Night currency question

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.

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

"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...

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

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

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

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" 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

"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

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.....