Touch-and-Go Technique and Safety
Guest
Posts: n/a
Touch-and-Go Technique and Safety
I would appreciate feedback on the merits of
either teaching "full power fisrt, then retract Flaps," on touch-down versus "retract flaps, re-retrim then full power" - this is in a PA28.
The argument against the former from some is that the centre of Lift is aft with two-stage flaps and when full power is applied, the nose wheel will be pressed down on the runway, this making it more difficult for the "early circuit" student.....
either teaching "full power fisrt, then retract Flaps," on touch-down versus "retract flaps, re-retrim then full power" - this is in a PA28.
The argument against the former from some is that the centre of Lift is aft with two-stage flaps and when full power is applied, the nose wheel will be pressed down on the runway, this making it more difficult for the "early circuit" student.....
Moderator
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,137
Likes: 38
From: Australia
Hmm, flaps up, trim, then full power. Otherwise the aircraft could take off sooner, and then if flaps were raised too late and it had already lifted off - thump!
Though you'd need to be pretty slow off the mark for that to happen.
Though you'd need to be pretty slow off the mark for that to happen.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Charlie Fox, I have just discovered that I was "committing the crime" of teaching the "power first" idea, as my flying background started with short farm strips
and getting airborne asap on t&g practice was
a priority - retracting 20 Degree Flap at 200 ft.
Hu hum....
and getting airborne asap on t&g practice was
a priority - retracting 20 Degree Flap at 200 ft.
Hu hum....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Depends on circumstance, in my view.
For normal T&Gs I teach configure 1st, assess the runway dist. remaining then either stop or add power. You wouldn't take-off normally with trim/flap/spoilers set incorrectly so I believe it's generally better to teach the same for normal T&Gs.
By 'normal' I mean a RWY of sufficient length for this operation
For go-rounds based on recovering from a mis-handled landing, then I teach full power 1st then reconfigure.
For normal T&Gs I teach configure 1st, assess the runway dist. remaining then either stop or add power. You wouldn't take-off normally with trim/flap/spoilers set incorrectly so I believe it's generally better to teach the same for normal T&Gs.
By 'normal' I mean a RWY of sufficient length for this operation
For go-rounds based on recovering from a mis-handled landing, then I teach full power 1st then reconfigure.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Does anyone subscribe to the idea that, for safety, you should rather teach Stop & go than touch & go?
I think a case could be made, particularly with 'complex' a/c and retractables, that you shouldn't be fiddling while on the ground and moving.
------------------
-.-- --.- -..-
[email protected]
I think a case could be made, particularly with 'complex' a/c and retractables, that you shouldn't be fiddling while on the ground and moving.
------------------
-.-- --.- -..-
[email protected]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Code Blue
Not for safety, but for learning purposes we have introduced groups of three circuits at a time, then fullstop/backtrack (off the runway). I don't think safety is such a big issue (for us at least) because we're in C152s and the runway is 1200m long, but for learning purposes it's better than showing them one! They have got time to think about what they have just done and a 'bad hair day' can be got rid of in the first group, then some nice flying in the second group.
As for the T+G technique, again the long runway helps. Power completely off for the landing, once the elevator doesn't work any more then you've landed, so flap up/10deg, power then go. Flying the attitude normally doesn't involve much retrimming unless we have just done a glide approach.
Not for safety, but for learning purposes we have introduced groups of three circuits at a time, then fullstop/backtrack (off the runway). I don't think safety is such a big issue (for us at least) because we're in C152s and the runway is 1200m long, but for learning purposes it's better than showing them one! They have got time to think about what they have just done and a 'bad hair day' can be got rid of in the first group, then some nice flying in the second group.
As for the T+G technique, again the long runway helps. Power completely off for the landing, once the elevator doesn't work any more then you've landed, so flap up/10deg, power then go. Flying the attitude normally doesn't involve much retrimming unless we have just done a glide approach.
Guest
Posts: n/a
On a closely related point - when I was still having difficulty learning how to do the last 6 feet of landing by doing touch and goes, my instructor twigged that during the holdoff I was already worrying about the subsequent takeoff. He then said "You land it and I will take off". We did a few circuits like that and it completely changed the way I was thinking about the landing and got me past one of those "blocks" that happen from time to time on a PPL course.
Incidentally, this was in AA5A and I was taught power then flaps and in PA28s I was taught flaps then power. For go-arounds in either one, of course, you don't touch anything but the throttle until you are well away from the hard stuff!
Incidentally, this was in AA5A and I was taught power then flaps and in PA28s I was taught flaps then power. For go-arounds in either one, of course, you don't touch anything but the throttle until you are well away from the hard stuff!
Guest
Posts: n/a
An acquaintance of mine recently took a CPL skills test in a PA28 and used the retract flap/apply power technique on the touch-and-go section. The examiner, an experienced airline training captain, insisted that power should be applied first and flap then retracted. A ‘partial pass’ was only awarded because of this, despite an otherwise satisfactory flight.
I’ve flown with a few different instructors in recent years during proficiency checks on our Arrow and all expounded the power-first technique.
I’ve flown with a few different instructors in recent years during proficiency checks on our Arrow and all expounded the power-first technique.
Guest
Posts: n/a
In a PA28 the flaps can be reset v quickly
because of the direct mechanical link so the
flap setting is a given
With a C150/2/72 with 40 degrees flap it takes about 5 seconds to retract and its difficult in some variants to select say 10 degrees quickly. So its difficult to be sure what you have in the way of flap setting in the transition
Nevertheless I have always taught the power first technique, retract drag flap initially
then the remaining flap at 200 ' The
CAA examiner seemed happy with this
A jet engine takes a few seconds to spool up
so applying power first is important and
would have been close to the examiners heart
I guess!
because of the direct mechanical link so the
flap setting is a given
With a C150/2/72 with 40 degrees flap it takes about 5 seconds to retract and its difficult in some variants to select say 10 degrees quickly. So its difficult to be sure what you have in the way of flap setting in the transition
Nevertheless I have always taught the power first technique, retract drag flap initially
then the remaining flap at 200 ' The
CAA examiner seemed happy with this
A jet engine takes a few seconds to spool up
so applying power first is important and
would have been close to the examiners heart
I guess!
Guest
Posts: n/a
RVR800: It seems that this will be a difficult one for me as the CFI at the Flight School is now insisting on the "flap THEN Power" technique for teaching PA28 students.
My main intention is for the students to think and understand why they are being taught certain actions and NOT become "robotic" in their behaviour.
My main intention is for the students to think and understand why they are being taught certain actions and NOT become "robotic" in their behaviour.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The logic is the same whether it’s a jet or a PA28: power first ensures minimum amount of runway is used during the ground run.
Also, is it wise to teach students flaps-first for touch-and-goes and power-first for go-arounds? In a real go-around situation, I’d say there’s a fair chance of an under-pressure novice getting it wrong and retracting flaps first, possibly with dire consquences.
HP
Also, is it wise to teach students flaps-first for touch-and-goes and power-first for go-arounds? In a real go-around situation, I’d say there’s a fair chance of an under-pressure novice getting it wrong and retracting flaps first, possibly with dire consquences.
HP
Guest
Posts: n/a
Simon W's message reminded me of another issue with the teaching method of touch-and-go's :-
It is that, one should NOT teach Full Flap
on touch-and-go's until much later in the student's development.
The observation I can make in support of this (another CFI "rule") is that the students tend to have difficulty with the larger amount or "arc" they have to flare through.
It is that, one should NOT teach Full Flap
on touch-and-go's until much later in the student's development.
The observation I can make in support of this (another CFI "rule") is that the students tend to have difficulty with the larger amount or "arc" they have to flare through.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cessna and Piper singles are not exactly "heavy iron".
- although some instructors seem to think so, judging by the dissecting of the various configurations and flying techniques discussed here.
If there was something special about touch and go handling that was critical for the type, then presumably the manufacturer would publish it in the POH. The C150/172, and Piper/Beechcraft variants are designed with low hour student pilots in mind, and are viceless.
Therefore, make it simple. After touch-down, select flaps up and as soon as the flaps are up, apply full throttle and lift off at normal POH speed. There is no need to reset the elevator trim to the take-off position because the stick forces are easy to overcome.
On the other hand, to lift off with full flap down then stuff around milking the flaps up at some indeterminate height, is an uncomfortable maneouvre requiring a close eye on airspeed control and nose attitude. And so unnecessary.
[This message has been edited by Centaurus (edited 12 May 2001).]
- although some instructors seem to think so, judging by the dissecting of the various configurations and flying techniques discussed here.
If there was something special about touch and go handling that was critical for the type, then presumably the manufacturer would publish it in the POH. The C150/172, and Piper/Beechcraft variants are designed with low hour student pilots in mind, and are viceless.
Therefore, make it simple. After touch-down, select flaps up and as soon as the flaps are up, apply full throttle and lift off at normal POH speed. There is no need to reset the elevator trim to the take-off position because the stick forces are easy to overcome.
On the other hand, to lift off with full flap down then stuff around milking the flaps up at some indeterminate height, is an uncomfortable maneouvre requiring a close eye on airspeed control and nose attitude. And so unnecessary.
[This message has been edited by Centaurus (edited 12 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I disagree with not setting trim prior to the go-round.
One tenet of learning research is 'primacy' ie what was learnt first tends to be what sticks. The upshot is that it becomes very hard to 'unlearn' a behaviour (or lack of it) so it's important to ensure that correct behaviours are established.
Even a Warrior or C172 can impose high control column loads if not trimmed, let alone when the pilot moves to other, less tolerant a/c.
I try to teach my students to approach each landing with have a general goal of trying to stop the a/c once on ground ie the goal of landing is to stop, not take-off. Only if they assess there is sufficient runway remaining, after setting flap & trim, are they to commence another take-off. They can always exit & taxi back to the threshold if they wish to take-off again. To me, the landing is important, not the subsequent take-off.
I agree with other's comments concerning the undesirability of accelerating while attention is focused elsewhere, reconfiguring the aircraft
I should add that aiming to teach this does not preclude always having a readiness to abandon this attempt at an approach & landing by going around. To this end, I teach that their hand should always be on the throttle, ready to apply power (apart from necessary times eg trimming, selecting more flap etc) and not removed until the likelyhood of needing an immediate power change is over ie the landing is completed.
[This message has been edited by Tinstaafl (edited 12 May 2001).]
One tenet of learning research is 'primacy' ie what was learnt first tends to be what sticks. The upshot is that it becomes very hard to 'unlearn' a behaviour (or lack of it) so it's important to ensure that correct behaviours are established.
Even a Warrior or C172 can impose high control column loads if not trimmed, let alone when the pilot moves to other, less tolerant a/c.
I try to teach my students to approach each landing with have a general goal of trying to stop the a/c once on ground ie the goal of landing is to stop, not take-off. Only if they assess there is sufficient runway remaining, after setting flap & trim, are they to commence another take-off. They can always exit & taxi back to the threshold if they wish to take-off again. To me, the landing is important, not the subsequent take-off.
I agree with other's comments concerning the undesirability of accelerating while attention is focused elsewhere, reconfiguring the aircraft
I should add that aiming to teach this does not preclude always having a readiness to abandon this attempt at an approach & landing by going around. To this end, I teach that their hand should always be on the throttle, ready to apply power (apart from necessary times eg trimming, selecting more flap etc) and not removed until the likelyhood of needing an immediate power change is over ie the landing is completed.
[This message has been edited by Tinstaafl (edited 12 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Perhaps what has lead to differences of technique here is a confusion between a Go-around - a much underused manoeuvre I would suggest - and a Touch and Go. This is because the Touch and Go is an artificial concept. It isn't a manoeuvre that has a place in day to day flying.
As Tinstaafl says the object of an approach is to land and stop safely. Touch and Go is used to cram landings and take offs into training situations for reasons of economy. As pointed out above, learning research might suggest that teaching unnecessary and confusing manoeuvres might be at best counterproductive and at worst downright dangerous.
I would recommend teaching Stop and Go and the baulked landing (or Go around) and abandon the touch and go altogether.
I would also agree with retrimming for each take-off.
------------------
-.-- --.- -..-
[email protected]
edited for tautologies and dyslexia
[This message has been edited by Code Blue (edited 14 May 2001).]
As Tinstaafl says the object of an approach is to land and stop safely. Touch and Go is used to cram landings and take offs into training situations for reasons of economy. As pointed out above, learning research might suggest that teaching unnecessary and confusing manoeuvres might be at best counterproductive and at worst downright dangerous.
I would recommend teaching Stop and Go and the baulked landing (or Go around) and abandon the touch and go altogether.
I would also agree with retrimming for each take-off.
------------------
-.-- --.- -..-
[email protected]
edited for tautologies and dyslexia
[This message has been edited by Code Blue (edited 14 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
There would seem to me to be far too much complexity in the considerations being put forward.
The aircraft is certificated to be able to execute a missed approach in the landing configuration. This can be interesting on some aircraft - I think back to that lovely old Piper Supercub with hands and feet pushing the stick forward - but nonetheless it can be done within reasonable stickforce values.
I suggest that a missed approach with an immediate flap retraction at flare height is both silly and poor practice on a small single pilot training aircraft. Why not execute the missed approach and then, when at a suitable height, reconfigure the flap, trimming as necessary ?
For a touch and go, if the runway is short, one ought not to be doing the exercise anyway. Otherwise, a consistent procedure is appropriate to minimise student confusion. On a small trainer, it really matters little whether the flap is reconfigured before taking off again - or at a safe height following liftoff (as with a missed approach) and, if the former is the procedure to be followed, the IP ought to do the reconfiguring and retrimming (where practicable) to allow the student time to concentrate on the main elements of the practice manoeuvre.
This presupposes that
(a) the student is thoroughly briefed on the need to use whatever stickforce is necessary to effect the required manoeuvre
(b) power is increased without undue delay during a touch and go, and first of all, on a missed approach.
[This message has been edited by john_tullamarine (edited 17 May 2001).]
The aircraft is certificated to be able to execute a missed approach in the landing configuration. This can be interesting on some aircraft - I think back to that lovely old Piper Supercub with hands and feet pushing the stick forward - but nonetheless it can be done within reasonable stickforce values.
I suggest that a missed approach with an immediate flap retraction at flare height is both silly and poor practice on a small single pilot training aircraft. Why not execute the missed approach and then, when at a suitable height, reconfigure the flap, trimming as necessary ?
For a touch and go, if the runway is short, one ought not to be doing the exercise anyway. Otherwise, a consistent procedure is appropriate to minimise student confusion. On a small trainer, it really matters little whether the flap is reconfigured before taking off again - or at a safe height following liftoff (as with a missed approach) and, if the former is the procedure to be followed, the IP ought to do the reconfiguring and retrimming (where practicable) to allow the student time to concentrate on the main elements of the practice manoeuvre.
This presupposes that
(a) the student is thoroughly briefed on the need to use whatever stickforce is necessary to effect the required manoeuvre
(b) power is increased without undue delay during a touch and go, and first of all, on a missed approach.
[This message has been edited by john_tullamarine (edited 17 May 2001).]
