Flaps on touch and go

[Hank]

17 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

I would say the goal is to maintain control of the aircraft at all phases while reconfiguring as required. TGLs are a required skill to get your PPL, and if you feel it's too dangerous I would go out with a CFI and practice.
Does MAPA instruction do TGLs?

This is good advice.

The MAPA PPP does not do touch and goes. At my first one, though, my instructor was working with me a month after my transition training (and I hit 100 hours total time enroute to the PPP), and one landing he challenged me to land on the mains, keep the nose wheel in the air and take off again. I did, and it was fun! 

Probably the most TnGs I did was with my CFII during instrument training. I didn't question the decision, I grew up watching a variety of jets and propellor planes doing them (F4, A4, A6, AV8A, C130, C141, etc. Can't swear about the sea planes, their landing zone was pretty far out, but I did stay out of their way in the sailboat . . . )

I was surprised that the PPP doesn't do them, but the first hint I had that they are "dangerous" was here, a couple of years ago. I retract my flaps with one finger, while holding the throttle to idle; grabbing the gear means letting go of the throttle and moving my arm, and I do that just like on every takeoff-- after achieving rotation speed, pulling the yoke back and verifying positive rate of climb. Just like on every takeoff, my right hand stays on the throttle until time to raise the gear. Just like on every landing, I raise the flaps with throttle to idle, and don't mess with anything else.

If you don't like them, don't do them, but stop the incessant the yammering, telling everyone that they aren't safe and should never be done!!

P.S.--the horse is dead . . . . 

Edited June 29, 2017 by Hank

[Hank]

If you think a touch and go is dangerous and asking for a gear up landing, please avoid formation training, you'd either have a midair with another plane in your flight, or stroke out worrying about it. 

Want to reduce all landing risks? Don't takeoff, you won't have to worry about landing.

[steingar]

1 minute ago, Hank said:

If you think a touch and go is dangerous and asking for a gear up landing, please avoid formation training, you'd either have a midair with another plane in your flight, or stroke out worrying about it. 

What exactly do T&G's have to do with formation flight?  I've done a bunch, and we certainly didn't do T&G's.  I'd like to think that the flight leader could identify a hazard before it go to that stage.  Rapidly changing flight regimens is a really bad idea for formation novices.

[Hank]

26 minutes ago, steingar said:

What exactly do T&G's have to do with formation flight?  I've done a bunch, and we certainly didn't do T&G's.  I'd like to think that the flight leader could identify a hazard before it go to that stage.  Rapidly changing flight regimens is a really bad idea for formation novices.

TnGs aren't related to formation flight (usually). 

But if someone is so deathly afraid of TnGs as some people here seem to be, then it would be advisable for those same fearful types to avoid formation flight, lest their fear of hitting one of those nearby planes overwhelm them . . .

[Andy95W]

48 minutes ago, 201er said:

 

No! What would be the point of going out and practicing a useless maneuver with an instructor that you intentionally choose to avoid in order to reduce risk? I don't think anyone is saying they don't know how to do touch n goes or are incapable of doing them. They are just saying that they have identified an elevated risk in performing such a maneuver and realizing the lack of positive value from its implementation, they found it prudent to avoid practicing it.

I don't see the point in flying around with a parrot because it could start flying around the cabin while I'm trying to land.  But I won't call it useless because obviously you gain some benefit to flying with it, in spite of the elevated risk. 

[Skates97]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

The MAPA PPP does not do touch and goes. At my first one, though, my instructor was working with me a month after my transition training (and I hit 100 hours total time enroute to the PPP), and one landing he challenged me to land on the mains, keep the nose wheel in the air and take off again. I did, and it was fun! 

P.S.--the horse is dead . . . . 

The CFI that was doing my pre-checkride phase check or whatever you want to call it told me during our flight that for his CFI Checkride the DPE had him do the same thing. Land, keep the nose wheel from touching, and take off again. It was all about demonstrating control of the aircraft to the DPE. Every now and then my CFI liked to land on the long runways at Chino and hold the nose wheel off while rolling 3,000+ feet down the runway before letting the nose down and exiting. Why? Demonstrating control of the plane (plus it was a lot of fun).

In regards to the horse, it seems that they get resurrected from time to time on different aviation boards just so they can be beaten again...

There have been comments from others in the thread about the elevated risk and even mentions about insurance companies not liking them if I remember from the 6 pages of posts... I filled out insurance applications with three, maybe four different brokers/companies when I got my plane. None of them asked if I would be performing touch-n-go's, none of them quoted a higher premium if I would be performing them, none of them put any exclusion in the policy to practicing them. All of them did have requirements for transition training as well as minimum requirements for the open pilot warranty endorsement. I am fairly certain that if there was such an elevated risk that the insurance companies would address it in their policies. They are in the business of risk management.

[Jim Peace]

35 minutes ago, Skates97 said:

Every now and then my CFI liked to land on the long runways at Chino and hold the nose wheel off while rolling 3,000+ feet down the runway before letting the nose down and exiting. Why? Demonstrating control of the plane (plus it was a lot of fun).

Question:  If there was a tail strike in this situation who pays to repair damage?  the CFI or the Student? or turn it in to insurance?

And the reason for the 3000 foot wheely is because it is in the PTS or we just wanted to have fun? or would the 3000 foot wheely never be mentioned and toss it up to a bad landing and let insurance deal with it?  What would be the answer?

Edited June 29, 2017 by Jim Peace

[Hank]

9 minutes ago, Jim Peace said:

Question:  If there was a tail strike in this situation who pays to repair damage?  the CFI or the Student? or turn it in to insurance?

And the reason for the 3000 foot wheely is because it is in the PTS or we just wanted to have fun? or would the 3000 foot wheely never be mentioned and toss it up to a bad landing and let insurance deal with it?  What would be the answer?

I've never kept the nose up longer than necessary for aerodynamic braking, and I'm not very good doing even that in the Mooney. But if your feared example happened, it would probably be reported as "loss of control on post-landing rollout."

[ArtVandelay]

3 hours ago, 201er said:

 No! I could not find a single mention of touch n goes in the PPL ACS. 

https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs/media/private_airplane_acs_6A.pdf

I did 3 in the check ride, plus 1 go around, pretty sure that was SOP. And also sure the DPE would refer you to pg 33, and would call it a abort landing.

[steingar]

3 hours ago, Hank said:

TnGs aren't related to formation flight (usually). 

But if someone is so deathly afraid of TnGs as some people here seem to be, then it would be advisable for those same fearful types to avoid formation flight, lest their fear of hitting one of those nearby planes overwhelm them . . .

You really aren't getting this.  No-one is deathly afraid of T&G's.  Steingar fears nothing.  But, why practice a maneuver that can easily prang airplane and possibly pilot that has no real functional value?  Just because?  That's the only reason I'm really getting out of this thread.  Because the airplane can do it, we should.  I consider this utterly ridiculous.  I promise the airplane can do 1G loops and rolls.  Mooneys are built stout.  Does that mean everyone should go out and do aerobatics in their Mooney?

Formation flight, in addition to being lots of fun, has a purpose.  It is truly a wonderful thing to learn.  That said, it does not take place close to the ground, and does not involve rapid changes in power and settings.  That said, it is quite dangerous if done incorrectly, and shouldn't be attempted without specialized  training.

T&G's done right aren't dangerous in the slightest.  Done wrong they can be catastrophic, especially in complex aircraft where things happen quickly.

Of course, the wisest pos tin this thread said that we're all owners and should do what we please with our aircraft.  That is a sentiment with which I can wholeheartedly agree.

[PTK]

It never ceases to amaze me when I see seasoned airline pilots being lectured by weekend VFR only pilots! 

[PTK]

13 minutes ago, steingar said:

You really aren't getting this.  No-one is deathly afraid of T&G's.  Steingar fears nothing.  But, why practice a maneuver that can easily prang airplane and possibly pilot that has no real functional value?  Just because?  That's the only reason I'm really getting out of this thread.  Because the airplane can do it, we should.  I consider this utterly ridiculous.  I promise the airplane can do 1G loops and rolls.  Mooneys are built stout.  Does that mean everyone should go out and do aerobatics in their Mooney?

Formation flight, in addition to being lots of fun, has a purpose.  It is truly a wonderful thing to learn.  That said, it does not take place close to the ground, and does not involve rapid changes in power and settings.  That said, it is quite dangerous if done incorrectly, and shouldn't be attempted without specialized  training.

T&G's done right aren't dangerous in the slightest.  Done wrong they can be catastrophic, especially in complex aircraft where things happen quickly.

Of course, the wisest pos tin this thread said that we're all owners and should do what we please with our aircraft.  That is a sentiment with which I can wholeheartedly agree.

As long as my insurance premium doesn't go up because they bent an airplane or worse doing wheelies, useless touch and goes or buzzing their girlfriend's house!

[David Medders]

1 hour ago, Jim Peace said:

Question:  If there was a tail strike in this situation who pays to repair damage?  the CFI or the Student? or turn it in to insurance?

And the reason for the 3000 foot wheely is because it is in the PTS or we just wanted to have fun? or would the 3000 foot wheely never be mentioned and toss it up to a bad landing and let insurance deal with it?  What would be the answer?

What if I did them lean-of-peak? 

...ducking for cover, smart*ss mode off.

[Skates97]

37 minutes ago, Jim Peace said:

Question:  If there was a tail strike in this situation who pays to repair damage?  the CFI or the Student? or turn it in to insurance?

And the reason for the 3000 foot wheely is because it is in the PTS or we just wanted to have fun? or would the 3000 foot wheely never be mentioned and toss it up to a bad landing and let insurance deal with it?  What would be the answer?

"If" that happened then I would assume that there would be discussions involving the school, the folks in the control tower, probably the insurance company, investigations into what was happening, etc... We could go around and around with all kinds of "what if" scenarios. None of them are going to change the fact that some people like to do (and safely perform) touch-n-goes and some people don't.

Some instructors, and yes even some DPE's encourage them to be done. I did three on my PPL check-ride. One was going to be a short field landing with a stop and go on the runway followed by a soft field take off. While we were on final he changed his mind and told me to do it as a touch and go so I did the short field landing, configured for a soft field take off on the roll (keeping back pressure on the yoke), and then performed the soft field take off. The only full stop landings I did on my check-ride (if I remember correctly) were after I had demonstrated all the necessary landings and was getting set up for my cross country, and the last landing at the end of the check-ride.

Many of the same people saying you should never do touch-n-goes have no problem at all flying in IMC in a single engine plane. Yet flying in IMC presents increased workloads and higher risks. Why not just stay on the ground and wait for clearer weather? I'm guessing it is because they have trained for it, acquired the skills, done a personal risk assessment, and decided it was worth the risk to fly in the current weather conditions. Good for them, I'm not going to tell them that they are making poor choices that may result in an accident or death, or my insurance premiums going up, that was their personal decision.

Just now, PTK said:

It never ceases to amaze me when I see seasoned airline pilots being lectured by weekend VFR only pilots! 

My DPE (who had me perform touch-n-goes on my check-ride) recently retired after decades of commercial flying. I think he probably has as much experience or more than most of the "seasoned airline pilots" on this board. He told me he doesn't fly extended IMC (as opposed to just punching up through the marine layer here or descending through it) in a single engine because there are "too many things that could go wrong." He had no problem at all flying extended IMC in the 737's that he flew but that was because he "had a lot more going for him" in those planes. However, he didn't lecture others against flying single engines in IMC nor tell them they were taking unnecessary risks that would result in accidents.

[steingar]

2 hours ago, Skates97 said:

The CFI that was doing my pre-checkride phase check or whatever you want to call it told me during our flight that for his CFI Checkride the DPE had him do the same thing. Land, keep the nose wheel from touching, and take off again. It was all about demonstrating control of the aircraft to the DPE. Every now and then my CFI liked to land on the long runways at Chino and hold the nose wheel off while rolling 3,000+ feet down the runway before letting the nose down and exiting. Why? Demonstrating control of the plane (plus it was a lot of fun).

I  might ask the DPE if I could show control of the aircraft somewhere that wasn't in such close proximity to the asphalt.

[Hank]

27 minutes ago, steingar said:

 

Formation flight . . . does not take place close to the ground, and does not involve rapid changes in power and settings.  That said, it is quite dangerous if done incorrectly, and shouldn't be attempted without specialized  training.

T&G's done right aren't dangerous in the slightest.  Done wrong they can be catastrophic, especially in complex aircraft where things happen quickly.

Of course, the wisest pos tin this thread said that we're all owners and should do what we please with our aircraft.  That is a sentiment with which I can wholeheartedly agree.

Formation flight in the Mooney Caravan involves formation takeoffs and landings; both operations are safe when done right. Both are done in close proximity to the ground. Many videos have been posted here showing both.

TnGs are safe when done right; so are full stop landings. Many accidents happen on landing, just read the NTSB files.

I repeat:  can we stop the incessant yammering about how unsafe the things we each dont like are? One question was asked about how to do something, and was completely buried by people telling him not to do so, because they are so dangerous . . . While they are demonstrably not.

I don't recall the details of my PPL checkride, but my Instrument ride had one of each type:  touch and go, missed approach and full stop. The DPE wouldn't have asked if he thought they were dangerous. Can't count how many my airline pilot CFII had me do during training, but it was well into the multiple-dozens.

Can we please stop bickering, fighting and insulting??? It appears that no one's mind is being changed.

I hope the OP was able to find the answer to his question, buried in all of the noise. Hey, @TheTurtle, send me a PM if you want to discuss TnGs rationally, quietly and without meaningless interruptions.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Hank

[bonal]

I used to do 3000 foot wheelies on my GS1100 all the time back in the day

[StinkBug]

Touch and goes IMO have one valid use, to save time. When you're practicing landings at a very busy airport they can be used to save a LOT of time. The caveat is that you need to make it a point to do them carefully and be aware of potential dangers. 

My home airport can get really busy, and when I was training we did a lot of full stop taxi backs. Sometimes this meant landing the plane once, then sitting in a line for 20 minutes. That means at best I'd get 4 landings in during my hour of instruction time. Doing TnGs you can get that same number in under 30minutes easily. 

Yes, people get rushed and screw them up. People have pulled the gear handle instead of the flap handle. This is why it's important to not rush things. Like I said in my previous post, treat it like a regular landing, slow to a stable speed, reconfigure, then go. If the runway is long you have plenty of time to do this safely. Another thing many forget about is that "cleared for the option" includes stop and go as an option. Land, stop, reconfigure, take off. Skip the long line at the hold short bars. 

Now that I own the plane, have lots of time in it, and am not staring at the hobbs I have little use for touch and goes, but when you're paying over $2 a minute for a rental, they can be quite valuable. 

[N201MKTurbo]

Just because the horse is still quivering.

A quick search of accident reports shows that all the accidents that I found on the first page were landing accidents. I didn't find any that happened on the go part.

[201er]

23 hours ago, PTK said:

I haven't done touch and goes since my private days in the Cherokee 180. As a matter of preference I will not do them in my Mooney. I find it more valuable to practice full landings and takeoffs or aborted landings.

You're loosing your edge there Peter. Tisk tisk.

[Jim Peace]

1 hour ago, StinkBug said:

Touch and goes IMO have one valid use, to save time. When you're practicing landings at a very busy airport they can be used to save a LOT of time.

A lot of time for who?  What about the corporate jet or any other normal flight holding short burning tons of fuel while waiting for a 65 knot plane 3 miles out to land and clear only to see them touch and go and then hog up the departure path......and sometimes another right behind......

its all about me................

 

 

[Guest]

Does anyone know of an FAA violation resulting from a touch and go which resulted in an accident?

Does anyone know of an insurance claim denied by an insurance company because the accident involved a touch and go?

Clarence

 

[David Medders]

Just now, M20Doc said:

Does anyone know of an FAA violation resulting from a touch and go which resulted in an accident?

Does anyone know of an insurance claim denied by an insurance company because the accident involved a touch and go?

Clarence

 

Let's not mess up a good, emotional argument with actual facts! 

...ducking for cover again, smart*ss mode off.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Andy95W said:

I don't see the point in flying around with a parrot because it could start flying around the cabin while I'm trying to land.  But I won't call it useless because obviously you gain some benefit to flying with it, in spite of the elevated risk. 

You may wish to get a duck, they are more stable in IMC.

 

[PTK]

22 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Does anyone know of an FAA violation resulting from a touch and go which resulted in an accident?

Does anyone know of an insurance claim denied by an insurance company because the accident involved a touch and go?

Clarence

 

https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/accident-analysis/featured-accidents/touch-and-go-leads-to-tragic-spin-for-cfi-student

 

This was especially sad because I had rented this airplane on several occasions.