etn wrote:
Some ATOs wouldn’t let you do touch and goes at certain short runways which to me was kind of nonsensical
If rwy is too short for T&G you don’t land. Normal procedure during landing is to go around, even from the ground. Otherwise its high risk landing without plan B.
Przemek wrote:
If rwy is too short for T&G you don’t land. Normal procedure during landing is to go around, even from the ground. Otherwise its high risk landing without plan B.
I disagree and agree with @etn. A perfectly executed T&G may not need more runway than a normal takeoff or landing, but if you botch it just a little it can need a lot more.
For sure, training with a C185, you either need to do stop taxi back and take-off or a long runway. For a Touch and Go, after you landed, you need to remove flaps (the handle is down low which means leaning to your right to do this) re-trim (you land with trim full back you need it quite forward for take-off and the trim wheel is even lower than the flaps handle) all this while keeping the bird on a straight line (and remember, it’s a tail-wheel aircraft, to it does not want to go straight). New comers to the plane start with full stop landing, reconfigure the aircraft (being static, it’s easy) and then take-off. After some time you can move to slow down to taxi speed, reconfigure at this speed (that’s a bit trickier) and take-off, but that requires a long enough runway.
If you put full power in landing configuration (flaps and trim), the nose will point to the sky and you need all your muscles to push the yoke forward to avoid stalling. Doing a go-around means adding about half of power, removing some flaps, add power, re-trim, add more power, re-trim, remove the rest of the flaps (and yes, monitor your attitude and your airspeed of course) add power to initial climb set-up, meaning also checking that the RPM don’t go over the redline.
andy_flyer wrote:
What is your experience with touch and go landings? Do you think they’re a good think, or would rather do full stop and taxi back?
I have nearly an identical opinion of touch & goes and prohibited them at my flight school. They are hard on the airplane, particularly Cessna 152/172 which we used for training. Nose shimmy’s were easily induced. Tires and brakes had short lives. We averaged around 45 hours to obtain a private pilot certificate for those that flew at least 3 times a week. We operated out of a non towered airport, 5500X100 feet paved runway with a parallel taxiway. The student would focus so much on the go, not much was learned in the landing, On the go, any comments the instructor made was lost on the student verses a debrief on the taxi back.
Touch and goes are prohibited in BPPP training for Bonanza and Baron. Easy way to cause a gear up.
Peter wrote:
I think the emphasis on hard circuit training just achieves a student who is soaked in sweat and who is taking in very little of it while spending money at a copious rate.Much better to do a t&g and then fly around a bit and come back 10-15 mins later.
I think this is a very important point, and one that I agree with (at least mostly).
As many here will know, I’ve recently had a 2 year break from flying after which I had to get my class rating back. The airport that we were based at at the time (during Covid) didn’t allow tough and go’s. (They didn’t want lots of circuit training creating noise for their neighbours.) Instructor availability was a little limited. So I would fly somewhere else with the instructor and then do a load of circuits before returning back to base. After a few hours of this I was back up to speed, at least enough to be able to pass the proficiency test.
But I didn’t feel that I was back to my former skill level. How good or bad the landing was, was a bit of pot luck (even though all were good enough). For example, I could land smooth enough, but how far along the runway was a bit random, rather than picking my spot. I could occasionally balloon a little and I hadn’t recovered any great skill with cross winds.
So once I had the check passed and I no longer needed an instructor, I decided to do a short flight every weekend. So instead of going bashing a circuit for an hour somewhere every 2 weeks to get my skills back, I instead flew away from the airfield for 10 minutes to warm up the engine, and then returned to the field and did two full stop landings. (Full stops were ok per the airfield owner).
Total flight time was just about 20 minutes. Doing that consistently once every weekend for about 4 weeks had me back at my former skill level which was far faster (in airborne hours) than I think I would have achieved from circuit training for an hour on various occasions.
I really believe that the brain needs some training and then some pause to let that information get stored. Doing circuits for an hour on end doesn’t really teach much after the first 3 or 4 landings.
I think it’s done mainly from a practical point of view. It’s not an efficient use of instructors time or students funds to simply do two landings. You’ve tied up the instructor for probably an hour between briefing and debriefing the student, walk around, getting set up, taxiing, engine checks etc, all for just 2 landings. Hence it’s better for the school, instructor and perhaps the student to do an hour of circuits. But from a learning point of view, a small bit each time fairly frequently repeated, is probably the best way to learn, even if it is more expensive per minute flown.
Another example.
About 10 years ago a friend and I went to the UK for 2 weeks. We decided that we would visit as many airfields as possible within our budget. So we were flying somewhere and then the next destination would be the nearest field that we hadn’t already visited. Flights were typically 10-15 minutes, though some were as short as 3 minutes! We did about 3 fields per day. Two after breakfast. Then have lunch and explore the nearby town/village, then another in the afternoon and camp there and explore that town / village that evening. With each of us alternating the flying we had 1 or 2 landings every day for 2 weeks.
At the end of that 2 weeks my landings were the best that they have ever been. My landings were never as good before nor have they been since. (The skills gradually faded over about 3 months, but never quite fully faded until my 2 year break).
So a little bit of practice, followed by a break, consistently done, achieves more than a lot of intensive training. However when you take the cost of taxiing, engine warm up and engine checks into account, it’s probably significantly more expensive per flying minute than longer blocks of circuit training.
NCYankee wrote:
We averaged around 45 hours to obtain a private pilot certificate for those that flew at least 3 times a week. We operated out of a non towered airport, 5500X100 feet paved runway with a parallel taxiway. The student would focus so much on the go, not much was learned in the landing, On the go, any comments the instructor made was lost on the student verses a debrief on the taxi back.
It’s quality that matters not quantity 
I converted existing pilots to ‘new types’ where they learned to land on first 1-3 attempts with good consistency afterward, this involve lot of slow flight, stalls to get used to speed control and picture then back to long calm runway with less focus on hitting numbers followed by stop or vacate to get used to runway picture and debrief…once they are comfortable with that they can easily move to the next steps while starting with touch-and-go, go-around, short runways, sideslips, flaps, engine-off in busy non-towered airfield…seems like a waste of time. The same magic works when someone has lapsed currency for 10 years
I am not sure how much can be transposed to ‘new student solo’? I never taught anyone from scratch in aeroplane, so I can’t opine, I only taught new students to solo gliders, guess what there is no TnG or GA with no engine unless you bounce
It’s interesting for sure, NCYankee. The point about focussing on the landing for sure has some merit to it.
I don’t know any PPL school in Germany that does completely without TnGs. But it could be worth a try with some student.
One minor point is that if you do a series of landings and taxi backs here in Europe is that it is a nightmare to record (in the journey log AND the pilots’ logbooks….)
One minor point is that if you do a series of landings and taxi backs here in Europe is that it is a nightmare to record (in the journey log AND the pilots’ logbooks….)
My understanding ATC in controlled airfields puts it on a different strip and treat it as new flight (e.g. new transponder, flight plan, clearance, handover to ground …), I don’t know about PIC practices? (likely irrelevant on uncontrolled places)? for myself, as long as I don’t put fuel, stop on apron to disembark pax there is no need to log it as separate flight
The problem with full stop landing is you have to backtrack in the typical un-towered airports with one taxiway in the middle…
I have always believed in focusing on doing a correct landing.
The often taught principle is that you plan every landing to be a go-around, and land only if everything works out right, is a kind of “defeatist” approach because you are led to assume that you will mess up to landing.
