Touch and Goes versus Full Stop Taxi Backs

[Kevin Dunlevy]

A CFI I had lunch with last week suggested I should always do full stop taxi
backs instead of touch and goes when practicing landings. I've frequently
done touch and goes for about an hour when I wanted to do some quick flying,
but I tried his suggestion. I also ran into an old AOPA Flight Training
magazine that had an article suggesting full stop taxi backs instead of
touch and goes. I generally keep the pattern in tight and can do ten touch
and goes in about .8 or .9 Hobbs depending on the amount of other traffic. I
prefer towered airports for this practice, because there is another set of
eyes looking for aircraft.

Should I force myself to always do full stop taxi backs, even thought other
pilots and tower personnel seem to prefer that I do touch and goes? Kevin
Dunlevy

[Robert M. Gary]

I always have my students do full stop. Things can happen very, very
fast and any problem with the aircraft or enviroment (winds, etc) are
just a bit harder to manage during a touch and go. I teach at one
airport with a 4K foot runway and I require my students to taxi back. I
teach at another with a 12,000 foot runway and I allow them to stop and
go on the runway.

BTW: I could pretty much guarantee you that the tower couldn't care
less.
-Robert, CFI

[tony roberts]

Hi Kevin

The ideal scenario would be to fly to a runway that is long enough for
you to do stop and go's, provided that it isn't too far away.

You don't say whether you are flying dual or solo.

Dual, a stop and go allows your instructor much more time to critique
your landing.

Solo, the landing isn't complete and safe until the plane stops. You get
to practice full landings, plus - what a great chance to practice
shortfield and softfield takeoffs - obstacle - crosswind etc.

I was reading a couple of months ago that some schools don't even allow
touch and go's anymore.

HTH

Tony
--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE



In article >,
"Kevin Dunlevy" > wrote:

> A CFI I had lunch with last week suggested I should always do full stop taxi
> backs instead of touch and goes when practicing landings. I've frequently
> done touch and goes for about an hour when I wanted to do some quick flying,
> but I tried his suggestion. I also ran into an old AOPA Flight Training
> magazine that had an article suggesting full stop taxi backs instead of
> touch and goes. I generally keep the pattern in tight and can do ten touch
> and goes in about .8 or .9 Hobbs depending on the amount of other traffic. I
> prefer towered airports for this practice, because there is another set of
> eyes looking for aircraft.
>
> Should I force myself to always do full stop taxi backs, even thought other
> pilots and tower personnel seem to prefer that I do touch and goes? Kevin
> Dunlevy

[Doug Carter]

On 2005-09-12, Kevin Dunlevy > wrote:

> Should I force myself to always do full stop taxi backs, even thought other
> pilots and tower personnel seem to prefer that I do touch and goes? Kevin
> Dunlevy

Depends on how bad you need taxi practice :)

More seriously, if you feel rushed by the touch & go's then the taxi
back can give you time to settle down.

In the Pitts I do touch & go's but I make sure to slow down enough to
brush up on slow speed control before powering back up.

[Bob Gardner]

In a training context, I would rather taxi back myself while discussing the
just-completed landing with the student. After certification, I have nothing
against T&Gs except for the concerns about trying to do too many things at
once. That is a personal decision that has to be made by each individual
based on his or her assessment of proficiency.

Number of landings per hour is a meaningless figure.

Bob Gardner

"Kevin Dunlevy" > wrote in message
...
>A CFI I had lunch with last week suggested I should always do full stop
>taxi
> backs instead of touch and goes when practicing landings. I've frequently
> done touch and goes for about an hour when I wanted to do some quick
> flying,
> but I tried his suggestion. I also ran into an old AOPA Flight Training
> magazine that had an article suggesting full stop taxi backs instead of
> touch and goes. I generally keep the pattern in tight and can do ten touch
> and goes in about .8 or .9 Hobbs depending on the amount of other traffic.
> I
> prefer towered airports for this practice, because there is another set of
> eyes looking for aircraft.
>
> Should I force myself to always do full stop taxi backs, even thought
> other
> pilots and tower personnel seem to prefer that I do touch and goes? Kevin
> Dunlevy
>
>

[Matt Whiting]

Kevin Dunlevy wrote:
> A CFI I had lunch with last week suggested I should always do full stop taxi
> backs instead of touch and goes when practicing landings. I've frequently
> done touch and goes for about an hour when I wanted to do some quick flying,
> but I tried his suggestion. I also ran into an old AOPA Flight Training
> magazine that had an article suggesting full stop taxi backs instead of
> touch and goes. I generally keep the pattern in tight and can do ten touch
> and goes in about .8 or .9 Hobbs depending on the amount of other traffic. I
> prefer towered airports for this practice, because there is another set of
> eyes looking for aircraft.
>
> Should I force myself to always do full stop taxi backs, even thought other
> pilots and tower personnel seem to prefer that I do touch and goes? Kevin
> Dunlevy

No. I'm curious though, what is the rationale given for avoiding T&Gs?

Matt

[john smith]

Depends upon how long the runway is.

[buttman]

If I'm in a bonanza, I'll do full stop, as there are a lot of things
you have to do (gear, etc), plus the hobbs only runs when weight is not
on the gear. So taxi time is free, so why not? You get to log that
time.

If I'm in a Charokee, I'll do mainly T&G unless traffic or runway
legnth becomes a factor. In a simple airplane, all you need to do is
pretty much retract flaps.

[Dudley Henriques]

The subject of touch and gos in the student scenario has been a long time
pro and con issue in the industry and the answers will vary . A lot will
depend on where you fly and the runway and traffic conditions at that
location as to weather or not touch and gos are either useful of
recommended.
Personally, from a flight instructor's point of view, I initially prefer
full stop landings with primary students, then possibly touch and gos later
along the learning curve as conditions dictate or permit. Toward this aim, I
always took students into the pattern initially by flying to and using
outlying fields that were conducive to this type of instruction if flying
out of heavily controlled environments.
I firmly believe that the time spent with the student BETWEEN patterns is
invaluable for teaching purposes. It gives the student time to relax and
absorb a critique on what has just been done; what changes are recommended
by the instructor; and also allows time for the student to think about those
recommended changes before the next take off.
This of course describes the dual situation.
Solo patterns by students should be adjusted to suit conditions and the
desired goal of the training mission as set forth by the instructor.
Remember.......it's the quality of the work, not necessarily the quantity of
the work that matters! :-)
I have no objection to a well supervised and well checked out student doing
touch and gos on runways where traffic conditions and runway length suggest
a better use of time for the student. In fact, part of a student's training
involves balked landings and go arounds. Touch and gos are the perfect
opportunity to practice these essential pilot skills.
Keep in mind, I said "well checked out". This would include a thorough
coverage by the instructor on the skills mentioned above BEFORE entering
this environment.
Dudley Henriques


"Kevin Dunlevy" > wrote in message
...
>A CFI I had lunch with last week suggested I should always do full stop
>taxi
> backs instead of touch and goes when practicing landings. I've frequently
> done touch and goes for about an hour when I wanted to do some quick
> flying,
> but I tried his suggestion. I also ran into an old AOPA Flight Training
> magazine that had an article suggesting full stop taxi backs instead of
> touch and goes. I generally keep the pattern in tight and can do ten touch
> and goes in about .8 or .9 Hobbs depending on the amount of other traffic.
> I
> prefer towered airports for this practice, because there is another set of
> eyes looking for aircraft.
>
> Should I force myself to always do full stop taxi backs, even thought
> other
> pilots and tower personnel seem to prefer that I do touch and goes? Kevin
> Dunlevy
>
>

[Tony]

If there's an instructor or safety pilot on board, it's useful to have
him chartered at any time to say (loudly) "Fly the Miss!" or whatever
is your term might be. It's important training: deer walk onto runways,
and airplanes taxi out, sometimes when you're in the flare. Mooneys and
I expect other complex airplanes when coming down with full flaps deep
well into the flare require some attention when you're no longer
trying to lose energy, but gain it. After you've got the yoke out of
your lap and the throttle to the wall you may want to think about flap
setting and then cowl flaps: you should have had the prop and mixture
forward already, right?

For the record, I don't like Touch and Goes on short runways, but 5000
feet gives you more than enough time to slow down to a walk, do a
little reconfiguring of the airplane, then go again. It also gives you
time to practice spot landings, right on the numbers. Do that when
you're coming to a full stop if the turnoff is 2000 feet ahead will
drive the guy on close final behind you nuts!

[Bruce Riggs]

What do you do to the gear after landing in a Bonanza? :)
After doing T&G's during my PPL training in an Archer, I never do them
now in a Bonanza, only S&G if runway lenght and traffic allow. In fact,
I don't touch the configuration until STOPPED, either on the runway or
clear of the runway, then raise flaps (identify FLAP handle, not GEAR
handle), reset trim, open cowl flaps, etc.

buttman wrote:
> If I'm in a bonanza, I'll do full stop, as there are a lot of things
> you have to do (gear, etc), plus the hobbs only runs when weight is not
> on the gear. So taxi time is free, so why not? You get to log that
> time.
>
> If I'm in a Charokee, I'll do mainly T&G unless traffic or runway
> legnth becomes a factor. In a simple airplane, all you need to do is
> pretty much retract flaps.
>

[Newps]

buttman wrote:

> If I'm in a bonanza, I'll do full stop, as there are a lot of things
> you have to do (gear, etc),

??? Putting the gear back down after skidding to a stop?


plus the hobbs only runs when weight is not
> on the gear. So taxi time is free, so why not? You get to log that
> time.
>
> If I'm in a Charokee, I'll do mainly T&G unless traffic or runway
> legnth becomes a factor. In a simple airplane, all you need to do is
> pretty much retract flaps.

In a Bonanza you can take off with full flaps if you want.

[nrp]

Even my docile 172 needed such a major trim shift during the
flap-retraction-carb heat-off-throttle-up-and-go part that I quit doing
T & Gs some years back.

[Newps]

Bruce Riggs wrote:

> What do you do to the gear after landing in a Bonanza? :)
> After doing T&G's during my PPL training in an Archer, I never do them
> now in a Bonanza, only S&G if runway lenght and traffic allow. In fact,
> I don't touch the configuration until STOPPED, either on the runway or
> clear of the runway, then raise flaps (identify FLAP handle, not GEAR
> handle), reset trim, open cowl flaps, etc.

The Bonanza's got a bad rap with their gear and flap handles. Now that
I've got some time in my Bo I like the gear handle on the left side.
That way rolling down the runway everything that needs adjustment is to
the left of the throw over yoke. Wing flaps, cowl flaps and trim are
all right next to each other, you never get anywhere near the gear.
Stay to the left of the yoke and you are OK.

[Peter Duniho]

"Kevin Dunlevy" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Should I force myself to always do full stop taxi backs, even thought
> other
> pilots and tower personnel seem to prefer that I do touch and goes?

IMHO, it depends on what you want to practice.

I am of the opinion that early in primary training, touch & go's are
counter-productive. Much better to stop, get off the runway, and have the
instructor debrief the circuit. As others have pointed out, touch & go's
don't allow you to practice the full start to finish of a takeoff, circuit,
and landing.

On the other hand, eventually one is actually pretty decent at landing, and
may want to practice variations on the theme. No-flap approaches, short
approaches, etc. In this situation, the interesting part is the stuff that
happens while you're in the air, and touch & go's allow you to maximize the
time spend in the air.

I also find touch & go's useful for brushing some of the rust off, as the
skill that fades earliest for me is the smooth and precise use of the flight
controls; a full-stop landing won't really help me much in that regard, but
getting a high ratio of air-to-ground time in does. Touch & go's are just
one part of a whole slew of exercises one can do to remind oneself how to
control the airplane. :)

As in nearly everything, there's a time and place for everything. Touch &
go's aren't inherently bad, but there certainly are situations in which they
aren't useful, or may actually reduce the usefulness of the training. Just
keep in mind what your goal is, and how best to achieve it, and that will
guide you with respect to when a touch & go is useful or not.

Pete

[RomeoMike]

IMO, if you are already a confident certificated pilot and flying a
nosewheel plane, T&Gs provide more "multitasking" and therefore more fun
and skill building. If you are flying a tailwheel, there is more value
to full stop, especially in X-wind, as well as T&G.

Kevin Dunlevy wrote:
>
>
> Should I force myself to always do full stop taxi backs, even thought other
> pilots and tower personnel seem to prefer that I do touch and goes? Kevin
> Dunlevy
>
>

[Jim Burns]

Full stop/taxi backs or Stop and gos keep a pilots, and especially student
pilots, attention on what is happening, forcing them to finish the landing,
completing their checklists, and following procedures. Touch and gos can
prematurely lead the pilot into the takeoff phase when the landing phase
hasn't been completed. This gets increasingly important as the pilot
transitions to heavier, faster, and more complex airplanes. Mistakes can
happen when pilots are rushed. Pilots can mistakenly grab the wrong handle
i.e. flap or gear, forget to remove carb heat, ect. Stopping and taxiing
back gives you time to re-configure not only the airplane, but the pilot.
You can think over what the wind is doing, how your last landing was, and
how to improve your next one. And it also forces you to go through the
checklists and get the procedure of following procedures well ingrained in
your head. There will come a day when you'll want to fly something that is
not so docile as a Cherokee or a 172. When that day comes, you'll be
prepared to follow the checklists and may avoid an unrecoverable mistake.

Jim Burns

[Jon Woellhaf]

"Newps" wrote in message ...

> The Bonanza's got a bad rap with their gear and flap handles. Now that
> I've got some time in my Bo I like the gear handle on the left side. That
> way rolling down the runway everything that needs adjustment is to the
> left of the throw over yoke. Wing flaps, cowl flaps and trim are all
> right next to each other, you never get anywhere near the gear. Stay to
> the left of the yoke and you are OK.

I'm confused. Which is left of what?

[Rob Montgomery]

A surprisingly large number of landing accidents are loss of control
after the airplane slows to about 30knots or so (often lower), which
makes a lot of sense when you think about it.

Your land based airplane has two basic modes of operation: tricycle
(forwards or backwards) and airplane. When you're flying, it's 100%
airplane, and when you're stopped, it's 100% tricycle. In between, you
get varying ratios between the two.

Because of this, as the airplane slows down (well below stall speed)
you'll get into areas where aircraft control is a little different.
Doing a full stop landing allows you to practice in this arena, but
during most T&G's, the airplane never get's that slow.

The other side is the safety related to reconfiguring the airplane on
the roll. If you're taking your eyes and concentration away from what
you're doing (flying/rolling out) bad things can happen quickly.

Just my two cents.

-Rob
www.scarylittleairplanes.org

[tony roberts]

> No. I'm curious though, what is the rationale given for avoiding T&Gs?

They are more dangerous than full stops - some flying schools have had
to stop them as a condition of insurance.

They don't give the instructor undivided attention while he critiques
the landing.

They don't allow the student to practice different types of takeoff.

What do they actually achieve other than more landings per hour?

And what does that mean if you are not practicing takeoffs?

OK - my 2c

Tony

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Chris G.]

Reasons for not doing T&G's are widely posted in this thread. Here are
two reasons to consider practicing them in any airplane you fly:

1) If you have to abort your landing for ANY reason, being up-to-speed
(no pun intended) on your T&G's is invaluable. Think of a deer or a
bird that might wander on the runway at night that you don't see until
it's almost too late. The T&G practice can come in real handy. Same
thing for go-arounds.

What do I do? It depends on the situation. I practice full-stop
landings, touch-and-go's, stop-and-go's, and any other legal (& safe)
approach/landing techniques I can learn.

2) IIRC, currency and recent experience requirements require full-stop
landings. I know this to be fact for student pilot night landings, but
don't recall what it is for me now that I'm a private pilot. Doesn't
matter since I would practice full-stop landings to be sure I meet the
letter of the law anyway.

My 2-cents. Happy Monday!

Chris



Kevin Dunlevy wrote:
> A CFI I had lunch with last week suggested I should always do full stop taxi
> backs instead of touch and goes when practicing landings. I've frequently
> done touch and goes for about an hour when I wanted to do some quick flying,
> but I tried his suggestion. I also ran into an old AOPA Flight Training
> magazine that had an article suggesting full stop taxi backs instead of
> touch and goes. I generally keep the pattern in tight and can do ten touch
> and goes in about .8 or .9 Hobbs depending on the amount of other traffic. I
> prefer towered airports for this practice, because there is another set of
> eyes looking for aircraft.
>
> Should I force myself to always do full stop taxi backs, even thought other
> pilots and tower personnel seem to prefer that I do touch and goes? Kevin
> Dunlevy
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Chris G." <nospam@noemail> wrote in message
eenews.net...
> [...]
> 2) IIRC, currency and recent experience requirements require full-stop
> landings.

Full-stop required for night and tailwheel. Otherwise, touch & go is
acceptable.

What's the difference between "currency" and "recent experience"?

> I know this to be fact for student pilot night landings

Technically, that's the aeronautical experience requirements for the
*Private Pilot* certificate. Done, of course, while one is a Student Pilot,
a Recreational Pilot, or a Sport Pilot.

But you knew that, right. :)

Pete

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Bruce Riggs wrote:
> What do you do to the gear after landing in a Bonanza? :)
>> If I'm in a bonanza, I'll do full stop, as there are a lot of things
>> you have to do (gear, etc), plus the hobbs only runs when weight is not
>> on the gear. So taxi time is free, so why not? You get to log that
>> time.



I have absolutely no doubt that once you retract the gear on a Bonanza after
landing, there's plenty to do! And yes, it'll definitely be a full stop. <G>





--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[cjcampbell]

I am not a big fan of touch and goes for students, since they tend to
reinforce bad habits. You practice the same bad habit over and over and
pretty soon it becomes very difficult to correct it. Nevertheless, I
often don't have much of a choice.

The tower at Tacoma Narrows has a nasty habit of keeping you waiting
for up to 20 minutes when things are busy. That strongly discourages
taxi-backs. I prefer an uncontrolled field when first teaching takeoff
and landing, but then you start building up commuting costs. Granted,
Bremerton is close by, but it is usually pretty crowded with flight
students from Boeing Field. The only real alternative is Shelton, which
is 20 minutes away. That takes 40 minutes out of an hour and a half
lesson. Practicing stalls and other maneuvers on the way there and back
leaves even less time for landing practice.

Besides this, my flight school likes touch and goes and we are strongly
encouraged to do them.

On the plus side, I feel that most students really don't need a whole
lot of landing practice. Generally, if a student is having a hard time
with landing it is because he needs work in some area he should have
mastered first, such as slow flight, stalls, rectangular patterns,
airspeed control, and the like.

Over time I have come to the view that teaching landings is not all
that difficult, whether you do touch and goes or taxi-backs. The hard
part is getting the student ready for learning to land. Once that is
done, the student usually does pretty good landings from the first try
onwards. Even crosswind landings become instinctive.

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:13:20 -0500, "Kevin Dunlevy"
> wrote:

>
>Should I force myself to always do full stop taxi backs, even thought other
>pilots and tower personnel seem to prefer that I do touch and goes?

I would say that local practice rules. Many small airports prohibit
touch & go's, whether because the runways are short or because they're
trying to cut down on noise.

I've had the airport manager come out and ask me to use the taxiway
instead of back-taxiing on the runway, but I've never had one complain
about T&Gs. (Well, for me they are stop & go's, but the principle is
the same.) But then I know the local airports that discourage T&Gs.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On 11 Sep 2005 18:40:08 -0700, "Tony" > wrote:

>For the record, I don't like Touch and Goes on short runways, but 5000
>feet gives you more than enough time to slow down to a walk, d

When my instructor got frustrated at the difficulty I was having in,
let's say, *interfacing* with the runway, we flew 20 miles to another
airport with a loooong runway, so I could practice flying down it at
six inches off the ground. That runway is 4000 ft.

In the Cub, 5000 feet is almost long enough to qualify as
cross-country.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:56:28 -0700, "Chris G." <nospam@noemail> wrote:

>2) IIRC, currency and recent experience requirements require full-stop
>landings

That's true for taildraggers.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Newps]

Jon Woellhaf wrote:
> "Newps" wrote in message ...
>
>
>>The Bonanza's got a bad rap with their gear and flap handles. Now that
>>I've got some time in my Bo I like the gear handle on the left side. That
>>way rolling down the runway everything that needs adjustment is to the
>>left of the throw over yoke. Wing flaps, cowl flaps and trim are all
>>right next to each other, you never get anywhere near the gear. Stay to
>>the left of the yoke and you are OK.
>
>
> I'm confused. Which is left of what?

Wing, flaps, cowl flaps and trim are all left of the yoke.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-09-12, Kevin Dunlevy > wrote:
> A CFI I had lunch with last week suggested I should always do full stop taxi
> backs instead of touch and goes when practicing landings.

With tailwheel planes or with aircraft with retractible gear, I always
do stop-and-goes. If there is sufficient runway, I don't taxi back
again.

With tailwheel planes, I want to be solely concerned with keeping it
under full control until I'm stationary, not fiddling with
reconfiguration. With retract gear planes, I want to look at the flap
switch to make sure I've not mistakenly grabbed the gear switch.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-09-12, Bruce Riggs > wrote:
> What do you do to the gear after landing in a Bonanza? :)

Not retract it by mistake :-)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Icebound]

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
link.net...
> The subject of touch and gos in the student scenario has been a long time
> pro and con issue in the industry and the answers will vary . ...snip...
> Personally, from a flight instructor's point of view, I initially prefer
> full stop landings with primary students, then possibly touch and gos
> later along the learning curve as conditions dictate or permit.

> Dudley Henriques
>


My (fairly large) school has a blanket policy of *no* T & G for student
solo.

Dual, they will have you practice landings T & G pretty much right from the
beginning.... but the right seat always handles the flaps. In a 172, I
don't find a great trim difference between TO position, and 65-knot-landing
position, as mention by another post. Trim adjustment is not a big deal.

I anticipated that somewhere along the line they would let me do full T & G,
at least dual, but it has never come up, and I am nearing checkride time
(well...:, maybe...). So it would have to be something I'd have to
specifically request of the instructor...

[Icebound]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2005-09-12, Kevin Dunlevy > wrote:
>
> With tailwheel planes or with aircraft with retractible gear, I always
> do stop-and-goes.

As I understand it, with a tailwheel, you cannot count a touch-and-go as a
landing, anyway, for the purpose of logging (currency).... or is that just
in Canada?

[Dudley Henriques]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> link.net...
>> The subject of touch and gos in the student scenario has been a long time
>> pro and con issue in the industry and the answers will vary . ...snip...
>> Personally, from a flight instructor's point of view, I initially prefer
>> full stop landings with primary students, then possibly touch and gos
>> later along the learning curve as conditions dictate or permit.
>
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>
>
> My (fairly large) school has a blanket policy of *no* T & G for student
> solo.
>
> Dual, they will have you practice landings T & G pretty much right from
> the beginning.... but the right seat always handles the flaps. In a 172,
> I don't find a great trim difference between TO position, and
> 65-knot-landing position, as mention by another post. Trim adjustment is
> not a big deal.
>
> I anticipated that somewhere along the line they would let me do full T &
> G, at least dual, but it has never come up, and I am nearing checkride
> time (well...:, maybe...). So it would have to be something I'd have to
> specifically request of the instructor...

All I can tell you based on what you have said here is that your school uses
methods I would never recommend, and have never used myself. I guess this is
why there are different methods being used out there :-)
Dudley Henriques

[Newps]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> On 2005-09-12, Jim Burns > wrote:
>
>>completing their checklists, and following procedures. Touch and gos can
>>prematurely lead the pilot into the takeoff phase when the landing phase
>>hasn't been completed. This gets increasingly important as the pilot
>>transitions to heavier, faster, and more complex airplanes.
>
>
> Try a touch and go in a Boeing 737 - you've never been so busy. What
> really concentrates the mind is the runway rushing by as you hurtle down it
> in excess of 100 knots! (I've only done it in a B737 sim which was
> exciting enough)

Boeing stops by here regularly with all the new planes....737's, 767's,
777's, 787's, etc. They do downwind ILS's(15 knot minimum tailwind) and
do touch and goes back to more ILS's. They do this for hours at a time.

[RomeoMike]

I do T&Gs in light twins. I don't think the work load is that much more
than in a 172. One lands using the regular checklist. When landing one
normally looks ahead to the potential need for a go-around anyway. In a
T&G one then touches down and proceeds to go around. Once back in the
air the normal takeoff checklist plus retract the flaps. Then there is
plenty of time in the circuit to think and prepare for the next landing
or T&G.


Jim Burns wrote:
There will come a day when you'll want to fly something that is
> not so docile as a Cherokee or a 172. When that day comes, you'll be
> prepared to follow the checklists and may avoid an unrecoverable mistake.

[Klein]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:30:44 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>buttman wrote:
>
>> If I'm in a bonanza, I'll do full stop, as there are a lot of things
>> you have to do (gear, etc),
>
>??? Putting the gear back down after skidding to a stop?

Not required if you don't mind using full power for the taxi back.
;-)

Klein

[Bob Martin]

Icebound wrote:
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On 2005-09-12, Kevin Dunlevy > wrote:
>>
>>With tailwheel planes or with aircraft with retractible gear, I always
>>do stop-and-goes.
>
>
> As I understand it, with a tailwheel, you cannot count a touch-and-go as a
> landing, anyway, for the purpose of logging (currency).... or is that just
> in Canada?

No, I believe the requirement in the US is that you have to have three
full-stop landings in the past 90 days (in a tailwheel plane).

Personally, I seem to have the biggest problem (when I haven't flown in
the past week or so) with the last 10 feet or so, at least on those real
bumpy days... once I'm planted on the ground I do a lot better. Maybe
it was just from riding right seat one day when the guy in the left
brought us down so hard we bent a gear leg a bit and destroyed the leg
fairing and wheel pants. Anyways, I can't do full-stall landings for
beans, though wheel landings aren't too bad (airplane handles much nicer
at 75-80). Therefore, T&G is easy; just push the throttle up, get
airborne, and retract the flaps before passing 100. No carb heat to
worry about, there's plenty of power, and the flaps are manual
(hand-brake style) so they come up real quick if you need them. I don't
mess with the flaps on the ground as I'm trying hard enough just to keep
going straight.

[W P Dixon]

Interesting,
We always do taxi backs. And stall landings are what the CFI likes to
see. I'm getting pretty good at them. I don't really find them that
hard...pretty much a matter of having that "right" sight picture. Myself I
do believe in a taildragger the taxi backs are very crucial , especially
during training. It does seem to teach the taildragger " fly the airplane"
from the time the prop turns until it stops. I can easily see how someone
who has flown tri-gears and no tailwheel , may would have a problem with
the taildragger. There really isn't much relaxing going on when you taxi a
taildragger back for another takeoff. Can't relax to much from my
experience, keep the stick back , watch your taxi speed , may have to dance
with those feet alittle ;) But heck they are alot of fun though ! ;)

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech


"Bob Martin" > wrote in message
...
> Icebound wrote:
>> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>On 2005-09-12, Kevin Dunlevy > wrote:
>>>
>>>With tailwheel planes or with aircraft with retractible gear, I always
>>>do stop-and-goes.
>>
>>
>> As I understand it, with a tailwheel, you cannot count a touch-and-go as
>> a landing, anyway, for the purpose of logging (currency).... or is that
>> just in Canada?
>
> No, I believe the requirement in the US is that you have to have three
> full-stop landings in the past 90 days (in a tailwheel plane).
>
> Personally, I seem to have the biggest problem (when I haven't flown in
> the past week or so) with the last 10 feet or so, at least on those real
> bumpy days... once I'm planted on the ground I do a lot better. Maybe it
> was just from riding right seat one day when the guy in the left brought
> us down so hard we bent a gear leg a bit and destroyed the leg fairing and
> wheel pants. Anyways, I can't do full-stall landings for beans, though
> wheel landings aren't too bad (airplane handles much nicer at 75-80).
> Therefore, T&G is easy; just push the throttle up, get airborne, and
> retract the flaps before passing 100. No carb heat to worry about,
> there's plenty of power, and the flaps are manual (hand-brake style) so
> they come up real quick if you need them. I don't mess with the flaps on
> the ground as I'm trying hard enough just to keep going straight.

[john smith]

> As I understand it, with a tailwheel, you cannot count a touch-and-go as a
> landing, anyway, for the purpose of logging (currency).... or is that just
> in Canada?


Day landings may be touch and go, night landings must be full stop.

[George Patterson]

W P Dixon wrote:
>
> Can't
> relax to much from my experience, keep the stick back , watch your taxi
> speed , may have to dance with those feet alittle ;)

Keep the stick forward if you have a tailwind. And keep the ailerons adjusted to
keep the upwind wing down.

With larger tailwheel aircraft, the position of the elevators depends more on
the amount of load than the wind. My Maule really didn't like aft yoke when
heavily loaded.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

john smith wrote:
>>As I understand it, with a tailwheel, you cannot count a touch-and-go as a
>>landing, anyway, for the purpose of logging (currency).... or is that just
>>in Canada?
>
> Day landings may be touch and go, night landings must be full stop.

Is that in Canada? In the U.S., only full stop landings count for currency in
tailwheel aircraft. Three in the last 90 days to carry passengers. Of course,
T&Gs do count as landings; just not for currency.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Frank]

Newps wrote:

>
<snip>

> Boeing stops by here regularly with all the new planes....737's, 767's,
> 777's, 787's, etc. They do downwind ILS's(15 knot minimum tailwind) and
> do touch and goes back to more ILS's. They do this for hours at a time.


I saw an AWACS 707 (don't know the military designation) doing touch and
go's while driving through Belgium. I was surprised as I thought the cost
of such activity would relegate it to the simulator. He went around at
least twice while in my view, I even got the "go" on film.
--
Frank....H

[Icebound]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:NjsVe.19718$Zv6.18110@trndny03...
> john smith wrote:
>>>As I understand it, with a tailwheel, you cannot count a touch-and-go as
>>>a landing, anyway, for the purpose of logging (currency).... or is that
>>>just in Canada?
>>
>> Day landings may be touch and go, night landings must be full stop.
>
> Is that in Canada? In the U.S., only full stop landings count for currency
> in tailwheel aircraft. Three in the last 90 days to carry passengers. Of
> course, T&Gs do count as landings; just not for currency.
>

Yes. FAR 61.57 (a) (ii). I don't know where John got his info.

FAR 61.57 must have been what I was thinking of in my OP.

Because I have tried to find a similar tailwheel rule in the official
Canadian rules, and have been unable to do so.

So, Canadians, are we supposed to log tail-wheel Touch-and-goes as landings,
or NOT???

[Chris G.]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> What's the difference between "currency" and "recent experience"?

It's my Monday... you're taxing my brain. ;) I can't remember the
specific differences (if any) but, for some reason I think I was meaning
currency wrt your BFR and recent experience to the 90-day/3 landings
rule(s). In any event, I'll go look it up.

>>I know this to be fact for student pilot night landings
>
>
> Technically, that's the aeronautical experience requirements for the
> *Private Pilot* certificate. Done, of course, while one is a Student Pilot,
> a Recreational Pilot, or a Sport Pilot.
>
> But you knew that, right. :)
>


Of course! ;)

Chris

[john smith]

> >>>As I understand it, with a tailwheel, you cannot count a touch-and-go as
> >>>a landing, anyway, for the purpose of logging (currency).... or is that
> >>>just in Canada?

> > john smith wrote:
> >> Day landings may be touch and go, night landings must be full stop.

> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> > Is that in Canada? In the U.S., only full stop landings count for currency
> > in tailwheel aircraft. Three in the last 90 days to carry passengers. Of
> > course, T&Gs do count as landings; just not for currency.

"Icebound" > wrote:
> Yes. FAR 61.57 (a) (ii). I don't know where John got his info.
> FAR 61.57 must have been what I was thinking of in my OP.

Mea Culpa! I was going from memory and not checking the book.

[Peter Duniho]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
.. .
> [...]
> Because I have tried to find a similar tailwheel rule in the official
> Canadian rules, and have been unable to do so.
>
> So, Canadians, are we supposed to log tail-wheel Touch-and-goes as
> landings, or NOT???

Are you Canadian? I don't know what the answer is there. My limited
experience has been that their aviation regulations are written much more
simply and cleanly than our FARs, and so if there is such a requirement, it
shouldn't be hard to find.

If you can't find it, it may be that it's not there. Especially if you HAVE
found the other passenger currency rules.

For what it's worth, in the US you may log whatever you want. The only
requirement would be that you only *count* the full-stop landings for the
purpose of your 90-day passenger currency in a tailwheel airplane. As long
as you can distinguish full-stop from touch & go in the logbook, you can log
both.

Pete

[Icebound]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> [...]
>> Because I have tried to find a similar tailwheel rule in the official
>> Canadian rules, and have been unable to do so.
>>
>> So, Canadians, are we supposed to log tail-wheel Touch-and-goes as
>> landings, or NOT???
>
> Are you Canadian?

Yes, which is why I am looking for the correct answer, because my instructor
(perhaps incorrectly, perhaps thinking FAA), mentioned the tailwheel
touch-and-go issue.

> I don't know what the answer is there. My limited experience has been
> that their aviation regulations are written much more simply and cleanly
> than our FARs, and so if there is such a requirement, it shouldn't be hard
> to find.
>
> If you can't find it, it may be that it's not there. Especially if you
> HAVE found the other passenger currency rules.

Yes... surprisingly, neither "touch and go" nor "tailwheel" is mentioned in
that section. From its definition in the regs, "Landing" would appear to
include T&G, although not explicitly mentioned.

So on the surface of it, as the Canadian regs read, T & G in a taildragger
could be counted toward currency, I guess.

>
> For what it's worth, in the US you may log whatever you want. The only
> requirement would be that you only *count* the full-stop ...

Yes, I mis-spoke when I said "log" but I meant "count".

[Kevin Dunlevy]

Thanks for your comments. I decided that as I transition to complex and
high performance planes, I will probably do more full stop taxi backs. But
when I'm flying 172s or 152s, I'll probably do mostly touch and goes. I
like to fly touch and goes because I get the mental boost I seek from flying
about ten touch and goes, or 5 instrument approaches. I can get fly touch
and goes alone, but need a CFII for the instrument approaches at my stage of
instrument training. If the mission is mental boost and keeping current, I
fulfill the mission most easily and quickly with touch and goes. Kevin
Dunlevy


"Kevin Dunlevy" > wrote in message
...
> A CFI I had lunch with last week suggested I should always do full stop
taxi
> backs instead of touch and goes when practicing landings. I've frequently
> done touch and goes for about an hour when I wanted to do some quick
flying,
> but I tried his suggestion. I also ran into an old AOPA Flight Training
> magazine that had an article suggesting full stop taxi backs instead of
> touch and goes. I generally keep the pattern in tight and can do ten touch
> and goes in about .8 or .9 Hobbs depending on the amount of other traffic.
I
> prefer towered airports for this practice, because there is another set of
> eyes looking for aircraft.
>
> Should I force myself to always do full stop taxi backs, even thought
other
> pilots and tower personnel seem to prefer that I do touch and goes? Kevin
> Dunlevy
>
>

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 08:30:17 -0500, Frank > wrote:

>I saw an AWACS 707 (don't know the military designation) doing touch and
>go's while driving through Belgium. I was surprised as I thought the cost
>of such activity would relegate it to the simulator.

I live across Great Bay from the former Pease AFB, which still houses
a NH National Guard KC-135 tanker squadron. On a summer's day--they
particularly like Sunday at 4 p.m., when you are most likely to have
folks over for tea--they'll do T&Gs for an hour or two. It's a long
pattern, so they don't get many in, ten maybe?

(At least I assume it's T&G. They could I suppose taxi off the runway
and substutite another pilot, or even another aircraft: "Okay, your
turn!" Heck, they could have ten pilots in the plane, all lined up
waiting their turn.)



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Cub Driver > wrote:

> (At least I assume it's T&G. They could I suppose taxi off the runway
> and substutite another pilot, or even another aircraft: "Okay, your
> turn!" Heck, they could have ten pilots in the plane, all lined up
> waiting their turn.)

I seem to remember hearing the tower talk about the T&Gs the last
time I flew by Pease (last year). (And there would be no need for a full
stop in order to change pilots - unless the USAF has a procedural
requirement for that when below 10000').

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[private]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
.. .
snip
> Because I have tried to find a similar tailwheel rule in the official
> Canadian rules, and have been unable to do so.

AFAIK there is no tailwheel endorsement required by CARs in Canada. I did
all my PPL training in tailwheel but have no TW endorsement. Insurance
companies can require any training they like.

> So, Canadians, are we supposed to log tail-wheel Touch-and-goes as
landings,
> or NOT???

from the CARs
401.05(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Subpart, no holder of
a flight crew permit, licence or rating, other than the holder of a flight
engineer licence, shall exercise the privileges of the permit, licence or
rating unless
(a) the holder has acted as pilot-in-command or co-pilot of an aircraft
within the five years preceding the flight; or

(b) snip

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Subpart, no holder of a
flight crew permit or licence, other than the holder of a flight engineer
licence, shall exercise the privileges of the permit or licence in an
aircraft unless the holder

(a) has successfully completed a recurrent training program in accordance
with the personnel licensing standards within the 24 months preceding the
flight; and

(b) where a passenger other than a flight test examiner designated by the
Minister is carried on board the aircraft, has completed, within the six
months preceding the flight,

(i) in the case of an aircraft other than a glider or a balloon, in the same
category and class of aircraft as the aircraft, or in a Level B, C or D
simulator of the same category and class as the aircraft, at least

(A) five night or day take-offs and five night or day landings, if the
flight is conducted wholly by day, or

(B) five night take-offs and five night landings, if the flight is conducted
wholly or partly by night,

101.01 (1)

"landing" - means

(a) in respect of an aircraft other than an airship, the act of coming into
contact with a supporting surface, and includes the acts immediately
preceding and following the coming into contact with that surface,

IMHO it could be argued (by TC) that stopping is an act that immediately
follows the coming into contact with a supporting surface and that stopping
is a part of a landing. Do you want to hire a lawyer to argue that a stop
is not a part of a landing? Lawyers love unclear regulations, which is why
they write so many of them. I cannot cite legal opinion or case law. IMHO
making 5 full stop landings each 6 months is the prudent action before
carrying passengers.

IMHO tailwheel is not a separate class and the required 5 landings can be in
a tricycle gear or TW and would apply to skis but not floats. I do not know
what would be required for ampibious floats but would guess that 5 land + 5
water would be required. IMHO any of these required TO&landings can be dual
(with CFI) or solo.

Happy landings

[[email protected]]

>>>I decided that as I transition to complex and high performance planes, I will probably do more full stop taxi backs<<<

Good idea. It's too easy to grab the gear handle instead of flaps in
the rush to clean up the airplane for the takeoff. (I've seen this
happen in a Baron with predictably nasty results) When I was a
brandy-new CFI I did T&G ad nauseum - Until I read an article in a
flying mag about the instructor being more effective by doing full stop
landings. The student is more receptive to instruction and critique
when not dividing their attention by flying the airplane. I think the
quality of instruction is more important than getting in a bunch of
landings in an hour.

Other posters have suggested T&Gs are appropriate for more experienced
pilots just out for practice. I agree, but personally would limit it to
fixed-gear planes. I guess it depends on your personal comfort level. I
once talked with an MD that regularly does touch&goes in his turbo
Bonanza. My guess is that after replacing a few cylinders well before
TBO he might be better off with full-stop taxi-back landings. That's
gotta be expensive...

[Icebound]

"private" > wrote in message
news:U2XVe.197819$Hk.65205@pd7tw1no...
>
> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> .. .
> snip
>> Because I have tried to find a similar tailwheel rule in the official
>> Canadian rules, and have been unable to do so.
>
> AFAIK there is no tailwheel endorsement required by CARs in Canada.
>

After the issue came up, I have been searching through the regs at length
and have come to this same conclusion.


....snip CARS...

> IMHO it could be argued (by TC) that stopping is an act that immediately
> follows the coming into contact with a supporting surface and that
> stopping
> is a part of a landing. Do you want to hire a lawyer to argue that a stop
> is not a part of a landing? Lawyers love unclear regulations, which is
> why
> they write so many of them. I cannot cite legal opinion or case law.
> IMHO
> making 5 full stop landings each 6 months is the prudent action before
> carrying passengers.
>
> IMHO tailwheel is not a separate class and the required 5 landings can be
> in
> a tricycle gear or TW and would apply to skis but not floats. I do not
> know
> what would be required for ampibious floats but would guess that 5 land +
> 5
> water would be required. IMHO any of these required TO&landings can be
> dual
> (with CFI) or solo.
>

Having read and re-read that section, I would interpret it as per your HO
*except* the part about counting dual. If the CFI is PIC, then I would
interpret that you cannot. If *you* are PIC, then of course you can.

[ZikZak]

As a CFI, I don't like touch-and-goes because they tend to reinforce bad
habits. Specifically, during a touch-and-go, you need to retract flaps
before you add power. This is TERRIBLE reinforcement for go-around
procedures. I have often done BFRs for pilots who learned using T&G's, and
when asked to go around they almost always retract flaps before adding
power. This is very bad. My home field is relatively short, too, so I don't
do T&G's with my students.

When at a longer runway, I might do T&G's if my student just needs a lot of
landing practice, but in those cases, *I* always retract the flaps on the
ground, so that for go around, the student won't have the tendency to reach
for them.

[Matt Whiting]

ZikZak wrote:
> As a CFI, I don't like touch-and-goes because they tend to reinforce bad
> habits. Specifically, during a touch-and-go, you need to retract flaps
> before you add power. This is TERRIBLE reinforcement for go-around
> procedures. I have often done BFRs for pilots who learned using T&G's, and
> when asked to go around they almost always retract flaps before adding
> power. This is very bad. My home field is relatively short, too, so I don't
> do T&G's with my students.

Why do you have to retract the flaps first when doing a T&G?

Matt

[ZikZak]

On 9/15/05 4:32 PM, in article , "Matt
Whiting" > wrote:

> ZikZak wrote:
>> As a CFI, I don't like touch-and-goes because they tend to reinforce bad
>> habits. Specifically, during a touch-and-go, you need to retract flaps
>> before you add power. This is TERRIBLE reinforcement for go-around
>> procedures. I have often done BFRs for pilots who learned using T&G's, and
>> when asked to go around they almost always retract flaps before adding
>> power. This is very bad. My home field is relatively short, too, so I don't
>> do T&G's with my students.
>
> Why do you have to retract the flaps first when doing a T&G?
>
> Matt

Because Cessna-172s don't take off very well with full flaps. I suppose you
could add power and then retract the flaps, but then you're rolling with
lots of drag and runway behind you is useless. In any case, it seems to be
conventional to retract-then-power when doing T&G's, and that produces bad
habits.

[john smith]

> >> As a CFI, I don't like touch-and-goes because they tend to reinforce bad
> >> habits. Specifically, during a touch-and-go, you need to retract flaps
> >> before you add power. This is TERRIBLE reinforcement for go-around
> >> procedures. I have often done BFRs for pilots who learned using T&G's, and
> >> when asked to go around they almost always retract flaps before adding
> >> power. This is very bad. My home field is relatively short, too, so I don't
> >> do T&G's with my students.

> > Why do you have to retract the flaps first when doing a T&G?

> Because Cessna-172s don't take off very well with full flaps. I suppose you
> could add power and then retract the flaps, but then you're rolling with
> lots of drag and runway behind you is useless. In any case, it seems to be
> conventional to retract-then-power when doing T&G's, and that produces bad
> habits.

Only those Cessna's with 40 degrees of flaps may be unable to climb.
Cessna's limited to 30 degrees of flaps can and will climb with full
power. You have to know how to "milk" the flaps up as airspeed increases
to fly properly, though.

[George Patterson]

ZikZak wrote:
> As a CFI, I don't like touch-and-goes because they tend to reinforce bad
> habits. Specifically, during a touch-and-go, you need to retract flaps
> before you add power.

I did my primary training in Cessna 150s. We always hit the power first. The
switch required constant pressure to keep the flap motor turning, so you would
be a long time on the runway before adding power if you did it the way you describe.

I never did T&Gs in my Maule. Thinking about it, I think it would be dangerous
in that plane.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[nrp]

> Why do you have to retract the flaps first when doing a T&G?

On a 172 you also beat the hell out of the flap structure when at full
power and 40 degrees down. If you are slow getting them up there is a
tendency to wheelbarrow too.

[private]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
snip
> > IMHO tailwheel is not a separate class and the required 5 landings can
be
> > in
> > a tricycle gear or TW and would apply to skis but not floats. I do not
> > know
> > what would be required for ampibious floats but would guess that 5 land
+
> > 5
> > water would be required. IMHO any of these required TO&landings can be
> > dual
> > (with CFI) or solo.
> >
>
> Having read and re-read that section, I would interpret it as per your HO
> *except* the part about counting dual. If the CFI is PIC, then I would
> interpret that you cannot. If *you* are PIC, then of course you can.
>


Hello Icebound,

I agree that 401.05(1)(a) recency does require that a pilot be PIC, but am
not convinced that the PIC requirement extends to section 401.05(2)

> 401.05(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Subpart, no holder
of
a flight crew permit, licence or rating, other than the holder of a flight
engineer licence, shall exercise the privileges of the permit, licence or
rating unless
(a) the holder has acted as pilot-in-command or co-pilot of an aircraft
within the five years preceding the flight; or

> (b) snip

> 401.05(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Subpart, no holder
of a
flight crew permit or licence, other than the holder of a flight engineer
licence, shall exercise the privileges of the permit or licence in an
aircraft unless the holder

> (a) has successfully completed a recurrent training program in accordance
with the personnel licensing standards within the 24 months preceding the
flight; and


On this section (2)(a) subject, the last self paced study program form was
delivered in issue 4/2004 of the Safety Letter and expires Sept 29,2005.
The last TC Safety Letter I received is issue 2/2005, it is the latest
issued posted on the website.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/systemsafety/newsletters/tp185/menu.htm
..
The Sept 29,2005 form is also the latest self paced study program on the web
http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/SystemSafety/Newsletters/tp185/4-04/600.ht
m
Do you know of any changes to this program? Is it still available for use?
Have you received a new form or notice regarding this program?

and back to the subject of landings

> (b) where a passenger other than a flight test examiner designated by the
Minister is carried on board the aircraft, has completed, within the six
months preceding the flight,


IMHO, unless the CFI is also a DFTE then they MUST be PIC, (unless pilot has
other recency) as a non current pilot cannot carry a legal passenger. AFAIK
there is no requirement that the required (for currency) landings be
performed solo or as PIC, and there is no mention of this as a requirement
in 401.05(2)(b)(i)(a or b). After a period of inactivity I have often taken
a CFI for a rust removal flight and was told that these landings could be
counted for currency.


> (i) in the case of an aircraft other than a glider or a balloon, in the
same
category and class of aircraft as the aircraft, or in a Level B, C or D
simulator of the same category and class as the aircraft, at least

> (A) five night or day take-offs and five night or day landings, if the
flight is conducted wholly by day, or

> (B) five night take-offs and five night landings, if the flight is
conducted
wholly or partly by night,

Can you provide a cite in the CARs that requires the landings be made PIC?
ISTM that section (2) deals with recurrent training, which should be
conducted by a CFI. While the concept of "sole manipulator of the controls"
is not used in the CARs it seems to me to be what is required by
401.05(2)(b)(i)(a or b). I note that it seems that (in Canada) there is
always a "notwithstanding clause" and in this case would mean that the PIC
requirement in section(1) would not apply to section (2)? The only
requirement I see is to "complete" (ie perform) 5 TO&landings.

Happy landings,

[Tony]

You hand is on the throttle when you're landing. If something comes
into the runway, or you notice some other thing that makes you want to
abort the landing, are you saying you'd let the throttle go, reset the
flaps, then go back to the throttle?

I see touch and goes differently: they are landing practice, but they
are also 'abort the damned landing' practice too. When we (my ownership
partners and I) would safety check each other, we could often call for
a go-round deep in the flare or when on the ground rolling at less than
flying speed. We expected to see the throttle go in first, then worry
about cleaning up the airplane (the airplane being a Mooney).

[Neil Gould]

Recently, ZikZak > posted:

> As a CFI, I don't like touch-and-goes because they tend to reinforce
> bad habits. Specifically, during a touch-and-go, you need to retract
> flaps before you add power. This is TERRIBLE reinforcement for
> go-around procedures. I have often done BFRs for pilots who learned
> using T&G's, and when asked to go around they almost always retract
> flaps before adding power. This is very bad. My home field is
> relatively short, too, so I don't do T&G's with my students.
>
It sounds like you are dealing with two different issues. Anyone properly
trained will not retract flaps when doing a go-around, regardless of
whether they practice T&Gs at other times. Perhaps during those BFRs, you
have just identified an area where the pilot needs to be reminded about
the difference between the two?

Neil

[Jay Honeck]

> My (fairly large) school has a blanket policy of *no* T & G for student
> solo.

Maybe I'm just being cynical, but this sure sounds like a great way to pad
the Hobbs time on the rental planes...

> Dual, they will have you practice landings T & G pretty much right from
> the beginning.... but the right seat always handles the flaps.

Interesting. I've never heard of a CFII working the flaps while the student
flew. However, having been in a "sinking Cessna" once, many moons ago,
after inadvertently retracting the flaps at full power, low altitude and low
airspeed, I suppose that may make some sense.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

In this order...
Power UP
Pitch UP
Flaps UP

[[email protected]]

> > My (fairly large) school has a blanket policy of *no*
> > T & G for student solo.

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
>Maybe I'm just being cynical, but this sure sounds like
>a great way to pad the Hobbs time on the rental planes...

Jay, at a large flight school in CA, they have the "no T&G for student
solo" rule also. It's not to pad the Hobbs time, it is a safety
precaution, because their runway is only 1900 feet long. I'm not sure if
they insist on that throughout the training, but when they first start
soloing, they are not allowed to do T&Gs there.

[Jon Woellhaf]

Tony wrote, "... When we (my ownership partners and I) would safety check
each other, we could often call for a go-round deep in the flare or when on
the ground rolling at less than flying speed. We expected to see the
throttle go in first, then worry about cleaning up the airplane (the
airplane being a Mooney)."

I was taught: Cram it. Climb it. Clean it. Cool it. Call it.

Jon

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
wrote:

> Jay, at a large flight school in CA, they have the "no T&G for student
> solo" rule also. It's not to pad the Hobbs time, it is a safety
> precaution, because their runway is only 1900 feet long.

isn't that really a different issue? Regardless of the safety or danger
or T&G's in general, only having 1900' isn't really enough to do
T&G's in the typical cessna or piper anyway.

Several airports in MA prohibit T&G's and their runways are
around 2500'.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[[email protected]]

> > Jay, at a large flight school in CA, they have the "no T&G for student
> > solo" rule also. It's not to pad the Hobbs time, it is a safety
> > precaution, because their runway is only 1900 feet long.

Bob Noel wrote:
> isn't that really a different issue? Regardless of the safety or danger
> or T&G's in general, only having 1900' isn't really enough to do
> T&G's in the typical cessna or piper anyway.

It isn't?
When I was there, I flew their C152 with one of their CFIs, and all we
did was T&G landing practice ... 12 the first day, 14 the second. I
wouldn't say there was "plenty of room", but there WAS enough runway to
land, calmly roll out a bit and take off again.

[Matt Whiting]

ZikZak wrote:

> On 9/15/05 4:32 PM, in article , "Matt
> Whiting" > wrote:
>
>
>>ZikZak wrote:
>>
>>>As a CFI, I don't like touch-and-goes because they tend to reinforce bad
>>>habits. Specifically, during a touch-and-go, you need to retract flaps
>>>before you add power. This is TERRIBLE reinforcement for go-around
>>>procedures. I have often done BFRs for pilots who learned using T&G's, and
>>>when asked to go around they almost always retract flaps before adding
>>>power. This is very bad. My home field is relatively short, too, so I don't
>>>do T&G's with my students.
>>
>>Why do you have to retract the flaps first when doing a T&G?
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Because Cessna-172s don't take off very well with full flaps. I suppose you
> could add power and then retract the flaps, but then you're rolling with
> lots of drag and runway behind you is useless. In any case, it seems to be
> conventional to retract-then-power when doing T&G's, and that produces bad
> habits.
>

This is how I was taught. After the "touch", you first apply full power
to "go" and then retract the flaps. It really isn't hard at all to do.
It doesn't take long at all to get the flaps from 40 to 20, and
taking off with 20 isn't much of a problem. Anyone who can't manage
this, probably shouldn't be flying.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

nrp wrote:

>>Why do you have to retract the flaps first when doing a T&G?
>
>
> On a 172 you also beat the hell out of the flap structure when at full
> power and 40 degrees down. If you are slow getting them up there is a
> tendency to wheelbarrow too.
>

Only if you are a low-wing pilot. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

>>>My (fairly large) school has a blanket policy of *no*
>>>T & G for student solo.
>
>
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>
>>Maybe I'm just being cynical, but this sure sounds like
>>a great way to pad the Hobbs time on the rental planes...
>
>
> Jay, at a large flight school in CA, they have the "no T&G for student
> solo" rule also. It's not to pad the Hobbs time, it is a safety
> precaution, because their runway is only 1900 feet long. I'm not sure if
> they insist on that throughout the training, but when they first start
> soloing, they are not allowed to do T&Gs there.

That is interesting as a properly executed T&G will use less runway.

Matt

[George Patterson]

nrp wrote:
>
> On a 172 you also beat the hell out of the flap structure when at full
> power and 40 degrees down. If you are slow getting them up there is a
> tendency to wheelbarrow too.

Flap extension speed is what? 100 knots? You aren't "beating the hell" out of
the flaps at any speed you're likely to see on the ground. As for
wheelbarrowing, you just landed. Trim is set to keep the nose up. If you don't
do anything at all except get the power on, the plane is simply going to take
off and climb away at sea level.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[[email protected]]

> > Jay, at a large flight school in CA, they have the "no T&G for student
> > solo" rule also. It's not to pad the Hobbs time, it is a safety
> > precaution, because their runway is only 1900 feet long. I'm not sure if
> > they insist on that throughout the training, but when they first start
> > soloing, they are not allowed to do T&Gs there.

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> That is interesting as a properly executed T&G will use less runway.

T&Gs aren't prohibited at the airport, just for new solo students, with
runway length given as the reason. I guess it's the "properly executed"
part that they worry about.

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:

> nrp wrote:
>
>>
>> On a 172 you also beat the hell out of the flap structure when at full
>> power and 40 degrees down. If you are slow getting them up there is a
>> tendency to wheelbarrow too.
>
>
> Flap extension speed is what? 100 knots? You aren't "beating the hell"
> out of the flaps at any speed you're likely to see on the ground. As for
> wheelbarrowing, you just landed. Trim is set to keep the nose up. If you
> don't do anything at all except get the power on, the plane is simply
> going to take off and climb away at sea level.

Even if I land at an airport with an elevation of 2,000'? :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

>>>Jay, at a large flight school in CA, they have the "no T&G for student
>>>solo" rule also. It's not to pad the Hobbs time, it is a safety
>>>precaution, because their runway is only 1900 feet long. I'm not sure if
>>>they insist on that throughout the training, but when they first start
>>>soloing, they are not allowed to do T&Gs there.
>
>
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>That is interesting as a properly executed T&G will use less runway.
>
>
> T&Gs aren't prohibited at the airport, just for new solo students, with
> runway length given as the reason. I guess it's the "properly executed"
> part that they worry about.

That part certainly makes sense!

Matt

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> Even if I land at an airport with an elevation of 2,000'? :-)

The last two words in my post were "at sea level."

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[nrp]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Only if you are a low-wing pilot. :-)
>
> Matt

Dang it - & I got that bad habit with only 20 minutes in a
Cherokee........!



On further reflection I do taxibacks instead of T&Gs because I own the
airplane (Tach or hourmeter time means nothing) & I self insure the
hull. I also have had to reskin the LH flap on an older 172 due to
cracking at the trailing edge. I'm not critical of others that do
T&Gs, but on shorter runways I like to be fully psyched up for how to
handle a T/O.

I once did a very strong 90 deg Xwind takeoff in which I just happened
to take the Xwind on the right side, got into the rubbity scrub mode
treating it as a short-field since it was at a higher altitude, but
managed to horse it in the air.

It was my good fortune to not have taken that Xwind on the left or I
probably would have rolled it into a ball. My Xwind technique is
different now and hopefully more correct, but I don't take T/Os for
granted anymore. A T/O is a crosswind first - and what performance is
left over can be used for short or soft field. It was a singular hole
in my pre-private instruction that I missed.

I never have seen the right/left crosswind difference noted by others.
Why not?

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:59:16 -0700, wrote:

>it is a safety
>precaution, because their runway is only 1900 feet long.

Now THAT is short! I find it a bit difficult to imagine a flight
school operating from such a runway, or that the airport would not ban
T&G's on its own, quite apart from the danger to students.

My home airport is 2600 feet, and I have met 172 drivers who refuse to
land there because they aren't STOL equipped!


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On 16 Sep 2005 14:59:04 -0700, "nrp" > wrote:

>I never have seen the right/left crosswind difference noted by others.
>Why not?

It is certainly true that the only time I ever went off the runway on
takeoff was a left crosswind, and I certainly treat left crosswinds
with more respect.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Tony]

Dan wrote

"My home airport is 2600 feet, and I have met 172 drivers who refuse to

land there because they aren't STOL equipped!"

To which I say, those are airplane drivers I wouldn't want to fly with.

[George Patterson]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> My home airport is 2600 feet, and I have met 172 drivers who refuse to
> land there because they aren't STOL equipped!

Grass?

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Matt Whiting]

Cub Driver wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:59:16 -0700, wrote:
>
>
>>it is a safety
>>precaution, because their runway is only 1900 feet long.
>
>
> Now THAT is short! I find it a bit difficult to imagine a flight
> school operating from such a runway, or that the airport would not ban
> T&G's on its own, quite apart from the danger to students.

That isn't short at all. I learned at an airport with 1899' of runway
with trees across one end and that was plenty for all but the hottest
days in a 150. For a 172, it was a piece of cake.


> My home airport is 2600 feet, and I have met 172 drivers who refuse to
> land there because they aren't STOL equipped!

I can believe that. If they were 172 pilots rather than "drivers", they
would have had no problem. At N38 where I learned to fly, we often had
commercial pilots come in and abort their landing and go elsewhere due
to the almost constant crosswinds, especially in winter. And this while
we had primary students merrily flying T&Gs in the pattern. :-)

Always brought a smile to Dick's face.

Matt