Touch and Go's

[JHW]

I never had either a mentor or instructor who approved of T&G's, and to this day I still think they're poor form. But some of the "better" instructor's in this thread may have a point, perhaps it was lack of T&G's that was responsible for me taking >300 hours to solo.

 

[Henning]

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.

Wow, just freaking wow... Unbelievable bit of logic there. All the flaps every landing. You are screwing up every landing on the odd chance you may have to go around. If you are a student you are screwing yourself over hard.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Rushing makes mistakes more likely.

Agreed, but who says you have to rush?

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

Agreed as well....but who says you should cram the throttle? There is no reason you can't touch down normally and complete a short rollout before reconfiguring and adding the power normally....unless you are trying to do T&G's on a really short runway and then the T&G probably IS a bad idea.

T&Gs don't actually train for anything.

I don't think it is accurate to say they don't train for anything. T&Gs can be useful in maximizing the pattern time and to give a student or pilot working on proficiency more time to practice getting the plane lined up on final in the proper attitude and proper descent rate and proper speed. I wouldn't say a touch and go is better than a full stop. They are certainly no replacement for a full stop.....just another tool to have in the tool box.

 

[Fearless Tower]

A go-around with full flaps is possible, except for very short obstructed field.

Depends on the airplane.

 

[Henning]

Yes, but you don't always need to land with the short field technique. That's my point.

You ALWAYS land with the minimum energy you can manage, every time. It's all about energy discipline, and full flaps will allow you the greatest energy control. It does not take a lot of extra speed on landings to start screwing stuff up. Full flaps, if you need more energy you add throttle, not reduce flaps and add speed. With partial flaps you stay in the high lift side of the flaps making the plane squirliest on the ground, closer to flying longer, susceptible to being blown over or across the runway in a cross wind. When you cut the throttle, you want it to stop flying as quickly as possible, and don't forget, climb into the wind and dive away from the wind when taxiing. The put all them flaps there for a reason, it's kinetic energy that kills you in an accident and 10kts is a heck of a lot of kinetic energy landing a small plane, within 3 knots gets you a good landing. The reality will hit when you own and maintain planes how crucial that discipline to have your correct speed for your weight and fly that full flaps configuration every time. I just trim my final speed of 92 while using the throttles to adjust the glide path. Once I get over the threshold I pull the throttles as needed and start rolling back trim to landing attitude and settle her on. When she's light she's landing we'll into the lower 60s if not 50s.

 

[LDJones]

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.

Sounds like you're arguing for practicing them more in order to learn to avoid those pitfalls?

 

[LDJones]

You ALWAYS land with the minimum energy you can manage, every time. It's all about energy discipline, and full flaps will allow you the greatest energy control. It does not take a lot of extra speed on landings to start screwing stuff up. Full flaps, if you need more energy you add throttle, not reduce flaps and add speed. With partial flaps you stay in the high lift side of the flaps making the plane squirliest on the ground, closer to flying longer, susceptible to being blown over or across the runway in a cross wind. When you cut the throttle, you want it to stop flying as quickly as possible, and don't forget, climb into the wind and dive away from the wind when taxiing. The put all them flaps there for a reason, it's kinetic energy that kills you in an accident and 10kts is a heck of a lot of kinetic energy landing a small plane, within 3 knots gets you a good landing. The reality will hit when you own and maintain planes how crucial that discipline to have your correct speed for your weight and fly that full flaps configuration every time. I just trim my final speed of 92 while using the throttles to adjust the glide path. Once I get over the threshold I pull the throttles as needed and start rolling back trim to landing attitude and settle her on. When she's light she's landing we'll into the lower 60s if not 50s.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[John Collins]

Sounds like you're arguing for practicing them more in order to learn to avoid those pitfalls?

I don't practice stalls at low altitude either, so that must mean my low altitude stall experience is lacking. In fact, I haven't done one in the last 45 years of my flying career. I'll have to go out and practice them this week. If I fail to make any more posts, I wasn't successful.

 

[Henning]

Sounds like you're arguing for practicing them more in order to learn to avoid those pitfalls?

No, he's saying train like you fly and minimize them by getting out of that transitional speed zone rather than dwelling in it as with a T&G.

 

[LDJones]

I don't practice stalls at low altitude either, so that must mean my low altitude stall experience is lacking. In fact, I haven't done one in the last 45 years of my flying career. I'll have to go out and practice them this week. If I fail to make any more posts, I wasn't successful.

Poor analogy. Stalls behave pretty much the same at 3,000' as 1,000'.

This whole debate is typical of the endless diatribes that occur primarily in online forums. If you don't care to use touch and goes, don't use them...but save the holier-than-thou attitude towards those who don't agree. There are a multitude of factors that affect the decision whether to use them or not. Ultimately,those factors are weighed and the decision is made by the CFI whose ticket is on the line, or the PIC opting to use them.

 

[LDJones]

No, he's saying train like you fly and minimize them by getting out of that transitional speed zone rather than dwelling in it as with a T&G.

So eliminate slow flight and steep turns, too?

 

[ChrisK]

So eliminate slow flight and steep turns, too?

Touch and gos will be allowed, but only at a safe altitude of 4000' AGL.

 

[LDJones]

Touch and gos will be allowed, but only at a safe altitude of 4000' AGL.

AGL or MSL? . Colorado pilots want to know!

 

[fgcason]

So eliminate slow flight and steep turns, too?

Don't give them any more ideas.

Steep turns have been reduced already. 45deg is the new steep turn that replaces 60deg. Give it another 20 years and 30deg will be steep turns. After that everyone will be doing scary 15deg steep turns.

 

[denverpilot]

Everyone who does stop and goes always runs the numbers for the shorter takeoff distance, pre-flight, right?

 

[Gubbins]

Wow, just freaking wow... Unbelievable bit of logic there. All the flaps every landing. You are screwing up every landing on the odd chance you may have to go around. If you are a student you are screwing yourself over hard.

Oh please. I can touch down at 60 to 70 knots with 20 degrees of flaps and be stopped before you could say "unmitigated balderdash". Not all planes are the same ya know. You don't need 30 degrees with a 206.

Plenty of schools teach no flap landings. Try it some time. Don't be scared

 

[douglas393]

I did touch and goes during PPL training. Sometime up to 10 in a day. At the time I thought they were useful in learning to land, but in retrospect I thin not. I think they are useful in providing a maximum number of landings in a shorter period of time, but I think my time would have been spent better do full stops and taxing off the runway to discuss how I could have improved the landing. Making the same mistake over and over again which is what often happens in touch and goes, because I do not care who you are there is no critical thinking and discussion about what you are doing during the landing if you are concentrating getting the plane back in the air, and not trying to learn how to do the landing better. So from my small experience as a student, I think that touch and goes are not very useful as a learning experience and actually hamper it.

Just my thoughts.

Doug

 

[JHW]

Everyone who does stop and goes always runs the numbers for the shorter takeoff distance, pre-flight, right?

do you do that for T&G ? why not ?

 

[MAKG1]

Agreed, but who says you have to rush?

The upside-down numbers 2000 feet past the threshold (and 1700 past the VASI), combined with slow Cessna flaps.

A really good T&G could be done in that space, but not with the sloppy technique described by some posters here.

 

[fgcason]

Oh please. I can touch down at 60 to 70 knots with 20 degrees of flaps and be stopped before you could say "unmitigated balderdash". Not all planes are the same ya know. You don't need 30 degrees with a 206.

Plenty of schools teach no flap landings. Try it some time. Don't be scared

What is the actual stall speed of a 206? 60-70kts? I thought it was around 50-55kts. Why land at cruise speed?

In the garden variety 172 if you're touching down at 60-70kts or anything landing at 15-20-25-30kts over stall speed, you're destabilizing the landing and having to force it on the ground. Holding it down like that is asking for a wheelbarrel into the weeds. Just another broken link in the chain of poor pilot training.

 

[Jaybird180]

T&Gs are fun.

 

[brcase]

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?

If you have to rush a touch and go that fast, then you shouldn't being doing touch and goes. It only takes a couple seconds for the flaps to retract and you should still be on the ground when they set to the proper setting.
Plus it means you aren't slowing down to a taxi speed which also means you are rushing them to much and not getting the full benefit of the touch and go. If rushing it that much then you truly are practicing touch and goes and not take offs and landings.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[brcase]

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.

<snip>

Except most pilots doing normal landing (as opposed to short field) don't actually come in lower or land shorter than most pilots using partial flaps. That is because during the normal full flap approach most pilots doing full flap landings negate the effect of the flaps by leaving the power in. For a normal landing this seems like driving with the parking brake on to me, why add brakes so you can add more power, Short field landing this does make some sense.

Most pilots doing partial flap approaches are doing power off or near power off approaches are are likely flying the same or lower approaches than the pilots that always use full flaps.


Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[Fearless Tower]

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?

That's how I do my touch and goes....but then the short field technique for the 1948 Cessna 170 calls for full flaps (the flaps are so small they are almost decorative) and I don't like to mess with the flaps on the rolllout in the tailwheel.

 

[Henning]

So eliminate slow flight and steep turns, too?

Why? What is the hazard there? I haven't had the air break a plane yet, I think the first hour should be conducted primarily as slow flight and I believe steep turns should be full 2G turns. That isn't a hazard zone. Hard things like the ground, they break planes. If you do as I see typically done, as the mains hit the nose is just dumped on the runway, no brakes, flaps up, carbheat, props flaps finish finally and the throttle goes home and the plane jumps up with a jolt to the left. The problem with performing a T&G this way conserving maximum energy is that you are 'almost flying' for a several second transition and during this time you sit highly vulnerable to the whims of the wind and jets turning off the perpendicular taxiway. There is a compounding problem in that both your ground control and airborne control mechanisms are severely restricted in their ability to function, this is where trips through the ditch come from.

My opinion on the whole matter is if you want to do T&Gs, stand on the brakes till you get 20 knots below flying speed, then commence.

 

[wabower]

KADS is a perfect place to test your theory. Bring all the $20 bills you can afford to lose and we'll sit at midfield and watch the landings until your money is gone.

Except most pilots doing normal landing (as opposed to short field) don't actually come in lower or land shorter than most pilots using partial flaps. That is because during the normal full flap approach most pilots doing full flap landings negate the effect of the flaps by leaving the power in. For a normal landing this seems like driving with the parking brake on to me, why add brakes so you can add more power, Short field landing this does make some sense.

Most pilots doing partial flap approaches are doing power off or near power off approaches are are likely flying the same or lower approaches than the pilots that always use full flaps.


Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[Henning]

Except most pilots doing normal landing (as opposed to short field) don't actually come in lower or land shorter than most pilots using partial flaps. That is because during the normal full flap approach most pilots doing full flap landings negate the effect of the flaps by leaving the power in. For a normal landing this seems like driving with the parking brake on to me, why add brakes so you can add more power, Short field landing this does make some sense.

Most pilots doing partial flap approaches are doing power off or near power off approaches are are likely flying the same or lower approaches than the pilots that always use full flaps.


Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Exactly, full flaps allow you to carry power which helps your tail gain some leverage, without gaining excessive speed because at flaps 30 yo finally hit the high drag side of the curve. Thing is, by choosing to carry throttle energy, I now can chop the power right at wheels down and get her to stop flying in short order, and gusts will be high drag rather than high lift events. By carrying excess kinetic energy, your only option is to either float it over the runway and bleed speed to a high ground speed landing or drive it onto an even higher ground speed landing. Neither of those techniques is appealing to me as an owner. No matter what flaps I'm carrying down final, by the time I'm rounding out I've got whatever the plane will give me dumped in. It's all about controlling energy, you have infinitely greater control of mechanical energy than kinetic energy. The factors of kinetic energy being what breaks things and people and going up with the square of speed, kinetic energy is the poor choice to make for stabilizing your landing when mechanical energy is available.

 

[danhagan]

I never had a problem with touch and goes either as a student or an instructor. In fact, I didn't even know they were controversial until about 10 years ago.

+1

No question you'll get more landings, but a big question regarding the benefits. Would you have learned more with 8 landings with a good debrief and discussion after each?

8500 foot RWY, instructor had extra flows/call outs until first downwind turn. Had what seemed an eternity to discuss the previous landing the length of the downwind and how to correct.

... I think they are useful in providing a maximum number of landings in a shorter period of time, but I think my time would have been spent better do full stops and taxing off the runway to discuss how I could have improved the landing. Just my thoughts.
Doug

See above.

I trained in a C-152. Back then, my instructor required me to be at the field a full hour before a lesson with weather/W&B and flight plan if departing the pattern completed. I was required to make sure we were exactly 1 gallon over MTOW at engine start up as that would be the burn during taxi and run-up. He loved flying west Texas 3pm, windy and hot with the usual 100-150 FPM climb rate and high DA.

On TNG's, he loved to call a go-around just as the mains made contact, and in our area that meant we would probably "resettle" to the runway and to not spaz out over the concept. There were other "training" aides and maneuvers that I won't even mention that would probably be deemed heresy. In short, I feel my PP CFI put me through practically everything imagineable ... and I'm glad he did. To date I've had the following and could hear his voice on most all of them:

1. Partial loss of engine power twice at the departure end of the RWY and 400 feet turning at best 1800 RPM.
2. Smoke in the cockpit (no fire)
3. Right main blowout on touchdown
4. Instrument failures (pretty much all of them including a Hobbs which I didn't complain about).
6. Uncommanded 90* bank Class C in the pattern at night on crosswind.

 

[LDJones]

Why? What is the hazard there? I haven't had the air break a plane yet, I think the first hour should be conducted primarily as slow flight and I believe steep turns should be full 2G turns. That isn't a hazard zone. Hard things like the ground, they break planes. If you do as I see typically done, as the mains hit the nose is just dumped on the runway, no brakes, flaps up, carbheat, props flaps finish finally and the throttle goes home and the plane jumps up with a jolt to the left. The problem with performing a T&G this way conserving maximum energy is that you are 'almost flying' for a several second transition and during this time you sit highly vulnerable to the whims of the wind and jets turning off the perpendicular taxiway. There is a compounding problem in that both your ground control and airborne control mechanisms are severely restricted in their ability to function, this is where trips through the ditch come from.

My opinion on the whole matter is if you want to do T&Gs, stand on the brakes till you get 20 knots below flying speed, then commence.

That comment was based on your "train like you fly" comment.

 

[DaleB]

On TNG's, he loved to call a go-around just as the mains made contact

Some days I'm a little slow. I was on very short final in a 172 one day when my CFI yelled, "There's a COW on the runway!"

I could see the entire runway, of course. Clear. Taxiway clear. Grass clear. Everything clear, not a soul in sight. WTF? Is this guy hallucinating? Then it finally dawned on me... I'd been flying with this guy for a couple of weeks, and we'd never done a go-around except when I called it. This was a simulated emergency go-around. Oh, OK. Duh.

 

[jspilot]

Except most pilots doing normal landing (as opposed to short field) don't actually come in lower or land shorter than most pilots using partial flaps. That is because during the normal full flap approach most pilots doing full flap landings negate the effect of the flaps by leaving the power in. For a normal landing this seems like driving with the parking brake on to me, why add brakes so you can add more power, Short field landing this does make some sense.

Most pilots doing partial flap approaches are doing power off or near power off approaches are are likely flying the same or lower approaches than the pilots that always use full flaps.


Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

I can't speak for most pilots, only myself but I think your point is right on. I was taught to keep that last notch of flaps out until the runway is made with power off glide during my training. Then, at that point go ahead and add the last notch. I still practice this today so I don't put that last notch in until I'm confidnt I could make the runway even with power off. That said, once the runway is made, if you are on proper glide path power is not doing you any good so why keep it in? Since this occurred to me, my landings have been better and much more consistent.

That said, managing when to extend flaps seems like an area where I was relying on instinct and experience more so than real hard and fast guidelines. ( obviously flap extension range is the speed but what good is that if your 5 miles out and in flap extention range already). It seems like it took me a long time to understand how to manage all this and I'll still be figuring it out for as long as I fly I guess.

 

[JHW]

I can't speak for most pilots, only myself but I think your point is right on. I was taught to keep that last notch of flaps out until the runway is made with power off glide during my training.

seems like unnecessary fidgeting. Flying a normal pattern, when you are ready for flaps put them all the way down. there's not much use in messing around with partial flaps a little at a time.

 

[nosehair]

On TNG's, he loved to call a go-around just as the mains made contact, and in our area that meant we would probably "resettle" to the runway and to not spaz out over the concept. There were other "training" aides and maneuvers that I won't even mention that would probably be deemed heresy. In short, I feel my PP CFI put me through practically everything imagineable ...

This.
The old "cow on the runway" maneuver.

What happened? Where did that that go?

A ways back, the 61.87 regulation required list of pre-solo maneuvers listed go-arounds in 2 separate ways; go-arounds from the final approach, and go-arounds from the landing flare.

The fact is, there is lots of gray area between the final approach and the roll-out where you may have to pull-up at the last second. The pilot should have control authority over the airplane throughout the flare, touchdown, roll-out, and stop, and barely touch, pull-up and go around, or go-around right before touching, and all areas in between.
Matter of fact he has to be able to touch down on one wheel, keeping it in a straight line in a cross wind.

In the primary teaching, T&Gs are too fast and complex, and should never be done. The landing roll out should be wired as an integral part of the landing. As the student acquires the skill and speed, and has wired into his automatic nervous system to "keep flying the airplane" during the rollout,
then he should begin to learn go-arounds and touch-and-gos and when to do what because thats the only way to build the experience and judgement about handling the airplane on those "in-between" moments.

Now, I am speaking of the instructor one-on-one relationship. In my heart of hearts, I could not solo a student who has not had some exposure to low-go-arounds, touch and gos, etc., and would expect him to have a pretty good handle on any imaginable condition of going around with full flaps from the runway. Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't. You have to have training and experience to make the judgement and develop the skill.
As I said, that is my personal opinion, but I believe it to be the responsibility of each instructor. I didn't come by that opinion all on my own, it did used to be regulatory and a very standard level of training.

A word about statistics:

I remember somewhere back in there in my scientific studies, that statistics can be made to prove just about anything. Remember that?

Statistics can tell you what the masses are doing and give you a heads up on how not to become one.

Flight schools and mass management make it seem "safer" to prohibit activities that could cause accidents, but that only prohibits learning how to not become one of those statistics later when you get out from under the watchful eye of the school rules.

Reducing accident rates by cutting training makes no sense...except to the bean counter.

Each individual can improve his chances of survival by getting more training, not less.

Of course, it has to be quality training...and that is the whole issue here.

 

[Jaybird180]

Okay, I'll play along. I like the idea of a go-around from flare:

I come in, and round out with the stall horn, I wait for the sink, then pull into the flare and the horn is wailing. You, the CFI yell, "Go Around!". I'm already low and slow in ground effect. I push power all the way in, but cannot climb with flaps 30 at gross. The airfield has a 41 foot obstacle at the departure end of the 2420' runway. Whats the pucker factor at my home field?

 

[wabower]

None. Simply say "unable" then complete the landing and taxi to the ramp.

Okay, I'll play along. I like the idea of a go-around from flare:

I come in, and round out with the stall horn, I wait for the sink, then pull into the flare and the horn is wailing. You, the CFI yell, "Go Around!". I'm already low and slow in ground effect. I push power all the way in, but cannot climb with flaps 30 at gross. The airfield has a 41 foot obstacle at the departure end of the 2420' runway. Whats the pucker factor at my home field?

 

[Jaybird180]

Awwwww Wayne you're no fun. You didn't even warn me about the impending departure stall

 

[Jaybird180]

Nosehair-do you have the old 61.87 to post here?

 

[N801BH]

................. In my heart of hearts, I could not solo a student who has not had some exposure to low-go-arounds, touch and gos, etc., and would expect him to have a pretty good handle on any imaginable condition of going around with full flaps from the runway. ...

Of course, it has to be quality training...and that is the whole issue here.

Since this thread was created because of the tragic death of the lady pilot down in Texas, it will be very interesting in a year or so when the report is out to see if her instructor was in the (pro T&G camp) or the (never T&G camp)... Regardless... sad deal for her and her family..

 

[wabower]

You get a new plane from the insurance company and a freezer full of beef. What's not to like?

Awwwww Wayne you're no fun. You didn't even warn me about the impending departure stall

 

[fgcason]

I could see the entire runway, of course. Clear. Taxiway clear. Grass clear. Everything clear, not a soul in sight. WTF? Is this guy hallucinating? Then it finally dawned on me... I'd been flying with this guy for a couple of weeks, and we'd never done a go-around except when I called it. This was a simulated emergency go-around. Oh, OK. Duh.

Some days I'm slower than you. I had a baggage door supposedly come open on a CE150 during training just as the plane got light on the wheels during takeoff. WTF? Seriously? I finally sorted out what he was trying to get me to do..at about 300AGL. About then I said we still had enough runway and if he wanted me to land and stop. That didn't go over too well but it would have been perfectly safe to do so. Yea, sure, I didn't know how many pulleys are involved in cable routing to the flight controls but I certainly knew enough about the plane to know that the only two loading doors on it were closed..and the little oil door on top of the cowling was closed too. A week later "oh sh3t stop the plane" kept the plane on the ground like he wanted me to do.


Touch and go's are useful skills to have no matter who thinks otherwise.
I've had things scamper out on the runway in front of me deep in the flare several times...coyote's, deer, ground hogs, cows. Someone even dropped a haybail on the runway that I didn't see until I was under 15ft AGL. There is no room for swerving around like a cellphone texting drunk due to loss of directional control because the runway was lined on both sides by 75-100ft tall trees in close proximity.
My aunt got clobbered in one of the not so nice downdrafts coming over the end of the runway. It threw her at the ground, the plane hit the ground hard (bent the prop) and bounced back up enough to somehow end up going uphill at treetop level (tree pieces in the aileron and flaps) and she managed to keep it flying and got it going back in the right direction before running out of airspeed. That was a nightmare touch and go and NOT the kind of place for a first touch and go especially considering there really is no room on that runway and valley to be doing touch and go's in the first place.

Everyone can do what they want in their ideal safety first world. I will continue doing touch and go's in my realistic safety third world..because it keeps me safe.