Touch-and-Go versus Go-Around versus Rejected Landing

[TMetzinger]

I'm working on a lecture where I'll be discussing these three topics, and I'd like the CFIs to weigh in on the definitions I'm using and what I'm saying.

A "Go-Around" is a manuever that results when a pilot decides to abort an approach to landing while still in the air. In general, the procedure is to smoothly apply full power, pitch for an appropriate climb attitude, get a climb established at a proper airspeed, and then clean up the airplane by retracting flaps and landing gear as appropriate. This is often taught as "Cram (the throttles), Climb (the airplane), Clean (the airplane)"

A "Rejected Landing" is a manuever that results when a pilot decides to abandon a landing already made by returning to the air - usually because of a situation that makes stopping on the runway a bad idea, like another object. This is generally considered an emergency manuever. In general, the procedure is similar to a go-around - smoothly apply full power, rotate at an appropriate airspeed and pitch for an appropriate climb attitude, get a climb established at a proper airspeed, and then clean up the airplane by retracting flaps and landing gear as appropriate. One generally does NOT do anything other than the "Cram, Climb, Clean" routine in a rejected landing unless the aircraft specifically requires it.

A "Touch and Go" is a manuever where all the "normal" landing activities and takeoff activities occur except for the airplane slowing and exiting/reentering the runway. In general, the airplane touches down, and is reconfigured for the takeoff configuration (flaps, trim, etc) while rolling. Then full power is smoothly applied and a normal takeoff is made. There is some debate within the flight training community over whether touch-and-go landings are appropriate for primary students. This debate seems to focus on several points:

• Establishing a habit in students of reconfiguring the airplane while rolling down the runway may reduce the desired behavior for a normal landing, which is to focus on the deceleration and exit the runway before touching the transponder, flaps, etc. It may also reduce the proper response for a rejected landing.
• Having sufficent runway length for a student to make a reasonable landing, reconfigure the airplane (and be confident it is properly configured), and have enough runway remaining for a safe takeoff.

 

[RMCN172RG]

Not a CFI but a question. Why not include the "Stop and Go" as well as the "Touch and Go"

In general, the airplane touches down, is brought to a full stop on the runway, then it's reconfigured for the desired takeoff configuration (flaps, trim, etc). Then full power is smoothly applied and a takeoff (Normal or Short field) is made. This eliminates the points under debate while providing the student more flight time per lesson versus taxi time.

 

[dmccormack]

Not a CFI but a question. Why not include the "Stop and Go" as well as the "Touch and Go"

In general, the airplane touches down, is brought to a full stop on the runway, then it's reconfigured for the desired takeoff configuration (flaps, trim, etc). Then full power is smoothly applied and a takeoff (Normal or Short field) is made. This eliminates the points under debate while providing the student more flight time per lesson versus taxi time.

This makes plenty of sense on longer runways.

 

[Skip Miller]

In general, the procedure is to smoothly apply full power, pitch for an appropriate climb attitude, get a climb established at a proper airspeed, and then clean up the airplane by retracting flaps and landing gear as appropriate. This is often taught as "Cram (the throttles), Climb (the airplane), Clean (the airplane)"

Just a niggle, but: Warrior, Archer: you won't be climbing much if you stay at full flaps. I was taught to:

smoothly apply full power, pitch for an appropriate climb attitude, retract one notch of flaps, gently, get a climb established at a proper airspeed, and then clean up the airplane by retracting flaps and landing gear as appropriate.

That last notch of flaps is almost all drag, very little lift.

-Skip

 

[dmccormack]

There is some debate within the flight training community over whether touch-and-go landings are appropriate for primary students. This debate seems to focus on several points:

• Establishing a habit in students of reconfiguring the airplane while rolling down the runway may reduce the desired behavior for a normal landing, which is to focus on the deceleration and exit the runway before touching the transponder, flaps, etc. It may also reduce the proper response for a rejected landing.
• Having sufficent runway length for a student to make a reasonable landing, reconfigure the airplane (and be confident it is properly configured), and have enough runway remaining for a safe takeoff.

The only advantage of a touch and go vs a stop and go is that the airplane is already rolling and may need less available ground roll ("may" since the swerving that often accompanies a TnG consumes pavement and energy).

My contention is that the stop and go manuever forces the student to artificially concentrate on two separate events simultaneously. In the TnG the student attention may be divided, and thus the landing point is not optimal, and thus less runway is available, despite the residual energy.

If the objective is rejected landing practice, this should be done after the student has mastered the two separate events (the building block approach).

TnG in complex doesn't make much sense to me for a few reasons. First, the typical complex airplane is too expensive to be used for basic pattern practice -- given the limited number of gear cycles before overhaul. Second, the risk of a gear up incident is simply is not justified by the miniscule savings in time. Third, those learning to fly complex airplanes need time to learn the configuration transitions from flying to taxiing to takeoff, and those that already know how to fly a complex probably don't need extensive pattern practice.

Put me down as a rabid proponent of stop and go in complex airplanes, and TnG only in basic trainers after the student has mastered each component -- takeoff and landing -- independently.

 

[dmccormack]

Just a niggle, but: Warrior, Archer: you won't be climbing much if you stay at full flaps. I was taught to:

smoothly apply full power, pitch for an appropriate climb attitude, retract one notch of flaps, gently, get a climb established at a proper airspeed, and then clean up the airplane by retracting flaps and landing gear as appropriate.

That last notch of flaps is almost all drag, very little lift.

-Skip

Also true for the 40 degree flap Cessna models.

 

[TMetzinger]

Just a niggle, but: Warrior, Archer: you won't be climbing much if you stay at full flaps. I was taught to:

smoothly apply full power, pitch for an appropriate climb attitude, retract one notch of flaps, gently, get a climb established at a proper airspeed, and then clean up the airplane by retracting flaps and landing gear as appropriate.

That last notch of flaps is almost all drag, very little lift.

-Skip

True, but don't you still get a _slight_ climb before you retract that notch? The point I'm working on is that it's not a good idea to mess with gear or flaps until you've got the power up, the nose pointing the right way, and you've stopped the descent. For most GA singles, this works except in high DA situations. I've seen accident reports (and was guilty of it myself as a student) where pilots flew their airplanes into the ground because they did the CLEAN step first or second instead of last.

I will add the stop-and-go description too.

 

[Skip Miller]

True, but don't you still get a _slight_ climb before you retract that notch?

I believe that certification requirements require that the planes we fly be able to climb with full flaps, at max gross weight, at sea level/standard day.

In the real world, flying at max gross, with an engine approaching runout, at a 1000 foot MSL airport on a hot day, I wouldn't bet on a climb with full flaps.

-Skip

 

[Areeda]

Tim,

I don't make the distinction between a go-around and a rejected landing. I see your point, but in my (feeble) mind the only difference is a matter of timing. The procedure is the same. If we decide a mile out on final that we don't like the setup aren't we rejecting the landing? If bounce and don't want to try to save it aren't we going to go-around and try again?

Only a semantic difference, I can certainly go with your way.

Joe

 

[Areeda]

As far as power or flaps first, I teach full power, full throttle, carb heat in, then flaps to half.

The goal is minimum loss of altitude before we start the climb, my thinking is full power will affect our decent rate a lot more than reducing drag by taking out a notch or so of flaps.

Joe

 

[Everskyward]

A "Rejected Landing" is a manuever that results when a pilot decides to abandon a landing already made by returning to the air - usually because of a situation that makes stopping on the runway a bad idea, like another object.

I think you need to provide more information about the maneuver you call a "rejected landing". Are you talking about a situation where the wheels have barely touched down or are intending to have them reject the landing after they have already started braking? It seems to me that if an object on the runway is close enough that you could not avoid it by braking, that you are taking a much bigger chance by accelerating and trying to climb over it. If it's a situation where the pilot suddenly realizes after starting to brake that the runway is too short to stop in time I think it's usually better to go off the end at a slow speed than to attempt to accelerate and take off again.

 

[gkainz]

hopefully this comment won't be a serious wild bunny trail away from your topic, Tim, but a caution (to myself more than anything) on the Cessna electric flaps with 40 degrees especially, exercise extreme caution in retracting that first 10 (or 20) degrees of flaps, and even more caution if even a little bumpy. It's WAY too easy to end up bumping the flaps up switch all the way up and then you get that lovely sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach, in your backsides, and everywhere else as the flaps come up, up, up ...

 

[dmccormack]

hopefully this comment won't be a serious wild bunny trail away from your topic, Tim, but a caution (to myself more than anything) on the Cessna electric flaps with 40 degrees especially, exercise extreme caution in retracting that first 10 (or 20) degrees of flaps, and even more caution if even a little bumpy. It's WAY too easy to end up bumping the flaps up switch all the way up and then you get that lovely sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach, in your backsides, and everywhere else as the flaps come up, up, up ...

Absolutely!

That's probably why later Cessna models provided detents.

Can't beat the old manual flaps, though -- you always know where they are set!

 

[TMetzinger]

hopefully this comment won't be a serious wild bunny trail away from your topic, Tim, but a caution (to myself more than anything) on the Cessna electric flaps with 40 degrees especially, exercise extreme caution in retracting that first 10 (or 20) degrees of flaps, and even more caution if even a little bumpy. It's WAY too easy to end up bumping the flaps up switch all the way up and then you get that lovely sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach, in your backsides, and everywhere else as the flaps come up, up, up ...

All the more reason to leave it alone until you have the spare time to focus on raising them slowly. Your example is exactly what happens when someone tries to rush and do everything at once. Cram, pause, climb, pause, clean.

 

[dmccormack]

All the more reason to leave it alone until you have the spare time to focus on raising them slowly. Your example is exactly what happens when someone tries to rush and do everything at once. Cram, pause, climb, pause, clean.

In an older C150/C172 with 40 degrees of flaps there will be no climb.

At best you can float in ground effect a bit while you get the flaps raised enough to reduce the enormous amount of drag.

The older C172E model had the Continental that only put out 145 HP, and had manual (Johnson bar) flaps. Was that model engine ever coupled with electric flaps?

 

[TMetzinger]

We've got a 172L with 40 flaps, and it climbs with full flaps on the stock engine. I'll grant you that the climb rate sucks, but you are going away from the ground.

My point is that too many pilots don't take the time in these situations to pay the necessary attention to do it right. Bringing the throttle up and pitching for climb takes 5 seconds at a relaxed pace. You can then look at the flap lever and bring it up one notch. You can then look at the gear lever and bring it up.

Too many people try and do it all in 3 seconds or less, and they end up raising the gear while still descending, or retracting all the flaps at once, or other silliness.

I remember a firearms instructor once teaching us that "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast". It applies to flying too.

 

[dmccormack]

Too many people try and do it all in 3 seconds or less, and they end up raising the gear while still descending, or retracting all the flaps at once, or other silliness.

I remember a firearms instructor once teaching us that "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast". It applies to flying too.

Concur completely.

Though the C172L is a 160 HP model?

 

[mikea]

True, but don't you still get a _slight_ climb before you retract that notch? The point I'm working on is that it's not a good idea to mess with gear or flaps until you've got the power up, the nose pointing the right way, and you've stopped the descent. For most GA singles, this works except in high DA situations. I've seen accident reports (and was guilty of it myself as a student) where pilots flew their airplanes into the ground because they did the CLEAN step first or second instead of last.

I will add the stop-and-go description too.

I think it depends a lot on the plane/HP and load.

My CFI insists my 235 won't climb with full flaps so he insists on getting frist notch up immediately. My experience he's wrong - certainly when it's not near gross. I think he's right for the Warriors, 150s, and 172s.

IMO, there's no reason you can't go full throttle first. I don't think that 12 seconds of full flaps is going to be make or break, again because you have the full power already stopping or slowing your descent.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Two thoughts:
a) Rejected landing can include the badly mis-managed landing that turns into porpoising. Quite different in concept (if not recovery) from the landing rejected for the turkey on the runway since it may occur after one, two, or three bounces.
b) Stop and go is frequently used for night currency.

 

[dmccormack]

Two thoughts:
a) Rejected landing can include the badly mis-managed landing that turns into porpoising. Quite different in concept (if not recovery) from the landing rejected for the turkey on the runway since it may occur after one, two, or three bounces.
b) Stop and go is frequently used for night currency.

Good clarification, Peggy -- though Stop and Go is the only way to have valid night currency.

(b) Night takeoff and landing experience. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise, unless within the preceding 90 days that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise...

 

[ActiveAir]

As a newly minted PP, (sorry, I know you wanted only CFI opinions but this had a big impact on my learning), I believe that it took me quite a bit longer to get my landings proficient because of my instructor immediately having me do touch and goes. I know he was looking at the theoretical cost/time savings, but in fact it cost me more time, money and frustration. Instead of focusing on eveything I should for nice smooth landings, I was very concerned about getting down on the ground and then getting setup to keep going. Too much, too soon, and it cost me more. The result was opposite of my instructors well-meaning intentions. Now, I land much better and my touch and goes are much better, because I focus on landing first, and if that goes well, and I'm good for the go, then I go.

Learning in a 172 for rejected and go around, it was ingrained to: full power, flaps up 10 deg., est. pos. climb, then finish cleanup. I focus on the flap up 10 and only 10.

Sorry to butt in....

 

[docmirror]

All PP should be required to master takeoff and landing in conventional gear aircraft first. (not a CFI opinion) Stop and go for almost all training. Well, at least we always got the tail on the ground.

 

[tonycondon]

All PP should be required to master takeoff and landing in conventional gear aircraft first. (not a CFI opinion) Stop and go for almost all training. Well, at least we always got the tail on the ground.

you going to provide the insurance for all of us to start instructing in taildraggers?

 

[docmirror]

you going to provide the insurance for all of us to start instructing in taildraggers?

There is no insurance requirements that I can find in the FARs for instructing in TW planes. I'd just like to see better landings by pilots. Using a TW plane would cure that.

 

[bobmrg]

I believe that certification requirements require that the planes we fly be able to climb with full flaps, at max gross weight, at sea level/standard day.

In the real world, flying at max gross, with an engine approaching runout, at a 1000 foot MSL airport on a hot day, I wouldn't bet on a climb with full flaps.

-Skip

For what it is worth, my reading of the regs is that Part 23 certification requirements for climb performance do not say a word about full flaps, only "flaps in the takeoff position."

Bob Gardner

 

[tonycondon]

then why do the 30 deg flap cessnas have an extra 100 lb max gross weight?

 

[poadeleted20]

I agree with those who said you have to get the flaps moving on a go-around as soon as you power-up and pitch for climb, since many planes will not climb worth a hoot with landing flaps other than sea-level/standard-day. I teach power up/pitch up/flaps up for this situation, and tack on "positive rate-gear up" for retractables.

 

[Bill]

I teach power up/pitch up/flaps up for this situation, and tack on "positive rate-gear up" for retractables.

In the Mooney, power up, flaps up to half (takeoff), cowl flaps open, establish positive rate, gear up, establish good airspeed, flaps up. All the while, you're mashing the electric trim forward with your left thumb to get nose down trim, because your Popeye arms are not going to last forever As such, you don't need to worry about pitch up, you need to push HARD to keep the nose down.

 

[Teller1900]

I agree with those who said you have to get the flaps moving on a go-around as soon as you power-up and pitch for climb, since many planes will not climb worth a hoot with landing flaps other than sea-level/standard-day. I teach power up/pitch up/flaps up for this situation, and tack on "positive rate-gear up" for retractables.

We use pitch, power, flaps, gear...they tell us to get the plane moving in the right direction before you add power, lest you drive yourself quickly toward the ground. "Go-around, set max power, flaps 17." "Positive rate." "Gear up."

 

[flyingcheesehead]

We use pitch, power, flaps, gear...they tell us to get the plane moving in the right direction before you add power, lest you drive yourself quickly toward the ground. "Go-around, set max power, flaps 17." "Positive rate." "Gear up."

Keep in mind that you have a lot more momentum than the average trainer, and you're directing that energy upward to begin your climb. The 152, if it's pitched up a bit too aggressively by a student pilot in "oh ****" mode, may well stall instead.

 

[poadeleted20]

Keep in mind that you have a lot more momentum than the average trainer, and you're directing that energy upward to begin your climb. The 152, if it's pitched up a bit too aggressively by a student pilot in "oh ****" mode, may well stall instead.

If the pilot gets full power in first, and pitches to a specific attitude, that shouldn't happen, even in a 152.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If the pilot gets full power in first, and pitches to a specific attitude, that shouldn't happen, even in a 152.

True, but low-time pilots in "oh **** mode" have done it lots...

Really, the power and pitch changes don't have to be discrete, they can be done at the same time. That's why we have two hands.

 

[TMetzinger]

True, but low-time pilots in "oh **** mode" have done it lots...

Really, the power and pitch changes don't have to be discrete, they can be done at the same time. That's why we have two hands.

I agree with that. Maybe I should just point out that we ONLY have two hands, so until the first two tasks are DONE, one shouldn't rush to clean up the airplane.

 

[jmaynard]

Really, the power and pitch changes don't have to be discrete, they can be done at the same time. That's why we have two hands.

Just make sure you do the right thing with the right hand. Pushing the nose over with the motion you'd normally use to push in the throttle is a Bad Thing...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Just make sure you do the right thing with the right hand. Pushing the nose over with the motion you'd normally use to push in the throttle is a Bad Thing...

So, Jay, how's that right-seat practice going?

 

[jmaynard]

So, Jay, how's that right-seat practice going?

Haven't been in the right seat...but yes, that's what I was thinking of, based on one time in the pattern...

 

[Neal Howard]

Though the C172L is a 160 HP model?

A stock 1971/1972 C172L should have the low compression 150hp O-320-E2D engine unless it's been converted with the 160hp high compression STC.

The one I trained in, and every L model I've seen since then in the past decade has been only 150hp, I've never seen one that anybody bothered with doing the 160hp upgrade, so I guess it's just not a popular upgrade for that particular model of 172.

My CFI insists my 235 won't climb with full flaps so he insists on getting frist notch up immediately. My experience he's wrong - certainly when it's not near gross. I think he's right for the Warriors, 150s, and 172s.

The 235 will probably still climb with a small automobile chained to the landing gear.

My 150hp Cherokee 140 will still climb at full gross with all three notches of flaps in... just barely enough to get airborne and up and out of ground effect, but it's sure draggy that way and it'll eat up a lot of runway doing it.

It climbs absolutely great with just two notches, in fact that's the configuration that works best getting out of a short strip with departure obstacles, especially using the Art Mattson style short field takeoff technique.

The difference in climb performance in 2 vs 3 notches of flaps is pretty big. Using only one notch adds considerable lift but almost no drag at all at airspeeds in the Vx to Vy range (75-85 MPH) but above 100MPH you can sure feel the drag from even just one notch of flaps.

 

[silver-eagle]

In general, I would say any landing that doesn't result in a full stop is a rejected landing whether you make that decision at 100 feet or after the wheels are on the ground. The touch and go should be taught exactly that way and not as a short cut to saving $$$ or time. We should always be primed for a rejected landing and use a T&G to practice the technique.
No difference. It's either a full stop landing or a rejected landing.
Making a difference only serves to confuse the student. (We're talking about students here not PP. By the time you are a PP, you should already know which is which.)

 

[dogman]

Take an early straight tail 172 out and slow to final approach speed, Full flaps (40deg) and full power now pitch for climb and see what happens.?? You will have to pitch a level wing or a slight nose low pitch to achieve higher air speed and slight climb. You also can not pull back on the yoke you will have to push foward to counter act the pitch up attitude with full power and 40deg flaps. It can be very interesting your first go around on approach in a early 172 BETTER KEEP A CLOSE EYE ON YOUR AIR SPEED.

 

[Everskyward]

In general, I would say any landing that doesn't result in a full stop is a rejected landing whether you make that decision at 100 feet or after the wheels are on the ground. The touch and go should be taught exactly that way and not as a short cut to saving $$$ or time. We should always be primed for a rejected landing and use a T&G to practice the technique.

I disagree. I think the touch and go should be taught as a specific maneuver, not as some kind of emergency maneuver. I think too many people try to rush through the ground portion of the touch and go. If you don't have enough runway to be able to reconfigure without feeling rushed you should pick a longer runway.