The evils of the Touch and Go

[aviatoreb]

7 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

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.

Full stoppers like me still full stop. But I must exit the runway, and then taxi back for another departure.

[Mooneymite]

I just got back from 40 minutes in the pattern in a taildragger....not a single touch and go.  Not one.

After reading this thread I'm scared to death and besides, for currency, the regs only give credit for full stops for conventional gear.  The regs ought to read "landings through tie down".

Happily, Mooneys get full credit for the death-defying touch and go.  

[aviatoreb]

58 minutes ago, salty said:

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. 

I'm not in a hurry.

Actually after about a thousand hours, I don't feel like I often need to devote a practice session to landings.  So I generally practice IFR and enroute and ATC skill things on my practice days, and maybe 2 or 3 landings might show up in all that.

Other than that, I try to land at least once every time I go flying.

[Mooneymite]

1 minute ago, aviatoreb said:

Other than that, I try to land at least once every time I go flying.

Excellent technique.  I'm going to adopt it.  

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

I just got back from 40 minutes in the pattern in a taildragger....not a single touch and go.  Not one.

After reading this thread I'm scared to death and besides, for currency, the regs only give credit for full stops for conventional gear.  The regs ought to read "landings through tie down".

Happily, Moonies get full credit for the death-defying touch and go.  

Conventional gear airplanes are very old, archaic and dangerous, more so than a Mooney.  The small wheel was clearly installed on the wrong end of the plane and always wants to be at the front.  

Im glad you survived your flight.

Clarence

[Mooneymite]

Just now, M20Doc said:

Conventional gear airplanes are very old, archaic and dangerous....

Clarence

You ought to see the characters that fly them....

Old idiots, through and through.

[Guest]

Just now, Mooneymite said:

You ought to see the characters that fly them....

Old idiots, through and through.

I've met some of them, I know what you mean.

Clarence

[KLRDMD]

1 hour ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Do what you want, guys. It is YOUR Mooney and YOUR responsibility. Nobody else's. 

That affects all of our insurance rates.

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, carusoam said:

Summary:  So in the end...

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

I'd challenge this assertion.    In general the difference between a TnG and a typical full-stop landing happens after touchdown, so I don't see what could influence the pattern and approach leading up to it to make it any more or less hazardous in a general sense.    One might assert that a number of hours of touch-and-goes might have a higher likelihood of a GU than the same number of hours of full-stop landings merely because you'd have more approaches and landings in the same amount of time with TnG's.   Personally I think the opportunity to make a GU is generally the same for any approach; and whether you get distracted or have a brain fart or whatever isn't any more likely to happen during a TnG approach than it is for a full-stop.   To assert otherwise should require an explanation of what is different about the pattern and approach leading up to a TnG than a full-stop, and if there is a difference that makes it more hazardous, then *just don't do that*.   

 

[mccdeuce]

I think talking in absolutes is the real danger. 

I learned to fly a Cessna 152 doing touch and go procedures. I learned flying a conventional gear doing touch and go. 

I learned to fly the t-34 flying touch and go - we don't change the gear position. 

I do not regularly do touch and go training in the Mooney. For me it is important to know my characteristics of aborting a landing. To include after touchdown. And I have had to actually execute that. My touch and go practice though is done at a 6000ft runway. And not regular. I also do not regularly do landing practice in the Mooney. 

The real answer is Fly often enough that you get enough landings in each week. Good for the plane. And good for the pilot. 

[salty]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

I'm not in a hurry.

Actually after about a thousand hours, I don't feel like I often need to devote a practice session to landings.  So I generally practice IFR and enroute and ATC skill things on my practice days, and maybe 2 or 3 landings might show up in all that.

Other than that, I try to land at least once every time I go flying.

It's not about being in a hurry. In a given amount of time and energy, I can get more useful practice in with touch and goes. Again, when I'm flying a lot I don't do them. When it's been awhile they are useful. 

[Guitarmaster]

Touch and go procedures are an essential element of currency.  I don't think of them as simply a "time saver" but rather learning how my plane reacts in the event I would need to abort the landing.  Yes, you can do a missed approach after landing.  Too many pilots have the mindset of, "when you're down you are done flying." Think obstruction you didn't notice on approach, runway too slippery to stop, lose sight of the runway, etc.  You are not done flying till you are clear of the runway.

Granted, the times when it would be necessary are few, but so are times when you develop into a complete stall... yet we practice those.

A touch and go is no different then a go-around (save for being on the ground.)  As far as muscle memory, do you pull the gear on the runway during take-off?  Of course not.  When do you pull the gear and flaps on a go-around?  Do you normally fly approaches to landing with half flaps?   Use the same mental procedures on a T&G.  We even practice T&G in the B737.  

I respectfully disagree with the majority here.  Start by doing "last second go-arounds."  Wait till the wheels are just about to touch then go-around.  Get the feel then progress to T&G.  If you are uncomfortable, grab a CFI THAT IS COMFORTABLE and go for it!  

As far as not doing T&G in a taildragger, well, time for a new instructor!  

[Mooneymite]

31 minutes ago, Guitarmaster said:

As far as not doing T&G in a taildragger, well, time for a new instructor!  

I do plenty of death defying touch n goes in tail-draggers.  So many that today I just concentrated on full stops in honor of this thread.  

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, Guitarmaster said:

I respectfully disagree with the majority here.  Start by doing "last second go-arounds."  Wait till the wheels are just about to touch then go-around.  Get the feel then progress to T&G.  If you are uncomfortable, grab a CFI THAT IS COMFORTABLE and go for it!  

As far as not doing T&G in a taildragger, well, time for a new instructor!  

Much of my tailwheel training was short-pattern touch-and-gos out of an 1100-ft dirt strip.    I was amazed at how many you can do in an hour when you're the only one in the pattern and you keep the pattern short.   

[Tommy]

5 hours ago, jetdriven said:

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. 

Yes that's why we train low - level flying following roads and valleys etc in GOOD weather, hood time for simulated IMC but these are NOT to encourage scud running or VRF into IMC but to prepare the pilots when they inadvertently put themselves in those situations. Likewise, T&Gs are not just for saving money but rather preparing pilots for a go-around after touch down. 

Again, none of the "against" people had answer my question: tell me how else better (safer and more realistic / equally realistic) would you train someone for a go-around after landing for wind gust, bounced landing, and runway emergencies? 

This is to assume what I think is the normal T&G in an busy towered airport where flight schools normally locate: land, re-configure as much as you can while before or after adding power, then rotate or land, add power, rotate, re-configure. None of those bs clutching the straw crap of stopping, backtracking, and re-configuring for a short field take off etc (never seen it done). 

[Tommy]

4 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Full stoppers like me still full stop. But I must exit the runway, and then taxi back for another departure.

Exactly, never heard of requesting to stop, backtrack, and option for take off business unless you own the airport. 

[Tommy]

3 hours ago, EricJ said:

I'd challenge this assertion.     To assert otherwise should require an explanation of what is different about the pattern and approach leading up to a TnG than a full-stop, and if there is a difference that makes it more hazardous, then *just don't do that*.   

 

The argument is that you are likely to inadvertently pull the gear up because of the high work load and distractions. 

[HRM]

Really depends on the runway. At KEDC, where you have 1.1 mile, go ahead and land, slow down a bit and then take off. That short roll gives your brain time to regroup.

During transition my CFI would not allow a T&G, he insisted that I pull off and taxiing around. As others have said, the whole process of landing a Mooney then configuring her for TO is, well, busy. 

[RobertGary1]

2 hours ago, Guitarmaster said:

Touch and go procedures are an essential element of currency.  I don't think of them as simply a "time saver" but rather learning how my plane reacts in the event I would need to abort the landing.  stall... yet we practice those.

A touch and go is no different then a go-around (save for being on the ground.) 

A touch and go is a different maneuver than a go around. With a go around you're still configured for landing and not trying to change configuration on the roll. 

Ill do stop and go's with students in the Mooney  but no reason for a touch and go. Rushing the configuration is also contrary to good teaching. After landing, stop, take a breath and go over the after landing checklist  

-Robert, CFII

Edited September 17, 2017 by RobertGary1

[jetdriven]

1 hour ago, Tommy said:

Yes that's why we train low - level flying following roads and valleys etc in GOOD weather, hood time for simulated IMC but these are NOT to encourage scud running or VRF into IMC but to prepare the pilots when they inadvertently put themselves in those situations. Likewise, T&Gs are not just for saving money but rather preparing pilots for a go-around after touch down. 

Again, none of the "against" people had answer my question: tell me how else better (safer and more realistic / equally realistic) would you train someone for a go-around after landing for wind gust, bounced landing, and runway emergencies? 

This is to assume what I think is the normal T&G in an busy towered airport where flight schools normally locate: land, re-configure as much as you can while before or after adding power, then rotate or land, add power, rotate, re-configure. None of those bs clutching the straw crap of stopping, backtracking, and re-configuring for a short field take off etc (never seen it done). 

I teach go arounds at  anywhere from 500' to after landing. The flow is the same, firewall it and FTFA.  I also stress that a go around or rejected landing is also a normal maneuver but can and often does take you by surprise since it occurs rarely. 

If the runway is >8000 I'll also do stop and goes but I brief the procedure first, and I have the pilot stop on the runway and take a short breather. I reconfigure the airplane and say I take responsibility for reconfiguring the airplane, go when ready.  It does same time in a low risk manner. Pilot just has to mentally re-position theirself at the runway threshold for takeoff. But I don't do it often.  

[Tommy]

43 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

A touch and go is a different maneuver than a go around. With a go around you're still configured for landing and not trying to change configuration on the roll. 

Ill do stop and go's with students in the Mooney  but no reason for a touch and go. Rushing the configuration is also contrary to good teaching. After landing, stop, take a breath and go over the after landing checklist  

-Robert, CFII

I think we are beating around the bushes here, guys. The "for" people like me define a T&G as manoeuvre fairly similar to a go-around after landing. The "against" people like yourself define a T&G as a more of a take off after landing is almost completed. 

MASSIVE difference. The first one is potentially a life-saving skill with high probability of occurrence in a Mooney (bounced landings any one?). The ground roll is very limited therefore you have a plenty of runway to spare. The second one is almost a non-occurrence and the ground roll can be extensive depending on how much you slowed down / time to configure. 

Have merits on both side but one thing I want to ask is that how do you train go-around after landing? Do you throw them into the deep end from the word go or do you transition them gently from a "Land&Go" to it? 

 

[Andy95W]

Great discussion, and it's been more civil than a few times in the past.

The worst part of this thread is that we're going to do it all over again in about 3-6 months.  Sigh.

[jetdriven]

5 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

That affects all of our insurance rates.

YEP

[Guitarmaster]

1 hour ago, RobertGary1 said:

42 minutes ago, Tommy said:

I think we are beating around the bushes here, guys. The "for" people like me define a T&G as manoeuvre fairly similar to a go-around after landing. The "against" people like yourself define a T&G as a more of a take off after landing is almost completed. 

MASSIVE difference. The first one is potentially a life-saving skill with high probability of occurrence in a Mooney (bounced landings any one?). The ground roll is very limited therefore you have a plenty of runway to spare. The second one is almost a non-occurrence and the ground roll can be extensive depending on how much you slowed down / time to configure. 

 

Bingo!  It's a mindset.  One mindset is 'normal ops' and one boarders on 'emergency.'  

How about (as someone mentioned) a bounced landing?  Is that not essentially a T&G?

[Tommy]

So far, I still haven't got an answer for that question. 

How do you teach one to do a go-around after bounced landing if a "T&G" or, more appropriately, "Landing&Go" is deemed too risky?

Or you don't teach that either?