The evils of the Touch and Go

[Tommy]

49 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

YEP

It's not all about money, guys...

I am pretty sure the insurance companies will appreciate a pilot's desire to hone their go-around skill - both in the air as well as on the ground. 

[ragedracer1977]

When I do a google search for "mooney touch and go crash" I didn't find any crashes that were a result of a planned T&G.  Instead, I found several that were the result of folks not knowing how to control their airplane when they had to do an unplanned "T&G". 

Does anyone have actual statistics (because I realize that the above is completely anecdotal) that show that T&G's are responsible for how many crashes VS. how many crashes are caused by not knowing how to do a T&G?

[jetdriven]

Retracting the gear and folding it up on the runway is not an NTSB reportable event.

heres one, not a touch and go per se, but proof that moving switches on the roll can spend 60k pretty easily. 

https://mooneyspace.com/topic/8548-expensive-brain-fart/?tab=comments#comment-92102

Edited September 17, 2017 by jetdriven

[ragedracer1977]

7 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

Retracting the gear and folding it up on the runway is not an NTSB reportable event.

heres one, not a touch and go per se, but proof that moving switches on the roll can spend 60k pretty easily. 

https://mooneyspace.com/topic/8548-expensive-brain-fart/?tab=comments#comment-92102

Then we have no verifiable statistics that T&G's cause gear up landings?  Is there anything more than anecdote?  I'm a 'new' pilot with very little Mooney time (under 100 hours).  So, I'm not asking to be snarky or what have you, I really want to know.

[Tommy]

12 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

When I do a google search for "mooney touch and go crash" I didn't find any crashes that were a result of a planned T&G.  Instead, I found several that were the result of folks not knowing how to control their airplane when they had to do an unplanned "T&G". 

Does anyone have actual statistics (because I realize that the above is completely anecdotal) that show that T&G's are responsible for how many crashes VS. how many crashes are caused by not knowing how to do a T&G?

Here is one that has a training T&G that gone horribly wrong. Walked away with no injury, miraculously. She was flying alone with no instructor. 

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/plane-crash-at-northam-airport-ng-ya-254460

But I agree with you, for every planned T&G that had gone wrong, there were probably 100 more with unplanned ones.

[Rick Junkin]

Interesting topic of discussion, and lots of opinions from people of differing experience and credentials. So I'll add mine.

USAF training includes touch-and-go's, which include configuration for landing, landing, reconfiguration for takeoff, takeoff, and gear retraction and reconfiguration for climb into the pattern. And then you start all over again abeam the numbers for your next touch-and-go.

USN training includes touch-and-go's, which include configuration for landing, landing, and maintaining landing configuration for takeoff and climb into the pattern and into the next landing/touch-and-go.

It's a matter of training and adherence to procedure, and maintaining proficiency in the procedure, in both cases. I've never had a gear-up incident in over 3,000 hours of flying experience spread across both service's procedures.

From an organization-sponsored training event perspective, I wouldn't want the liability for a student landing gear-up, so it makes sense to not allow touch-and-gos for training sponsored by a specific organization. That doesn't make it dangerous, just not approved for a specific training event.

Don't do touch-and-gos if you haven't been trained, or don't feel competent to do them. Follow procedure and stay proficient if you've had the training and ARE competent. Crossing the numbers, confirming "GREEN GEAR" every time has worked for me.

Just another opinion, added to those already offered.

Cheers,
Rick

[ragedracer1977]

13 minutes ago, Tommy said:

Here is one that has a training T&G that gone horribly wrong. Walked away with no injury, miraculously. She was flying alone with no instructor. 

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/plane-crash-at-northam-airport-ng-ya-254460

But I agree with you, for every planned T&G that had gone wrong, there were probably 100 more with unplanned ones.

Honestly, without further details, there's no way to know whether the T&G had any direct bearing on the crash.

[RobertGary1]

57 minutes ago, Guitarmaster said:

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

That's a go around. You don't touch any configuration until you confirm positive rate of climb. 

 

-Robert,CFI

[Tommy]

3 minutes ago, Junkman said:

From an organization-sponsored training event perspective, I wouldn't want the liability for a student landing gear-up, so it makes sense to not allow touch-and-gos for training sponsored by a specific organization. 

Careful! That's a cynical take on the CFIs that don't do T&Gs and ironic considering they think people who do T&Gs are just trying to save money. 

[RobertGary1]

56 minutes ago, Tommy said:

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? 

Go arounds are worth teaching. Full power, wait for positive rate of climb, take a relaxing breath, then initiate go around checklist items including flap configuration etc. Not similar to a touch and go where you configure the aircraft on the go 

-Robert, CFII

Edited September 17, 2017 by RobertGary1

[Tommy]

4 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

That's a go around. You don't touch any configuration until you confirm positive rate of climb. 

 

-Robert,CFI

Okay, so how do you "safely" teach this if a T&G / Landing&Go is risky? The same mistakes can happen in a Go-Round too (in fact, probably even more likely given how much more stressful it can compared to a landing&go).

[RLCarter]

On short final I'm planning for a go around, if the go around is not needed and wheels touch I plan for a touch n go. I was on SWA and the PIC did a touch n go for what ever reason, and I've HAD to do a touch n go (deer on the runway) and a go around due to a 182 pulling out on the runway and a missed approach cause there was nothing out windscreen. I would find another CFI if mine wasn't willing to practice any phase of flight or maneuver. You can never be to prepared, stack the deck in your favor

[kpaul]

6 hours ago, Junkman said:

USAF training includes touch-and-go's, which include configuration for landing, landing, reconfiguration for takeoff, takeoff, and gear retraction and reconfiguration for climb into the pattern. And then you start all over again abeam the numbers for your next touch-and-go

Not always.  Generally if we are staying in the pattern we will remain configured, if we depart the pattern to reenter via an overhead, shallow or ELP then we clean up and configure as appropriate.  Having one or more turboprops helps with the configured climb performance.

[PTK]

9 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

Then we have no verifiable statistics that T&G's cause gear up landings?  Is there anything more than anecdote?  I'm a 'new' pilot with very little Mooney time (under 100 hours).  So, I'm not asking to be snarky or what have you, I really want to know.

We do have verifiable statistics that our collective insurance premiums unfortunately increase each and every time a very expensive mishap happens. All because someone decided to save the few minutes it takes to properly land, exit the runway, taxi back and reconfigure by properly performing the checklists. Nothing anecdotal there! 

Instead of focusing on t&g's it is, imo, a lot more valuable and practice time is better spent performing full landings and aborted landings. Full landing from beginning to end. Proper approach speeds, reproducibly touch down on a predetermined touch down zone on the runway, exit and reconfigure. 

The argument often given that you may need a t&g due to insufficient rw length to stop is, again imo, poor planning and/or lack of practice the skills required to accomplish a full landing.

[RobertGary1]

6 hours ago, RLCarter said:

On short final I'm planning for a go around, if the go around is not needed and wheels touch I plan for a touch n go. I was on SWA and the PIC did a touch n go for what ever reason, and I've HAD to do a touch n go (deer on the runway) and a go around due to a 182 pulling out on the runway and a missed approach cause there was nothing out windscreen. I would find another CFI if mine wasn't willing to practice any phase of flight or maneuver. You can never be to prepared, stack the deck in your favor

You may have to do a go around someday but you never have to do a touch and go.  A touch and go is to train a landing and a take off so you reconfigure for takeoff. A go around is done in the full landing configuration and you don't reconfigure until after positive climb is established   

-Robert,CFII

[Steelstring]

Tommy made a great point earlier.  Touch and goes can teach how to execute a balked landing after touchdown in a relatively safe environment (i.e. CFI sitting beside you familiar with Mooneys).  

Seems to me on other threads there is considerable concern about bounced landings leading to prop strikes being one of the leading causes of high insurance rates.  The number one suggest course of action?  Go around on the first bounce or otherwise known as a touch and go.

Touch and go is an important skill to learn with some instruction and stay proficient.  One might argue that you avoid touch and goes during normal solo landing practice on a practice day.  Maybe do a few to stay proficient, but focus on other aspects of landing practice and dont' take on the additional risk.  But I'm in the camp of touch and goes are fine if you are proficient.  

If you are uncomfortable with touch and goes, you better get comfortable with them before your next bounced landing or Bambi runway incursion. Time to practice.

[Tommy]

 

1 hour ago, PTK said:

We do have verifiable statistics that our collective insurance premiums unfortunately increase each and every time a very expensive mishap happens. All because someone decided to save the few minutes it takes to properly land, exit the runway, taxi back and reconfigure by properly performing the checklists. Nothing anecdotal there! 

"All because T&Gs?" Drawing a long bow there, Peter? 

In fact, I like to argue - without any credible statistical analysis (Yes, it's all anecdotal evidences. The fact you said it's not doesn't make it so.) - that the pilots who take the effort doing T&Gs on regular basis to hone their landing skills had effectively kept our collective insurance premium from rising more than what it is now. 

Anecdotally, out of all the pilots that I have known, one that practices T&Gs even years after they got their ticket tend to be more conscientious and more competent pilots. 

WHAT A SURPRISE... 

[Guest]

From all of the threads on this subject which I've read here I've come to the conclusion that the biggest fear is not loosing control but rather grabbing the wrong handle and raising the gear instead of the flaps.

I would say that cock pit familiarization is the issue and nothing more.  The gear does not generally raise itself, it takes the command of the pilot.

Clarence

[Hank]

8 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

From all of the threads on this subject which I've read here I've come to the conclusion that the biggest fear is not loosing control but rather grabbing the wrong handle and raising the gear instead of the flaps.

I would say that cock pit familiarization is the issue and nothing more.  The gear does not generally raise itself, it takes the command of the pilot.

Clarence

This is another place where the Mooney is superior. I raise flaps on every landing with my finger, while holding throttle to idle. For gear, I've got to let go . . .

[PTK]

27 minutes ago, Tommy said:

 

"All because T&Gs?" Drawing a long bow there, Peter? 

In fact, I like to argue - without any credible statistical analysis (Yes, it's all anecdotal evidences. The fact you said it's not doesn't make it so.) - that the pilots who took the effort doing T&Gs on regular basis to hone their landing skills had effectively kept our collective insurance premium from rising more than what it is now. 

Anecdotally, out of all the pilots that I have known, one that practices T&Gs even years after they got their ticket tend to be more conscientious and more competent pilots. 

WHAT A SURPRISE... 

In the context of t&g's almost all, if not all, are reported to insurance. Insurance undewriters do perform credible statistical analyses and these are the statistics that count. I don't know about you but I certainly don't look favorably to my insurance premiums increasing because someone elected to do t&g's and bent an airplane or worse in the process!

[jetdriven]

51 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

You may have to do a go around someday but you never have to do a touch and go.  A touch and go is to train a landing and a take off so you reconfigure for takeoff. A go around is done in the full landing configuration and you don't reconfigure until after positive climb is established   

-Robert,CFII

That.  People keep trying to say they are the same and in fact they are not. 

[Tommy]

Just now, PTK said:

In the context of t&g'salmost all, if not all, are reported to insurance and these are the statistics that count. I don't know about you but I certainly don't look favorably to my insurance premiums increasing because someone elected to do t&g's! 

Again, Peter, without any statistics - which I bet you don't have either but I am happy to be corrected so show me the ACTUAL number -  I like to counter your argument by saying pilots who take the effort doing T&Gs on regular basis to hone their landing skills had effectively kept our collective insurance premium from rising more than what it is now. 

[jetdriven]

28 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

From all of the threads on this subject which I've read here I've come to the conclusion that the biggest fear is not loosing control but rather grabbing the wrong handle and raising the gear instead of the flaps.

I would say that cock pit familiarization is the issue and nothing more.  The gear does not generally raise itself, it takes the command of the pilot.

Clarence

Yes. And a long time ago a  student of mine in an Arrow grabbed the gear lever and actually pulled it out to Throw it on a touch and go. I slapped his hand away and he said why did you do that. He didn't even know his hand was on the gear. Shortly thereafter a MEl candidate on a checkride raised the gear on a Touch and Go and totaled that Baron, and the examiner lost his status. The same year, a flight school lost their Bonanza for the same reason. You know when a Bonanza hits the ground with the gear in transit the inner gear door bends the rib, and the wings have to come off, it basically totals the airplane. Spartan came out with a edict, absolutely no touch and goes in complex aircraft. After that, I've been firmly in the "no" camp. 

Again, I teach rejected landings but it is NOT the same maneuver. Full power, positive rate of climb, then do things. Your hand is on the throttle it never leaves. 

Edited September 17, 2017 by jetdriven

[PTK]

10 minutes ago, Tommy said:

Again, Peter, without any statistics - which I bet you don't have either but I am happy to be corrected so show me the ACTUAL number -  I like to counter your argument by saying pilots who take the effort doing T&Gs on regular basis to hone their landing skills had effectively kept our collective insurance premium from rising more than what it is now. 

Please show us your statistics that illustrate that electing to do t&g's "effectively" keeps insurance premiums from rising. ACTUAL numbers please.

[Tommy]

1 minute ago, PTK said:

Please show us your statistics that illustrate doing t&g's "effectively" keeps insurance premiums from rising.

I don't have any, that's why I said it's anecdotal (TWICE). But on two occasions you said you had "verifiable stats" without actually providing any reference so please show us your statistics.