The evils of the Touch and Go

[jetdriven]

A rejected landing and a touch and go may appear similar but they are different maneuvers. 

The rejected landing / bounce recovery is pretty simple, and I do teach it, even from the runway after touchdown. Firewall the throttle. Maintain directional control and climb.  There's no distraction, your hand is already on the throttle.

Touch and go, however, is different.  Similar phase of flight, but now you're messing with flaps, trim, carb heat, even cowl flaps. Either you're looking at these things while whistling down the runway or you're grabbing things without looking, but either way, it adds hazard to the operation. Hopefully you don't unlatch the gear lever like that Bonanza pilot did, or the other 3 or was it 4 Mooney owners who started threads on here who have done it.

 

[Mooneymite]

11 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

Clearly these guys have a deficiency in their training/currency/proficiency:

"I taught for more than 8,000 hours before I decided this maneuver has no place in primary training or almost any other flight training environment," said Kirby Ortega. "Seldom does any takeoff begin at 55 kt or any landing completed at the same speed. The arguments such as saving time or ATC convenience just don't justify the additional risk exposure. How can anyone argue the additional minute it takes to do a stop and go is too much of an added expense?" 

A touch and go does not properly replicate either a landing or a go-around, noted Chuck McGill, who instructs primarily in Mooneys. "I never perform touch and goes in a Mooney as a method to teach someone to land a Mooney. I don't believe a Mooney is landed until it is clear of the runway and stopped. The only way to learn how to land a Mooney is to practice full-stop landings. Land and stop.

https://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/inst_reports2.cfm?article=4589

 

Personally, CFI, CFII, MEI, ATP and I won't do touch and goes or teach them in Mooneys. I must have a deficiency in my training/currency/proficiency too.

If you'll  re-read my post, you'll see that lack of training/currencu/proficiency was only one of three suspected causes.

In my opinion, a proficient Mooney pilot should have no fear about doing touch and goes.  Any instructor who imparts such a fear is doing his student a disservice.

[jetdriven]

It's not fear, it's teaching prudent decision making which lowers risk.  I've done touch and go's in a 747 before, but that airplane costs three dollars per second and you have three trained crews members in the plane. One is the flying pilot. The other is an instructor who takes responsibility for setting trim and flaps, and the other is a 25,000 hour flight engineer who verifies all 4 thrusts reversers are closed and then calls stabilized on the power before pushing it up, then you set power with the TOGA button and he trims it after that. And still, rarely was this done. 

Edited September 16, 2017 by jetdriven

[Mooneymite]

2 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

It's not fear, it's teaching prudent decision making which lowers risk. 

If an instructor wants to further lower risk, he should terrorize his student about all maneuvers and discourage him from flying.

Flying, like life, involves risk.  We mitigate risk with proficiency, not fear.

[Tommy]

48 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

Touch and go, however, is different.  Similar phase of flight, but now you're messing with flaps, trim, carb heat, even cowl flaps. Either you're looking at these things while whistling down the runway or you're grabbing things without looking, but either way, it adds hazard to the operation. 

 

 

Looks like your touch-and-go technique is different than what I was taught. Land, roll 10 to 20 metres, full power, then rotate. Once air borne, maintain positive control whilst re-trim and re-set flaps. It's no different from a go-around after a bounced landing. 

I wonder how much of this debate stems from definition. 

[aviatoreb]

29 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

If an instructor wants to further lower risk, he should terrorize his student about all maneuvers and discourage him from flying.

Flying, like life, involves risk.  We mitigate risk with proficiency, not fear.

Your argument could be interpreted as justification to do whatever maneuver whenever and wherever since it could be said to increase proficiency and life involves risk so lets get at it.  Why doesn't your argument apply to going and buzzing some houses?

[Tommy]

1 minute ago, aviatoreb said:

Your argument could be interpreted as justification to do whatever maneuver whenever and wherever since it could be said to increase proficiency and life involves risk so lets get at it.  Why doesn't your argument apply to going and buzzing some houses?

That's not what he was saying, you are setting up a straw man there, Erik. 

 

[Mooneymite]

4 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Your argument could be interpreted as justification to do whatever maneuver whenever and wherever since it could be said to increase proficiency and life involves risk so lets get at it.  Why doesn't your argument apply to going and buzzing some houses?

FAR's.....and common sense.  

[aviatoreb]

Just now, Tommy said:

That's not what he was saying, you are setting up a straw man there, Erik. 

 

Yes, you are quite right. I was setting up a straw man.  I was being a bit of a stinker.

He was saying that he deems the risk of that maneuver to be worth the reward of the training benefit.  (Not putting words into his mouth but that is what I think he meant).  And I balance it differently and I feel I get all the reward from full stop so it is not worth any extra risk to do touch and goes.  But I totally respect the choice either way since its all valid here.  Now if someone were arguing buzzing houses....

I was just being a stinker calling out what he literally said.  But its a forum and its Saturday morning. Let's rumble.

[Mooneymite]

1 minute ago, aviatoreb said:

Yes, you are quite right. I was setting up a straw man.  I was being a bit of a stinker.

He was saying that he deems the risk of that maneuver to be worth the reward of the training benefit.  (Not putting words into his mouth but that is what I think he meant).  And I balance it differently and I feel I get all the reward from full stop so it is not worth any extra risk to do touch and goes.  But I totally respect the choice either way since its all valid here.  Now if someone were arguing buzzing houses....

I was just being a stinker calling out what he literally said.  But its a forum and its Saturday morning. Let's rumble.

Actually, there's a point to all this:  practice makes perfect.

The Navy would have thrown me out of the flight program if, on my first solo, I'd (tried to) performe(d) the maneuvers done at every airshow by the Blues.

The difference:  training, practice, proficiency, perfection.

[Mooneymite]

2 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Stange that Don Kaye is silent on this subject.  I remember reading on this forum that he will bounce the aircraft off the runway and have the student recover the aircraft.  Isn't this a touch and go without much time on the runway?

Clarence

This maneuver, while similar, is not the same....thus the different technical nomenclature:

Crash and Dash.

 

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, Tommy said:

 

Looks like your touch-and-go technique is different than what I was taught. Land, roll 10 to 20 metres, full power, then rotate. Once air borne, maintain positive control whilst re-trim and re-set flaps. It's no different from a go-around after a bounced landing. 

I wonder how much of this debate stems from definition. 

Probably a lot. There have been a lot of descriptions here of emergency go-around maneuvers, bounced recoveries,  etc that are being called touch & goes or similar to touch & goes which others obviously don't see in that category.

For example, you are describing what others (including me) would describe as a go-around after landing (as in a deer enters the runway after touchdown). To me a touch & go is a landing of your choice followed by a takeoff of your choice. IOW, I might choose to do a no-flap landing followed by a soft field takeoff. Waiting until leaving the ground before configuring for a takeoff designed to get you off the ground early would make no sense.

[Tommy]

35 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

He was saying that he deems the risk of that maneuver to be worth the reward of the training benefit.  (Not putting words into his mouth but that is what I think he meant).  And I balance it differently and I feel I get all the reward from full stop so it is not worth any extra risk to do touch and goes.  But I totally respect the choice either way since its all valid here.  Now if someone were arguing buzzing houses....

Buzzing is NOT the same as T&G, one is perfectly legal the other is not. I am pretty sure @Mooneymite knows the difference just as you do. 

The issue here is that you think T&G is like buzzing - a risky and unnecessary manoeuvre because the risk outweighs benefit. For him, it's the other way round. But if it's illegal to do so, I am pretty sure he wouldn't be doing it either. 

[Tommy]

17 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

To me a touch & go is a landing of your choice followed by a takeoff of your choice.

 

At all the towered aerodromes that I had trained , when they cleared you for a  touch&go, you don't get the option to stop and re-configure on the active runway - which is what you will need to do for a short field take off: breaks on until you are satisfied the engine is at full power and running smoothly. 

They don't call it touch&go for nothing. 

[midlifeflyer]

5 minutes ago, Tommy said:

 

At all the towered aerodromes that I had trained , when they cleared you for a  touch&go, you don't get the option to stop and re-configure on the active runway - which is what you will need to do for a short field take off: breaks on until you are satisfied the engine is at full power and running smoothly. 

They don't call it touch&go for nothing. 

At all the towered airports where I trained and trained others, you ask for a stop and go or the option if that is what you want. A touch and go is definitely a rolling maneuver, so one, perhaps obviously, does not choose a form of takeoff which requires starting from a full stop.

[KLRDMD]

3 hours ago, Mooneymite said:

In my opinion, a proficient Mooney pilot should have no fear about doing touch and goes.  Any instructor who imparts such a fear is doing his student a disservice.

Any yet neither the Mooney Pilot Proficiency Program nor Beech Pilot Proficiency Program allow touch and goes. Maybe the best instructors with the most experience in these airplanes actually know something ?

Listen to some guy on the internet or listen to the recognized experts in the field. That isn't a hard choice for most.

[Mooneymite]

4 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

Listen to some guy on the internet or listen to the recognized experts in the field. That isn't a hard choice for most.

I'm not sure what the qualifications of the "recognized experts" are, other than the fact that they support and are supported by those organizations.

Were I charging by the hour, I might well encourage full-stops and taxi-back.  Nothing to lose, everything to gain.

The military, and many other fine flying organizations which operate aircraft with an absolute committment to safety, fly touch and goes.

However, neither they, nor I are advocating that you do touch and goes.  If a pilot is uncomfortable with them, he should NOT do them until he is trained, and proficient.

[KLRDMD]

Just now, Mooneymite said:

I'm not sure what the qualifications of the "recognized experts" are, other than the fact that they support and are supported by those organizations.

Were I charging by the hour, I might well encourage full-stops and taxi-back.  Nothing to lose, everything to gain.

You can look up the instructors for both programs - no secrets. I have taught in the Mooney PPP in the past and I have taken the Beech PPP so I have first hand knowledge of the quality of the instructors of both programs.

Personally, I don't charge at all for instruction. I ask my students to send a donation to the Flying Samaritans in the amount they feel appropriate. There is zero incentive for me to increase the length of instruction. And the extra minute it takes to do a stop and go is irrelevant in any case.

Risk - Benefit

[Mooneymite]

Just now, KLRDMD said:

 I have taught in the Mooney PPP in the past and I have taken the Beech PPP so I have first hand knowledge of the quality of the instructors of both programs.

Thank you for the insight.  I didn't know you were involved in those.

[KLRDMD]

1 minute ago, Mooneymite said:

Thank you for the insight.  I didn't know you were involved in those.

Have taught, have taken. Not currently involved in either but the philosophy and instructor quality has not changed.

[RLCarter]

I'll do Touch n Goes in the 172, in the Mooney they are Stop n Goes and at night in either plane I'll always taxi back to have all the runway if needed. With my CFI onboard I'm almost certain to get an aborted takeoff or a go around or both

[jetdriven]

6 hours ago, Tommy said:

Buzzing is NOT the same as T&G, one is perfectly legal the other is not. I am pretty sure @Mooneymite knows the difference just as you do. 

The issue here is that you think T&G is like buzzing - a risky and unnecessary manoeuvre because the risk outweighs benefit. For him, it's the other way round. But if it's illegal to do so, I am pretty sure he wouldn't be doing it either. 

The same CAN be said for acid running, however. In sparsely populated areas it's totally legal, 1 mile and clear of clouds. Practiced, you get pretty good.  And occasionally some air show airline pilot going to the next show will stuff one into a hillside or an antenna. It's a hazardous operation. But you can get pretty proficient at it. 

[carusoam]

Summary:  So in the end...

1) The challenge is basically an increased risk of a GU landing.

2) The reward is less time taxiing.

3) The variables are pilot, runway length, conditions, and level of other things going on at the same time.

4) The decision is in the hands of the PIC.

Back to the OP...

Best regards,

-a-

[Andy95W]

Just now, carusoam said:

Summary:  So in the end...

1) The challenge is basically an increased risk of a GU landing.

2) The reward is less time taxiing.

3) The variables are pilot, runway length, conditions, and level of other things going on at the same time.

4) The decision is in the hands of the PIC.

Back to the OP...

Best regards,

-a-

I agree, except for #2.  The reward is being a proficient and confident Mooney pilot who has the ability to control his aircraft in a wide range of conditions.

[salty]

10 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

I agree, except for #2.  The reward is being a proficient and confident Mooney pilot who has the ability to control his aircraft in a wide range of conditions.

And more approaches and landings in a given amount of time spent. Again, if I didn't have a Johnson bar I may feel differently. Everyone I know personally with a j bar mooney including my transition CFI who owned one does touch and goes in it. 

Sorry, but I'm not learning anything practical while taxiing at 10 mph for 4000 feet. Complete waste of time and gas, not to mention absolutely miserably hot in Florida for 9 months of the year. Staying adept at flying a stabilized approach on speed does not require a full stop. That's where I get value from touch and go. Maybe when I have 2000 hours I won't need such practice anymore. Then again, maybe all the bouncing and prop strikes in mooney are because people are not getting enough practice because it takes 15 minutes per attempt to do a full stop. 

Edited September 16, 2017 by salty