"W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\)." wrote
"My point? That the fact that you, or your club, may have been operating
in a certain way for 25 years without a fatal accident, does not mean that
the practices are at an acceptable level of risk viewed nationally, simply
that they are not actually suicidal.

There is another way to consider this. Not all training programs are
the same, and result in the same skill level. It is entirely possible
that some pilots are simply more skilled and can handle a cg hook just
fine, while others are not and can not except under ideal conditions.

"Aerotowing on a C of G hook is something you can 'get away with', given a
high level of concentration, reasonable skill and the absence of bad luck.

Or maybe just reasonable skill - and what constitutes reasonable skill
is another matter. I have yet to fly a certified glider that is
anywhere near as demanding in handling as the most docile of powered
trainers. My glider is equipped only with a CG hook, mounted off
center at that, and I don't find flying it on tow to be particularly
demanding or unforgiving. It was a bit of a surprise the first time
(my first aerotow with a cg hook was solo, and I believe I had less
than 50 flights in gliders at that point) but it only took me a couple
of minutes to get the hang of it. Had it been a dual flight, it would
have been a total non-event, as this flight should have been.

"I am a staunch defender of anyone's right to risk his or her own life in
pursuit of any goal they hold dear (including saving money). In launching
on a C of G hook you are risking the tow-pilots life more than your own, and
this I will not defend."

I am a tug pilot. I am comfortable with the risk, and have been on
both ends of the rope with a cg hook more than a few times. Will you
now tell me I'm deluded? Frankly, I just don't see towing someone
with a cg hook to be a big deal. I support the right of any tug pilot
to refuse the operation, but I know none who consider it a big deal.
That's not to say there are none.

From the NTSB report,
"The instructor aboard N7538, a cadet third class, said she had made about
100 glider flights, each flight averaging about 15 minutes."

If this means what it says, the instructor had a total gliding flight
experience of about 100 flights and about 25 hours. This presumably
includes dual instruction as pupil, solo flying, coaching to become an
instructor, and experience as an instructor.

I do not know what is normal in the U.S.A., either in the U.S.A.F. or in
civilian life, for an instructor teaching aerotow launching; but this is
vastly less than enough by U.K. standards.

In the US, it is considered enough. In fact, I believe that was
approximately the experience level of the instructor who trained and
signed me off for my glider INSTRUCTOR rating. He had additional
(extensive) experience in airplanes. This was not necessary. In the
US, the requirement for a commercial pilot in a glider is 25 hours of
flight time in a glider (including instruction) and 100 flights. The
requirements are MUCH less if one already has 200 hours in powered
aircraft. After the commercial, there are no additional experience
requirements - only a checkride.

I suspect that the cadet instructor had significant additional
aircraft experience, and I think that should make it OK from a safety
standpoint. Certainly I see nothing so special about aerotowing that
would make it unsafe for an experienced power pilot with 100 aerotows
to teach. I am far more concerned about glider intructors with lots
of glider experience who have never been tuggies teaching aerotow.
They are the ones who have scared me most as a tuggie. I think many
of them truly do not understand where the limits are. If it were up
to me, everyone who wanted to teach aerotow would have to spend a few
flights up front in the tug while students were learning to fly
aerotow in back.

The real issue, where safety is concerned (learning to soar is another
matter entirely) is not so much low glider time (gliders, after all,
are quite similar to and generally easier to fly than airplanes) but
low total time. An inexperienced instructor is a hazard.

From the NTSB report,
"The student pilot aboard N7538 said that this was his second glider
flight."

So, on his second glider flight ever the pupil was unable to maintain
station behind the tug. No surprise there then!

Maybe. In my experience, it would have been surprising. Of course I
have never actually trained a glider student who did not have powered
aircraft experience (this is the norm in the US rather than the
exception), which certainly makes a difference. However, I find it
nromal to have the student flying on tow and maintaining position on
the FIRST flight, and taking off on the second. That's not every
student, but it's not rare either.

There is nothing in the NTSB report to suggest that the accident was the
fault of the pupil in anyway whatever.

It is the instructor who is supposed to prevent things going disastrously
wrong, that is what an instructor (and the coaching of instructors) is for.

Yes of course. There's no question that when a student under
instruction mishandles the aircraft, the fault is with the instructor
for not correcting unless the student does something really egregious.
An instructor who can't correct a student's mishandling of the tow
(especially on an early flight) isn't much of an instructor.

"If a trainee cannot fly the glider in a reasonably straight and coordinated
line in free flight, they won't be able to handle an aerotow.

This is of course correct. However, it's a rare power pilot who can't
fly the glider in a reasonably straight and coordinated line in free
flight. Since, as I have previously mentioned, in the US the glider
student without power experience is the exception rather than the
norm, this leads to a different perspective on when to introduce
aerotow. Aerotow on the first lesson is common in the US for just
that reason - and of course if the student is able to maintain
position on tow for 1500 ft unassisted, I see no reason not to let him
try a takeoff, even if that is his second glider flight. No point
holding back and frustrating a capable student.

Michael