No touch and go's?

[John Jones]

In many airports out there, you'll find in the AFD in the comments
section, "No touch and go landings", and/or "no practice approaches".
A few examples off the top of my head:

http://airnav.com/airport/ksac
http://airnav.com/airport/kcpm


What exactly is meant by this? No touch and go landings period, or
just don't do multiple touch and go's, as in buzzing around the
pattern for an hour? It seems kind of weird to me that an airport
would totally not allow touch and go landings. I can understand not
allowing multiple touch and go's, as they create a lot of noise,
negatively effect arrivals and departures, and generally can be a big
nuisance. Compared to a full stop/taxi back, a touch and go is more
efficient, arguably less noisy, and less of a burden on other traffic
(how many times have you had to go around because some joker had to
taxi to the next taxiway?)

Is there something I'm missing?

[Marty Shapiro]

John Jones > wrote in
ups.com:

> In many airports out there, you'll find in the AFD in the comments
> section, "No touch and go landings", and/or "no practice approaches".
> A few examples off the top of my head:
>
> http://airnav.com/airport/ksac
> http://airnav.com/airport/kcpm
>
>
> What exactly is meant by this? No touch and go landings period, or
> just don't do multiple touch and go's, as in buzzing around the
> pattern for an hour? It seems kind of weird to me that an airport
> would totally not allow touch and go landings. I can understand not
> allowing multiple touch and go's, as they create a lot of noise,
> negatively effect arrivals and departures, and generally can be a big
> nuisance. Compared to a full stop/taxi back, a touch and go is more
> efficient, arguably less noisy, and less of a burden on other traffic
> (how many times have you had to go around because some joker had to
> taxi to the next taxiway?)
>
> Is there something I'm missing?
>
>

Your missing the noise foot print which depends on how high you are.
Using the full length of the runway, your aircraft will be higher by the
time it crosses over the homes. The higher you are, the less noise on the
ground.

The restriction at KSAC is only from 9 PM to 6 AM. At KCPM it
applies 24/7. I've got a similar restriction, 9 PM to 7 AM, at my home
field, KRHV. Of course, when KRHV opened, it was in the middle of farm
country. Then morons built homes right off the end of the runway and
complained about the noise.

What I find amusing at KRHV is that they prohibit touch & go landings,
but do not prohibit intersection departures or stop & go landings.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[john]

Marty Shapiro wrote:
> John Jones > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
>> In many airports out there, you'll find in the AFD in the comments
>> section, "No touch and go landings", and/or "no practice approaches".
>> A few examples off the top of my head:
>>
>> http://airnav.com/airport/ksac
>> http://airnav.com/airport/kcpm
>>
>>
>> What exactly is meant by this? No touch and go landings period, or
>> just don't do multiple touch and go's, as in buzzing around the
>> pattern for an hour? It seems kind of weird to me that an airport
>> would totally not allow touch and go landings. I can understand not
>> allowing multiple touch and go's, as they create a lot of noise,
>> negatively effect arrivals and departures, and generally can be a big
>> nuisance. Compared to a full stop/taxi back, a touch and go is more
>> efficient, arguably less noisy, and less of a burden on other traffic
>> (how many times have you had to go around because some joker had to
>> taxi to the next taxiway?)
>>
>> Is there something I'm missing?
>>
>>
>
> Your missing the noise foot print which depends on how high you are.
> Using the full length of the runway, your aircraft will be higher by the
> time it crosses over the homes. The higher you are, the less noise on the
> ground.
>
> The restriction at KSAC is only from 9 PM to 6 AM. At KCPM it
> applies 24/7. I've got a similar restriction, 9 PM to 7 AM, at my home
> field, KRHV. Of course, when KRHV opened, it was in the middle of farm
> country. Then morons built homes right off the end of the runway and
> complained about the noise.
>
> What I find amusing at KRHV is that they prohibit touch & go landings,
> but do not prohibit intersection departures or stop & go landings.
>
And I've seen them for overall length issues. My home airport is 2500
feet with 2-400 foot displaced thresholds so T&G would not be very safe
there.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

John Jones wrote:
> In many airports out there, you'll find in the AFD in the comments
> >
>
> What exactly is meant by this?

Just what it says.

No T&G's means NO TOUCH AND GOES. <G> No T&G nights, means none at
night. One of my local fields allows them in one direction, but not the
other.

If in doubt, simply call the field and ask.

[[email protected]]

On Sep 4, 5:18 am, john > wrote:
>
> And I've seen them for overall length issues. My home airport is 2500
> feet with 2-400 foot displaced thresholds so T&G would not be very safe
> there.

Some might have safety issues with touch-and-goes. Transport Canada
says that the touch-and-go is statistically risky and that numerous
accidents have been recorded during such operations. The pilot is
frequently distracted by cleaning up the airplane for the takeoff and
loses control, forgets flaps or carb heat, etc.

Dan

[Marty Shapiro]

john > wrote in news:iabDi.15723$453.15626@trndny02:

> Marty Shapiro wrote:
>> John Jones > wrote in
>> ups.com:
>>
>>> In many airports out there, you'll find in the AFD in the comments
>>> section, "No touch and go landings", and/or "no practice
>>> approaches". A few examples off the top of my head:
>>>
>>> http://airnav.com/airport/ksac
>>> http://airnav.com/airport/kcpm
>>>
>>>
>>> What exactly is meant by this? No touch and go landings period, or
>>> just don't do multiple touch and go's, as in buzzing around the
>>> pattern for an hour? It seems kind of weird to me that an airport
>>> would totally not allow touch and go landings. I can understand not
>>> allowing multiple touch and go's, as they create a lot of noise,
>>> negatively effect arrivals and departures, and generally can be a
>>> big nuisance. Compared to a full stop/taxi back, a touch and go is
>>> more efficient, arguably less noisy, and less of a burden on other
>>> traffic (how many times have you had to go around because some joker
>>> had to taxi to the next taxiway?)
>>>
>>> Is there something I'm missing?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Your missing the noise foot print which depends on how high
>> you are.
>> Using the full length of the runway, your aircraft will be higher by
>> the time it crosses over the homes. The higher you are, the less
>> noise on the ground.
>>
>> The restriction at KSAC is only from 9 PM to 6 AM. At KCPM
>> it
>> applies 24/7. I've got a similar restriction, 9 PM to 7 AM, at my
>> home field, KRHV. Of course, when KRHV opened, it was in the middle
>> of farm country. Then morons built homes right off the end of the
>> runway and complained about the noise.
>>
>> What I find amusing at KRHV is that they prohibit touch & go
>> landings,
>> but do not prohibit intersection departures or stop & go landings.
>>
> And I've seen them for overall length issues. My home airport is 2500
> feet with 2-400 foot displaced thresholds so T&G would not be very
> safe there.

That really depends on the aircraft you're flying. Stop and go on a
1,500' strip is not a problem for some aircraft.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[joe]

On Sep 4, 12:48 am, John Jones > wrote:
> In many airports out there, you'll find in the AFD in the comments
> section, "No touch and go landings", and/or "no practice approaches".
> A few examples off the top of my head:
>
> http://airnav.com/airport/ksachttp://airnav.com/airport/kcpm
>
> What exactly is meant by this? No touch and go landings period, or
> just don't do multiple touch and go's, as in buzzing around the
>
just ignore it
If the airport is a public use airport and receives federal money then
the local town/ city cannot place restrictions
on its use.
you as the PIC decide if you want to stop do a touch and go....
Our local airport tried that with some of the mechanic owners who were
servicing their own aircraft, telling them they can't work on their
own airplanes.
Joe

[John Jones]

On Sep 4, 12:18 am, Richard Riley > wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 21:48:23 -0700, John Jones >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In many airports out there, you'll find in the AFD in the comments
> >section, "No touch and go landings", and/or "no practice approaches".
> >A few examples off the top of my head:
>
> >http://airnav.com/airport/ksac
> >http://airnav.com/airport/kcpm
>
> >What exactly is meant by this? No touch and go landings period, or
> >just don't do multiple touch and go's, as in buzzing around the
> >pattern for an hour? It seems kind of weird to me that an airport
> >would totally not allow touch and go landings. I can understand not
> >allowing multiple touch and go's, as they create a lot of noise,
> >negatively effect arrivals and departures, and generally can be a big
> >nuisance. Compared to a full stop/taxi back, a touch and go is more
> >efficient, arguably less noisy, and less of a burden on other traffic
> >(how many times have you had to go around because some joker had to
> >taxi to the next taxiway?)
>
> >Is there something I'm missing?
>
> The ones that I've dealt with have had a no touch and go rule for the
> weekends, when there's a lot of traffic. 3 planes in the pattern
> doing touch and goes, and that's about all a runway can handle.
>
> Basically, the idea is if you want to do touch and goes, go to another
> airport that doesn't have that much traffic. There's usually one
> within a 15 minute flight anyway.

So you're saying restrictions like these only applies to multiple
touch and go's, not just one? When I do XC's with my students, we
always just do a single touch and go, then depart back. It's quick,
efficient, and arguably produces less noise. It seems kind of silly
that an airport would force you to do a full stop...

[John Jones]

On Sep 4, 4:18 am, john > wrote:
> And I've seen them for overall length issues. My home airport is 2500
> feet with 2-400 foot displaced thresholds so T&G would not be very safe
> there.

Do you have an example of an airport that prohibits touch and go's
because of runway length issues? I know of a few 2500 foot runways in
my area that don;t have restriction, even though I agree it would be
rather risky to do a touch and go at those places...

[John Jones]

On Sep 4, 4:35 am, B A R R Y > wrote:
> John Jones wrote:
> > In many airports out there, you'll find in the AFD in the comments
>
> > What exactly is meant by this?
>
> Just what it says.
>
> No T&G's means NO TOUCH AND GOES. <G> No T&G nights, means none at
> night. One of my local fields allows them in one direction, but not the
> other.

Doesn't it seem weird that an airport would prohibit a touch and go,
but a full stop/taxi back is perfectly allowed? I'm talking about one
single touch and go, not multiple ones.

>
> If in doubt, simply call the field and ask.

Been there, done that. After being put on hold for about 20 minutes,
I'll get some desk monkey who doesn't even know what a touch and go is.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"John Jones" > wrote

> So you're saying restrictions like these only applies to multiple
> touch and go's, not just one? When I do XC's with my students, we
> always just do a single touch and go, then depart back. It's quick,
> efficient, and arguably produces less noise. It seems kind of silly
> that an airport would force you to do a full stop...

Sure, it applies to 1 T&G.

If all you want to do is fly a cross country, and do a T&G, go do it at one
of the airports that is not so busy.

They are wanting to save the pattern for planes that are leaving to go
somewhere else, and for planes coming to stay for a while, it seems.

Nothing wrong with that, I would think.

If it is a noise factor rule imposed by the surrounding residents, it would
seem that is a better compromise than losing another airport, IMHO.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"joe" <> wrote

> just ignore it
> If the airport is a public use airport and receives federal money then
> the local town/ city cannot place restrictions
> on its use.
> you as the PIC decide if you want to stop do a touch and go....
> Our local airport tried that with some of the mechanic owners who were
> servicing their own aircraft, telling them they can't work on their
> own airplanes.

THAT is a totally different issue. I would assume (dangerous, I know) that
the FAA has approved the no T&G restrictions. Once that has happened, they
are part of the regulations, and a violation may be enforced.
--
Jim in NC

[Judah]

John Jones > wrote in news:1188938195.144519.50200@
19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:

> On Sep 4, 4:18 am, john > wrote:
>> And I've seen them for overall length issues. My home airport is 2500
>> feet with 2-400 foot displaced thresholds so T&G would not be very safe
>> there.
>
> Do you have an example of an airport that prohibits touch and go's
> because of runway length issues? I know of a few 2500 foot runways in
> my area that don;t have restriction, even though I agree it would be
> rather risky to do a touch and go at those places...
>

21N - Mattituck, NY

[joe]

On Sep 4, 6:54 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "joe" <> wrote
>
> > just ignore it
> > If the airport is a public use airport and receives federal money then
> > the local town/ city cannot place restrictions
> > on its use.
> > you as the PIC decide if you want to stop do a touch and go....
> > Our local airport tried that with some of the mechanic owners who were
> > servicing their own aircraft, telling them they can't work on their
> > own airplanes.
>
> THAT is a totally different issue. I would assume (dangerous, I know) that
> the FAA has approved the no T&G restrictions. Once that has happened, they
> are part of the regulations, and a violation may be enforced.
> --
> Jim in NC

How is THAT a totally different issue? Is the town restricting it's
use? And no, the FAA most likley hasn't approved it.

So, say I go to that airport and do touch and go's? What FAR prevents
me from doing it? what could they violate me with?
Have you ever heard of some one getting violated for a touch and go?
ahh of course not.

Most likely the town is trying to cut down on noise.
joe

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

John Jones > writes:

> On Sep 4, 4:18 am, john > wrote:
> > And I've seen them for overall length issues. My home airport is 2500
> > feet with 2-400 foot displaced thresholds so T&G would not be very safe
> > there.
>
> Do you have an example of an airport that prohibits touch and go's
> because of runway length issues? I know of a few 2500 foot runways in
> my area that don;t have restriction, even though I agree it would be
> rather risky to do a touch and go at those places...

KPAO has a 2443' runway, and I would argue that the majority of the
operations that runway sees are touch and go's...

Chris

[John Jones]

On Sep 4, 5:03 pm, Judah > wrote:
> John Jones > wrote in news:1188938195.144519.50200@
> 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Sep 4, 4:18 am, john > wrote:
> >> And I've seen them for overall length issues. My home airport is 2500
> >> feet with 2-400 foot displaced thresholds so T&G would not be very safe
> >> there.
>
> > Do you have an example of an airport that prohibits touch and go's
> > because of runway length issues? I know of a few 2500 foot runways in
> > my area that don;t have restriction, even though I agree it would be
> > rather risky to do a touch and go at those places...
>
> 21N - Mattituck, NY

Thats very interesting. It seems that airport is privately owned, so I
assume the restriction is there to preserve the condition of the
runway more than anything else.

But I wonder, how do they enforce that rule? It says "ALL TRNG OPNS;
TKOF/LNDG PRACTICE AND NIGHT OPNS ARE PROHIBITED."

If you're with your friend, just jaunting around on a Sunday
afternoon, can you do a touch and go there? Its not a training flight,
nor are you practicing anything there. Do you have to stop there and
visit the FBO or something for your landing to be allowed?

[Marty Shapiro]

John Jones > wrote in
ps.com:

> On Sep 4, 4:18 am, john > wrote:
>> And I've seen them for overall length issues. My home airport is 2500
>> feet with 2-400 foot displaced thresholds so T&G would not be very safe
>> there.
>
> Do you have an example of an airport that prohibits touch and go's
> because of runway length issues? I know of a few 2500 foot runways in
> my area that don;t have restriction, even though I agree it would be
> rather risky to do a touch and go at those places...
>

That would depend on the aircraft. A STOL aircraft would not have a
problem in 2,500' or even shorter.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Marty Shapiro]

John Jones > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Sep 4, 4:35 am, B A R R Y > wrote:
>> John Jones wrote:
>> > In many airports out there, you'll find in the AFD in the comments
>>
>> > What exactly is meant by this?
>>
>> Just what it says.
>>
>> No T&G's means NO TOUCH AND GOES. <G> No T&G nights, means none at
>> night. One of my local fields allows them in one direction, but not the
>> other.
>
> Doesn't it seem weird that an airport would prohibit a touch and go,
> but a full stop/taxi back is perfectly allowed? I'm talking about one
> single touch and go, not multiple ones.
>
>>
>> If in doubt, simply call the field and ask.
>
> Been there, done that. After being put on hold for about 20 minutes,
> I'll get some desk monkey who doesn't even know what a touch and go is.
>
>

Why is this weird? If it is a noise problem, a full length take off
will place the aircraft higher at the airport boundary than one starting
further down the runway. The higher you are, the less noise on the ground
below you.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[john]

John Jones wrote:
> On Sep 4, 4:18 am, john > wrote:
>> And I've seen them for overall length issues. My home airport is 2500
>> feet with 2-400 foot displaced thresholds so T&G would not be very safe
>> there.
>
> Do you have an example of an airport that prohibits touch and go's
> because of runway length issues? I know of a few 2500 foot runways in
> my area that don;t have restriction, even though I agree it would be
> rather risky to do a touch and go at those places...
>
KANP, Annapolis,MD has the restriction. Is it all length or is it noise
or is it both, can't say for sure.

[Judah]

John Jones > wrote in news:1188955028.995554.50600
@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> If you're with your friend, just jaunting around on a Sunday
> afternoon, can you do a touch and go there? Its not a training flight,
> nor are you practicing anything there. Do you have to stop there and
> visit the FBO or something for your landing to be allowed?

There's a big sign on the runway that says "NO TOUCH & GOS"...

:)

[John Jones]

On Sep 4, 6:21 pm, Marty Shapiro >
wrote:
> John Jones > wrote groups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 4, 4:35 am, B A R R Y > wrote:
> >> John Jones wrote:
> >> > In many airports out there, you'll find in the AFD in the comments
>
> >> > What exactly is meant by this?
>
> >> Just what it says.
>
> >> No T&G's means NO TOUCH AND GOES. <G> No T&G nights, means none at
> >> night. One of my local fields allows them in one direction, but not the
> >> other.
>
> > Doesn't it seem weird that an airport would prohibit a touch and go,
> > but a full stop/taxi back is perfectly allowed? I'm talking about one
> > single touch and go, not multiple ones.
>
> >> If in doubt, simply call the field and ask.
>
> > Been there, done that. After being put on hold for about 20 minutes,
> > I'll get some desk monkey who doesn't even know what a touch and go is.
>
> Why is this weird? If it is a noise problem, a full length take off
> will place the aircraft higher at the airport boundary than one starting
> further down the runway. The higher you are, the less noise on the ground
> below you.
>
> --
> Marty Shapiro
> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>
> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)

In my experience, a touch and go gets you airborne faster than a
takeoff from a standstill.

In a touch and go, you land on the numbers, pull up the flaps, put in
carb heat, give the trim two flicks down, put back in throttle, then
after a second or two, you're climbing. All this takes less time that
what it takes to accelerate from a stop to rotation speed. In other
planes it may take longer I guess, but not at all in a C-152. Height
above departure end is, in my opinion, negligible (especially at a
longer runway such as KSAC)

[BT]

Most student pilots.. with instructors on board.. cannot "land on the
numbers" and complete the required mantra to get every thing cleaned up,
pushed forward an airborne again as you describe..

Check the runway distance marker on a normal take off
and check it again on your touch and go..

Any guesses that you might be in the same place or maybe a little farther
down the runway?

BT

> In my experience, a touch and go gets you airborne faster than a
> takeoff from a standstill.
>
> In a touch and go, you land on the numbers, pull up the flaps, put in
> carb heat, give the trim two flicks down, put back in throttle, then
> after a second or two, you're climbing. All this takes less time that
> what it takes to accelerate from a stop to rotation speed. In other
> planes it may take longer I guess, but not at all in a C-152. Height
> above departure end is, in my opinion, negligible (especially at a
> longer runway such as KSAC)
>

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:36:35 -0700, John Jones >
wrote:

>On Sep 4, 4:18 am, john > wrote:
>> And I've seen them for overall length issues. My home airport is 2500
>> feet with 2-400 foot displaced thresholds so T&G would not be very safe
>> there.
>
>Do you have an example of an airport that prohibits touch and go's
>because of runway length issues? I know of a few 2500 foot runways in
>my area that don;t have restriction, even though I agree it would be
>rather risky to do a touch and go at those places...

Any respectable plae should be able to stop in a 1000 and be at least
several hundred feet from 1500...right over the neighbors who don't
like noise.

Roger

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 08:06:20 -0700, wrote:

>On Sep 4, 5:18 am, john > wrote:
>>
>> And I've seen them for overall length issues. My home airport is 2500
>> feet with 2-400 foot displaced thresholds so T&G would not be very safe
>> there.
>
> Some might have safety issues with touch-and-goes. Transport Canada
>says that the touch-and-go is statistically risky and that numerous
>accidents have been recorded during such operations. The pilot is
>frequently distracted by cleaning up the airplane for the takeoff and
>loses control, forgets flaps or carb heat, etc.

The theory goes that not only are they more risky, but that the
student is mainly getting pattern practice rather than true take offs
and landings. On a "touch-and-go" the typical mind set is not on
landing, but on getting back into the air without breaking something.
A true landing takes a mind set of landing the airplane, BUT what to
do if something goes wrong and a balked landing, or a go-around is
required which are not the same as touch and goes.
After he lost two rental planes the local FBO prohibited T&Gs in his
planes.

A touch-and-go in the Deb can be exciting. You ease the power in,
while the flaps are coming up and while holding at least 40# pressure
on the yoke to keep the nose down. Even with full flaps it'll
literally go ballistic and pass Vy in only a few seconds. The most
difficult parts are keeping it from trying to imitate a wheel barrow
and get retrimed properly with a trim wheel that is behind the panel
and above the bottom of said panel completely out of sight. You also
have to lean over which makes seeing out just barely possible for some
one around 5'8" or so. Typically I have to lean far enough the only
thing I can see is the panel and inside of the doors while adjusting
trim. Think of doing this at 60 to 80 MPH while close to the ground,
holding 40# of *push* against the yoke and not being able to see
outside. If you try to hold it on while doing this you are likely to
ruin a set of tires. If you wait for the flaps to come up before
easing in the throttle you have almost time and distance enough for a
full stop.

Roger (K8RI)

>
> Dan

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:04:02 -0700, joe > wrote:

>On Sep 4, 6:54 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> "joe" <> wrote
>>
>> > just ignore it
>> > If the airport is a public use airport and receives federal money then
>> > the local town/ city cannot place restrictions
>> > on its use.
>> > you as the PIC decide if you want to stop do a touch and go....
>> > Our local airport tried that with some of the mechanic owners who were
>> > servicing their own aircraft, telling them they can't work on their
>> > own airplanes.
>>
>> THAT is a totally different issue. I would assume (dangerous, I know) that
>> the FAA has approved the no T&G restrictions. Once that has happened, they
>> are part of the regulations, and a violation may be enforced.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
>How is THAT a totally different issue? Is the town restricting it's
>use? And no, the FAA most likley hasn't approved it.

Is it in the AFD?

>
>So, say I go to that airport and do touch and go's? What FAR prevents
>me from doing it? what could they violate me with?

A city can pass laws contrary to what they are supposed to. They can
violate you for any of them. Now, you would probably win after going
to court, and spending $20,000 or so. Then they appeal, which is going
to cost you the time to appear and maybe another $50,000. You may
need to be present for each hearing. If you work for a living this can
get both inconvenient and expensive.

>Have you ever heard of some one getting violated for a touch and go?
>ahh of course not.

IIRC It seems like there's also a stipulation for unpaid bills and
fines that allows them to take your airplane as collateral.

>
>Most likely the town is trying to cut down on noise.
>joe
>

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

John Jones wrote:
>
> Doesn't it seem weird that an airport would prohibit a touch and go,
> but a full stop/taxi back is perfectly allowed? I'm talking about one
> single touch and go, not multiple ones.

It depends on the reason. For instance, the field I mentioned that
allows them in one direction, but not the other has close-in
obstructions and parked aircraft along the departure end of the runway.
The first T&G is no different from the rest. See the picture here:

<http://www.airnav.com/airport/kmmk>

In the Airnav photo, you can T&G right to left, but not the other way.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

joe wrote:
>
> So, say I go to that airport and do touch and go's? What FAR prevents
> me from doing it? what could they violate me with?

Whatever happened to respect for others?

If I'm not intimately familiar with the local politics and inner
workings of a field, I can't claim to know exactly why they don't want
T&G's. The statement can be a _request_ as much as it can be a rule,
but we don't know that.

Maybe there have been accidents. Maybe it's noise sensitivity. Maybe
it's some totally inane reason none of us would agree with.

If it's posted, shouldn't we respect it?

[Fred the Red Shirt]

On Sep 4, 3:06 pm, wrote:
> On Sep 4, 5:18 am, john > wrote:
>
>
>
> > And I've seen them for overall length issues. My home airport is 2500
> > feet with 2-400 foot displaced thresholds so T&G would not be very safe
> > there.
>
> Some might have safety issues with touch-and-goes. Transport Canada
> says that the touch-and-go is statistically risky and that numerous
> accidents have been recorded during such operations. The pilot is
> frequently distracted by cleaning up the airplane for the takeoff and
> loses control, forgets flaps or carb heat, etc.
>

Many years ago I lived in some apartments a block from
the Wood County airport in Bowling Green Ohio. Just past
the end of the runway that was more or less aligned with
our building was a deep drainage ditch and a low chainlink
fence, then an intersection where two streets made a tee.

I was watching a (presumably) student pilot doing touch and
goes on that runway one day when they touched down hard
in that intersection on the wrong side of the ditch from the runway
and then got airborne again in time to clear the fence.

I didn't realize before then how much travel there was in the
suspension in a Cessna landing gear. They practically
scraped the belly of the plane on the road. It literally
bounced back into the air.

Two years later someone took off from that runway with
four passengers and too much fuel, stalled, and dropped
into the apartments next door killing all four aboard.

--

FF

[cjcampbell]

On Sep 3, 9:48 pm, John Jones > wrote:
> In many airports out there, you'll find in the AFD in the comments
> section, "No touch and go landings", and/or "no practice approaches".
> A few examples off the top of my head:
>
> http://airnav.com/airport/ksachttp://airnav.com/airport/kcpm
>

It means no touch and goes, period. People really do not want a lot of
student pilot practice activity there during those hours. KSAC has
been a big AllATPs hub and those guys would do touch and goes 24/7
given the chance.

Sedona (KSEZ) used to prohibit all solo student activity, for good
reason. It has a relatively narrow runway with steep drop-offs at both
ends and squirrely winds. They used to get a lot of people missing the
runway. The runway is now 100' wide, but they still ask pilots to
avoid scenic flights below 6500' MSL.

[John Jones]

On Sep 5, 4:50 am, B A R R Y > wrote:
> joe wrote:
>
> > So, say I go to that airport and do touch and go's? What FAR prevents
> > me from doing it? what could they violate me with?
>
> Whatever happened to respect for others?
>
> If I'm not intimately familiar with the local politics and inner
> workings of a field, I can't claim to know exactly why they don't want
> T&G's. The statement can be a _request_ as much as it can be a rule,
> but we don't know that.
>
> Maybe there have been accidents. Maybe it's noise sensitivity. Maybe
> it's some totally inane reason none of us would agree with.
>
> If it's posted, shouldn't we respect it?

The reason I brought the issue up is because just about every night I
fly cross country with one of my students to this airport that has a
24 hour cafe. We leave at sundown, since it's relatively easy to get a
plane scheduled for such a long flight. Over the weeks, I've kind of
developed a routine of instrument approaches to have my students do.

Theres this one approach that I want to add to my routine (ILS 2 @
SAC), but they have a noise abatement policy that states "no touch and
go's, no practice approaches". All I want to do is shoot the ILS, put
the wheels down, add power, then depart somewhere else. I'll even do a
full stop

When I first read it, I thought they just meant they didn't want
people buzzing around in the pattern multiple times, nor did they not
want people constantly jamming in the throttle at DA multiple times,
for hours on end. When I asked other pilots that they thought, they
all agreed that it meant simply "don't land here at all at night"

The way I see it, if they didn't want anybody landing there at all
after dark, they'd bluntly state in the noise abatement policy "no
transient activity after such and such local time". The way it's
worded now, you can land and do a full stop/taxi back without any
trouble. So why would they allow you to do one full stop, but not one
touch and go? Even if you want to argue that one touch and go creates
more noise than one full stop/taxi back, it is enough to justify
banning them all together?

So would I be in accordance with the noise abatement policy if I just
did one ILS, land, then quietly depart? The way I see it, I'm not
making any more noise than a transient that decides to land there,
taxi off to get fuel, then departs again.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John Jones wrote:
>
> So would I be in accordance with the noise abatement policy if I just
> did one ILS, land, then quietly depart? The way I see it, I'm not
> making any more noise than a transient that decides to land there,
> taxi off to get fuel, then departs again.

Yes, you would be acting in accordance with the policy. And you are right
you are not, but come on John this isn't your first rodeo is it? Since when
did rules have to be logical?

There is probably some group near the airport that wants to shut the place
down completely. There are those that don't want it shut down. There was a
probably some negotiation and this was the outcome.

With that in mind if you start doing this every evening they might go back
into negotiation and the outcome might be a worse rule.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Sep 3, 9:48 pm, John Jones > wrote:
> In many airports out there, you'll find in the AFD in the comments
> section, "No touch and go landings", and/or "no practice approaches".
> A few examples off the top of my head:
>
> http://airnav.com/airport/ksachttp://airnav.com/airport/kcpm
>
> What exactly is meant by this? No touch and go landings period, or
> just don't do multiple touch and go's, as in buzzing around the
> pattern for an hour? It seems kind of weird to me that an airport
> would totally not allow touch and go landings. I can understand not
> allowing multiple touch and go's, as they create a lot of noise,
> negatively effect arrivals and departures, and generally can be a big
> nuisance. Compared to a full stop/taxi back, a touch and go is more
> efficient, arguably less noisy, and less of a burden on other traffic
> (how many times have you had to go around because some joker had to
> taxi to the next taxiway?)
>
> Is there something I'm missing?

The hope is that by requiring that you taxi back you will go somewhere
else. Some airports are so busy with arrivals that they just aren't
set up to allow TNG practice.
In addition, some airports restrict TNG's because it violates their
rule of no intersection take offs (i.e. you are required to initiate
take off from the numbers). This is the case of KSAC. You can ask for
the option and they will say "Cleared for the option, all options
approved except TNG" (they've got that script memorized! ;) )

-Robert

[S Green]

"John Jones" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Sep 5, 4:50 am, B A R R Y > wrote:

>
> So would I be in accordance with the noise abatement policy if I just
> did one ILS, land, then quietly depart? The way I see it, I'm not
> making any more noise than a transient that decides to land there,
> taxi off to get fuel, then departs again.

so why not call the airport and find out exactly what they mean? Surely a
better option than everyone here trying to guess.

[B A R R Y]

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 18:06:26 +0100, "S Green"
> wrote:
>so why not call the airport and find out exactly what they mean? Surely a
>better option than everyone here trying to guess.

I suggested that @ 0735 on 9/4, but it got shot down as "too much
bother to sit on hold." <G>