Touch and Go's

wabower said:
When you're measuring the safety record, you don't stop with just the number of survivors.
Click to expand...

Seriously? What's' so dangerous about it?

In order to be a survivor, you have to crash first. If you didn't crash, you're not a survivor. Somehow or another, just about the entire pilot population managed to magically not crash while doing the dreaded infinitely deadly touch and go..including hundreds of thousands of single digit hour students flying tailwheel airplanes since nearly the beginning of flight. (yes, believe it or not, people also use to somehow manage to solo safely in less than 40hours of flight time) T/G's are routine flying, not reckless dangerous operations. It only became something dangerous to do when the touchy feely overthink everything safety at all cost nutjobs took over and started crying about stuff...waaaa you might get hurt... Of course you might get hurt. If you stupidly quit flying the airplane the instant the wheels touch the ground, that can wad a plane up, but it's self inflicted if that happens. Of course those same safety first people still take a shower and drive their cars every day but who's counting risk factors in life.

Sheesh. Too much thinking, not enough doing...
 
In my opinion if my students couldn't perform a touch and go then they shouldn't solo. We taught touch and goes all the time.
 
fgcason said:
Seriously? What's' so dangerous about it?

In order to be a survivor, you have to crash first. If you didn't crash, you're not a survivor. Somehow or another, just about the entire pilot population managed to magically not crash while doing the dreaded infinitely deadly touch and go..including hundreds of thousands of single digit hour students flying tailwheel airplanes since nearly the beginning of flight. (yes, believe it or not, people also use to somehow manage to solo safely in less than 40hours of flight time) T/G's are routine flying, not reckless dangerous operations. It only became something dangerous to do when the touchy feely overthink everything safety at all cost nutjobs took over and started crying about stuff...waaaa you might get hurt... Of course you might get hurt. If you stupidly quit flying the airplane the instant the wheels touch the ground, that can wad a plane up, but it's self inflicted if that happens. Of course those same safety first people still take a shower and drive their cars every day but who's counting risk factors in life.

Sheesh. Too much thinking, not enough doing...
Click to expand...

I am not sure how dangerous touch-and-go operations are, but I searched the NTSB database for part 91, instructional flights, landing phase, with the phrase "touch-and-go" in the reports. It came up with over 1200 accident reports between 1983 and the present. Scanning the reports, there were few fatalities and the reports with fatalities I looked at the touch-and-go aspect wasn't causal. Reading a sampling of about 20 there is a common theme in the majority, loss of control on the go portion. The rate works out to about 40 per year. Note, in a few of the reports I read, although the phrase was used in the text, it wasn't related to the accident cause. I did not include all part 91 operations, or the number would be higher, I just limited it to instructional and landing phase. Examine the data yourself and draw your own conclusion.
 
We obviously disagree on this issue. You obviously think the safety record is satisfactory; I don't.

gcason;1032725]Seriously? What's' so dangerous about it?

In order to be a survivor, you have to crash first. If you didn't crash, you're not a survivor. Somehow or another, just about the entire pilot population managed to magically not crash while doing the dreaded infinitely deadly touch and go..including hundreds of thousands of single digit hour students flying tailwheel airplanes since nearly the beginning of flight. (yes, believe it or not, people also use to somehow manage to solo safely in less than 40hours of flight time) T/G's are routine flying, not reckless dangerous operations. It only became something dangerous to do when the touchy feely overthink everything safety at all cost nutjobs took over and started crying about stuff...waaaa you might get hurt... Of course you might get hurt. If you stupidly quit flying the airplane the instant the wheels touch the ground, that can wad a plane up, but it's self inflicted if that happens. Of course those same safety first people still take a shower and drive their cars every day but who's counting risk factors in life.

Sheesh. Too much thinking, not enough doing...[/QUOTE]
 
John Collins said:
searched the NTSB database for part 91, instructional flights, landing phase, with the phrase "touch-and-go" in the reports.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that the entry requirements in order to be listed in the NTSB reports is that a plane was damaged/wadded up/destroyed/injuries/etc. The data is heavily weighted in the bad things happen category. There are zero entries for nothing bad happened. Yes, the data is valid however no, the entries are not the end of the story.

It came up with over 1200 accident reports between 1983 and the present.
Click to expand...

During that same time period, how many touch and go's were performed?
Accident + non accident totals = ???
If there were 1,800 T/G and 1,200 crashes, that's one thing. If there were 18 million T/G and 1,200 crashes, that's safer than driving a car while drunk.

Loss of control? Why did it happen? Is there a pattern to the accidents? Something inherently dangerous about T/G's? Or a handful of klutz pilots not maintaining control of the airplane like they should have? Ok, loss of control during takeoff, what exactly causes the pilot to let the plane scamper off into the weeds?
 
fgcason said:
Don't forget that the entry requirements in order to be listed in the NTSB reports is that a plane was damaged/wadded up/destroyed/injuries/etc. The data is heavily weighted in the bad things happen category. There are zero entries for nothing bad happened. Yes, the data is valid however no, the entries are not the end of the story.



During that same time period, how many touch and go's were performed?
Accident + non accident totals = ???
If there were 1,800 T/G and 1,200 crashes, that's one thing. If there were 18 million T/G and 1,200 crashes, that's safer than driving a car while drunk.

Loss of control? Why did it happen? Is there a pattern to the accidents? Something inherently dangerous about T/G's? Or a handful of klutz pilots not maintaining control of the airplane like they should have? Ok, loss of control during takeoff, what exactly causes the pilot to let the plane scamper off into the weeds?
Click to expand...

Good questions, we await your answer. It should be a good project for a thesis.
 
I learned to fly in an Aeronca Champ. T&Gs were a normal training maneuver back then as they are now. Most of the classic trainers used during the 50's and 60's were dirt simple airplanes - Champs, Cubs, Taylorcrafts, Cessna 120s and the like. Touch and goes were a non-issue with those aircraft because about the only reconfiguring you needed to do was shove in the carb heat and reset the trim. Along came training aircraft with flaps and then you started to see compromising with procedures. There is occasional discussion about using less than full flaps for landing. Most of the "senior" airmen among us will use full flaps except when circumstances like gusty crosswinds or LIFR approaches would dictate otherwise. It seems like many of the less experienced guys among us default to something less than full flaps. I have to wonder if that's a bad habit promulgated by instructors fudging the configuration in order to minimize the choreography of the "go" part of the touch and go?

As a flight instructor, I've used touch and goes in everything from ultralights to transport category jets and my experience is that the more complex the aircraft is the less benefit they are. I'm firmly in Wayne's and Henning's camp when it comes to them.
 
With respect to teaching landings, I'd like to see the results of a debrief using one of the little go pro cameras. If I were doing it, I would provide and maintain control of the device, but give the student ample access to see the maneuver in real time.

fgcason said:
Seriously? What's' so dangerous about it?

In order to be a survivor, you have to crash first. If you didn't crash, you're not a survivor. Somehow or another, just about the entire pilot population managed to magically not crash while doing the dreaded infinitely deadly touch and go..including hundreds of thousands of single digit hour students flying tailwheel airplanes since nearly the beginning of flight. (yes, believe it or not, people also use to somehow manage to solo safely in less than 40hours of flight time) T/G's are routine flying, not reckless dangerous operations. It only became something dangerous to do when the touchy feely overthink everything safety at all cost nutjobs took over and started crying about stuff...waaaa you might get hurt... Of course you might get hurt. If you stupidly quit flying the airplane the instant the wheels touch the ground, that can wad a plane up, but it's self inflicted if that happens. Of course those same safety first people still take a shower and drive their cars every day but who's counting risk factors in life.

Sheesh. Too much thinking, not enough doing...
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
With respect to teaching landings, I'd like to see the results of a debrief using one of the little go pro cameras. If I were doing it, I would provide and maintain control of the device, but give the student ample access to see the maneuver in real time.
Click to expand...

Is the point safety or academic education? If you read a lot of the discussions about why it should not be done, the general discussion is how dangerous it is from a safety standpoint.
Academically it depends on the problem the student is having. Once they have the basics down, if they're having a hard time being consistent on where to start the flare and it's been discussed properly, 20 T/G approaches into the landing environment is likely going to help them more than 5 T/G approaches simply because they got to see and feel what was happening 15 times more over the same time period.

Touch and goes were a non-issue with those aircraft because about the only reconfiguring you needed to do was shove in the carb heat and reset the trim.
Click to expand...

And the difference between those planes and a 150 or 172 is?????? Remove the tailwheel stability issue and add one little switch? There's no way that dumping the flaps on a 150 turns a non event T/G to a dangerous ride into the weeds. Reach over, flip a little lever up, and it's done, you don't even have to look down to do it. Now if you're having a long discussion and reprogramming your GPS during the roll or having to hunt for the lever visually and taking several seconds to watch the indicator go up to zero without looking out the window, well, that's another problem entirely that is totally unrelated to T/G's.
 
I don't/didn't mind T&Gs in a Cherokee... but I don't like doing them in the 172. I can raise the flaps in a Johnson bar setup in about a second, but I don't like having to wait for the electric flaps to raise while I'm rolling in the Cessnas. When practicing landings, I prefer to either stop & go if there is plenty of runway left, or taxi back and take off again. I do find it lets me concentrate more on the landing, rather than mentally preparing for the subsequent takeoff. I also don't have the tendency to try to put it on the numbers so I'll have more runway left -- if I need to stretch it a little to get a good landing, I'll stretch it a little.

Yeah, I know I could in theory do a T&G exactly like a stop & go or a normal landing. Problem is, I generally don't, so I choose to do it the way that's safest and gives the best results.
 
As with everything else, training has its risks. In all my training for PPL, I had never seen, nor experienced an injury. But, when I was training for hang gliding, once each weekend with a group of 20 to 30 others, it was like a sure thing, someone would be injured, usually a broken or dislocated arm.
 
BillTIZ said:
A T&G is a go-around, with the wheels on the ground, but at a slower pace, and slight change in sequence of events.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The entire order of operations for a T&G is completely different than a go-around, and there is negative transfer between them.
For example, on a T&G, the FIRST thing you do is touch the flaps, on a go around, the LAST thing you do is touch the flaps.

T&G:
1 - Flaps retract - rapidly
2 - Apply throttle
3 - Monitor airspeed
4 - Pitch Up
5 - Establish Climb

Go around -
1 - Apply throttle
2 - Pitch Up
3 - Monitor airspeed
4 - Establish climb
5 - Flaps retract - slowly

With a T&G, you are accelerating on the ground, and climbing clean.
With a Go Around, you are accelerating in the air, and stopping sink and maintaining altitude while dirty.
They are completely different operations, and doing one does not prepare you for the other.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I like T&Gs, especially on a short field. It teaches you how to focus on what's important to the task at hand.

Shep
 
I've been filming all my flights with a suction cup mounted GoPro camera with a patch cord into the intercom system. I like being able to see what I'm doing and re-listen to the commentary from my instructor. Not a video anyone else would want to see, but I think it helps reiterate what I was doing right and wrong. I still think the key is the long runway. I don't feel rushed at all with reconfiguring for takeoff.
 
I teach with touch and go's. Sometimes tower will permit stop and go's but often they will not. Doing a full stop and taxi back to the start of the runway here at our class c would be prohibitively expensive for the student.
 
Fly-Fla said:
I've been filming all my flights with a suction cup mounted GoPro camera with a patch cord into the intercom system. I like being able to see what I'm doing and re-listen to the commentary from my instructor. Not a video anyone else would want to see, but I think it helps reiterate what I was doing right and wrong. I still think the key is the long runway. I don't feel rushed at all with reconfiguring for takeoff.
Click to expand...

Be Brave...... post one on youtube so we can view it... It can't be that bad.:dunno:..
 
jesse said:
I teach with touch and go's. Sometimes tower will permit stop and go's but often they will not. Doing a full stop and taxi back to the start of the runway here at our class c would be prohibitively expensive for the student.
Click to expand...

Crete? Seward? I'm sure that you have your reasons, but doing pattern work at a towered airport would not appeal to me unless it was the only alternative.

Bob Gardner
 
bobmrg said:
Crete? Seward? I'm sure that you have your reasons, but doing pattern work at a towered airport would not appeal to me unless it was the only alternative.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...
One could -- but I see no reason not to solo them at the airport they're based at - which is the LNK class C. I do make sure my students know how to navigate to Crete and Seward and land there successfully just incase LNK were to get shutdown for some weird reason mid-solo.
 
PilotAlan said:
I disagree. The entire order of operations for a T&G is completely different than a go-around, and there is negative transfer between them.
For example, on a T&G, the FIRST thing you do is touch the flaps, on a go around, then LAST thing you do is touch the flaps.

T&G:
1 - Flaps retract - rapidly
2 - Apply throttle
3 - Monitor airspeed
4 - Pitch Up
5 - Establish Climb

Go around -
1 - Apply throttle
2 - Pitch Up
3 - Monitor airspeed
4 - Establish climb
5 - Flaps retract - slowly

With a T&G, you are accelerating on the ground, and climbing clean.
With a Go Around, you are accelerating in the air, and stopping sink and maintaining altitude while dirty.
They are completely different operations, and doing one does not prepare you for the other.
Click to expand...

But a T&G doesn't have to be different from a go around. So if it concerns you practice the T&G just like the Go around. It can be the exact same sequence as the Go around and teaches that sequence a lot better than doing an occasional go around.

If you can't slow down to a taxi speed on the touch and go, the do a full stop.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
I think the debate between touch and go's vs stop and go's is almost as bad as the marvel mystery oil debate.. :)

I usually do stop and go's or stop / taxi backs, depending on how much runway I have left when I'm flying the Cessna 140 mostly because it's the last 20 - 30 mph that'll bite you in tailwheel airplane. When in the 172/182, I usually will do touch and go's, but it depends on how much runway I have left, etc.

But, with this said, with aircraft with a retractable gear, I usually do stop and go's or stop / taxi backs. I know of plenty occasions where the pilot's performing a touch and go and thinks they are grabbing the flaps but pulls the gear up instead. I guess it all depends on the situation.

As for training, I feel that stop an go's initially are the best and transition the student into touch an go's as they get more experience. It gives them some time to regain their thoughts and digest their last landing. Just my 2 cents..
 
fgcason said:
Is the point safety or academic education? If you read a lot of the discussions about why it should not be done, the general discussion is how dangerous it is from a safety standpoint.
Academically it depends on the problem the student is having. Once they have the basics down, if they're having a hard time being consistent on where to start the flare and it's been discussed properly, 20 T/G approaches into the landing environment is likely going to help them more than 5 T/G approaches simply because they got to see and feel what was happening 15 times more over the same time period.



And the difference between those planes and a 150 or 172 is?????? Remove the tailwheel stability issue and add one little switch? There's no way that dumping the flaps on a 150 turns a non event T/G to a dangerous ride into the weeds. Reach over, flip a little lever up, and it's done, you don't even have to look down to do it. Now if you're having a long discussion and reprogramming your GPS during the roll or having to hunt for the lever visually and taking several seconds to watch the indicator go up to zero without looking out the window, well, that's another problem entirely that is totally unrelated to T/G's.
Click to expand...

Thing about a T&G is it keeps you in that 'almost flying' part of landing the longest and that is where it is at highest risk of going wrong. If asked I don't think a school that says "No Solo T&G" is doing their student a great disservice especially on the landing phase learning which is abbreviated to get the nose down quick, reconfigure and get the power back in. As long as they don't get in a rush to climb it's no big deal, although as I have heard it argued that, "doing a T&G is putting the two most hazardous phases of flight back to back while maximizing the hazard"; which is not wholly incorrect.
 
I did about 220 touch and goes out of a 2800ft. runway in a Cessna 152 in 11 hours before I soloed. I'd raise the flaps, go full throttle with my palm and simultaneously turn off the carb heat with my thumb. I didn't realize t&g's were hazardous and I still think full stop taxibacks are a pain.
 
John Collins said:
IMHO, doing T&G teach the student to do T&G.
Click to expand...

I got pretty good at 'em. But yeah, other than saving a few minutes of time and depriving me the time to ponder at leisure the landing I had just made before doing another takeoff, the sequence of things you have to rapidly do doesn't match anything you'd need to do in any other maneuver that I'm aware of.
 
brcase said:
But a T&G doesn't have to be different from a go around. So if it concerns you practice the T&G just like the Go around. It can be the exact same sequence as the Go around and teaches that sequence a lot better than doing an occasional go around.

If you can't slow down to a taxi speed on the touch and go, the do a full stop.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Click to expand...

Full throttle with full flaps when you're already part way down the runway?
Is this how you do T&Gs or is this just an untested suggestion?

Wouldn't that sequence be more dangerous for those flying planes with electric flaps on shorter or higher altitude runways? Don't you risk the possibility of lifting off earlier than anticipated and then sinking back to the runway as the flaps finally become fully retracted?
 
"flaps up, let's go" ----- my CFI in training.




now I make the calls.
 
MSPAviator said:
I did about 220 touch and goes out of a 2800ft. runway in a Cessna 152 in 11 hours before I soloed. I'd raise the flaps, go full throttle with my palm and simultaneously turn off the carb heat with my thumb. I didn't realize t&g's were hazardous and I still think full stop taxibacks are a pain.
Click to expand...

2800' in a 152 you can full stop/take off on the same runway for 10-15 seconds more per lap.
 
Henning said:
2800' in a 152 you can full stop/take off on the same runway for 10-15 seconds more per lap.
Click to expand...

Unless you've got three more aircraft in the pattern and haven't been cleared to do so. In that case you can exit the runway if you so choose, contact ground, and request permission to taxi to the start of the runway. After you get taxied to the start which will take 5 minutes or so you can then contact Tower and request permission to takeoff. It might be another few minutes before you're cleared. In which case, you'd be a lot better off if your instructor were capable of showing you a touch and go. You'll get double the bang for the same dollar.

I've soloed students in under 10 hours total time while meeting the entirety of the requirements in 14 CFR for doing so -- plus my own additional requirements - while teaching them how to properly speak on the radio -- and make their first flight at a class C with a 747 on the parallel and a few other aircraft on the same runway. It can indeed be done.

Of course, those that don't actually do it, have the most opinion on how it should be done :)
 
Last edited:
Whatever, I'm not religious on the subject, just cognizant and accepting of the opposing arguments as real. As for me, I've done em and I'll likely do one again at some point, but I don't make a habit of it as I think they teach bad landing habits.
 
I don't do em and am a little jealous because of the high risk at my home field.

I think if the focus is on all the parts that do not include when the airplane is in contact with the ground, then it can valuable.

Of course, Jesse's words about those that don't do them apply:)
 
I use T & G's as practice for a go around situation. During training we practiced T & G's, stop-n-goes, and full stop taxi back's. It is my opinion that T & G's are worth while practice.
 
Some observations about differences between a T&G verses a go around is with the latter, there usually isn't an issue of losing directional control. With a T&G, a good deal of the accidents are on the go portion and due to loss of directional control. With accelerating speed on the ground, a nose shimmy gets worse and wheelbarrowing is more likely to occur. Inappropriate brake or rudder usage at high speed, particularly in aircraft with direct drive between the rudder pedals and the nose wheel can result in an aggravated movement off the runway. Cross winds have a much greater impact on directional control when on the ground than when airborne on a go around.
 
John Collins said:
.............Cross winds have a much greater impact on directional control when on the ground than when airborne on a go around.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why T&G's are good practice... When students get to the point of having the CFI sign them off for their first solo, they better have directional control fully understood and have the ability control the plane.. Once beyond the solo and I see ALOT of experienced pilots on here say they don't like T&G's either.. That really has me scratching my head.:confused:
 
N801BH said:
Which is precisely why T&G's are good practice... When students get to the point of having the CFI sign them off for their first solo, they better have directional control fully understood and have the ability control the plane.. Once beyond the solo and I see ALOT of experienced pilots on here say they don't like T&G's either.. That really has me scratching my head.:confused:
Click to expand...

Not exactly the way I would look at it. Introduce a greater possibility for loss of control to teach the student how to avoid loss of control. In 6 years that I operated a flight school and prohibited T&G in our aircraft, there were no accidents (I estimate over 25,000 hours of instruction and rentals for our Cessna fleet). We did permit stop and goes at our airport if more than half of the runway was still available after the stop. Our average total flight time for graduates was in the mid forty hour range.
 
Why is one more likely to lose directional control on a T&G vs a regular takeoff? If it's the go portion we're talking about anyway. Someone mentioned a nosewheel shimmy... and I'm pretty sure my airplane will shimmy the same way on a T&G vs just a normal takeoff. :dunno:
 
I don't like doing T&Gs much in a Cessna because they are quite rushed. Rushing makes mistakes more likely.

In any piston aircraft, when you cram the throttle, the aircraft is going to want to veer, usually to the left.

T&Gs don't actually train for anything. They give you daytime currency, but that's about it. It is NOT like a go-around; in a go-around, you start your climb at full flap and have to retract it on a schedule (in a 172, 20 deg immediately, then 10 and zero with positive rate of climb), and this is a critical operation to practice. And if you want to practice go-arounds, a low pass is much, much, MUCH better. That's worth doing, as it can be a routine procedure.
 
Last edited:
I always antipicate the worst and plan every landing as if I am going to do a go around. So when landing I don't use full flaps unless I absolutely have to. That way I'm ready to go. 10 or 20 degrees is recommended for takeoff in my plane anyway (20 for short field), so by landing with 10 or 20 degrees there really isn't a lot for me to do in a go around.
 
With that technique, you're descending at a lower angle than you need to, making precise spot landings difficult, and putting yourself closer to obstructions. There is a reason short field technique is usually specified with full flaps.

A go-around with full flaps is possible, except for very short obstructed field. You won't climb with full flap in a 172 unless you're very light, but in those, you can pull off 20 deg really fast.
 
MAKG1 said:
There is a reason short field technique is usually specified with full flaps.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you don't always need to land with the short field technique. That's my point.
 
jesse said:
One could -- but I see no reason not to solo them at the airport they're based at - which is the LNK class C. I do make sure my students know how to navigate to Crete and Seward and land there successfully just incase LNK were to get shutdown for some weird reason mid-solo.
Click to expand...

Different strokes for different folks. After leaving a rural field for the big city, I instructed out of Boeing Field, with the Seattle Class B just 1100 feet over our heads. My students got plenty of practice departing and returning to BFI (and handling the CBA at the same time), but we did our pattern work and early-days soloing at uncontrolled airports where it was no burden to stop and taxi back. I did solo one student at BFI...an older gent who was a friend of the FBO's owner; the boss wanted to watch him solo. Two parallel runways at BFI, one for the little guys and one for the jets. He was waved off twice for 747 traffic. That was his last flight.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top