Touch and Gos

[Aviatrix]

So I did my first set of Touch and Gos today and first time to work on my landings. It was definitely an intense experience just because I was 1/2 working the radio, learning the pattern and landing plus there was a marginal crosswind and haze was starting to form, also just because everyone seemed to be doing the same thing the pattern wasn't quite normal. My instructor said I did well for the first time but sometimes I had no clue what I was doing. It's funny how fast "pitch for airspeed, power for altitude" went out of my head when in Final.

Afterwards, I felt so exhausted, physically and mentally. I'm not sure if it was just stressful or I was tensing up too much. I definitely know my grip was a bit tight but I wasn't sure if it was just from fighting the winds. But let's say I was awesome and was relaxed, would that still be normal for the physical exhaustion? We did 5 landings.

Oh, and update that I did decide to go the PPL route vs. Sport just because I didn't want to spend my entire training fighting against being pushed in PPL and even when we tried to go into the Tecnam it was being difficult and we couldn't get it to start correctly. They say they're broken a lot. Now I'm in an old 152 but fine with that.

 

[bnt83]

So I did my first set of Touch and Gos today and first time to work on my landings. It was definitely an intense experience just because I was 1/2 working the radio, learning the pattern and landing plus there was a marginal crosswind and haze was starting to form, also just because everyone seemed to be doing the same thing the pattern wasn't quite normal. My instructor said I did well for the first time but sometimes I had no clue what I was doing. It's funny how fast "pitch for airspeed, power for altitude" went out of my head when in Final.

Afterwards, I felt so exhausted, physically and mentally. I'm not sure if it was just stressful or I was tensing up too much. I definitely know my grip was a bit tight but I wasn't sure if it was just from fighting the winds. But let's say I was awesome and was relaxed, would that still be normal for the physical exhaustion? We did 5 landings.

Oh, and update that I did decide to go the PPL route vs. Sport just because I didn't want to spend my entire training fighting against being pushed in PPL and even when we tried to go into the Tecnam it was being difficult and we couldn't get it to start correctly. They say they're broken a lot. Now I'm in an old 152 but fine with that.

Stressed from over thinking and being nervous. That settles with time and as you grow, all that turns into successes that build into good energies and you won't be exhausted.

 

[BillTIZ]

There's nothing wrong with learning in a C-152!!

That's where I started 38 yrs ago, when they were brand new!!

Yes, an hour in the traffic pattern for a new student will get tiring.

 

[eman1200]

sounds pretty awesome!!! how many hours into training were you, leading up to today?

 

[Headspace]

You'll find that if you do the initial cross country work in the slower airplane the hours will add up. The 152 burns less gas and is probably going to be cheaper for you in the long run. There's nothing wrong with it.

 

[Aviatrix]

Oh no! Not saying there is anything wrong it. I actually think I prefer an older plane, I know it's definitely reliable.

This was my 4th hour. We were going to do ground reference maneuvers and more stalls but since the weather deteriorated more by the time I got there my instructor picked to do this instead otherwise I would have had to make the trek home with no flying. Tomorrow is hopefully power on/off stalls with some more touch and gos.

 

[MAKG1]

Every airplane I fly is old. They work as well, and they are cheaper. Just checked out in a 1976 Cessna 177RG.

 

[JHW]

a good description of why T&G's are not a great teaching tool. You might consider asking your instructor for a lesson wherein you do full stop landings, and use the taxi back time to debrief what just happened and get ready for the next takeoff.

I've never done a T&G as a landing exercise and never intend to.

 

[AggieMike88]

Every airplane I fly is old. They work as well, and they are cheaper. Just checked out in a 1976 Cessna 177RG.

Where's the jealous smiley??

The 75-77 177RG's are really nice looking aircraft and are high on my list for sole ownership.... someday

 

[AggieMike88]

a good description of why T&G's are not a great teaching tool. You might consider asking your instructor for a lesson wherein you do full stop landings, and use the taxi back time to debrief what just happened and get ready for the next takeoff.

I've never done a T&G as a landing exercise and never intend to.

Interesting point. And I can see it as a chance for the student to take a breath and shake the stress out of their shoulders before they cross the hold short to repeat the exercise.

I guess the current practice comes out of economy of time. Sorta faster to just clean up the wing, apply power, re-trim, and rejoin the pattern.

 

[wabower]

And unfortunately thinking that quicker is better works about the same in flying as in many other endeavors. More laps doesn't equate to more learning.

Interesting point. And I can see it as a chance for the student to take a breath and shake the stress out of their shoulders before they cross the hold short to repeat the exercise.

I guess the current practice comes out of economy of time. Sorta faster to just clean up the wing, apply power, re-trim, and rejoin the pattern.

 

[spiderweb]

All part of the process. Makes me nostalgic. I love the C150/152. OK, here: I'll tell you a story--

As I was approaching solo, I was doing landings with my instructor in the 150. On this particular day, it was windy and bumpy, and I was a bit nervous. I said something to the effect of "Whew! I guess you get over this nervous stuff with time!" He, being an former fighter pilot who had seen action, wryly replied, "Well, no one is shooting at us, so I guess we are probably OK!"

I had a good laugh, and after that, the landings were markedly more relaxed. I soloed at the next lesson.

So I did my first set of Touch and Gos today and first time to work on my landings. It was definitely an intense experience just because I was 1/2 working the radio, learning the pattern and landing plus there was a marginal crosswind and haze was starting to form, also just because everyone seemed to be doing the same thing the pattern wasn't quite normal. My instructor said I did well for the first time but sometimes I had no clue what I was doing. It's funny how fast "pitch for airspeed, power for altitude" went out of my head when in Final.

Afterwards, I felt so exhausted, physically and mentally. I'm not sure if it was just stressful or I was tensing up too much. I definitely know my grip was a bit tight but I wasn't sure if it was just from fighting the winds. But let's say I was awesome and was relaxed, would that still be normal for the physical exhaustion? We did 5 landings.

Oh, and update that I did decide to go the PPL route vs. Sport just because I didn't want to spend my entire training fighting against being pushed in PPL and even when we tried to go into the Tecnam it was being difficult and we couldn't get it to start correctly. They say they're broken a lot. Now I'm in an old 152 but fine with that.

 

[JHW]

And unfortunately thinking that quicker is better works about the same in flying as in many other endeavors. More laps doesn't equate to more learning.

When I was in college I bought a 65hp ercoupe. Hey I made a lot of bad decisions in college so let's not dwell on it. A friend thought about learning to fly so I put him and a very skinny cfi in my coupe. Starting from scratch he solo'd in about 3 flight hours which included maybe 5 full stop landings with lots of discussion in between. That included a get out of the plane and walk-it-through type discussion.

I guess it boils down to whether the goal is to learn to fly or to learn to make the most landing attempts per hour.

 

[Ateaist]

And unfortunately thinking that quicker is better works about the same in flying as in many other endeavors. More laps doesn't equate to more learning.

I have a feeling that this has been a point of dissension on this board before, and with the risk of fanning the flames here I actually disagree with that. Either you "get" the landings or you don't, and if you don't get them you simply have to do more. I probably had to do 50 of them before I properly flared and hit the center line, and had I done full stop landings that would have been about 15 hours of Hobbs time, the vast majority of which would have been sitting around waiting for take-off clearance.

I'd say it depends on the student's learning ability and style, and how busy the airport is. There's plenty of time on the downwind to diagnose the previous landing and prepare for the next.

To the OP - soon the pattern work and radio calls will be second nature to you, and doing touch 'n gos will be no big deal. You will always return exhausted, though, so long as the instructor has you doing new stuff. I'm doing my XC training right now, and though it was all downhill from here. That is until me instructor put me "under the hood" for an hour and I was fighting to keep the plane straight and level while trying to find home base on the GPS. You bet I was exhausted afterwards!

 

[poadeleted20]

I have a feeling that this has been a point of dissension on this board before, and with the risk of fanning the flames here I actually disagree with that. Either you "get" the landings or you don't, and if you don't get them you simply have to do more.

No, you simply have to get a better instructor. Some say "practice makes perfect." They're only half right -- "perfect practice makes perfect." Going round and round again when you aren't getting it right doesn't do anything except make the Law of Exercise work against you. When you're having a problem, my 40 years of flight instructing tells me the best thing to do is slow down, analyze the problem, and fix it -- not just go faster doing what doesn't work.

For that reason, I am not a fan of T&G's early in primary training. I'd much rather do a full stop, and then do the taxi back myself while the student and I analyze the landing just made, and then go out and try it again. In fact, half the problem with bad landings seems to be that the trainee is already thinking about the "go," and not focusing on the landing itself. By taking the "go" out of the equation, the trainee can focus more on the landing.

 

[douglas393]

I am the product of multiple touch and goes, and as a training technique I think they stink. There is too much for the beginning student to take in during the pattern/landing process for a touch and go to be anything more than a process that leads to both physical and intellectual exhaustion. I think bad landing to a stop educationally outweighs a hundred marginal touch and goes landings. If you do a bad landing and then stop and dissect the landing on the ground where you can concentrate on the lesson while it is fresh in your mind then you can learn from it. In a touch and go you are rushed to get the plane flying again when you have barely even landed it. Then you are in the pattern and thinking about how to configure the plane for crosswind, and then downwind, and then etc. You can not possibly evaluate your last landing to determine what you did wrong.

One of the earliest lessons I learned about flying was to be ahead of the plane. In presolo and probable even after solo, and I would daresay even up to doing your first solo cross country there is so much happening in the learning process that it is a struggle to stay just behind the plane. If your are concentrating on flying the plane, there is no way you can be trying to learn from your previous landing. In fact, I would even suggest that just the process of doing a touch and go may cause the landing to be worse than a full stop landing because of the additional requirements of a touch and go over a full stop landing.

It took me forever to learn to do adequate landings as a student. I think if I hand been doing full stop landings instead I would have learned to land much quicker and probably had better landing skills as well.

 

[LifeInverted]

Nothing wrong with learning in an old, salty airplane. Builds character. Enjoy the training!

 

[LDJones]

a good description of why T&G's are not a great teaching tool. You might consider asking your instructor for a lesson wherein you do full stop landings, and use the taxi back time to debrief what just happened and get ready for the next takeoff.

I've never done a T&G as a landing exercise and never intend to.

That is the approach another school takes at our field and that is fine with me.

But I choose to do that debrief on crosswind and early downwind, then let the student get to apply that knowledge while the other guys are taxing back and waiting for us to make our second landing. I find that works better for my students who spend more time flying and less time taxiing. And I'll still put my students' taxi skills up against any of theirs despite fewer hours practicing them! :wink2:

 

[wabower]

All you know is what you've seen, which IMO isn't nearly enough to understand the difference between the two methods. The fact that you think that meaningful instruction is possible on the downwind is sufficient evidence to call your theory into question.

Fact is, the landing isn't something you do, it's something that you try to prevent but with the knowledge that if you fail properly the reward will be a nice touch-down. So the most valuable training is in controlling the airplane in landing configuration for sufficient time to practice the inputs necessary to fail properly in holding the airplane off the runway.

Once that is mastered, the landings will immediately get better, and your need for 50 passes might easily drop significantly. Just one more example of "do what you always did, get what you always got."

I have a feeling that this has been a point of dissension on this board before, and with the risk of fanning the flames here I actually disagree with that. Either you "get" the landings or you don't, and if you don't get them you simply have to do more. I probably had to do 50 of them before I properly flared and hit the center line, and had I done full stop landings that would have been about 15 hours of Hobbs time, the vast majority of which would have been sitting around waiting for take-off clearance.

I'd say it depends on the student's learning ability and style, and how busy the airport is. There's plenty of time on the downwind to diagnose the previous landing and prepare for the next.

To the OP - soon the pattern work and radio calls will be second nature to you, and doing touch 'n gos will be no big deal. You will always return exhausted, though, so long as the instructor has you doing new stuff. I'm doing my XC training right now, and though it was all downhill from here. That is until me instructor put me "under the hood" for an hour and I was fighting to keep the plane straight and level while trying to find home base on the GPS. You bet I was exhausted afterwards!

 

[Ateaist]

All you know is what you've seen, which IMO isn't nearly enough to understand the difference between the two methods. The fact that you think that meaningful instruction is possible on the downwind is sufficient evidence to call your theory into question.

I have arguably done both, as each lesson must end with a full stop landing. I just don't think "you flared too high" followed by 10 minutes of idle chit-chat before the next landing attempt constitutes "meaningful instruction" for me. But I acknowledge that people learn differently.

Fact is, the landing isn't something you do, it's something that you try to prevent but with the knowledge that if you fail properly the reward will be a nice touch-down. So the most valuable training is in controlling the airplane in landing configuration for sufficient time to practice the inputs necessary to fail properly in holding the airplane off the runway.

But if I do twelve touch 'n gos for every four full stop landings, haven't I then spent three times more time controlling the airplane in the proper landing configuration?

 

[poadeleted20]

But I choose to do that debrief on crosswind and early downwind,

Do you take the controls so the trainee can devote his/her attention to what you're saying? My experience is that if not, the student's attention is on flying the pattern, not on you, and the instructor's words are wasted.

 

[LDJones]

Do you take the controls so the trainee can devote his/her attention to what you're saying? My experience is that if not, the student's attention is on flying the pattern, not on you, and the instructor's words are wasted.

Yes, when appropriate, often demonstrating the inputs so they can see and feel what I am describing.

 

[spiderweb]

Yes, when appropriate, often demonstrating the inputs so they can see and feel what I am describing.

That works, and I like the qualifier "when appropriate." Some students, especially in the early days of training, need full stops to turn off the adrenaline and analyze the landings; whereas "quick sticks" with calm nervous systems might not need to do that.

One of the marks of a good teacher is being able to "read" your students, and be flexible.

 

[X3 Skier]

One of the marks of a good teacher is being able to "read" your students, and be flexible.

That is the most important skill of any instructor. People have different learning styles and what works for one can be completely different for the next.

Cheers

 

[bbchien]

Aviatrix, go to youre neaby over built 6000 foot runway with no tower, and get that puppy into the flare and ask the instructor to add power so you can fly in ground effect for a whole minute, one foot off the ground. This is the single best instructor tool there is.

Each landing you get about 10 seconds in flare. VERY INEFFICIENT way of mastering that phase of flight. Get 60 seconds each time, instead. That's AS GOOD as 6 touch and goes.

There is no hurrying this, and there is no substitute for TIME SPENT MANAGING this phase of immediate pre-landing flight. Better yet if you are ready, to spend time with only the upwind wheel on the runway, a whole minute at a time.

 

[bnt83]

Aviatrix, go to youre neaby over built 6000 foot runway with no tower, and get that puppy into the flare and ask the instructor to add power so you can fly in ground effect for a whole minute, one foot off the ground. This is the single best instructor tool there is.

I have flown with folks that have never heard of this manuver.

 

[rbridges]

Aviatrix, go to youre neaby over built 6000 foot runway with no tower, and get that puppy into the flare and ask the instructor to add power so you can fly in ground effect for a whole minute, one foot off the ground. This is the single best instructor tool there is.

Each landing you get about 10 seconds in flare. VERY INEFFICIENT way of mastering that phase of flight. Get 60 seconds each time, instead. That's AS GOOD as 6 touch and goes.

There is no hurrying this, and there is no substitute for TIME SPENT MANAGING this phase of immediate pre-landing flight. Better yet if you are ready, to spend time with only the upwind wheel on the runway, a whole minute at a time.

true. I remember saying I wish I could snap my fingers and be back at short final to practice my landing instead of wasting another few minutes getting back around the pattern.

 

[X3 Skier]

Aviatrix, go to youre neaby over built 6000 foot runway with no tower, and get that puppy into the flare and ask the instructor to add power so you can fly in ground effect for a whole minute, one foot off the ground.

Used to do that a lot when we had to use the 12600' runway when the Aero Club was based at WPAFB. Mid field base legs were verboten and the hangers were near the runway end. As you say, excellent practice and also good for keeping cool on hot summer days. A 10000' taxi can get hot in the cockpit at 90F OAT.

Cheers

 

[jnmeade]

There can be some impetus to do T&G for pattern timing purposes, especially on airports with no taxiways so one has to back taxi on the runway and essentially block it to arriving traffic for a bit. The peer pressure would be to do T&G.
Note that as a rule of thumb, the heavier the airplane the less likely you are to see T&G (oh, yes, I know of 747's doing T&G, but it's not the norm). You don't see a T&G on any PTS that I am aware of.
The negative side of a T&G for the beginning pilot seems to outway the benefits.
I do T&G myself in my LSA, sometimes, but I do them on a long runway, I really take some deliberate time to land the airplane, let it roll out for a bit, take my time to reconfigure for TO and then go. If any of the above isn't working, I do a taxi back and start over.
I've taught many hours doing T&G when I was younger and less experienced and would not do that so much anymore. But, then, I don't do nearly as much pattern work anymore if there is another airport nearby. Pattern work is another artificial construct that is not what you expect to see when you are "flying for real", that is, from one airport to another. It is more realistic to exit the pattern and reenter so you conduct an actual arrival and approach sequence, not drone around an oblong pattern.

 

[momalley]

Aviatrix, go to youre neaby over built 6000 foot runway with no tower, and get that puppy into the flare and ask the instructor to add power so you can fly in ground effect for a whole minute, one foot off the ground. This is the single best instructor tool there is.

Since you are training out of FRG just ask the controller for a long landing, typically they will grant it and you can do exactly what's stated above

 

[poadeleted20]

I would also like to point out that the vast majority of landing accidents involve loss of control during rollout. T&G's don't teach flying the plane all the way to a stop. I sometimes think that if we eliminated T&G's from primary training, those types of accidents would drop dramatically.

 

[Bob Noel]

I would also like to point out that the vast majority of landing accidents involve loss of control during rollout. T&G's don't teach flying the plane all the way to a stop. I sometimes think that if we eliminated T&G's from primary training, those types of accidents would drop dramatically.

Shouldn't the CFI be able to determine if touch and go's are a suitable tool for his/her student?

 

[poadeleted20]

Shouldn't the CFI be able to determine if touch and go's are a suitable tool for his/her student?

The accident stats suggest maybe some instructors aren't doing a good job of that.

 

[Bob Noel]

The accident stats suggest maybe some instructors aren't doing a good job of that.

ok, but may I respectively suggest rather than prohibiting touch and go's, the CFI's do a good job of it?

 

[X3 Skier]

Note that as a rule of thumb, the heavier the airplane the less likely you are to see T&G (oh, yes, I know of 747's doing T&G, but it's not the norm).

We have a Reserve Airlft Wing at WPAFB. Used to have C-5's and now C-17's. When the Reserve pilots are in for a weekend, it was wild sharing the airfield with them doing seemingly endless T&G on the parallel runway. Talk about wake turbulence awareness!

Cheers

 

[wabower]

Did they actually touch down? Many of them have changed to low approaches to reduce brake and tire cost.

We have a Reserve Airlft Wing at WPAFB. Used to have C-5's and now C-17's. When the Reserve pilots are in for a weekend, it was wild sharing the airfield with them doing seemingly endless T&G on the parallel runway. Talk about wake turbulence awareness!

Cheers

 

[bnt83]

Did they actually touch down? Many of them have changed to low approaches to reduce brake and tire cost.

Here the AF touches mains, no nose, and then takes off in combination with low approaches...

 

[ChrisK]

We should have an FAQ on divisive topics which includes a list. I think T&G practice for students would make that list.

 

[poadeleted20]

Did they actually touch down? Many of them have changed to low approaches to reduce brake and tire cost.

When I was in the Air Guard a long time ago, T&G's were prohibited by TAC unless an IP was in the aircraft. Not sure if that was for safety or tire cost, nor how that worked for the A-10's. No doubt MAC and SAC had different rules, too.

 

[JHW]

When I was in the Air Guard a long time ago, T&G's were prohibited by TAC unless an IP was in the aircraft. Not sure if that was for safety or tire cost, nor how that worked for the A-10's. No doubt MAC and SAC had different rules, too.

A10's have (or at least had) some time consuming wing inspections predicated on number of landings.