On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 3:17:59 AM UTC-6, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 6:46:14 PM UTC+12, Andrew wrote:

I was worried by writers in this thread who have mentioned

aerotowing at sites where a straight ahead landing from a low PT3

could not be safely made. Single-engine power pilots often accept

catastrophic risks (e.g. from engine failures) but we glider pilots

don't have to. If the PT3 danger is only to the glider, I guess that's

ok, if the owners and their insurance company have no objection.

But if personal injury is risked by PT3, I hope everyone agrees that

such sites should not be used for aerotowing gliders.



I disagree.



Options in the event of a tow failure include:



1) land ahead

2) land cross wind

3) do a (approx) 180 and land downwind

4) do a (approx) 180, enter an abbreviated downwind leg, land crosswind

5) do a (approx) 180, enter an abbreviated downwind leg, land upwind

6) do a (approx) 180, do a normal downwind leg, land upwind



As long as at least *one* of those options is available at all times the site is fine.



Which ones are appropriate does change according to conditions. For example 3) is likely to be a bad idea in all but the lightest winds. But as the wind strength picks up the opportunities for the others increases quickly.

I agree with Bruce. However, all those actions require the pilot to have at least basic airmanship abilities which is clearly missing in some posts to this thread.

When applied to flight training, I find terms like "KISS" and "lowest common denominator" to be infuriating. Aviation is not simple and never will be.

When I read "KISS, I'm reminded of Forrest Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does". Rather than aiming to accommodate the "lowest common denominator" in students, demand excellence.