Low towing thought

On Mar 8, 11:31 am, "jcarlyle" wrote:
Adding to Tom's point, there are "locational" variations to boxing the
wake. Where I learned, we would drop down to low tow, climb right back
up to high tow, then box the wake going clockwise around the wake.
Where I fly now, we drop to low tow, box the wake going clockwise
around the wake, then climb back up to high tow. I've heard that at
some sites the wake is boxed going counter-clockwise around the wake
instead of clockwise.

None of these variations really matter much - as 5Z says, the whole
point of the maneuver "is to prove to the instructor that you have the
skill to make the various transitions while maintaining control of the
glider."

-John

On Mar 8, 11:03 am, "5Z" wrote:



Many people begin the exercise by dropping from high to low tow
through the wake. This help establish the reference for where the
bottom part of the box should be.

-Tom- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

John,

that is not quite correct. As one of your highly overpaid
instructors, I really don't care if one goes left or right so long as
the maneuver is performed to the standard.

Chip F.

Chip,

My point was that one must satisfy the instructor - perhaps I said it
poorly. We'll talk off-line about nuances.

In a similar vein, while the discussion of high tow versus low tow in
this thread is interesting, as a towee it's really quite irrelevant.
We'll fly the way the tow pilot wants us to fly, or it'll get very
quiet, very quickly.The man at the head of the rope is most definitely
in command of the formation flight!

-John

On Mar 8, 11:49 am, "chipsoars" wrote:
that is not quite correct. As one of your highly overpaid
instructors, I really don't care if one goes left or right so long as
the maneuver is performed to the standard.

They done went and changed it agin, then:

http://tinyurl.com/2fksg7

faa-h-8083-13, pp101-102 (2003)

I expect that they WILL. The next update to the Practical Test Standard
will, no doubt, reference the Glider Flying Handbook for this maneuver.
The current PTS references the (otherwise excellent) Soaring Flight
Manual, unfortunately in this case.

The current PTS reads:

TASK E: BOXING THE WAKE

REFERENCE: Soaring Flight Manual

Objective. To determine that the applicant:

1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements to boxing the
wake (maneuvering around the wake).
2. Maneuvers the glider, while on tow, slightly outside the
towplane's wake in a rectangular, box-like pattern.
3. Maintains proper control and coordination.

Not exactly detailed, is it :-) ?

5Z wrote:
....snip
Many people begin the exercise by dropping from high to low tow
through the wake. This helps establish the reference for where the
bottom part of the box should be.

I've not seen that but it's an interesting thought. Being down under,
of course, we'd usually begin by climbing.

GC

-Tom

Nyal Williams wrote:
Properly done, boxing the wake begins by a descent
through the wake, a box around the wake, and then an
ascent back up through the wake. This shows the student
the extremes of where one can go safely on tow.

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

GC

And doing it upside down at the same time.

"Graeme Cant" gcantinter@tnodedotnet wrote in message
...
5Z wrote:
...snip
Many people begin the exercise by dropping from high to low tow
through the wake. This helps establish the reference for where the
bottom part of the box should be.

I've not seen that but it's an interesting thought. Being down under, of
course, we'd usually begin by climbing.

GC

-Tom

Graeme Cant wrote:
Nyal Williams wrote:
Properly done, boxing the wake begins by a descent
through the wake, a box around the wake, and then an
ascent back up through the wake. This shows the student
the extremes of where one can go safely on tow.

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


Do you find standardization of training and checking to have no value?


Jack

47Dodge wrote:
Graeme Cant wrote:
Nyal Williams wrote:
Properly done, boxing the wake begins by...

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

Do you find standardization of training and checking to have no value?

On the contrary - up to a certain point - but what has that to do with
the dogmatic statement "Properly done..."?

On whose authority? Who's Nyall to lay down the law using words like
"properly done..."? Is this some tinpot foreign standard?

His description of boxing the wake is nothing like the normal way it's
done. How, for example, can you begin by descending through the wake
when you're already in low tow? When I check the Instructor's Manual, I
find I'm teaching what's normal...and proper... and it contains no climb
or descent through the wake.

As I said to Tom, it's an interesting variation which clearly has some
value and I'm going to use it with students and see how it goes, but in
my neck of the woods it would be completely non-standard and IMproper.

It may just be Nyall's parochialism but it comes over as dogmatism.

GC

Jack

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"

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'