Night currency question

[john]

What is the reasoning behind the full stop landing?


thanks,

John

[BT]

only the writers of the FARs know..
(only the shadow knows)

to venture a guess..

BT

"john" > wrote in message
...
> What is the reasoning behind the full stop landing?
>
>
> thanks,
>
> John

[Stan Prevost[_1_]]

One of the issues with night flight is being able to maneuver on the surface
of an airport without getting lost and making runway incursions. It can be
a daunting task at a large field. I have always supposed that the FAA
wanted pilots to have some recency of experience in such night maneuvering,
and I have thus interpreted the requirement for full-stop landings to
exclude stop-and-go. I have assumed that they want us to exit the runway
and taxi back for departure. Assuming, of course, that there is a parallel
taxiway. If not, then backtaxi, being very aware of things.

Stan


"john" > wrote in message
...
> What is the reasoning behind the full stop landing?
>
>
> thanks,
>
> John

[BT]

and on a 10,000ft runway.. you stop in the first 1000.. full stop.. and then
just go..
so much for the "ground operations"
BT

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
> One of the issues with night flight is being able to maneuver on the
> surface of an airport without getting lost and making runway incursions.
> It can be a daunting task at a large field. I have always supposed that
> the FAA wanted pilots to have some recency of experience in such night
> maneuvering, and I have thus interpreted the requirement for full-stop
> landings to exclude stop-and-go. I have assumed that they want us to exit
> the runway and taxi back for departure. Assuming, of course, that there
> is a parallel taxiway. If not, then backtaxi, being very aware of things.
>
> Stan
>
>
> "john" > wrote in message
> ...
>> What is the reasoning behind the full stop landing?
>>
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> John
>

[Marty Shapiro]

"BT" > wrote in
:

> and on a 10,000ft runway.. you stop in the first 1000.. full stop..
> and then just go..
> so much for the "ground operations"
> BT
>
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
> ...
>> One of the issues with night flight is being able to maneuver on the
>> surface of an airport without getting lost and making runway
>> incursions. It can be a daunting task at a large field. I have
>> always supposed that the FAA wanted pilots to have some recency of
>> experience in such night maneuvering, and I have thus interpreted the
>> requirement for full-stop landings to exclude stop-and-go. I have
>> assumed that they want us to exit the runway and taxi back for
>> departure. Assuming, of course, that there is a parallel taxiway.
>> If not, then backtaxi, being very aware of things.
>>
>> Stan
>>
>>
>> "john" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>> What is the reasoning behind the full stop landing?
>>>
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> John
>>
>
>
>

With a 10,000' runway and a STOL aircraft, you can get your night
currency in one pass down the runway.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[john]

I'm used to a 2600' runway. Anything longer than 5000' can be done
with a stop and go :)
I had thought about the taxiing part, but it doesn't say that in the
regs. And if it is a small enough airport, there is only one taxi way
onto the runway, therefore it requires a back taxi on the runway.

John

On Dec 11, 12:04 am, "BT" > wrote:
> and on a 10,000ft runway.. you stop in the first 1000.. full stop.. and then
> just go..
> so much for the "ground operations"
> BT
>
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > One of the issues with night flight is being able to maneuver on the
> > surface of an airport without getting lost and making runway incursions.
> > It can be a daunting task at a large field. I have always supposed that
> > the FAA wanted pilots to have some recency of experience in such night
> > maneuvering, and I have thus interpreted the requirement for full-stop
> > landings to exclude stop-and-go. I have assumed that they want us to exit
> > the runway and taxi back for departure. Assuming, of course, that there
> > is a parallel taxiway. If not, then backtaxi, being very aware of things.
>
> > Stan
>
> > "john" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> What is the reasoning behind the full stop landing?
>
> >> thanks,
>
> >> John- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Denny]

Does anyone notice the incongruity of; to qualify for night ops, you
go out unqualified and perform night ops...

ahh well...

denny

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Denny" > wrote in message
...
>
> Does anyone notice the incongruity of; to qualify for night ops, you
> go out unqualified and perform night ops...
>
> ahh well...
>

But you don't go out alone unqualified and perform night ops to qualify for
night ops. Do you?

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> Does anyone notice the incongruity of; to qualify for night ops, you
>> go out unqualified and perform night ops...
>
> But you don't go out alone unqualified and perform night ops to qualify for
> night ops. Do you?


Why wouldn't you? You're not legal to carry anyone until you complete your
three T&Ls.... I suppose you could pay an instructor but why bother? The
airplane doesn't know it's dark.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
>
> Why wouldn't you? You're not legal to carry anyone until you complete
> your three T&Ls.... I suppose you could pay an instructor but why bother?
> The airplane doesn't know it's dark.
>

Because night ops qualification requires 3 hours of night flight training
and flight training requires a flight instructor.

[news.verizon.net[_2_]]

There's a big difference between gain the qualification for night ops and
maintaining currency for night ops.
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Why wouldn't you? You're not legal to carry anyone until you complete
>> your three T&Ls.... I suppose you could pay an instructor but why bother?
>> The airplane doesn't know it's dark.
>>
>
> Because night ops qualification requires 3 hours of night flight training
> and flight training requires a flight instructor.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"news.verizon.net" > wrote in message
news:Q2y7j.1637$sf.1383@trndny04...
>
> There's a big difference between gain the qualification for night ops and
> maintaining currency for night ops.
>

Correct.

[nobody[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because night ops qualification requires 3 hours of night flight training
> and flight training requires a flight instructor.
>
>

Where does the FAA define the term "Qualification"?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"nobody" > wrote in message
news:Yxy7j.6065$va7.1563@trndny08...
>
> Where does the FAA define the term "Qualification"?
>

Nowhere.

[nobody[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
>
> "nobody" > wrote in message
> news:Yxy7j.6065$va7.1563@trndny08...
> >
> > Where does the FAA define the term "Qualification"?
> >
>
> Nowhere.
>

So why do you consider someone not current at night to have the proper
qualification to fly at night?

It sounds like you're making up the rules as you go. You should stick to
proper terminology.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"nobody" > wrote in message
news:_Jy7j.21802$Bg7.458@trndny07...
>
> It sounds like you're making up the rules as you go. You should stick to
> proper terminology.
>

I don't.

[nobody[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> "nobody" > wrote in message
> news:_Jy7j.21802$Bg7.458@trndny07...
> >
> > You should stick to proper terminology.
> >
>
> I don't.
>

That's obvious

[Denny]

>
> But you don't go out alone unqualified and perform night ops to qualify for
> night ops. Do you?

Same thing to carry passengers... You go out there unqualified to
carry passengers and do a few TOL... Suddenly you are qualified to
carry passengers - without having carried a passenger...

Ahh well, I guess that is why they invented P51 time...


denny

[nobody[_2_]]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
46.128...

> I believe that Steven, in his own uniquely asinine manner was pointing
> out that Denny had changed the topic of this thread from "currency"
> to "qualification". Two completely separate topics.
>
> In my case, I am completely qualified to fly during night time, however,
> I may not carry passengers at night without meeting the requirements of
> CFR Title 14, Chapter 1, Part 61, Section 61.57 (b) (1).
>
> Bob Moore

At the same time, you're not qualified to carry passengers at night.

You're also not qualified to fly my airplane, as I have designated myself as
sole authority to make that determination.

My point is that Steven is making incomplete and ambiguous statements and
passing them off as fact.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"nobody" > wrote in message
news:_Jy7j.21802$Bg7.458@trndny07...
>
> So why do you consider someone not current at night to have the proper
> qualification to fly at night?
>

I don't.


>
> It sounds like you're making up the rules as you go.
>

How so?


>
> You should stick to
> proper terminology.
>

I do.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"nobody" > wrote in message
news:0fz7j.21804$Bg7.19859@trndny07...
>
> My point is that Steven is making incomplete and ambiguous statements and
> passing them off as fact.
>

Steven did nothing at all like that.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Denny" > wrote in message
...
>
> Same thing to carry passengers... You go out there unqualified to
> carry passengers and do a few TOL... Suddenly you are qualified to
> carry passengers - without having carried a passenger...
>

Ahh, you said nothing about passengers in your first message. That changes
things.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 11, 12:44 am, "Stan Prevost" > wrote:
> One of the issues with night flight is being able to maneuver on the surface
> of an airport without getting lost and making runway incursions. It can be
> a daunting task at a large field. I have always supposed that the FAA
> wanted pilots to have some recency of experience in such night maneuvering,
> and I have thus interpreted the requirement for full-stop landings to
> exclude stop-and-go.

No, stop-and-goes are sufficient. The CFRs and AIM Pilot/Controller
Glossary do not provide any technical definition for "full stop".
Therefore, the term just has its ordinary English meaning, which does
not include a requirement to exit the runway or taxi around the
airport. (The P/CG does use the term "complete stop"--as part of the
definition of "stop and go".)

My guess is that the FAA doesn't want to promote nighttime touch and
goes by a pilot who lacks recent night experience, so they don't allow
touch and goes to count for night currency. Stop and goes are less
rushed--they let the pilot verify takeoff configuration and assess
remaining runway length without being in motion in the dark at the
same time.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Denny" > wrote in message
> news:4b5fd005-dbcd-468f-b32d-
> ...
>>
>> Same thing to carry passengers... You go out there unqualified to
>> carry passengers and do a few TOL... Suddenly you are qualified to
>> carry passengers - without having carried a passenger...
>>
>
> Ahh, you said nothing about passengers in your first message. That
> changes things.

Seeing as how the regulation for night currency only applies to the carrying
of passengers why should he have needed to mention it?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> Seeing as how the regulation for night currency only applies to the
> carrying of passengers why should he have needed to mention it?

His question was about qualifying for night ops, not about night currency.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 10, 9:44 pm, "Stan Prevost" > wrote:
> One of the issues with night flight is being able to maneuver on the surface
> of an airport without getting lost and making runway incursions.

But how do they make it to the runway in the first place?

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 10, 7:11 pm, john > wrote:
> What is the reasoning behind the full stop landing?
>
> thanks,
>
> John

The definition of "landing" is a bit vague, but full stop is pretty
easy to define. I suspect that the FAA doesn't want people to count
time when they bang the wheels on the ground and then continue flying.
I've been known to log 3 of those types of "landings" in a single
pass. :)

-Robert, CFII

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 11, 9:18 am, wrote:

> My guess is that the FAA doesn't want to promote nighttime touch and
> goes by a pilot who lacks recent night experience, so they don't allow
> touch and goes to count for night currency.

I'm not sure if that is true or not but I always restrict my students
to full stop landings when I endorse them for solo. Touch-n-goes can
be very busy and the chances of someone going off the side of the
runway while reaching for the flaps (at least with low time pilots) is
high in my experience. I've flown with rated pilot with fresh BFRs
that have a hard time with tngs.

-Robert, CFII

[Jim Logajan]

john > wrote:
> What is the reasoning behind the full stop landing?

There may be little justification for that requirement and this may be a
good time to ask the FAA to either provide better justification or
change to the rule because it appears the "FAA Wants Help Eliminating
Useless Rules":

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FAAWantsHelpEliminatingUselessRules_196728-1.html

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> Why wouldn't you? You're not legal to carry anyone until you complete
>> your three T&Ls.... I suppose you could pay an instructor but why bother?
>> The airplane doesn't know it's dark.
>
> Because night ops qualification requires 3 hours of night flight training
> and flight training requires a flight instructor.



I got those three hours of night flight instruction as a student pilot back in
1978. I've not required more night flight instruction since then though my
night currency comes and goes... particularly in the summer.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Gig 601XL Builder]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> His question was about qualifying for night ops, not about night
> currency.

[Margy Natalie]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Seeing as how the regulation for night currency only applies to the
>>carrying of passengers why should he have needed to mention it?
>
>
> His question was about qualifying for night ops, not about night currency.
>
>
I don't think so, the thread started with why is it 3 to a full stop and
the thread is called Night currency question. Someone then said does it
make sense to go out "unqualified" which in the vein of this thread only
makes sense as "not current" to become "qualified" which would be
"current".

Margy

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote

> The definition of "landing" is a bit vague, but full stop is pretty
> easy to define. I suspect that the FAA doesn't want people to count
> time when they bang the wheels on the ground and then continue flying.
> I've been known to log 3 of those types of "landings" in a single
> pass. :)

Too funny! :-)
--
Jim in NC

[Aluckyguess]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Dec 10, 7:11 pm, john > wrote:
>> What is the reasoning behind the full stop landing?
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> John
>
> The definition of "landing" is a bit vague, but full stop is pretty
> easy to define. I suspect that the FAA doesn't want people to count
> time when they bang the wheels on the ground and then continue flying.
> I've been known to log 3 of those types of "landings" in a single
> pass. :)
>
My buddy has a 310 and when we landed and taxied to the hangers and met the
other planes that went on the trip to lunch, they wondered why they were
back to the hanger first. I told them we landed 3 times. My buddy was a
little upset, but it was funny at the time. He sure has a hard time landing
that plane.
> -Robert, CFII

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
>
> I got those three hours of night flight instruction as a student pilot
> back in 1978. I've not required more night flight instruction since then
> though my night currency comes and goes... particularly in the summer.
>

Exactly.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> I don't think so, the thread started with why is it 3 to a full stop and
> the thread is called Night currency question. Someone then said does it
> make sense to go out "unqualified" which in the vein of this thread only
> makes sense as "not current" to become "qualified" which would be
> "current".
>

You're free to assume he meant something other than what he wrote.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Clark" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hmmm, maybe you should look at the subject line. Maybe.
>

Thread creep.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:33:51 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> wrote:

>"BT" > wrote in
:
>
>> and on a 10,000ft runway.. you stop in the first 1000.. full stop..
>> and then just go..
>> so much for the "ground operations"
>> BT
>>
>> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> One of the issues with night flight is being able to maneuver on the
>>> surface of an airport without getting lost and making runway
>>> incursions. It can be a daunting task at a large field. I have
>>> always supposed that the FAA wanted pilots to have some recency of
>>> experience in such night maneuvering, and I have thus interpreted the
>>> requirement for full-stop landings to exclude stop-and-go. I have
>>> assumed that they want us to exit the runway and taxi back for
>>> departure. Assuming, of course, that there is a parallel taxiway.
>>> If not, then backtaxi, being very aware of things.
>>>
>>> Stan
>>>
>>>
>>> "john" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>> What is the reasoning behind the full stop landing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> With a 10,000' runway and a STOL aircraft, you can get your night
>currency in one pass down the runway.

STOL? I could do it in a Bonanza, 172 or Cherokee depending on
whether I had to get to pattern alititude. In that case I could only
get two on one pass.

Roger (K8RI)

[Dave S]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Dec 10, 7:11 pm, john > wrote:
>> What is the reasoning behind the full stop landing?
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> John
>
> The definition of "landing" is a bit vague, but full stop is pretty
> easy to define. I suspect that the FAA doesn't want people to count
> time when they bang the wheels on the ground and then continue flying.
> I've been known to log 3 of those types of "landings" in a single
> pass. :)
>
> -Robert, CFII

Yea.. but when you ACCIDENTLY bang the wheels three times when you are
trying to full stop.....

[WingFlaps]

On Dec 11, 4:11 pm, john > wrote:
> What is the reasoning behind the full stop landing?
>
To allow for 40 winks ?
<grin>

Cheers

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Clark" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Hmmm, maybe you should look at the subject line. Maybe.
>>
>
> Thread creep.

Not until you jumped in and creeped it.

[nobody[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
> You're free to assume he meant something other than what he wrote.

What's good for the goose.......

[john]

My question was related to currency - 3 full stops in the previous 90
days.

I have heard of individuals joking about counting three bounce
landings during the day time as meeting their currency requirement,
however, I've never know anyone to actually put it in their log
books. The only general answer I have received is related to safety,
but no further explanation has been given.

The reason I asked was that the FAA is requesting comments on their
regs at this time. Since no one has been able to give a definite
answer, I have submitted a request that the "full stop" be removed
from the language.

Thanks for the "lively" responses.

John



On Dec 11, 1:18 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> john > wrote:
> > What is the reasoning behind the full stop landing?
>
> There may be little justification for that requirement and this may be a
> good time to ask the FAA to either provide better justification or
> change to the rule because it appears the "FAA Wants Help Eliminating
> Useless Rules":
>
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FAAWantsHelpEliminatingUselessRu...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Bob Moore > wrote in
46.128:

> Robert M. Gary wrote
>> I'm not sure if that is true or not but I always restrict my students
>> to full stop landings when I endorse them for solo. Touch-n-goes can
>> be very busy and the chances of someone going off the side of the
>> runway while reaching for the flaps (at least with low time pilots) is
>> high in my experience.
>
> Same here....
>
> Bob Moore

Ditto.

I'm not all that keen on doing touch and goes at any time, in fact.



Bertie

[Jackal24]

john > wrote in news:87b0c4c0-6c90-4d4f-b225-
:

> My question was related to currency - 3 full stops in the previous 90
> days.
>
> I have heard of individuals joking about counting three bounce
> landings during the day time as meeting their currency requirement,
> however, I've never know anyone to actually put it in their log
> books. The only general answer I have received is related to safety,
> but no further explanation has been given.
>

Each landing has to involve "flight in the traffic pattern". Now if you
were a lawyer, you might argue the definition of "traffic pattern". Does
only an upwind and final count?

[Jose]

> Each landing has to involve "flight in the traffic pattern". Now if you
> were a lawyer, you might argue the definition of "traffic pattern". Does
> only an upwind and final count?

Reading 61.57 I see nothing about flight in the traffic pattern. Where is it required? If I make three night cross country trips, ending each one with a straight in approach and landing, that counts towards currency.

However, I do agree that three bounces does not.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jackal24]

Jose > wrote in
t:
>
> Reading 61.57 I see nothing about flight in the traffic pattern.
> Where is it required?

I don't see it. I am pretty sure I remember it being in there somewhere,
but I guess I am wrong.

[Jose]

> Section 61.109: Aeronautical experience.
> (a) For an airplane single-engine rating.........
>
> (ii) 10 takeoffs and 10 landings to a full stop (with each landing
> involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport.

Just to keep things clear... 61.109 contains (training) requirements for applying for a pilot certificate in the first place. As such the pattern requirement is reasonable.

61.57 contains requirements for recency of experience to be legal for carrying passengers. As such the lack of a pattern requirement is reasonable.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[john]

You might be thinking of the Commercial Experience requirements:

"5 hours in night VFR conditions with 10 takeoffs and 10 landings
(with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an
airport with an operating control tower." FAR 61.129

61.109 relates to private pilots and doesn't mention night as a
requirement

On Dec 14, 8:31 am, Jose > wrote:
> > Section 61.109: Aeronautical experience.
> > (a) For an airplane single-engine rating.........
>
> > (ii) 10 takeoffs and 10 landings to a full stop (with each landing
> > involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport.
>
> Just to keep things clear... 61.109 contains (training) requirements for applying for a pilot certificate in the first place. As such the pattern requirement is reasonable.
>
> 61.57 contains requirements for recency of experience to be legal for carrying passengers. As such the lack of a pattern requirement is reasonable.
>
> Jose
> --
> You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Judah]

Denny > wrote in news:af131a7f-8d0c-421e-9b65-
:

> Does anyone notice the incongruity of; to qualify for night ops, you
> go out unqualified and perform night ops...

You're forgetting an important distinction - carrying passengers.

In the US, night VFR currency is for carrying passengers only. Solo VFR night
ops are permitted even if you are not current to carry passengers. The same,
by the way, applies to currency for day VFR operations.

The concept, I believe, is that the FAA doesn't mind if you want to kill
yourself, but it steps in to protect you from killing others (passengers).

Too bad the DOT doesn't work that way for automobiles....

[Judah]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:5a46aa1f-e17f-4e03-8ee3-
:

> high in my experience. I've flown with rated pilot with fresh BFRs
> that have a hard time with tngs.

That's probably because most pilots stop flying TnGs once they get their
rating...

[Alan Gerber]

Judah > wrote:
> That's probably because most pilots stop flying TnGs once they get their
> rating...

That's funny, it was the exact opposite for me. My school didn't allow
solo touch-and-goes, so I only flew them with an instructor until I got my
rating. Now I do them occasionally for currency ... or just for fun.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 16, 7:25 pm, Judah > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:5a46aa1f-e17f-4e03-8ee3-
> :
>
> > high in my experience. I've flown with rated pilot with fresh BFRs
> > that have a hard time with tngs.
>
> That's probably because most pilots stop flying TnGs once they get their
> rating...

When I had the Aeronca I could spend all day doing tng's and every one
would be exciting. Now with the Mooney I can't imagine doing more
landings than necessary. Its like parking your car in the garage more
times than necessary, it just isn't interesting.

-robert

[Jim Macklin]

Before 1973 [IIRC] all landings for day or night had to be to a full stop
and you had to do 5 every 90 days.

The rule changed to reduce the number to 3 and T&G were allowed in the
daytime. The FAA reasoning was that loss of directional control was more
likely at night with reduced visual references, so they retained the full
stop at night.


"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
| Alan Gerber > wrote in news:fk7cen$j16$1
| @reader1.panix.com:
|
| > Judah > wrote:
| >> That's probably because most pilots stop flying TnGs once they get
their
| >> rating...
| >
| > That's funny, it was the exact opposite for me. My school didn't allow
| > solo touch-and-goes, so I only flew them with an instructor until I got
my
| > rating. Now I do them occasionally for currency ... or just for fun.
| >
| > ... Alan
|
| Wow. That's an interesting policy. How long ago did you get your ticket?
|
| I got my ticket in 2001. I probably did hundreds of T&Gs during my
training,
| both solo and with instructors.
|
| Now I do an occassional T&G for currency, and that's about it. Maybe 5 a
| year.