Ah, well, we all write hastily and in something of
a short hand. I intended no dogma and should have
said 'If you want to derive the maximum good from the
experience, descend through the wake before beginning
to box it.'

The FAA's PTS make no mention of going through the
wake and only require going around it without touching
it. My point was that, as an instructional exercise,
if the pilot is in high tow position and descends through
the wake, it will give a fresh view of where the bottom
of the wake is located. The pilot can then proceed
around the wake with better assurance of not bumping
into it when he/she comes back to bottom center and
ready to go back up through it to the beginning spot.
The student can be told that anywhere in this box
is a normal place to be and there is no danger unless
the glider is about to move outside the box.

My original comment was in reaction to the earlier
one about students and low time pilots not being able
to traverse the wake with ease and security. Teaching
them to traverse the wake will meet that problem head
on and the student will develop that skill before soloing,
even though it is not required at that level. I taught
boxing the wake for years before I had students going
through it in this way. It was suggested to my by
another instructor and I find it valuable, but I wouldn't
insist on it -- just as the PTS do not.

It is my impression that in the USA most pilots use
high-tow position. I've read the arguments for low
tow, but I don't feel as comfortable with it as with
high tow even on a 50 mile XC tow, but I don't argue
the point; I recognize that my comfort level is the
result of my own experience.



At 17:42 11 March 2007, Chip Bearden wrote:
Sorry, Graeme, I just can't resist:

On Mar 9, 7:01 am, Graeme Cant wrote:

Sometimes I think the main problem of the increasing
age of glider
pilots is the growing level of dogmatism.

And then two days later...

His [Nyal's] description of boxing the wake is nothing
like the normal way it's
done.

Actually, I agree with you (at least I think so). I,
too, tend to
think the way I do things is 'normal.' But I also understand
your
point that what's 'normal' for one operation (e.g.,
high tow) may not
be for another. Some of it is local custom. Some of
it probably is
narrowmindedness or dogma. And a lot of it is the difficulty
of
communicating sometimes-complex ideas in a few words
on this forum; we
occasionally use a word such as 'normal' that we would
hasten to
correct if we were talking face-to-face and we saw
someone's eyebrow
go up in response.

This thread is a good reminder to me that after 40+
years in soaring,
I must still be openminded, albeit careful, when someone
shows me
something I haven't seen before that works at least
as well, sometimes
better. I still prefer high tow most of the time, especially
when
launching with a lot of ballast. When at constant altitude
or
descending (e.g., on aero retrieve), I MUCH prefer
low tow. I'm not a
tug pilot so my perspective is limited.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 'JB'