I don't think the positition of the horizon should
make any difference. In mountains it's irrelevant
and different tugs will climb at different rates -
a powerful tug will be more pitched up and adopt a
higher position relative to the horizon than a low
power one (relative to the thrust line, the prop-wash
and the best position of the glider just above the
prop-wash).
One of the advantages of being as low as possible is
not just the extra time that it takes to get to 'upset'
position (which is small) but the fact that you are
less likely to lose sight of the tug in the first place.
Once you can't see the tug, things can go wrong very
quickly.
I've flown in Australia with their low tow and whilst
I'm sure each method has its merits, I am personally
much more comfortable with the UK position, don't like
having to transition through the propwash at low level
and find that teaching a 'correct' position that looks
almost identical to the position on the ground before
All Out is easier too.
Rob

At 16:48 09 January 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Andy Durbin wrote:

As a US instructor I have flown with many pilots that
received their
initial training from other instructors. I have often
been surprised
at the tow position taken by such pilots. I usually
urge them to keep
lowering the tow position until they feel the wake,
then to move just
high enough that the wake is not a factor. That tow
position may be
10 or 15 ft lower than that initially used.

Where is the towplane, relative to the horizon?

A pilot flying a high high tow has less time to react
to a potential
upset than one flying the UK recommended low high
tow. The fact that
US pilots seem to be trained to use high high tow
may explain why tug
upsets continue to happen even when a nose or forward
hook is used.

10 or 15 feet doesn't sound like it would give much
extra time, not like
the low tow position Australia uses.

--
-----
change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA