
part of the sport, and extend the flight while they're at it. It will
also do wonders for your own soaring skills when you try to explain to
someone else how to do it!

-- Matt

Hagbard Celine

May 31st 12, 09:15 PM

I fly from a mountain site which is primarily ridge soaring. Standard
height for two of the three nearby mountains is 2000 feet. One more
distant mountain requires a 4000 foot tow to allow sufficient
altitude to return to the field with a good safety margin if it turns
out that the lift isn't there. Usually if a student is in very early
training and unable to safely soar the ridge the instructor will climb
one or two thousand feet on the ridge, move away from the ridge, let
the student fly various maneuvers and then, when back down to
1700-1800 will climb back up on the ridge. repeat as necessary. If
there is no lift then higher tows are taken. We normally take 3000
foot tows for the purpose of a season check flight or if spins are to
be performed on a day with no lift. The students are usually able to
handle the ridge soaring quite early in training.

[email protected]

May 31st 12, 10:36 PM

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:14:18 PM UTC-4, noel.wade wrote:
> As some of you know, I'm working on my CFIG (should get it after
> contest season is over). But I have some strong disagreements with the
> way my club handles instructing and so I'll be going my own way once I
> have the cert. One area I've been thinking about a lot is our 3000-
> foot "standard" tow. This seems to be a habitual height for a lot of
> operations in the US; but just because it's a good height for catching
> a thermal doesn't mean it's a good height for instructional tows...
>
> Are there any clubs or operators out there that make high tows (say,
> 5000') for instructional flights? If so, can you provide any feedback
> on how it works "in the real world"?
>
> My thinking goes like this:
> 1) A high tow to 5000' doubles the "working band" for the
> instructional flight. If you reserve 1000-1200' for the pattern, then
> a 3000' tow gives you only 2000' (max) for maneuvers. A 5000' tow
> gives you 4000' for maneuvers.
>
> 2) In the powered-airplane world, training flights are often set to
> last 1-1.5 hours. This lets the student practice a maneuver multiple
> times in a row and either work out some kinks or polish their skill.
> With only a 2000' slice of air to use for a standard glider training-
> flight, the student is often rushed to complete clearing turns and run
> through a set of maneuvers just one time. There's little-to-no time
> for multiple attempts. By contrast, a 4000' chunk of altitude gives
> you about 18 minutes for maneuvering (assuming a roughly 220 fpm
> descent-rate; which seems like a reasonable guesstimate for a training
> aircraft doing a mix of turns, stalls, and min-sink maneuvering). 18
> minutes should be enough time to let the student settle-in to the
> flight and make 2 or 3 attempts at a couple of different maneuvers,
> plus catch their breath and actually prepare to come into the landing
> pattern (instead of trying to speed them through the checklist). I
> think there's a tremendous amount of value in repeating a maneuver
> multiple times in a single flight: it lets the pilot work through
> issues, experience a sense of improvement, retain information better
> (including muscle-memory), etc.
>
> 3) If the student is in early training (not able to handle the takeoff
> or the landing), maximizing the "maneuvering" portion of the flight
> really gives the student the best bang-for-their-buck. 5-8 minutes of
> aerotow plus 3-5 minutes of landing means that - on a 3000' tow - the
> student only has the stick for ~50% of the flight *at most* (less if
> the instructor takes the stick to demonstrate anything). With a 5000'
> tow the student has the stick in their hand for almost double the
> amount of time (roughly 9-10 extra minutes). If you look at the tow
> fees for most operations, an extra 2000' of altitude costs less than
> the cost of a whole extra tow. Unless the student is at the point
> where they're working on their landings (when they could be taking
> pattern tows), this seems to be a better way to maximize student
> practice and minimize their costs.
>
> 4) Time savings. If you're a student (or an instructor) trying to
> slot into a long launch line and/or have good pre-flight and post-
> flight briefings, you're going to need to be at the airport for 8-10
> hours a day to get 3 flights in. During those 3 flights, you the
> student might get 30-45 minutes "on the stick". A single 5000' tow
> gives the student roughly 18-20 minutes "on the stick"; so they can
> achieve the same amount of "stick time" in only 2 flights (two high
> tows or one high and one "normal" tow). In today's busy, modern life,
> I can see a compelling argument for instruction that allows busy
> individuals to get 2 good flights in during a morning or afternoon
> (i.e. half-day) session; rather than hanging at the airport all darn
> day in the hopes of getting that third flight in before dinnertime
> (and if they only get 2 flights in, their 20-25 minutes on the stick
> is really close to a single high-tow flight, which they could have fit
> in during a short 2-3 hour session at the airport).
>
> The only obvious down-side to this scheme is that your towplane and
> your two-seat glider cycles a little bit more slowly; but I firmly
> believe that the glider community needs to stop focusing on quantity
> of flights and start paying more attention to QUALITY of training.
> Making competent pilots in fewer flights means they get to the fun
> part of soaring more-quickly and are (hopefully) more-likely to stick
> with the sport. And although you might get a couple of less students
> in the air each day if they're all taking high tows, they're still
> getting a good amount of air-time and (hopefully) earning their
> license faster so that over a period of time (say a year), you wind up
> training just as many (if not more) pilots as the "old method"
> involving lower tows.
>
> Any thoughts, comments, or flaws in my logic? Any "gotchas" I'm not
> considering?
>
> --Noel

We use a few 3000 ft tows in the first 3 or 4 flights, then mix 2000 and 2500 ft tows after that, depending on what the lesson is for the flight.
A "standard" lesson will usually involve 2 flights of 15-20 minutes. By that time the student needs a rest anyway.
Airwork comes fairly easily. The measure of readiness for solo commonly relates to landings rather than time flown.
Another view
UH

Brian[_1_]

June 1st 12, 12:38 AM

Admittedly I don't do a lot of glider instruction. But I think you
will find the higher tows will be useful for the 1st few flights until
they get a basic handle on towing and basic control of the airplane.
I think what you will find is that the problem areas will be the
initial tow, judgement in getting back into the pattern and of course
the approach and landing. This means they will need to do a lot of
initial tows, entering the pattern and landing. They don't need high
tows to do this. Once the student has a basic ability to control the
glider they can refine these skills on the lower tows where they
really need to practice the problem areas, but in the process the
basic flying skills should be improving as well.

just my 0.02 worth and there a lot more experienced, glider
instructors out there than I.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Tom Claffey

June 1st 12, 01:49 AM

Quality rather than quantity for sure for first few flights.
Once student fully ready for circuit training then more lower launches
required. Here in Australia with reasonable soaring conditions I like to do
a few 35-40min flights followed by circuits, then emergencies, interspersed
with another couple of longer flights to practice basics/stall-spins and
thermalling. For longer flights 2000' is generally high enough, sometimes
3000' so student gets a decent practice at aerotowing, or if no lift [some
days in winter]. For circuits we save money for student by only going to
1200-1500'.
Thermalling should be taught from first lesson! Basic crosscountry theory
and short flights before solo!!
Tom

At 23:38 31 May 2012, Brian wrote:
>Admittedly I don't do a lot of glider instruction. But I think you
>will find the higher tows will be useful for the 1st few flights until
>they get a basic handle on towing and basic control of the airplane.
>I think what you will find is that the problem areas will be the
>initial tow, judgement in getting back into the pattern and of course
>the approach and landing. This means they will need to do a lot of
>initial tows, entering the pattern and landing. They don't need high
>tows to do this. Once the student has a basic ability to control the
>glider they can refine these skills on the lower tows where they
>really need to practice the problem areas, but in the process the
>basic flying skills should be improving as well.
>
>just my 0.02 worth and there a lot more experienced, glider
>instructors out there than I.
>
>Brian
>CFIIG/ASEL
>

noel.wade

June 1st 12, 02:10 AM

On May 31, 5:49*pm, Tom Claffey > wrote:

> Thermalling should be taught from first lesson! Basic crosscountry theory
> and short flights before solo!!
> Tom

At the risk of sounding bitter: This can only be done if your club's
instructors know HOW to go cross-country, care about doing so, and if
they've practiced thermalling within recent history. In my club out of
about 12 instructors on the roster there are only 2 that I know of
who've done even a single cross-country flight or any extended soaring
(i.e. thermalling) in the last 3+ years.

*sigh*

--Noel
P.S. I'm not implying that they're bad instructors (I actually quite
like most of them); they're just all to the point where teaching stick-
and-rudder basics is all they seem to have the energy for anymore...

hretting

June 1st 12, 03:47 AM

You're screwed now........never talk about 'family' on the net. Lets
hope they're all a bunch of old geezers who's computer time equals
their cross country time.....after all .....they're not bad
instructors....most of them.
I soloed a couple of hundred students before I flew my first cross
country and nobody crashed. I would say 110% of all first cross
country flights are done with some planning and considerations to
doing everything possible so as not to die. And yet every top notch
racer out there has busted their ass or did some damage to promote
thinking time.
When you finally get your instructors license...you will not teach
cross country but survival soaring and then send them off on their
solos and with a little more instruction sign them off for the rating.
When they are ready, they will come to Uncle Noel for additional
mentoring to take the leap away from the airport. But most will not.
Now, my question is ....who are you going to get to sign off your
Instructors Rating recomendation? Give them all some Geritol and see
who can move a pen. That'l work!
Oh, I forgot....when you are the instructor, you're allowed to decided
how high to tow , when to turn right, when to turn left. Until then,
you're just another student.
R

T[_2_]

June 1st 12, 04:42 AM

On May 31, 6:10*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> On May 31, 5:49*pm, Tom Claffey > wrote:
>
> > Thermalling should be taught from first lesson! Basic crosscountry theory
> > and short flights before solo!!
> > Tom
>
> At the risk of sounding bitter: *This can only be done if your club's
> instructors know HOW to go cross-country, care about doing so, and if
> they've practiced thermalling within recent history. In my club out of
> about 12 instructors on the roster there are only 2 that I know of
> who've done even a single cross-country flight or any extended soaring
> (i.e. thermalling) in the last 3+ years.
>
> *sigh*
>
> --Noel
> P.S. *I'm not implying that they're bad instructors (I actually quite
> like most of them); they're just all to the point where teaching stick-
> and-rudder basics is all they seem to have the energy for anymore...

Our normal training season is winter, Oct to Apr.
I plan about 3000ft tows for the first few flights, basic flight
control of maintaining wings level and pitch/speed control.
Then we graduate to 4000ft tows to have altitude for stalls and steep
turns. By this time the student is learning to fly on tow and may need
a short rest on the way up, then take over again for the release from
tow procedures.

If the wind and local ridge agree, we start learning ridge soaring,
and as spring comes, thermals.
As the student gets closer to solo, pattern tows, 5 or 6 in a row.
Any lesson, time in the glider, much over an hour, the student has
max'd the learning window. He is burnt out.
Each one hour lesson may involve at least 2 tows to 3000 and a pattern
tow for an extra landing, rope break training or other PTT with
abbreviated traffic patterns.

Getting off at 2000ft and trying to learn thermaling to get higher for
stalls and steep turns is too much for the new student. With spring
thermals, the air work is reviewed and we concentrate on getting away
from the field and getting back. Every flight from lesson one is, can
I get back from here. We'll also include a forced out landing and have
the tow plane come retrieve us. (If the lake bed is dry)

T

T[_2_]

June 2nd 12, 02:54 AM

On May 31, 8:42*pm, T > wrote:
> On May 31, 6:10*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 5:49*pm, Tom Claffey > wrote:
>
> > > Thermalling should be taught from first lesson! Basic crosscountry theory
> > > and short flights before solo!!
> > > Tom
>
> > At the risk of sounding bitter: *This can only be done if your club's
> > instructors know HOW to go cross-country, care about doing so, and if
> > they've practiced thermalling within recent history. In my club out of
> > about 12 instructors on the roster there are only 2 that I know of
> > who've done even a single cross-country flight or any extended soaring
> > (i.e. thermalling) in the last 3+ years.
>
> > *sigh*
>
> > --Noel
> > P.S. *I'm not implying that they're bad instructors (I actually quite
> > like most of them); they're just all to the point where teaching stick-
> > and-rudder basics is all they seem to have the energy for anymore...
>
> Our normal training season is winter, Oct to Apr.
> I plan about 3000ft tows for the first few flights, basic flight
> control of maintaining wings level and pitch/speed control.
> Then we graduate to 4000ft tows to have altitude for stalls and steep
> turns. By this time the student is learning to fly on tow and may need
> a short rest on the way up, then take over again for the release from
> tow procedures.
>
> If the wind and local ridge agree, we start learning ridge soaring,
> and as spring comes, thermals.
> As the student gets closer to solo, pattern tows, 5 or 6 in a row.
> Any lesson, time in the glider, much over an hour, the student has
> max'd the learning window. He is burnt out.
> Each one hour lesson may involve at least 2 tows to 3000 and a pattern
> tow for an extra landing, rope break training or other PTT with
> abbreviated traffic patterns.
>
> Getting off at 2000ft and trying to learn thermaling to get higher for
> stalls and steep turns is too much for the new student. With spring
> thermals, the air work is reviewed and we concentrate on getting away
> from the field and getting back. Every flight from lesson one is, can
> I get back from here. We'll also include a forced out landing and have
> the tow plane come retrieve us. (If the lake bed is dry)
>
> T

I should add more, in consideration of the OP concern about landing,
getting back in the launch cue and spending all day to get three
flights.

We are a smallish club. Primary students fly in the morning, first
come first served, get your name on the list.
We allocate 1hr with the glider, plan your pre-post briefings outside
that hour. We can get at least 2 high tows and a pattern in that hour.

During XC season, the students fly training, all the XC birds line up
for launch. When the "trigger" is set, normally a CFI with a student
will report active thermals and relative strength, it's time to launch
the XC birds and traing tows stop.

Once the XC birds are launched, training tows can resume. Normally the
CFI that reports "Launch the Fleet!" will attempt to stay aloft with
the student while the private birds launch.

Normally one tow plane can keep two training birds going with
alternating tows and no waiting during the training windows.

T

Papa3[_2_]

June 3rd 12, 03:21 PM