T&G at night?

Pi1otguy

Pi1otguy

En-Route
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
2,519
Location
Fontana, CA
Display Name
Fox McCloud
Home Airfield
KRAL
Imagine several light singles doing pattern work at night at a field with a pair of long runways (5000' & 7000'). Maybe a few other aircraft occasionally.

Obviously we're doing stop & go's to comply with 61.57(b)(1) currency requirements. Until an instructor announce touch and go. I get that it's more efficient and poses no real increased risk so we just adjust our patterns appropriately. It's just not something I've considered before.

But why does 61.57 require a full stop at night? Isn't 90% of the landing everything that occurs prior to touchdown?
 
I can only offer an hypothesis. Since the underlying regulation is for passenger carrying currency, a full stop with pax would usually require a taxi to park for deplaning. Signs and light colors change as does the overhead illumination on the field itself. Add to it the challenge of slow speed ground ops on a potentially crowded ramp with less to great visibility and illumination and there’s plenty of opportunities to embarrass yourself in front of your passengers.
 
T&Gs have an inherent increased risk, mostly because you're needing to reconfigure rapidly while moving down the runway with some speed. No, I'm not saying it's dangerous- I've done plenty of them and that re-configuring isn't a huge deal on a typical 172/cherokee trainer but it's still riskier than a normal full stop landing. Night also has some added inherent risk... again not unreasonable risk but a risk.

I'm guessing the FAA wrote the reg that way to discourage pilots from combining those two risk factors just to tick a currency box.
 
Just another thing to throw into the mix....I believe night takeoffs are required for currency as well, which is forced by the full stop landing.
 
They want to prevent descending near the approach end, screep screep of the tires, full throttle to 10 feet, idle, screep, screep, full throttle to 10 feet, idle, screep screep, screep, as you finally let the nose wheel touch, full stop, and 3 landings done.

As others have pointed out, taxiing at night is sometimes challenging, and is part of the refresh you should do. Flying the pattern is visually quite different at night.
 
I suspect the full stop is to prevent you from counting a botched landing as a touch and go.

Hey, the wheels touched right?
 
TCABM said:
I can only offer an hypothesis. Since the underlying regulation is for passenger carrying currency, a full stop with pax would usually require a taxi to park for deplaning. Signs and light colors change as does the overhead illumination on the field itself. Add to it the challenge of slow speed ground ops on a potentially crowded ramp with less to great visibility and illumination and there’s plenty of opportunities to embarrass yourself in front of your passengers.
Click to expand...
A stop and go doesn't require all that.
 
Many taildraggers have bad forward visibility in 3 point stance, especially from the rear seat. You use the runway edge on each side of the cockpit to keep the aircraft aligned and on centerline.

At night that gets harder because of runway light spacing. You can't see the runway in front of you illuminated by the landing light. On a grass strip with edge lights every 300 yards, you only get intermittent hints to stay straight. Can get dicey quick.

Could be the full stop requirement was originally written to prevent conventional gear aircraft from doing only wheel landings and never slowing to 3 point stance.

Just a guess.
 
RussR said:
I'm eagerly awaiting @midlifeflyer to post the relevant NPRM discussion from decades ago!
Click to expand...
I'm not midlife but here is part of it from the 1997 FR. It doesn't explain why night landings are full stop, but explains why day landings aren't:

. Takeoffs and Landings
Summary of proposal/issue: The FAA proposed to revise the recency
of experience requirements in Sec. 61.57. The proposed revisions in
Notice No. 95-11 included requiring all landings, not just night
landings, to be conducted to a full stop. The proposal also required
that these landings involve flight in the traffic pattern at the
recommended traffic pattern altitude for the airport.
Comments: More than 170 comments address the takeoff and landing
aspect of recency of experience. Approximately 65 percent of the
comments oppose the proposal.
Most of the opposition concerns the proposal to require all
landings to be conducted to a full stop and to involve flight in the
traffic pattern and at the recommended traffic pattern altitude for the
airport.
AOPA expresses opposition to the requirement for full-stop
landings. The commenter does not believe that the FAA has presented any
evidence that full-stop landings are safer than touch-and-go landings.
According to AOPA, the proposal will cause a significant increase in
airport congestion and pollution, in training time spent on the ground,
and in the overall costs of maintaining proficiency. The commenter also
states that there is no safety evidence to support the requirement that
the landings be performed in the traffic pattern from the recommended
pattern altitude. AOPA comments that rotorcraft rarely fly a complete
traffic pattern, because to do so would create a hazardous mix of
dissimilar aircraft. According to the commenter, the proposal also
would lead to decreased efficiency for glider operations and emergency
procedures training.
NBAA comments that the requirement for full-stop landings
eliminates the efficient touch-and-go maneuver without justification,
while adding to airport congestion and aircraft operators' costs. NBAA
also objects to the language of proposed Sec. 61.57(a)(iii), because it
can be interpreted as requiring ``a circuit in the traffic pattern.''
The commenter states that most pilots combine currency landings with
other flight operations rather than full circuits in the traffic
pattern, and the proposal might require dispatching aircraft and crews
specifically for currency takeoffs and landings, thereby adding time
and expense.
HAI expresses opposition to proposed Sec. 61.57(a)(1)(iii)
requiring that all takeoffs and landings be conducted in the traffic
pattern at the recommended traffic pattern altitude. The commenter
states that helicopters do not always fly to or from airports, or
operate in the traffic pattern if at an airport. HAI suggests modifying
the proposed rule to require each takeoff and landing to be separated
by an en route phase of flight.
SSA states that, at some gliderports, the currency landings are
performed on a nonactive runway to avoid conflicts with the normal
traffic patterns. SSA suggests modifying Sec. 61.57 to reflect this
practice.
Generally, individual commenters express opinions similar to those
of the associations. Several individual commenters state that the
proposed requirements are not applicable to balloon operations, and
therefore the current rule should be retained. They cite operations in
an airport traffic pattern, for example, and one commenter asks what
``full stop'' means in relation to balloons.
FAA Response: After consideration of the comments, the FAA has
decided to withdraw the proposed requirement that landings involve
flight in the traffic pattern and at the recommended traffic pattern
altitude for the airport. In addition, the FAA will not go forward with
the requirement for full-stop landings because, as indicated by the
commenters, there is no cost justification for the measure, and it will
result in increased congestion at airports. However, the FAA is
retaining the current full-stop requirements for tailwheel aircraft, as
well as for night landings.
 
RussR said:
I'm eagerly awaiting @midlifeflyer to post the relevant NPRM discussion from decades ago!
Click to expand...

@dmspilot found the final rule. Yes, in the big 1997 revision, the FAA proposed to require a full stop for all passenger currency landings. As @dmspilot’s quote indicates, the proposal was objected to by just about every alphabet organization and many individuals, pointing out that there was no evidence there was a problem to be fixed. The FAA caved, saying there was no justification for the increased cost of requiring full stop landings for day currency in a nosegear airplane.

I’m not quite curious enough to go back to when the requirement was first added, but I suppose the justification for the tail wheel and night full stop requirement was similar to what the FAA said when it proposed to expand the requirement:

… the takeoffs and landings would have to be to a complete stop, whether accomplished during day or night or in an airplane with tailwheel landing gear or tricycle landing gear. In retaining the current requirements, night operations will involve knowledge, skill, and ability that are sufficient for currency for daytime operations. However, safety will bebetter served if the regulation requires full-stop landings, at least for the purpose of meeting the requirements of proposed Sec. 61.57, rather than encouraging ``touch-and-go'' operations. A landing is not completed until the airplane is stopped and off the runway. As an example, crosswinds may cause a wing to lift suddenly, or mistakes can be made during a hasty effort to ``clean up'' the airplane (i.e., retract flaps, turn off carburetor heat, etc.)​
 
Jim K said:
Just another thing to throw into the mix....I believe night takeoffs are required for currency as well, which is forced by the full stop landing.
Click to expand...
A touch and go is a landing and a takeoff... And daytime currency also requires takeoffs.
 
Many an airplane has found trouble after the touch and before the stop. It make sense for all landings to be to a full stop to count for currency. What one does for proficiency is another matter.

No idea why the alphabets oppose - after all there's more "flight time" to be accrued taxiing after "landing" 2500' down a 4000' runway.
 
Not sure what the exact thinking of the FAA was, but IMHO it's a good idea because it involves night taxing, etc.

For example, a few weeks back was doing the three night landings. When I turned onto the ramp for taxi back saw an odd white flashing at the runway hold short line in the distance. Approached slower than usual, which was good because it turned out to be a twin diamond with no beacon, no nav lights, no taxi or landing lights. Just strobes. So yeah, good reminder, good training for night ground work as well because you never know what you'll encounter.
 
WDD said:
For example, a few weeks back was doing the three night landings. When I turned onto the ramp for taxi back saw an odd white flashing at the runway hold short line in the distance. Approached slower than usual, which was good because it turned out to be a twin diamond with no beacon, no nav lights, no taxi or landing lights. Just strobes. So yeah, good reminder, good training for night ground work as well because you never know what you'll encounter.
Click to expand...
Oh, the DA42 *has* nav, taxi, and landing lights...

However, the lack of a "rotating"/pulsating beacon is just utter stupidity IMO, just to save a few bucks and a couple knots. You're supposed to use your anti-collision lights on the ground, and the Diamonds' anti-collision lights are the strobes, which you really shouldn't use on the ground if there are other people around. One of the very few drawbacks on some otherwise incredibly nice airplanes.
 
He was holding short BTW. That he didn’t have his nav, taxi, and beacon on was just stupid.
 
Pi1otguy said:
Imagine several light singles doing pattern work at night at a field with a pair of long runways (5000' & 7000'). Maybe a few other aircraft occasionally.

Obviously we're doing stop & go's to comply with 61.57(b)(1) currency requirements. Until an instructor announce touch and go. I get that it's more efficient and poses no real increased risk so we just adjust our patterns appropriately. It's just not something I've considered before.

But why does 61.57 require a full stop at night? Isn't 90% of the landing everything that occurs prior to touchdown?
Click to expand...
Contrary to your beliefs, touchand go landings at night present significantly higher risk factors than daytime operations due to reduced visual cues, increased risk of spatial disorientation, and complex visual illusions. Key hazards include runway light illusions leading to incorrect altitude, disorientation during the transition from landing to takeoff, and higher, harder-to-spot closure rates.

The FAA requires night currency landings to be full stop to ensure proficiency in handling the challenging, reduced-visibility, and sensory-limited environment of nighttime operations. Full-stop landings attempt to force pilots to complete the entire landing sequence—including taxiing in dark, complex environments—rather than just touching down and immediately taking off again. Although a stop and go also qualifies.
E
Additionally the night takeoffs and landings may be conducted from any width, length, grade, hard or soft surface runway your heart desires regardless of obstacles and density altitude. The runway doesn’t even have to be lighted or served approach slope indicators. Unless the aircraft is flown for hire, a landing light isn’t required.

The VFR pilot may conduct this night operation in the traffic pattern within 1/2 mile of the runway when flight visibility is 1 SM. The IFR pilot may conduct these operations in controlled airspace under SVFR when the ground visibility is 1 SM or under IFR with visibilities less than 1SM.

Add to the mix the reason you are doing these landings is because you are not current and you may not have done a single night landing for many years and decide you want to do this solo.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
The VFR pilot may conduct this night operation in the traffic pattern within 1/2 mile of the runway when flight visibility is 1 SM. The IFR pilot may conduct these operations in controlled airspace under SVFR when the ground visibility is 1 SM or under IFR with visibilities less than 1SM.
Click to expand...
Ummm... What? Are you just a rogue AI, or where did you come up with this?
 
As a CFI, I got to where I didn't think much of touch-and-goes as a training maneuver. I felt they taught the wrong things. They don't even teach go-around techniques of any value. My impression was that training too often devolved into teaching techniques in a way that was not integrated into flying. Rather like the old school figure skaters who would do figure eights and circles. I got to where, if possible, I preferred to teach techniques integrated into a flight. E.g., take off-, climb-out, including checklists, at a specified VHS (like 500 fpm and turn on course) enroute, including checklists, perhaps some aerial maneuvers suchs aapprach and descent, checklists, land and taxi back. All with correct radio procedures where appropriate. In other words, every training flight a miniature cross country. I'm lucky, I have half a dozen uncontrolled airports within reasonable distance.
My point is, to the discussion in hand, that T&G don't teach much that is useful and do teach procedures that are not useful, so I tended to get away from them. Saving a little money? How much?
In some airports, granted, it may be appropriate. That doesn't make it optimal.
 
jnmeade said:
I got to where, if possible, I preferred to teach techniques integrated into a flight. E.g., take off-, climb-out, including checklists, at a specified VHS (like 500 fpm and turn on course) enroute, including checklists, perhaps some aerial maneuvers suchs aapprach and descent, checklists, land and taxi back
Click to expand...
That’s a lot to do if what the student needs to figure out is the flare and touchdown.
 
midlifeflyer said:
@dmspilot found the final rule. Yes, in the big 1997 revision, the FAA proposed to require a full stop for all passenger currency landings. As @dmspilot’s quote indicates, the proposal was objected to by just about every alphabet organization and many individuals, pointing out that there was no evidence there was a problem to be fixed. The FAA caved, saying there was no justification for the increased cost of requiring full stop landings for day currency in a nosegear airplane.

I’m not quite curious enough to go back to when the requirement was first added, but I suppose the justification for the tail wheel and night full stop requirement was similar to what the FAA said when it proposed to expand the requirement:

… the takeoffs and landings would have to be to a complete stop, whether accomplished during day or night or in an airplane with tailwheel landing gear or tricycle landing gear. In retaining the current requirements, night operations will involve knowledge, skill, and ability that are sufficient for currency for daytime operations. However, safety will bebetter served if the regulation requires full-stop landings, at least for the purpose of meeting the requirements of proposed Sec. 61.57, rather than encouraging ``touch-and-go'' operations. A landing is not completed until the airplane is stopped and off the runway. As an example, crosswinds may cause a wing to lift suddenly, or mistakes can be made during a hasty effort to ``clean up'' the airplane (i.e., retract flaps, turn off carburetor heat, etc.)​
Click to expand...
While researching something else, I came across the following fun facts:

Prior to 1974, the passenger currency requirement was 5 (five) takeoffs and landings to a full stop (nose or tailwheel). Interestingly to me, in all my following of regulation discussions over the years, I don't think I have EVER heard anyone mention that the requirement used to be 5, not 3.

But this was changed to the current 3, with only tailwheel and "night" specifically requiring full stop, in 1974 concurrently with the addition of the Flight Review, which was not a requirement prior to then.

This is just reading from the actual CFR, not the NPRM for the 1974 rewrite. So in the 1997 rewrite, the FAA was attempting to bring back the full stop requirement that had been absent since 1974.
 
RussR said:
While researching something else, I came across the following fun facts:

Prior to 1974, the passenger currency requirement was 5 (five) takeoffs and landings to a full stop (nose or tailwheel). Interestingly to me, in all my following of regulation discussions over the years, I don't think I have EVER heard anyone mention that the requirement used to be 5, not 3.

But this was changed to the current 3, with only tailwheel and "night" specifically requiring full stop, in 1974 concurrently with the addition of the Flight Review, which was not a requirement prior to then.

This is just reading from the actual CFR, not the NPRM for the 1974 rewrite. So in the 1997 rewrite, the FAA was attempting to bring back the full stop requirement that had been absent since 1974.
Click to expand...
I have the Final Rule (not the NPRM) for the 1974 amendments. I'm not sure what came before that, but the five takeoffs and landings to a full stop was in the NPRM but was reduced to three even before the Final Rule was published.

New new "biennial flight review" is described in the Final Rule as "Probably the most controversial proposal" in the Proposed Rule.
 
midlifeflyer said:
New new "biennial flight review" is described in the Final Rule as "Probably the most controversial proposal" in the Proposed Rule.
Click to expand...

I've definitely read about that and how controversial it was. Which when viewed through the lens of today's regulatory and insurance-driven climate, is pretty entertaining, since at the time they didn't even specify a minimum duration for the flight review. As free-form as it is today, back then you could conceivably get the entire flight review done in less than an hour, to include ground and flight. Was the 1 hour/1 hour requirement added in the 1997 rewrite?
 
Last edited:
This got me thinking - is there is a formal definition of a "full stop" landing, and what aspect of it pertains specifically to carrying passengers? I am wondering if the original intent of "full stop" was to shutdown the engine and disembark.
 
sarangan said:
This got me thinking - is there is a formal definition of a "full stop" landing, and what aspect of it pertains specifically to carrying passengers? I am wondering if the original intent of "full stop" was to shutdown the engine and disembark.
Click to expand...

It's a fair question, one that I've had for a long time too. If you tell the tower you're a Full Stop, they understand it to mean you're going to taxi off the runway, to the FBO or hangar and shut down. In other words, you're done flying for this sortie.

Sometimes people will say that the reason for full stop at night is because the taxiing is hard at night. Which it can be, of course, no dispute about that. But if that IS the reason for the Full Stop requirement at night, then a Stop and Go isn't allowing that practice - and yet I'd say most CFIs and schools and pilots getting currency are doing exactly that, Stop and Goes.

I guess it comes down to whether the regulation means full stop landings, or Full Stop landings. I don't know that it's defined anywhere. Maybe in the AIM or the AFH or similar, I'll have to look.
 
RussR said:
It's a fair question, one that I've had for a long time too. If you tell the tower you're a Full Stop, they understand it to mean you're going to taxi off the runway, to the FBO or hangar and shut down. In other words, you're done flying for this sortie.

Sometimes people will say that the reason for full stop at night is because the taxiing is hard at night. Which it can be, of course, no dispute about that. But if that IS the reason for the Full Stop requirement at night, then a Stop and Go isn't allowing that practice - and yet I'd say most CFIs and schools and pilots getting currency are doing exactly that, Stop and Goes.

I guess it comes down to whether the regulation means full stop landings, or Full Stop landings. I don't know that it's defined anywhere. Maybe in the AIM or the AFH or similar, I'll have to look.
Click to expand...
Seems like it would also specify full start takeoffs if that were the case.
 
sarangan said:
This got me thinking - is there is a formal definition of a "full stop" landing, and what aspect of it pertains specifically to carrying passengers? I am wondering if the original intent of "full stop" was to shutdown the engine and disembark.
Click to expand...
Doubtful. I’m not sure how requiring and engine would contribute more to the goal of a safe landing than coming to the same “full stop” that’s required of a car coming to a stop sign at an intersection (the sic-called “California” rolling stop notwithstanding): the wheels stop turning entirely.
 
RussR said:
It's a fair question, one that I've had for a long time too. If you tell the tower you're a Full Stop, they understand it to mean you're going to taxi off the runway, to the FBO or hangar and shut down. In other words, you're done flying for this sortie.
Click to expand...
“Full stop taxi back” is also a full stop.

“Stop and go” is just shorthand for “come to a full stop on the runway and then takeoff again.” You could probably ask for that the long way. The Tower will think you’re a student pilot, sigh, and reply, “cleared stop and go.”
 
What about Rte 2? Oh man, they'll kill you there....
Half seriously, though I would not do T&Gs at night. I dislike them even in daylight.
 
midlifeflyer said:
“Full stop taxi back” is also a full stop.

“Stop and go” is just shorthand for “come to a full stop on the runway and then takeoff again.” You could probably ask for that the long way. The Tower will think you’re a student pilot, sigh, and reply, “cleared stop and go.”
Click to expand...
Cleared for option includes a stop and go, but not a taxi back.
 
WDD said:
He was holding short BTW. That he didn’t have his nav, taxi, and beacon on was just stupid.
Click to expand...
Nav and taxi, yes... But that's what I was getting at, a lot of the new planes, including the DA42, don't even have a beacon at all. Not a fan of that whatsoever - It's kind of the universal "I'm about to start the engines" or "I left my master on" signal, and it allows you to not be "required" to run your strobes on the ground.

IMO, the more lights, the better. (See the pic right there on the left of every post I make...)
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
Ill be honest, I almost never do touch and go's, even during the day. Im just not in that much of a rush. I fly an early bonanza and, while I have never accidentally pulled up the gear when trying to retract the flaps, I have no intention of rushing that action and messing it up. I fly out of a 5000' runway and always full stop/taxi back. That being said, I dont often just fly in the pattern. Mostly at night for night currency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top