Solo Touch-n-Goes

SkyChaser

SkyChaser

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
2,019
Display Name
Display name:
SkyChaser
Why do some schools not allow solo touch-n-goes? I was reading the thread about the student who crashed while solo, and a poster mentioned that during dual lessons, the CFI would work the flaps for the touch-n-goes. That seems like a very dangerous practice, as in my mind, it would lead to the students not realizing and/or not remembering to do so if they had to go around on a solo flight, especially on an early solo flight. I am genuinely curious as to the reasoning behind this.
 
I dunno. solo as in training solo or even when renting solo? I could see them wanting to be a little cautious as well as milk students for cash. the weird thing is, like the high wing/low wing, ROP/LOP debates etc...there is a group of people who insist that practicing TnG's is dangerous. I am not one of those people, although I never specifically "practice TnGs". I may do them as part of other stuff (pattern work) but it's not specifically to go out and practice them.
 
IIRC, I was not allowed to do touch and goes until I had soloed a couple times. Then my instructor told me to go for it, with conditions on rwy length.

I was and am the same as eman, I don't practice touch and goes, I practice landings using the touch and goes. I think touch and goes drive home the importance of rudder with the application of power. I've also gone around right at touch down..... is that a touch and go?
 
I did them from the beginning at the various local 3000ft runway BFE airports. Probably money milking
 
When I learned they required full stop taxi backs. The whole "there's a lot happening, what if you forget to raise the flaps, or use up too much runway and go off the end?!" .. which I think is dumb practice as (A) you shouldn't be signed off if you CFI thinks you can't manage moving a lever and (B) doesn't really train you properly for the real world. I ended up changing schools and the other place did not have that rule, so I did many a solo touch n go

There could also be a financial component to this as well, the schools makes more $$ under the guise of safety. The student logs the time either way, but taxiing around is less valuable than flying

$0.02
 
SkyChaser said:
…a poster mentioned that during dual lessons, the CFI would work the flaps for the touch-n-goes. That seems like a very dangerous practice
Click to expand...

You are thinking clearly. It’s absurd to have the CFI ‘work the flaps’.

As far as touch and goes, I would have a new solo do a full stop, or stop and go if traffic and runway length wasn’t a factor. After some successful landings I would graduate them to T&Gs. If runway length or obstacles at a particular airport made T&Gs impractical, that’s another issue.
 
Or it can be called a “balked landing” in some circles. You would be configured for landing and would treat it like a go around.
 
Tantalum said:
When I learned they required full stop taxi backs. The whole "there's a lot happening, what if you forget to raise the flaps, or use up too much runway and go off the end?!" .. which I think is dumb practice as (A) you shouldn't be signed off if you CFI thinks you can't manage moving a lever and (B) doesn't really train you properly for the real world.
$0.02
Click to expand...

In the club In which I learned to fly, we had the rule of no touch and goes. As an instructor, I stuck with that rule.

Our leadership believed the student could do all the touch an goes he wanted in somebody else's airplanes.

Regardless of whether a CFI believes his students are the best ever, properly applied risk management would favor allowing students the extra time to taxi back and clean up the airplane before the next takeoff. More importantly, it allowed the instructor to discuss and critique the landing immediately.

As far as gouging for $$, we were paying $5.00 per hour wet for a C-150 and self-insuring the airplanes, so there was no concern from anyone for the cost.
 
A touch and go, unlike a go-around is not a required maneuver.

i don't see a real reason to prohibit doing the landing of your choice, casually reconfiguring the airplane for the takeoff of your choice, and then performing that takeoff, at least in a fixed gear airplane.

But I hesitate to "j'accuse: traite!" Without knowing a lot more. A touch and go may be a time saving convenience but with a soloing student (or enven a certificated pilot transitioning to a new aircraft), there is also value in pulling off and doing a self analysis before the next go. How did I do? What can I do better. Or maybe the school has had issues with students having incidents or causing damage spending too much time thinking if the next takeoff instead of the current landing and decided this as a policy.
 
Last edited:
SkyChaser said:
Why do some schools not allow solo touch-n-goes? I was reading the thread about the student who crashed while solo, and a poster mentioned that during dual lessons, the CFI would work the flaps for the touch-n-goes. That seems like a very dangerous practice, as in my mind, it would lead to the students not realizing and/or not remembering to do so if they had to go around on a solo flight, especially on an early solo flight. I am genuinely curious as to the reasoning behind this.
Click to expand...

Because they know they have cut rate instructors, probably don’t invest anything in further training for their instructors.


Also perhaps a insurance requirement after they crashed a few planes because of my other mentioned reasons.


Not a sign of a good school.
 
Let’s be honest, If your student can’t perform a touch and go in a basic trainer without bending metal, do they really need to be flying solo? It’s not as difficult of a task as some CFI’s like to make it seem, it’s actually incredibly simple.
 
RyanB said:
Let’s be honest, If your student can’t perform a touch and go in a basic trainer without bending metal, do they really need to be flying solo? It’s not as difficult of a task as some CFI’s like to make it seem, it’s actually incredibly simple.
Click to expand...

Some CFIs have a hard time showing up on time, I could see a maneuver like a T&G taxing them to the limit :)
 
Thanks for the replies and insight, everyone. :)

When I was first learning to land, we did full stop taxi backs and we discussed the landings on the way back to takeoff. As I got slowly better, my instructor and I began doing T&Gs, and discussed my last landing on crosswind/downwind before landing checklists and the like started. It worked really well for me because pattern-flying was pretty easy to become proficient at, and I was very capable of T&Gs when I soloed. Of course, I was flying the plane and my CFI only touched the controls if she needed to or I asked her to, so I actually understood how to do them.
 
My school didn't want us doing touch and goes solo as student pilots either. Now I always do touch and goes unless I have a specific reason not to, but at first it was a bit trickier than a normal landing so I kind of get it. You need to make the right decision about what to do with the flaps (which may depend on a few factors), not screw yourself up with inappropriate trim, and manage runway length more carefully. When you are first learning it's also nice to take a break and taxi a bit before concentrating on pattern flying again. I didn't ever feel deprived when I was a student pilot.
 
Like any maneuver, the instructor is responsible for ensuring the student’s proficiency prior to allowing him or her to perform it solo. Some instructors are better at such things than others, so sometimes their employer makes that decision. I sometimes the government gets involved in making those decisions, sometimes the insurance companies do.

Probably happens in most industries.
 
The school I contract with doesn’t allow solo T&Gs. The reason? Too many bent airplanes. Who’s fault is it? Maybe the instructor, maybe not. Stuff happens, but if the school feels like they want to eliminate a source of potential liability based on a history of previous occurrences, so be it.
 
The airport that I achieved my PPL at had a 2400 foot runway with 60 foot trees 100 feet from one end, and a railway track with telegraph wire 30 feet high at the other end.

Our club instructor, with the agreement of the club board, forbid touch and go's. His rule was that if the tires touched the pavement, you had committed to the landing, and if too far down the runway, the wreck would be at a lower speed if brakes were used to the max.

At least 3 planes did rejected landings and wound up on the railroad tracks burning.

He, and the board, required our members to make their firm decision to land or not land at least 10 feet in the air, to allow proper reconfiguration of our Cessna 150 while we were at a safe airspeed. We did go arounds any time the instructor called for one, and he did surprise us. That taught us to suddenly change our plan, and take the alternate course of action.

A rejected landing in a 150 with full flaps extended is a busy time, and we did our first ones at about 100 feet above the runway. My first solo landing turned into a rejected one, as a helicopter made a simulated engine out just off the approach end of the runway when I was about half way in on final.

My instructor approved my reason for not landing, and signed me off for unrestricted further solo in the pattern.

At airports with 10,000 foot runways, T&G's make sense, and with no flaps, you can make about 20 landings in one pass. WE did not have that luxury. Full flaps coming over the trees, and 20 degrees landing over the railroad track. Alternately, we used radical slips over the trees.

Due to our narrow, 25 foot, runway, and obstructions, all the nearby flying schools forbid even landing at CGS until you had your PPL.
 
geezer said:
The airport that I achieved my PPL at had a 2400 foot runway with 60 foot trees 100 feet from one end, and a railway track with telegraph wire 30 feet high at the other end.

Our club instructor, with the agreement of the club board, forbid touch and go's. His rule was that if the tires touched the pavement, you had committed to the landing, and if too far down the runway, the wreck would be at a lower speed if brakes were used to the max.

At least 3 planes did rejected landings and wound up on the railroad tracks burning.

He, and the board, required our members to make their firm decision to land or not land at least 10 feet in the air, to allow proper reconfiguration of our Cessna 150 while we were at a safe airspeed. We did go arounds any time the instructor called for one, and he did surprise us. That taught us to suddenly change our plan, and take the alternate course of action.

A rejected landing in a 150 with full flaps extended is a busy time, and we did our first ones at about 100 feet above the runway. My first solo landing turned into a rejected one, as a helicopter made a simulated engine out just off the approach end of the runway when I was about half way in on final.

My instructor approved my reason for not landing, and signed me off for unrestricted further solo in the pattern.

At airports with 10,000 foot runways, T&G's make sense, and with no flaps, you can make about 20 landings in one pass. WE did not have that luxury. Full flaps coming over the trees, and 20 degrees landing over the railroad track. Alternately, we used radical slips over the trees.

Due to our narrow, 25 foot, runway, and obstructions, all the nearby flying schools forbid even landing at CGS until you had your PPL.
Click to expand...

Seems the CFI was trying to overrule the judgement of the PIC
 
MauleSkinner said:
Sometimes that’s a reasonable course of action, especially when it’s club policy.
Click to expand...

I disagree.
Especially if he’s not willing to bet his life and future on it.
 
Obviously a short runway or obstacles are a reason to not do touch and goes or for a school to forbid them. But there are some instructors who think they touch and goes are dangerous anywhere and don't allow them. I disagree with that.
 
Jackk said:
I disagree.
Especially if he’s not willing to bet his life and future on it.
Click to expand...
I see a lot of people who disagree with their companies’ safety policies. Most of the ones I see ignore them, in large part because the people who make them aren’t watching, which obviously means they’re not betting their life and future on them.

if you want to fly the airplane, you should comply with the applicable rules. If you don’t want to comply, don’t fly the airplane.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I see a lot of people who disagree with their companies’ safety policies. Most of the ones I see ignore them, in large part because the people who make them aren’t watching, which obviously means they’re not betting their life and future on them.

if you want to fly the airplane, you should comply with the applicable rules. If you don’t want to comply, don’t fly the airplane.
Click to expand...

The FARs are the rules, and if immediate danger is present a PIC can act outside of the FARs for the safety of flight.

Random CFI guy and some club is not a opspec or GOM or FAR.

Telling low time pilots
“His rule was that if the tires touched the pavement, you had committed to the landing”
That’s not good, saying no touch and goes is one thing.
 
Jackk said:
The FARs are the rules, and if immediate danger is present a PIC can act outside of the FARs for the safety of flight.

Random CFI guy and some club is not a opspec or GOM or FAR.

Telling low time pilots
“His rule was that if the tires touched the pavement, you had committed to the landing”
That’s not good, saying no touch and goes is one thing.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying that a pilot who puts himself in a position where he has to go around from well within ground effect is likely to have the judgement to make a split-second decision that his situation is way different than those who crashed trying to do the same thing?
 
MauleSkinner said:
So you’re saying that a pilot who puts himself in a position where he has to go around from well within ground effect is likely to have the judgement to make a split-second decision that his situation is way different than those who crashed trying to do the same thing?
Click to expand...

Per the standards he better, or he should not be solo, let alone have a PPL.

Also 2400’ of asphalt with 60’ trees near it is far from a one way landing committed bush strip
 
The Mooney T&G was an airline pilot. He and his wife suffered 2nd and 3rd degree burns. His career had just ended with those injuries.

The Cessna 172 T&G pilot had a Commercial rating. All 4 on board had serious burns and most had broken bones.

The Piper, T&G pilot, model unknown, produced multiple fractures, and also burned.

None of those planes flew again.

Note that our rules did not commit the pilot to the landing until the wheels were on the pavement.


That is just at the EASY end of the runway. There were some at the other end too. Most people were sufficiently intimidated, that they did not attempt a T&G toward those trees.

If an ATP can prang his personal plane here, should student pilots try to out do him? We only permitted T&G's at runways more than 5,000 feet long.

Our old 150 trained more than 15 pilots, and wore out 2 engines, without an insurance claim. The club did a lot right. We were also justly proud that we were learning to fly at an airport that other training facilities considered to dangerous for their student to even land.
 
Last edited:
Jackk said:
Per the standards he better, or he should not be solo, let alone have a PPL.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately there are a lot of Private, Commercial, and ATP certificate holders who fall into that category, requiring others to make certain decisions for them. When policies like that are required, they adversely affect a lot of people who CAN make those decisions.

If you fly the airplane, your willingness to comply with the rules, good, bad, or otherwise, is implied. If you don’t want to comply with the rules established for the airplane, don’t fly it.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Unfortunately there are a lot of Private, Commercial, and ATP certificate holders who fall into that category, requiring others to make certain decisions for them. When policies like that are required, they adversely affect a lot of people who CAN make those decisions.

If you fly the airplane, your willingness to comply with the rules, good, bad, or otherwise, is implied. If you don’t want to comply with the rules established for the airplane, don’t fly it.
Click to expand...

A random CFI or club doesn’t make real rules, maybe club rules.
If that CFI thinks he knows better he should be willing to be held liable if it turns out he didn’t.
 
My school had no problem with solo T&G. Then my examiner told me that T&G are completely pointless - not something you'd ever do in the normal course of flying. On top of it, it teaches bad landing and takeoff practices as everything is rushed, your takeoff roll is pretty much non-existent as you're already near Vr and so on, in his opinion. He said either do proper full stop landings - if the runway is long enough, make it a stop and go or train go arounds to practice retracting the flaps, carb heat and climb out from a balked landing - something most students don't ever practice other than the few times with their instructor. I see his point - didn't do me any good since I passed my flight test and as he predicted, never did T&G ever again as part of my regular flying.
 
I'm pretty sure we did T&G on my first discovery flight. I know we did them regularly before and after solo.

About the instructor getting the flaps.... I can recall flying with some instructors that might get the flaps sometimes...but really only as a CRM being helpful kind of thing...

In some airplanes Re-configuring trim and flaps are a bit of a handful so I can kind of understand a school having some limitations based on runway length, maybe winds, student's ability, etc...
I'm thinking those Cessnas with the momentary switch you have to hold while the flaps are in transit...and a few that I can't remember the types but they had an awkward Johnson bar thing that was disorienting...maybe that was the old Mooney I flew a bit.... and I think it was the aztec, maybe, that had some trim wheels awkwardly placed
But yeah, I think practicing patterns with T&G's is helpful...not harmful (for most cases anyway)
 
I don't understand the concern over not training touch and go's. They're not on the checkride. They don't really teach anything. They save some time is about it. I learned to fly out of an airport where they weren't permitted - relatively short field with obstructions. I think it was an advantage to learn at a field where every first take off was short field procedure, where you actually had to pay attention to temperature and fuel to have a safety margin for clearing the trees. Landing, you learn to do go arounds, and not to decide to make a landing at 1.6+ Vso and then decide later on it's a bad idea after 3 bounces.

A touch and go is a bit like an intersection departure with a maybe unknown starting point. For those that say you should be able to do that on a short field, I'd ask what are the performance numbers in the POH to back that up? Maybe they exist, but I've never seen a printed "touch and go" chart in a POH. So you're going to interpolate your landing speed, and the takeoff run, to make your own chart? Or play it safe and add them together? I'm not saying it's not completely safe in a 172 with a 5000' runway, but I am suggesting it doesn't sound like a smart thing to teach on short fields to a beginner pilot.

I'm ranting a bit, but practicing t&g sounds a bit like practicing playing with...well I can't finish that sentence on here.
 
There sure seems to be whole lot of assuming about people's abilities in this thread. Regardless of flight time, certificate or what someone else thinks a pilot can do, we all screw up every now and then.

Perhaps a little review of risk management, with emphasis on human factors would be a good idea before making [not well thought out] remarks on a flying forum.

Assuming, I said...
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
Then my examiner told me that T&G are completely pointless - not something you'd ever do in the normal course of flying.
Click to expand...
As long as it’s understood that he was talking to you, not to those of us for whom T&G are something we do in the normal course of flying. ;)
 
I don't think they are completely pointless.... they do in a way help as practice for go-arounds.
Valid point though about bad habits...especially on short runways. On longer one I would often coast the landing out a bit, get reconfigured, then go
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
My school had no problem with solo T&G. Then my examiner told me that T&G are completely pointless - not something you'd ever do in the normal course of flying. On top of it, it teaches bad landing and takeoff practices as everything is rushed, your takeoff roll is pretty much non-existent as you're already near Vr and so on, in his opinion. He said either do proper full stop landings - if the runway is long enough, make it a stop and go or train go arounds to practice retracting the flaps, carb heat and climb out from a balked landing - something most students don't ever practice other than the few times with their instructor. I see his point - didn't do me any good since I passed my flight test and as he predicted, never did T&G ever again as part of my regular flying.
Click to expand...

Sorry you had that experience with the examiner.

A go around and a touch and go are VERY similar, if I’m ever in doubt, or if something comes on the runway and Im closer to flying speed than stopping speed, you bet I’m going around.

Same with a go around, it’s just a slightly different phase of flight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top