How high does your club tow? [Archive]

Frank Whiteley

August 26th 18, 05:20 PM

On Sunday, August 26, 2018 at 7:15:26 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> Our Club is reworking towing height fees. We are based south of Denver (elevation 7,000' msl). Normal tow heights are to about 9,000-10,000' msl. We have new members who now are asking for tows to 14,000' msl. This is causing up to 45-minute waits for the next tow. Normally, we get about four or five tows per hours, but a high altitude tow drops us to two tows per hour.
>
> How high does your club allow for tows?
>
>
> Raul Boerner

My chapter is at 5500MSL. Tow rates are $11 hookup + $1.30/100ft up to 9000MSL. Above that for wave or high tows or retrieves $180/tach hour with a $68/minimum.

Perhaps a method of pricing that makes such tows unattractive and revenue positive if accommodated?

Is the desire for high tows to tow away from the approach zones with a margin to still be with glide range of the base?

In my observation, this is why CAP o-rides don't mix well with normal club operations in several cases. The syllabus drives tows to 2500-3000ft agl when club member pilots are getting off at 900-1500ft agl.

Frank Whiteley

August 26th 18, 05:44 PM

> High tows to the back of the line.
>
> Mike

Imagine the accent of Seinfeld's 'Soup-Nazi': 'You want high tow? No tow for you - come back one year!'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOpfsGrNvnk

Uli
'AS'

Paul T[_4_]

August 26th 18, 06:47 PM

Why are they towing so high? No soaring skills, or to catch wave?

August 27th 18, 04:49 AM

On Sunday, August 26, 2018 at 6:15:26 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Our Club is reworking towing height fees. We are based south of Denver (elevation 7,000' msl). Normal tow heights are to about 9,000-10,000' msl. We have new members who now are asking for tows to 14,000' msl. This is causing up to 45-minute waits for the next tow. Normally, we get about four or five tows per hours, but a high altitude tow drops us to two tows per hour.
>
> How high does your club allow for tows?
>
>
> Raul Boerner

The normal way of charging by the 100' doesn't work because of the reduced climb rate (what are you using for these tows?), so the answer is to charge by tach time. Maybe all tows should be done this way (John Templeton uses tach time at Parowan for all tows). This impacts everybody else, so I would poll them on how to handle it. Personally, I would make them go early or late unless no one else is waiting.

Tom

[email protected]

August 27th 18, 01:29 PM

On Sunday, August 26, 2018 at 8:49:42 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Sunday, August 26, 2018 at 6:15:26 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Our Club is reworking towing height fees. We are based south of Denver (elevation 7,000' msl). Normal tow heights are to about 9,000-10,000' msl. We have new members who now are asking for tows to 14,000' msl. This is causing up to 45-minute waits for the next tow. Normally, we get about four or five tows per hours, but a high altitude tow drops us to two tows per hour..
> >
> > How high does your club allow for tows?
> >
> >
> > Raul Boerner
>
> The normal way of charging by the 100' doesn't work because of the reduced climb rate (what are you using for these tows?), so the answer is to charge by tach time. Maybe all tows should be done this way (John Templeton uses tach time at Parowan for all tows). This impacts everybody else, so I would poll them on how to handle it. Personally, I would make them go early or late unless no one else is waiting.
>
> Tom

Tach time is also a fairer way to charge for tows, since the higher towing speeds demanded by modern gliders reduces the climb rate.

[email protected]

August 27th 18, 01:38 PM

Tach time seems like a good way to go for high tows, but I won't make any suggestions about what rate to charge, as situations differ. However, for the "normal" tow, which can be low, as for repeated pattern practice, the typical Hobbs meter that only displays in tenths of an hour, a tow could be 0.1 hour or 0.2 hour or even 0.3 hour, depending on how the numbers click over. Tach based charges also have the effect of charging someone for time spent waiting for traffic to clear, slow hook ups and situations where the tow plane is running with no gliders ready, but not so much of a delay that a shutdown and restart is warranted.

Plus, I doubt that the tow pilot really wants to be that much of a bookkeeper. Reading the altimeter is much easier than checking the tiny numbers on the Hobbs, which is often not in an easily viewed place on the instrument panel.

And let's not forget that tow pilots also differ. We had one who ran B-52 sized patterns that added excessive delays to busy day operations.

kirk.stant

August 27th 18, 04:14 PM

Our club routinely tows to 3000' AGL (field elevation 537') for student flights, and unfortunately also for most other flights - a lot of glider pilots wouldn't want to hear what I'm saying about them in the cockpit when I take them to a boomer at 2000' AGL and they hang on for dear life, finally releasing in sink at 3000'!

The more experienced pilots usually take a 2000' tow which is plenty, of course, without a ridge to use (rare in our part of Illinois)

I've taken high tows on occasions to do acro, but not when there is a crowd waiting to fly - usually a flat calm day anyway.

The trouble with using time for tows is that every tow pilot takes a different amount of time, either by the way he flies or how aggressively he works lift during the tow. I can usually get two full 3000' ft tows done in the time it takes a few of our "more conservative" tow pilots to complete one tow...

Kirk

Wyll Surf Air

August 27th 18, 06:52 PM

On Sunday, August 26, 2018 at 6:15:26 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Our Club is reworking towing height fees. We are based south of Denver (elevation 7,000' msl). Normal tow heights are to about 9,000-10,000' msl. We have new members who now are asking for tows to 14,000' msl. This is causing up to 45-minute waits for the next tow. Normally, we get about four or five tows per hours, but a high altitude tow drops us to two tows per hour.
>
> How high does your club allow for tows?
>
>
> Raul Boerner

It depends on the location and the reason for the high tows. In some operations out here in the west a longer tow is required to get into lift on a normal day. Hollister or Santa Ynez for example, I think Williams might be the same way as well but I have not flown out there so I can't comment. I don't think a 7000ft AGL tows are common but I think the 4000ft to 5000ft AGL range is pretty common. If they are towing up into the mountains to get into working lift than it seems acceptable as long as the line for tows isn't to long. On the other hand, if they are just towing that high for a sled ride that seems a bit counterproductive for anyone except a commercial ride operation.

Bob Youngblood

August 27th 18, 08:59 PM

On Sunday, August 26, 2018 at 11:29:18 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Hi Raul,
>
> I would simply tell them, "NO".Â* Glider pilots should be able to gain
> height on their own.Â* Or use tach time to calculate the tow rate and
> tell them that they must wait until all others have launched.
>
> On 8/26/2018 7:15 AM, wrote:
> > Our Club is reworking towing height fees. We are based south of Denver (elevation 7,000' msl). Normal tow heights are to about 9,000-10,000' msl. We have new members who now are asking for tows to 14,000' msl. This is causing up to 45-minute waits for the next tow. Normally, we get about four or five tows per hours, but a high altitude tow drops us to two tows per hour..
> >
> > How high does your club allow for tows?
> >
> >
> > Raul Boerner
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

I am so glad to see this subject being discussed, I will add my two cents worth. There are a few considerations in the determination of how high to tow. Location is a factor and for those in some of these locations this will not apply.
I have always been a proponent of a reasonable tow release point, and I always adhere to that theory. I was taught back in the 70's and you better get your tail off tow at 2000 feet AGL or suffer the consequences of a tongue lashing from Rudy. During my early years I soon learned that getting off tow early and building confidence by staying up was a great way to develop my skills.
Things sure have changed through the years and now I see people taking tows that are not only unnecessary, but damn right stupid. Seems like liberals have taken over the reasonable tow release altitude. I can just hear it, some mother saying, "Tow my little Johnny to 10K, he needs a fair chance and a trophy"!
What is reasonable for a release altitude? If it is a club there should be some guidelines as to the release altitude that works for the club. I live in Florida, and I think that 2000 AGL is the normal tow altitude, with the exception to intro rides and some training.
I have recently put my foot down and informed the tow pilot that there is no need to tow people to the height's that they have requested. I have even been told that some people like to be towed to cloud base, are you kidding me! Where in the world do these attitudes come from?
As a rule of thumb there should always be a prescribed altitude for tow release. If a tow pilot tells you to hang on till he or she gets you to the next cloud then so be it. The main benefit in a reasonable tow release is the life of the tow plane and the increased number of flights for the day. What do you think you club average is from wheel up to wheel down on a 2K tow? It should be somewhere in the vicinity of six to seven minutes.
Now I come to the best part of this who discussion. If you cannot get off tow at a reasonable altitude and stay up, then you need to take up something like sailing or bowling. I pride myself on getting off early, I guess I am just part of the old guard. Bob

Santiago Lopez

August 27th 18, 09:20 PM

They are towing to 42k in Argentina!

[email protected]

August 27th 18, 09:21 PM

On Sunday, August 26, 2018 at 9:15:26 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Our Club is reworking towing height fees. We are based south of Denver (elevation 7,000' msl). Normal tow heights are to about 9,000-10,000' msl. We have new members who now are asking for tows to 14,000' msl. This is causing up to 45-minute waits for the next tow. Normally, we get about four or five tows per hours, but a high altitude tow drops us to two tows per hour.
>
> How high does your club allow for tows?
>
>
> Raul Boerner

For training we use 2500 AGL for early flights for more air work time and 2000 for the balance, other than pattern or special circumstance tows.
For soaring pilots( assuming a soaring day), we expect 2000 feet. That said, our tow pilots will center lift they find and we expect experienced pilots to get off when established in lift so we can bring the next person to the same thermal.
We log to the nearest 500 feet. We do not expect the book keeper to do extra work beyond what results from those logs.
If a pilot does not report or log his or her tow height, they can expect a bill for 5000 feet. We get very few repeat offenders.
Last Friday I did 18 tows in 2:15. One was 2500, 7 were 1500, balance 2000 ft. All the low guys stuck.
FWIW
UH

Bob Youngblood

August 27th 18, 10:14 PM

On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 4:20:19 PM UTC-4, Santiago Lopez wrote:
> They are towing to 42k in Argentina!

Paul Bikle would be laughing at being towed to 42K

Bob Youngblood

August 27th 18, 10:17 PM

On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 4:21:18 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Sunday, August 26, 2018 at 9:15:26 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> > Our Club is reworking towing height fees. We are based south of Denver (elevation 7,000' msl). Normal tow heights are to about 9,000-10,000' msl. We have new members who now are asking for tows to 14,000' msl. This is causing up to 45-minute waits for the next tow. Normally, we get about four or five tows per hours, but a high altitude tow drops us to two tows per hour..
> >
> > How high does your club allow for tows?
> >
> >
> > Raul Boerner
>
> For training we use 2500 AGL for early flights for more air work time and 2000 for the balance, other than pattern or special circumstance tows.
> For soaring pilots( assuming a soaring day), we expect 2000 feet. That said, our tow pilots will center lift they find and we expect experienced pilots to get off when established in lift so we can bring the next person to the same thermal.
> We log to the nearest 500 feet. We do not expect the book keeper to do extra work beyond what results from those logs.
> If a pilot does not report or log his or her tow height, they can expect a bill for 5000 feet. We get very few repeat offenders.
> Last Friday I did 18 tows in 2:15. One was 2500, 7 were 1500, balance 2000 ft. All the low guys stuck.
> FWIW
> UH

Last Saturday our club did 15 tows none lower than 2000, 5 to 2500 and the time was 2.43 on the tach.

[email protected]

August 28th 18, 12:10 AM

Paul Bikle would be laughing at being towed to 42K

Bob- You have to understand the reasoning behind the 42k tow performed by the Perlan project. This is a research program intended to explore the potential of high altitude stratospheric mountain wave. Previous tows have been to around 5,000 and then using the primary wave structure, altitudes up to 40k and 50k (with a World Record at over 52k) have been achieved. However, the transition from 30k to 50k has been troublesome and time consuming. Perlan has a large electrical demand, including telemetry, scientific instrumentation and, most importantly, life support. Battery capacity has been increased, but with eight hour flights planned on the way to the targeted 90k, reserve electrical capacity could drop below what is considered necessary to provide a margin of safety for essential systems. The 42k tows are intended to get the aircraft to the target wave height so that more efficient use of time (and daylight) can possibly help Perlan reach the goal of flight at 90k. Perhaps some rare condition will develop that can allow for a "low tow" and then climb into the upper atmosphere in the Polar Vortex, but for now, high tows behind the Egrett are deemed a more efficient use of resources to achieve the mission goals.

I am not connected with the Perlan Project, except as being friends with many of the participants, so any errors in the above explanation are mine alone. Best of luck to Perlan, and congratulations on the 62k altitude flight!

Bob Youngblood

August 28th 18, 12:40 AM

On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 7:10:44 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Paul Bikle would be laughing at being towed to 42K
>
> Bob- You have to understand the reasoning behind the 42k tow performed by the Perlan project. This is a research program intended to explore the potential of high altitude stratospheric mountain wave. Previous tows have been to around 5,000 and then using the primary wave structure, altitudes up to 40k and 50k (with a World Record at over 52k) have been achieved. However, the transition from 30k to 50k has been troublesome and time consuming. Perlan has a large electrical demand, including telemetry, scientific instrumentation and, most importantly, life support. Battery capacity has been increased, but with eight hour flights planned on the way to the targeted 90k, reserve electrical capacity could drop below what is considered necessary to provide a margin of safety for essential systems. The 42k tows are intended to get the aircraft to the target wave height so that more efficient use of time (and daylight) can possibly help Perlan reach the goal of flight at 90k. Perhaps some rare condition will develop that can allow for a "low tow" and then climb into the upper atmosphere in the Polar Vortex, but for now, high tows behind the Egrett are deemed a more efficient use of resources to achieve the mission goals.
>
> I am not connected with the Perlan Project, except as being friends with many of the participants, so any errors in the above explanation are mine alone. Best of luck to Perlan, and congratulations on the 62k altitude flight!

Low tow to the polar vortex would be much more impressive. If they have gone from 5 K to 52 K with a low tow it looks like the only constraints are time and electricity. I would really like to see the low tow to 90K ,you would probably agree. Bob

Martin Gregorie[_6_]

August 28th 18, 01:04 AM

On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 16:10:42 -0700, markmocho53 wrote:

> I am not connected with the Perlan Project, except as being friends with
> many of the participants, so any errors in the above explanation are
> mine alone. Best of luck to Perlan, and congratulations on the 62k
> altitude flight!
>
I have even less connection to the project (if possible), but I was
curious about the rules for Absolute altitude records, so I visited the
FAI website and looked them up.

The rules only say 'climb more than 5000m above release height' and
(obviously) the claimed height must exceed the last claim by some margin.
I didn't look at that, so don't know what the margin is. So, as the most
recent flight released at about 40,000ft and got to 62000+, it just
boosted the record by around 10,000 ft.

Jolly Good Show, Chaps!

--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

Bruce Hoult

August 28th 18, 02:15 AM

On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 10:52:43 AM UTC-7, Wyll Surf Air wrote:
> On Sunday, August 26, 2018 at 6:15:26 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Our Club is reworking towing height fees. We are based south of Denver (elevation 7,000' msl). Normal tow heights are to about 9,000-10,000' msl. We have new members who now are asking for tows to 14,000' msl. This is causing up to 45-minute waits for the next tow. Normally, we get about four or five tows per hours, but a high altitude tow drops us to two tows per hour..
> >
> > How high does your club allow for tows?
> >
> >
> > Raul Boerner
>
> It depends on the location and the reason for the high tows. In some operations out here in the west a longer tow is required to get into lift on a normal day. Hollister or Santa Ynez for example, I think Williams might be the same way as well but I have not flown out there so I can't comment. I don't think a 7000ft AGL tows are common but I think the 4000ft to 5000ft AGL range is pretty common. If they are towing up into the mountains to get into working lift than it seems acceptable as long as the line for tows isn't to long. On the other hand, if they are just towing that high for a sled ride that seems a bit counterproductive for anyone except a commercial ride operation.

Back in 2001 I was visiting the USA and dropped in at a club near Joliet IL and took a flight with an instructor in a Duo Discus (which I hadn't previously flown, although I had a fair bit of experience in a Janus).

I surprised the heck out of the instructor by releasing in lift at 700 ft AGL!

The thermal turned out to be a bit weaker than I'd expected and it took maybe 10 minutes to get up to 1000 ft, but then it got better and pretty soon we were at 5000 ft and went for a nice cruise around the area.

An instructor on a check ride in a Grob at Omarama in 1994 criticised me for towing straight through a booming thermal at 1500 ft.

Ever since then if I see the vario get pegged on tow [1] I start counting and if I get past ten then as soon as the tug flies out of the lift and drops away below me I pull the pin and turn hard back once I see the rope gone. It saves money, but the only downside is you don't get to practice your slack rope recovery technique :-) :-)

[1] except in a PW5. The vario is always pegged on tow in a PW5 behind a Pawnee.

[email protected]

August 28th 18, 02:41 AM

On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 8:15:15 PM UTC-5, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 10:52:43 AM UTC-7, Wyll Surf Air wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 26, 2018 at 6:15:26 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > Our Club is reworking towing height fees. We are based south of Denver (elevation 7,000' msl). Normal tow heights are to about 9,000-10,000' msl.. We have new members who now are asking for tows to 14,000' msl. This is causing up to 45-minute waits for the next tow. Normally, we get about four or five tows per hours, but a high altitude tow drops us to two tows per hour.
> > >
> > > How high does your club allow for tows?
> > >
> > >
> > > Raul Boerner
> >
> > It depends on the location and the reason for the high tows. In some operations out here in the west a longer tow is required to get into lift on a normal day. Hollister or Santa Ynez for example, I think Williams might be the same way as well but I have not flown out there so I can't comment.. I don't think a 7000ft AGL tows are common but I think the 4000ft to 5000ft AGL range is pretty common. If they are towing up into the mountains to get into working lift than it seems acceptable as long as the line for tows isn't to long. On the other hand, if they are just towing that high for a sled ride that seems a bit counterproductive for anyone except a commercial ride operation.
>
> Back in 2001 I was visiting the USA and dropped in at a club near Joliet IL and took a flight with an instructor in a Duo Discus (which I hadn't previously flown, although I had a fair bit of experience in a Janus).
>
> I surprised the heck out of the instructor by releasing in lift at 700 ft AGL!
>
> The thermal turned out to be a bit weaker than I'd expected and it took maybe 10 minutes to get up to 1000 ft, but then it got better and pretty soon we were at 5000 ft and went for a nice cruise around the area.
>
> An instructor on a check ride in a Grob at Omarama in 1994 criticised me for towing straight through a booming thermal at 1500 ft.
>
> Ever since then if I see the vario get pegged on tow [1] I start counting and if I get past ten then as soon as the tug flies out of the lift and drops away below me I pull the pin and turn hard back once I see the rope gone. It saves money, but the only downside is you don't get to practice your slack rope recovery technique :-) :-)
>
> [1] except in a PW5. The vario is always pegged on tow in a PW5 behind a Pawnee.

Bruce, you must have flown at Chicago Glider Club in our Duo. Nobody here would today be surprised if you released low, I do it all the time (except for some tows to 2,000' when ballasted). I take pride in releasing low and thermaling away from anything above 1,000'. Once a year I may need a relight.. My buddies still take high tows, though.
Herb

Bruce Hoult

August 28th 18, 03:15 AM

On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 6:41:48 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 8:15:15 PM UTC-5, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > Back in 2001 I was visiting the USA and dropped in at a club near Joliet IL and took a flight with an instructor in a Duo Discus (which I hadn't previously flown, although I had a fair bit of experience in a Janus).
> >
> > I surprised the heck out of the instructor by releasing in lift at 700 ft AGL!
> >
> > The thermal turned out to be a bit weaker than I'd expected and it took maybe 10 minutes to get up to 1000 ft, but then it got better and pretty soon we were at 5000 ft and went for a nice cruise around the area.
> >
> > An instructor on a check ride in a Grob at Omarama in 1994 criticised me for towing straight through a booming thermal at 1500 ft.
> >
> > Ever since then if I see the vario get pegged on tow [1] I start counting and if I get past ten then as soon as the tug flies out of the lift and drops away below me I pull the pin and turn hard back once I see the rope gone. It saves money, but the only downside is you don't get to practice your slack rope recovery technique :-) :-)
> >
> > [1] except in a PW5. The vario is always pegged on tow in a PW5 behind a Pawnee.
>
> Bruce, you must have flown at Chicago Glider Club in our Duo. Nobody here would today be surprised if you released low, I do it all the time (except for some tows to 2,000' when ballasted). I take pride in releasing low and thermaling away from anything above 1,000'. Once a year I may need a relight. My buddies still take high tows, though.

Yes. I'd just moved to Chicago on an H-1B visa and was looking around for a place to fly. Unfortunately the dotcom crash happened right then and the job disappeared and I had to return to NZ. Looked like a nice setup and I liked how there were members' houses nestled in trees on the field boundary. I'd love to see something similar happen at the field Wellington Gliding Club is developing now, but although they plan to put some small chalets and a bunkhouse on the field they are for unknown reasons against permanent residents.

[email protected]

August 28th 18, 04:30 AM

On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 10:15:03 PM UTC-4, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 6:41:48 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 8:15:15 PM UTC-5, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > > Back in 2001 I was visiting the USA and dropped in at a club near Joliet IL and took a flight with an instructor in a Duo Discus (which I hadn't previously flown, although I had a fair bit of experience in a Janus).
> > >
> > > I surprised the heck out of the instructor by releasing in lift at 700 ft AGL!
> > >
> > > The thermal turned out to be a bit weaker than I'd expected and it took maybe 10 minutes to get up to 1000 ft, but then it got better and pretty soon we were at 5000 ft and went for a nice cruise around the area.
> > >
> > > An instructor on a check ride in a Grob at Omarama in 1994 criticised me for towing straight through a booming thermal at 1500 ft.
> > >
> > > Ever since then if I see the vario get pegged on tow [1] I start counting and if I get past ten then as soon as the tug flies out of the lift and drops away below me I pull the pin and turn hard back once I see the rope gone. It saves money, but the only downside is you don't get to practice your slack rope recovery technique :-) :-)
> > >
> > > [1] except in a PW5. The vario is always pegged on tow in a PW5 behind a Pawnee.
> >
> > Bruce, you must have flown at Chicago Glider Club in our Duo. Nobody here would today be surprised if you released low, I do it all the time (except for some tows to 2,000' when ballasted). I take pride in releasing low and thermaling away from anything above 1,000'. Once a year I may need a relight. My buddies still take high tows, though.
>
> Yes. I'd just moved to Chicago on an H-1B visa and was looking around for a place to fly. Unfortunately the dotcom crash happened right then and the job disappeared and I had to return to NZ. Looked like a nice setup and I liked how there were members' houses nestled in trees on the field boundary.. I'd love to see something similar happen at the field Wellington Gliding Club is developing now, but although they plan to put some small chalets and a bunkhouse on the field they are for unknown reasons against permanent residents.

I think that is smart. Otherwise some nonpilot descendant inherits the house then starts making noise complaints...

son_of_flubber

August 28th 18, 02:23 PM

On Sunday, August 26, 2018 at 9:15:26 AM UTC-4, wrote:

> We have new members who now are asking for tows to 14,000' msl.

NEW Members? How extraordinary. Are they less than 70 years old?

These young kids sound like they're new to the sport, have money to spend and want to get up into the mountains ASAP, and they want to have a great chance of not landing out. This is what works for them.

If you want to retain them as members, you could find a way to make it work for everybody in the club. Or you could tell them, 'my way or the highway!'.

Chasing away new members that do not conform to tradition is self-defeating.. The line of gliders waiting for tows is getting shorter every year.

On the other hand, maybe your training program falls short of training people in the 'old ways': get off tow at 2000 AGL, climb to 14,000 MSL, and make it back to the airport without landing out. Teach the 'high tow kids' how to do this and maybe they will start spending less money on tows. That would be good, right?

BobW

August 28th 18, 04:38 PM

>> We have new members who now are asking for tows to 14,000' msl.
> ...
> On the other hand, maybe your training program falls short of training
> people in the 'old ways': get off tow at 2000 AGL, climb to 14,000 MSL, and
> make it back to the airport without landing out. Teach the 'high tow kids'
> how to do this and maybe they will start spending less money on tows. That
> would be good, right?

FWIW (continuing w. the somewhat-related thread drift), for my club (based on
a busy GA/glider A/P), there's a geographical element (relatively nearby Rocky
Mountains) inevitably/near-irresistably contributing to requests for high
tows. My tow policy was to - on days believed soarable - pop off tow in the
2nd lift encountered (the first often being "too close to" the busy traffic
pattern for safety's sake). Worked for everyone...and as a soaring concept
seemed pretty sensible all-'round, as it (most days) also permitted connecting
with ""distant mountain lift in a reasonable amount of elapsed time."

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Dan Marotta

August 28th 18, 05:17 PM

Since the question originated from Black Forest, and I used to fly and
tow there, let me say that there are two (possibly more) very landable
fields
,21008m/data=%213m1%211e3%214m5%213m4%211s0x876cc7e68105c2 43:0x102f52ea6c71d282%218m2%213d39.2233234%214d-104.6410838>
between the airport and the mountains.Â* I've landed at each of those.Â*
Either is suitable for air retrieve. Those and a couple of really good
peaks and ridges between, as well, make getting off tow at 2,000' AGL
(9,000' MSL) and making it to the mountains is not that big of a deal.Â*
Towing to 14,000' MSL (7,000' AGL) is tantamount to a participation
trophy.Â* How well has that worked out for our youth?

Instead of catering to kids throwing tantrums, we should act like good
parents and teach them self-sufficiency.Â* That helps them in the long
run along with the rest of the club members.Â* My 2 cents.

On 8/28/2018 7:23 AM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Sunday, August 26, 2018 at 9:15:26 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>
>> We have new members who now are asking for tows to 14,000' msl.
> NEW Members? How extraordinary. Are they less than 70 years old?
>
> These young kids sound like they're new to the sport, have money to spend and want to get up into the mountains ASAP, and they want to have a great chance of not landing out. This is what works for them.
>
> If you want to retain them as members, you could find a way to make it work for everybody in the club. Or you could tell them, 'my way or the highway!'.
>
> Chasing away new members that do not conform to tradition is self-defeating. The line of gliders waiting for tows is getting shorter every year.
>
> On the other hand, maybe your training program falls short of training people in the 'old ways': get off tow at 2000 AGL, climb to 14,000 MSL, and make it back to the airport without landing out. Teach the 'high tow kids' how to do this and maybe they will start spending less money on tows. That would be good, right?
>

--
Dan, 5J

Dan Marotta

August 28th 18, 05:22 PM

On 8/27/2018 8:15 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> "...but although they plan to put some small chalets and a bunkhouse
> on the field they are for unknown reasons against permanent residents."

Maybe because sooner or later the permanent residents, who aren't
necessarily glider pilots, will start to complain about the noise. (From
personal experience)
--
Dan, 5J

[email protected]

August 28th 18, 06:40 PM

The late, great "OF" Bill Bartell, never took more than 1000' tow and then only because it was the least he could pay. I never saw him have to do a relight :) I usually wait for 1500 myself.

CH ASW27

Bruce Hoult

August 29th 18, 12:11 AM

On Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 9:22:36 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> On 8/27/2018 8:15 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > "...but although they plan to put some small chalets and a bunkhouse
> > on the field they are for unknown reasons against permanent residents."
>
> Maybe because sooner or later the permanent residents, who aren't
> necessarily glider pilots, will start to complain about the noise. (From
> personal experience)

You're the second person to say that. I don't think it stacks up, as there is no practical difference in noise levels for a house 20m inside the airfield boundary vs a house 20m outside the boundary, and the club is more likely to have an ongoing relationship with the one inside the boundary -- and indeed may well have some form of veto on residents written into the lease.

The area with the hangar/clubhouse/bunkhouse/housing is on higher ground 1 km away from the main runway (up the seldom-used "crosswind" runway), and likely to remain that way due to roughly once a year flooding risk from the river adjacent and parallel to the main 2 km long grass runway.

Also, it's a winching site with no resident towplane.

Dan Marotta

August 29th 18, 04:44 PM

Winching should make all the difference given a good muffler (silencer)
on the winch.

The history with home owners I'm familiar with was that the club was
originally invited to the property when there were only a couple of
homes on the field.Â* It was open country so there were only farms in the
vicinity.Â* With growth, more and more homes were built on the air park,
mostly power pilots, who were unfamiliar with glider operations.Â* They
expected very few operations and were shocked at the number of take offs
on a club flying day.Â* The club had equal voting rights with the other
property owners and fought off attempts at shutting the club down.

I understand they have worked out the differences between the two groups
and things are now much friendlier.Â* But to your doubts based upon
houses inside and outside the fence:Â* It wasn't about the noise of a
single launch, it was the continuous noise of air tows on the weekends,
the numerous club aircraft and personnel on the air field, and the fact
that the homeowners outnumbered the club and just didn't want the club
to be there spoiling their tranquility.

Oh, and leases can be not renewed unless there's some perpetual language
written in.Â* The club I've described was a property owner on the air
park and attempts made by the other property owners were, IIRC, not to
throw us out, but to severely limit our operations and use of the common
areas.Â* Had they succeeded, we would have had no other choice than to
take legal action (uncertain and expensive) or find another location.

On 8/28/2018 5:11 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 9:22:36 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> On 8/27/2018 8:15 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>>> "...but although they plan to put some small chalets and a bunkhouse
>>> on the field they are for unknown reasons against permanent residents."
>> Maybe because sooner or later the permanent residents, who aren't
>> necessarily glider pilots, will start to complain about the noise. (From
>> personal experience)
> You're the second person to say that. I don't think it stacks up, as there is no practical difference in noise levels for a house 20m inside the airfield boundary vs a house 20m outside the boundary, and the club is more likely to have an ongoing relationship with the one inside the boundary -- and indeed may well have some form of veto on residents written into the lease.
>
> The area with the hangar/clubhouse/bunkhouse/housing is on higher ground 1 km away from the main runway (up the seldom-used "crosswind" runway), and likely to remain that way due to roughly once a year flooding risk from the river adjacent and parallel to the main 2 km long grass runway.
>
> Also, it's a winching site with no resident towplane.

--
Dan, 5J

Charlie Quebec

August 30th 18, 01:02 AM

Most of the clubs I have flown at charge a per minute rate for tows, measured via stopwatch, with a 260hp Pawnee,getting better tha 6kt climbs.
I regularly manage 4 minute tows, releasing in the first good thermal above 1400ft agl, and very rarely need a relight.
Full ballast, first good bump above 1800.

Frank Whiteley

August 30th 18, 02:43 AM

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 9:44:09 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Winching should make all the difference given a good muffler (silencer)
> on the winch.
>
> The history with home owners I'm familiar with was that the club was
> originally invited to the property when there were only a couple of
> homes on the field.Â* It was open country so there were only farms in the
> vicinity.Â* With growth, more and more homes were built on the air park,
> mostly power pilots, who were unfamiliar with glider operations.Â* They
> expected very few operations and were shocked at the number of take offs
> on a club flying day.Â* The club had equal voting rights with the other
> property owners and fought off attempts at shutting the club down.
>
> I understand they have worked out the differences between the two groups
> and things are now much friendlier.Â* But to your doubts based upon
> houses inside and outside the fence:Â* It wasn't about the noise of a
> single launch, it was the continuous noise of air tows on the weekends,
> the numerous club aircraft and personnel on the air field, and the fact
> that the homeowners outnumbered the club and just didn't want the club
> to be there spoiling their tranquility.
>
> Oh, and leases can be not renewed unless there's some perpetual language
> written in.Â* The club I've described was a property owner on the air
> park and attempts made by the other property owners were, IIRC, not to
> throw us out, but to severely limit our operations and use of the common
> areas.Â* Had they succeeded, we would have had no other choice than to
> take legal action (uncertain and expensive) or find another location.
>
> On 8/28/2018 5:11 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 9:22:36 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >> On 8/27/2018 8:15 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> >>> "...but although they plan to put some small chalets and a bunkhouse
> >>> on the field they are for unknown reasons against permanent residents.."
> >> Maybe because sooner or later the permanent residents, who aren't
> >> necessarily glider pilots, will start to complain about the noise. (From
> >> personal experience)
> > You're the second person to say that. I don't think it stacks up, as there is no practical difference in noise levels for a house 20m inside the airfield boundary vs a house 20m outside the boundary, and the club is more likely to have an ongoing relationship with the one inside the boundary -- and indeed may well have some form of veto on residents written into the lease.
> >
> > The area with the hangar/clubhouse/bunkhouse/housing is on higher ground 1 km away from the main runway (up the seldom-used "crosswind" runway), and likely to remain that way due to roughly once a year flooding risk from the river adjacent and parallel to the main 2 km long grass runway.
> >
> > Also, it's a winching site with no resident towplane.
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

More specifically, before it became an air park, the homesite acreages were offered and advertised (in Soaring) to glider pilots for 20 years before it was offered to the aviation community. At that point development really took off. In my observation, since becoming a 501(c)(3), the chapter has really turned around. Many improvements to their pilot center including a conference room (partially funded by the airport owners association and used for their meetings), money in the bank, re-engined tow plane, active stable of instructors, and looking to grow. At least one new home builder joined the chapter and completed his rating. Much different from 4-6 years ago and very encouraging. BTW, some of the instructors are using their well equipped Mach 0.1 simulator with students and $8/hour is charged for use.

Frank Whiteley

Frank Whiteley

August 30th 18, 03:31 AM

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 7:43:53 PM UTC-6, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 9:44:09 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > Winching should make all the difference given a good muffler (silencer)
> > on the winch.
> >
> > The history with home owners I'm familiar with was that the club was
> > originally invited to the property when there were only a couple of
> > homes on the field.Â* It was open country so there were only farms in the
> > vicinity.Â* With growth, more and more homes were built on the air park,
> > mostly power pilots, who were unfamiliar with glider operations.Â* They
> > expected very few operations and were shocked at the number of take offs
> > on a club flying day.Â* The club had equal voting rights with the other
> > property owners and fought off attempts at shutting the club down.
> >
> > I understand they have worked out the differences between the two groups
> > and things are now much friendlier.Â* But to your doubts based upon
> > houses inside and outside the fence:Â* It wasn't about the noise of a
> > single launch, it was the continuous noise of air tows on the weekends,
> > the numerous club aircraft and personnel on the air field, and the fact
> > that the homeowners outnumbered the club and just didn't want the club
> > to be there spoiling their tranquility.
> >
> > Oh, and leases can be not renewed unless there's some perpetual language
> > written in.Â* The club I've described was a property owner on the air
> > park and attempts made by the other property owners were, IIRC, not to
> > throw us out, but to severely limit our operations and use of the common
> > areas.Â* Had they succeeded, we would have had no other choice than to
> > take legal action (uncertain and expensive) or find another location.
> >
> > On 8/28/2018 5:11 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 9:22:36 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > >> On 8/27/2018 8:15 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > >>> "...but although they plan to put some small chalets and a bunkhouse
> > >>> on the field they are for unknown reasons against permanent residents."
> > >> Maybe because sooner or later the permanent residents, who aren't
> > >> necessarily glider pilots, will start to complain about the noise. (From
> > >> personal experience)
> > > You're the second person to say that. I don't think it stacks up, as there is no practical difference in noise levels for a house 20m inside the airfield boundary vs a house 20m outside the boundary, and the club is more likely to have an ongoing relationship with the one inside the boundary -- and indeed may well have some form of veto on residents written into the lease.
> > >
> > > The area with the hangar/clubhouse/bunkhouse/housing is on higher ground 1 km away from the main runway (up the seldom-used "crosswind" runway), and likely to remain that way due to roughly once a year flooding risk from the river adjacent and parallel to the main 2 km long grass runway.
> > >
> > > Also, it's a winching site with no resident towplane.
> >
> > --
> > Dan, 5J
>
> More specifically, before it became an air park, the homesite acreages were offered and advertised (in Soaring) to glider pilots for 20 years before it was offered to the aviation community. At that point development really took off. In my observation, since becoming a 501(c)(3), the chapter has really turned around. Many improvements to their pilot center including a conference room (partially funded by the airport owners association and used for their meetings), money in the bank, re-engined tow plane, active stable of instructors, and looking to grow. At least one new home builder joined the chapter and completed his rating. Much different from 4-6 years ago and very encouraging. BTW, some of the instructors are using their well equipped Mach 0.1 simulator with students and $8/hour is charged for use.
>
> Frank Whiteley

I just received their newsletter and the simulator is currently $5/hour.

Bruce Hoult

August 30th 18, 04:30 AM

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 8:44:09 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Winching should make all the difference given a good muffler (silencer)
> on the winch.

From the hangar/clubhouse/camping area you don't hear the winch engine (a Skylaunch with the 8 litre petrol option).

What you *can* hear is the Spectra cable cutting sideways through the air. This goes silent the instant the glider releases the cable. I uploaded a video demonstrating this in January:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUnXuMVhKfs

son_of_flubber

September 1st 18, 02:02 AM

On Monday, August 27, 2018 at 10:15:03 PM UTC-4, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>> I'd love to see something similar happen at the field Wellington Gliding Club is developing now, but although they plan to put some small chalets and a bunkhouse on the field they are for unknown reasons against permanent residents.<<

My understanding is that the Greytown Soaring Center, where two gliding clubs are based: 1)Wellington Gliding Club and 2)Gliding Wairarapa, is located on a mosaic of multiple land parcels that have a complex matrix of ownership and land claims (like much of New Zealand). Some (all?) of the land is administered by the Local Council (aka local government). Much of it is flooded periodically through the year, portions are ecologically and culturally sensitive, and a large portion was proposed to be irrigated with liquid treated effluent from Greytown's sewer system (including the runways). As I understand it, they're hoping that nutrients in the effluent will be broken down by the microlife and flora living in the soil before the nutrients find their way into the bordering river (where they would contribute to algae blooms and other ecological problems). Land owner and community sentiments may also play a limiting role in feasible 'development options', but there seems to be an abundance of other reasons that preclude a detached dwelling suburban style 'Air Park' at the Greytown Soaring Center.

I may have scrambled some of this. Brian Sharpe, Ross Sutherland, and others of Wellington Gliding Club would have definitive answers.