Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Can we just agree that it's the definition of T&G that causes much of disagreement. For those who support it, their T&G is open throttle as soon as wheels touch the ground. It's the closest thing to training for a Go Around and it's probably the only sensible way of getting some landing practices in a busy towered airport with long runway. For those who are against it, their idea of T&G is to re-configure the plane, let it roll, then take off with only 800 feet left in a non-towered field. Not a good idea. The money saved isn't worth the risk.

From the poll that majority of us practices T&Gs and the benefit of doing them - proficiency in landing, time / money saved, etc - outweighs the risk. 

Done! Everyone is happy!

Edited by Tommy
  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Tommy said:

Done! Everyone is happy!

Hardly. "You can make all pilots happy some of the time, and some of the pilots all the time, but you cannot make all pilots happy all the time."

(sorry Abe)

Posted
18 hours ago, Tommy said:

Can we just agree that it's the definition of T&G that causes much of disagreement. For those who support it, their T&G is open throttle as soon as wheels touch the ground. It's the closest thing to training for a Go Around and it's probably the only sensible way of getting some practices in landing in a busy towered airport with long runway. For those who are against it, their idea of T&G is to re-configure the plane, let it roll, then take off with only 800 feet left in a non-towered field. Not a good idea. The money saved isn't worth the risk.

The thread is long but this was covered in several posts. (Difference between a T&G vs a go around).

-Robert

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.