Touch and Go.....
I am with "what next" on this issue. Part of the problem IMO is the idea that a touch and go is some kind of different new exercise. It is not, rather it is a normal landing followed by a normal takeoff.
When I teach it I emphasize that a touch and go has 3 distinct parts.
First Part. You should be concentrating only on a properly executed landing untill the aircraft is rolling out on the ground on the centre line and under full control.
Second Part. While ensuring controll is maintained, the aircraft is reconfigured for takeoff.
Third Part. An assement is made as to whether there is enough runway to safely takeoff or if there are any aircraft abnormalities affecting safe flight. If the answer not enough runway or significant aircraft problem, then a RTO is conducted, if the answer is good to go, than apply takeoff power and conduct a normal takeoff.
Another point that has not been really addressed is single pilot vs dual pilot touch and go's and solo vs dual touch and go's. If operating in a two crew environment there must be a clearly briefed division of duties. I like having the PNF do all reconfiguration duties and make a "ready for take off call" at which point the Captain makes a either "takeing off" or "reject" call. If it is a go then the PF calls for Max power.
If you get two GA pilots who are going out for some crashes and dashes you
must have a talk on who is doing what , especially for retractable gear and higher performance aircraft. My recomendation for this scenario is the PNF takes no action other than reporting traffic and significant aircraft abnormalities
In an flight training environment (for ab intio) in the early days I do all the reconfiguration myself and tell the student to just concentrate on aircraft control and then when ready have the student start doing it himself. Only when I am confident they can do the above three steps will I allow solo touch and go's.
When I teach it I emphasize that a touch and go has 3 distinct parts.
First Part. You should be concentrating only on a properly executed landing untill the aircraft is rolling out on the ground on the centre line and under full control.
Second Part. While ensuring controll is maintained, the aircraft is reconfigured for takeoff.
Third Part. An assement is made as to whether there is enough runway to safely takeoff or if there are any aircraft abnormalities affecting safe flight. If the answer not enough runway or significant aircraft problem, then a RTO is conducted, if the answer is good to go, than apply takeoff power and conduct a normal takeoff.
Another point that has not been really addressed is single pilot vs dual pilot touch and go's and solo vs dual touch and go's. If operating in a two crew environment there must be a clearly briefed division of duties. I like having the PNF do all reconfiguration duties and make a "ready for take off call" at which point the Captain makes a either "takeing off" or "reject" call. If it is a go then the PF calls for Max power.
If you get two GA pilots who are going out for some crashes and dashes you
must have a talk on who is doing what , especially for retractable gear and higher performance aircraft. My recomendation for this scenario is the PNF takes no action other than reporting traffic and significant aircraft abnormalities
In an flight training environment (for ab intio) in the early days I do all the reconfiguration myself and tell the student to just concentrate on aircraft control and then when ready have the student start doing it himself. Only when I am confident they can do the above three steps will I allow solo touch and go's.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's been some good discussion on this thread including, as far as GA is concerned, an excellent common-sense post by BroomstickPilot, if I may say so. Technique indeed needs to be type-specific.
However, I would go further and suggest that Touch-and-Gos are one of the hidden dangers of a PPL course. Nowadays, the Touch-and-Go is rather taken for granted amongst the training fraternity but it should be remembered that it is neither a formal training requirement for licence issue nor is it by any means always a simple operation. I know it is in common practice but I believe it should be considered much more seriously than it generally is. As an exercise, it is neither on the syllabus nor examined under test. For the student, it is nothing more than a manoeuvre designed to save time and/or money during circuit training. The only marginal training benefit to the student is that it illustrates how to handle what is, in effect, a very late go-around but the likelihood of it being required in "normal" flying is remote.
In reality it can be quite challenging; for example, a T&G in a taildragger, especially once the tail is down, can be quite a handful even for an experienced pilot. Complications are various. Firstly, as it is not a syllabus requirement, there is no standardised way of teaching the manoeuvre (see this thread, for example). Secondly, instructors who undertake configuration changes during the landing run before lift-off, such as running flaps and/or changing trim, are (arguably) setting a poor example of airmanship to their student. To subsequently encourage the student do the same when solo is, in my book, an absolute no-no. I believe common-sense should dictate that, except in an emergency, no configuration change should be undertaken by the handling pilot while in the ground phase of a T&G - and this should be especially emphasised to an ab-initio student.
Looking at it objectively, a T&G is fraught with danger for the unwary and the pitfalls are obvious. If the student fails to run the flap, the aircraft may not climb - indeed in certain types (say, C150) from an approach with landing (full) flap, they are entering a manoeuvre which has the potential to be dangerous. Conversely, if the student inadvertently retracts (e.g. electrically) too much flap, the configuration and performance will not be as expected and they may approach the stall. Also, with their eyes "in the cockpit" while adjusting flap or trim, they may lose directional or rotational control - for example, try running flap in a taildragger during a solo T&G and you will see what I mean. You just don't have enough hands.
what next has mentioned larger aircraft. I can speak for the 747 (for example) where, whether it be in the real aircraft or simulator, there are three basics for a T&G. First, only simulated reverse thrust is used - and any reverser unlock will require a full-stop landing. Second, any configuration change (usually flaps to T/O and trim within T/O range) must be made before advancing the thrust levers (throttles!), otherwise the Take-off Configuration Warning (TOCW) Horn will sound. Third, the configuration changes are ALWAYS made by the Training Captain and NEVER by the trainee handling pilot. I know the professional world is different from GA but in my opinion the principles remain the same. What's sensible in professional training should also apply to PPL instruction.
In a nutshell, I submit:
1. The touch-and-go manoeuvre is for training only and has the potential to be hazardous if not handled correctly.
2. Configuration change(s) while on the ground should not be made by a handling pilot, especially a student pilot.
3. A T&G involving flap or trim changes on the ground should therefore never be undertaken when solo (especially ab-initio), except in a genuine emergency.
JD
However, I would go further and suggest that Touch-and-Gos are one of the hidden dangers of a PPL course. Nowadays, the Touch-and-Go is rather taken for granted amongst the training fraternity but it should be remembered that it is neither a formal training requirement for licence issue nor is it by any means always a simple operation. I know it is in common practice but I believe it should be considered much more seriously than it generally is. As an exercise, it is neither on the syllabus nor examined under test. For the student, it is nothing more than a manoeuvre designed to save time and/or money during circuit training. The only marginal training benefit to the student is that it illustrates how to handle what is, in effect, a very late go-around but the likelihood of it being required in "normal" flying is remote.
In reality it can be quite challenging; for example, a T&G in a taildragger, especially once the tail is down, can be quite a handful even for an experienced pilot. Complications are various. Firstly, as it is not a syllabus requirement, there is no standardised way of teaching the manoeuvre (see this thread, for example). Secondly, instructors who undertake configuration changes during the landing run before lift-off, such as running flaps and/or changing trim, are (arguably) setting a poor example of airmanship to their student. To subsequently encourage the student do the same when solo is, in my book, an absolute no-no. I believe common-sense should dictate that, except in an emergency, no configuration change should be undertaken by the handling pilot while in the ground phase of a T&G - and this should be especially emphasised to an ab-initio student.
Looking at it objectively, a T&G is fraught with danger for the unwary and the pitfalls are obvious. If the student fails to run the flap, the aircraft may not climb - indeed in certain types (say, C150) from an approach with landing (full) flap, they are entering a manoeuvre which has the potential to be dangerous. Conversely, if the student inadvertently retracts (e.g. electrically) too much flap, the configuration and performance will not be as expected and they may approach the stall. Also, with their eyes "in the cockpit" while adjusting flap or trim, they may lose directional or rotational control - for example, try running flap in a taildragger during a solo T&G and you will see what I mean. You just don't have enough hands.
what next has mentioned larger aircraft. I can speak for the 747 (for example) where, whether it be in the real aircraft or simulator, there are three basics for a T&G. First, only simulated reverse thrust is used - and any reverser unlock will require a full-stop landing. Second, any configuration change (usually flaps to T/O and trim within T/O range) must be made before advancing the thrust levers (throttles!), otherwise the Take-off Configuration Warning (TOCW) Horn will sound. Third, the configuration changes are ALWAYS made by the Training Captain and NEVER by the trainee handling pilot. I know the professional world is different from GA but in my opinion the principles remain the same. What's sensible in professional training should also apply to PPL instruction.
In a nutshell, I submit:
1. The touch-and-go manoeuvre is for training only and has the potential to be hazardous if not handled correctly.
2. Configuration change(s) while on the ground should not be made by a handling pilot, especially a student pilot.
3. A T&G involving flap or trim changes on the ground should therefore never be undertaken when solo (especially ab-initio), except in a genuine emergency.
JD
Last edited by Jumbo Driver; 5th Feb 2009 at 12:25. Reason: typo
Touch and Goes
Thanks for that Jumbo, I agree entirely. There is a difference between multi and single pilot operation here but to teach ab-initio students to perform config changes on the roll is just asking for trouble later. Every AIB bulletin has an item where the undercarrage 'mysteriously retracted just after landing'.
Hello again SAS. Maybe I didn't make it quite clear what I meant in my last post. I didn't mean to suggest that all touch and goes be carried out with the same flap setting, but that the maximum flap on an intentional touch and go should be whatever you can safely take off with, to avoid having to change config. on the runway. Any approach with more flap than that should be for a full stop, then taxy off the runway and stop to reconfigure before another takeoff.
MJ
Hello again SAS. Maybe I didn't make it quite clear what I meant in my last post. I didn't mean to suggest that all touch and goes be carried out with the same flap setting, but that the maximum flap on an intentional touch and go should be whatever you can safely take off with, to avoid having to change config. on the runway. Any approach with more flap than that should be for a full stop, then taxy off the runway and stop to reconfigure before another takeoff.
MJ
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's nothing wrong with changing configuration on the runway. I've done it SEP, MEP, turboprops and jets and it has never been an issue.
Yes you need to do it properly and not just whack levers and throttles with gay abandon, but there is nowt wrong with using a high flap setting and then reconfiguring for a more appropriate one for take off, whilst running down the runway, just make sure you have sufficient runway and don't try it on a 500m wet grass strip.
Selecting gear up after landing is down to people not paying attention, it is not down to teaching touch and go's.
Yes you need to do it properly and not just whack levers and throttles with gay abandon, but there is nowt wrong with using a high flap setting and then reconfiguring for a more appropriate one for take off, whilst running down the runway, just make sure you have sufficient runway and don't try it on a 500m wet grass strip.
Selecting gear up after landing is down to people not paying attention, it is not down to teaching touch and go's.
MJ, ref your second para I think we're in violent agreement. In my first response I said: "Virtually all training aircraft will get airborne with full flap if required so it's not a disaster if the stude forgets. For those that struggle with full flap (e.g. the old C150) the convention is not to use full flap for the landing."
I perhaps should have said: "... if the stude forgets or chooses not to reconfigure ..."
HFD
I perhaps should have said: "... if the stude forgets or chooses not to reconfigure ..."
HFD
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" 
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think when discussing these 'grey area' topics we can be in danger of making blind assumptions about runway length, runway conditions, obstacles, student ability, instructor ability, aircraft capability and so forth... I would seriously weigh up each scenario based on its own seperate merits on the day and perhaps should've added that as a caveat to my first post on this thread which in hindsight is perhaps too generic, as are most posts on this thread.
VFE.
VFE.
Have any of the "power first" fans experienced a failure of the flap retraction mechanism on their aircraft (stuck down symmetric or, rather worse, asymmetric)? Isn't it better to set and check configuration before attempting the take-off segment? But in fairness, I do T&Gs off a non-limiting runway, so the time required to get the power on is not an issue.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say again slowly said:
I thought our understanding of how to avoid human factors' accidents had progressed beyond the "you'd better sit up straight and try harder" mentality!
The Bonanza/Baron Pilot Proficiency Program in the U.S., which is surely one of the (if not the) largest type-specific flying training organisations in the world, does not permit its instructors to use touch and go landings. Maybe there's a more enlightened message there.
Selecting gear up after landing is down to people not paying attention
The Bonanza/Baron Pilot Proficiency Program in the U.S., which is surely one of the (if not the) largest type-specific flying training organisations in the world, does not permit its instructors to use touch and go landings. Maybe there's a more enlightened message there.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: EGDN
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Broomstick,
Totally agree. If you tried to get the Auster's flaps up first, you would run off the end of the runway before you could advance the throttle, especially on the short grass strips I always seem to find myself at with our Auster. However, as a lad, I was always taught 'Flaps First' probably because if you left the C172's flaps down you would never accelerate, and when training, we always had a long runway ahead. Older and wiser, I now adapt my techniques to maatch the performance of the aeroplane.
Totally agree. If you tried to get the Auster's flaps up first, you would run off the end of the runway before you could advance the throttle, especially on the short grass strips I always seem to find myself at with our Auster. However, as a lad, I was always taught 'Flaps First' probably because if you left the C172's flaps down you would never accelerate, and when training, we always had a long runway ahead. Older and wiser, I now adapt my techniques to maatch the performance of the aeroplane.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Islander, yep there is a message there. Don't get in aircraft with poor ergonomics!
Jumbo, so I take it in your extensive career on 747's, when you've been base training, you've done full stop landings each and everytime? Mind you with spool up times as slow as a 747 classic, then you'd probably need to go thrust levers first then flaps on a touch and go.
As for the "well I've done it, so it's alright" In this case, yep, it is. The airlines I've worked for and training organisations that I've worked for, been trained by and run, do it too, so if I'm wrong, so are they................
Hey ho, another example of a thread that proves why PPRUNE has gone to the dogs.
Jumbo, so I take it in your extensive career on 747's, when you've been base training, you've done full stop landings each and everytime? Mind you with spool up times as slow as a 747 classic, then you'd probably need to go thrust levers first then flaps on a touch and go.
As for the "well I've done it, so it's alright" In this case, yep, it is. The airlines I've worked for and training organisations that I've worked for, been trained by and run, do it too, so if I'm wrong, so are they................
Hey ho, another example of a thread that proves why PPRUNE has gone to the dogs.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh SAS, instead of firing from the hip, why don't you read the posts you criticise ... ?
I set out in the penultimate paragraph of the post to which you refer how a Touch-and-Go is conducted on Base Training on the 747. So, if you had bothered to read the post you would see that they are not all full-stops. Incidentally, you are right that the thrust levers are usually stood up away from idle while the flaps and trim are being reset to minimise the spool-up time - however the required thrust for T/O is only set when the configuration is correct.
Nevertheless, the point I was making (which you clearly missed) was that the configuration changes are ALWAYS made by the Training Captain and NEVER by the trainee handling pilot.
As for the swipe in your last sentence, perhaps the remedy is more in your own hands than you realise ...
JD
I set out in the penultimate paragraph of the post to which you refer how a Touch-and-Go is conducted on Base Training on the 747. So, if you had bothered to read the post you would see that they are not all full-stops. Incidentally, you are right that the thrust levers are usually stood up away from idle while the flaps and trim are being reset to minimise the spool-up time - however the required thrust for T/O is only set when the configuration is correct.
Nevertheless, the point I was making (which you clearly missed) was that the configuration changes are ALWAYS made by the Training Captain and NEVER by the trainee handling pilot.
As for the swipe in your last sentence, perhaps the remedy is more in your own hands than you realise ...
JD
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS, intent as ever on making a serious and insightful contribution, says in respect of the aircraft that's been in continuous production for longer than any other type:
Yet, in the same breath, follows it up with:
Could it be that Jumbo Driver's observation is right on the money?
Islander, yep there is a message there. Don't get in aircraft with poor ergonomics!
Hey ho, another example of a thread that proves why PPRuNe has gone to the dogs.
As for the swipe in your last sentence, perhaps the remedy is more in your own hands than you realise ...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ooh goody, here we go again...................
Islander, you may or may not have noticed that my comment was tounge in cheek. I have attended a couple of wheels up incidents in Bonanza's and I have to say that it is an easy mistake to make. One chap who I helped out of his bent Bonaza had well in excess of 20,000 hrs and was a senior chap at a large British Airline. Obviously no-one is immune to mistakes.
I studied ergonomics at University and I have to say, that most light aircraft are utterly appalling in many different ways. I know we have conventions on the shape of knobs etc, but mistakes are too easy to make.
Jumbo, having a training captain make configuration changes is all very well in a multi crew environment. However in training PPL's that is not what we are aiming for. Since a touch and go is a relatively normal procedure, it is not beyond the wit of man that we teach our students to make appropriate configuration changes themselves.
I agree that it is not necessary for licence issue, but since every examiner expects it, then we have to train for it.
I have always taught students to work in a very methodical manner and so far have had not one problem with letting students perform Touch and Goes in a variety of different aircraft and a variety of different surfaces.
Obviously all aircraft types are different, but in general, when training there are just a few types used. Cessna, Piper, Robin (or whatever they are called this week) mostly all simple, docile machines that don't cause problems in this situation if handled properly.
Taildraggers are a different matter somewhat and more thought is required.
The type of flap operation needs to be thought of too. Pipers and their manual "handbrake" mechanism, allows you to change flap setting very rapidly, so the issue of power first or flap first isn't as relevant.
Cessna and Robins have a much slower electrically powered system. If for example you are flying a C150 and are approaching with 40 flap for whatever reason, then you need to get the flap moving into an appropriate position as soon as possible. In the C152 with the gated flap lever, this is easy, C150's with just a manual control of the flap setting makes things different again.
If you apply full power immediately and then start to motor the flaps in a C150, then she'll be trying to take off whilst you are still moving the flaps. How is that a sensible thing? Much better that you land, move the flaps into an appropriate setting, then apply full power. Simple, easy and less prone to mistakes than throwing your hands around the cockpit as the aircraft accelerates to flying speed and beyond. Less chance of going off the side of the runway as you aren't having to cope with any yaw from the addition of power.
I am assuming of course that you have more than adequate runway length to do all of this safely.
Islander, you may or may not have noticed that my comment was tounge in cheek. I have attended a couple of wheels up incidents in Bonanza's and I have to say that it is an easy mistake to make. One chap who I helped out of his bent Bonaza had well in excess of 20,000 hrs and was a senior chap at a large British Airline. Obviously no-one is immune to mistakes.
I studied ergonomics at University and I have to say, that most light aircraft are utterly appalling in many different ways. I know we have conventions on the shape of knobs etc, but mistakes are too easy to make.
Jumbo, having a training captain make configuration changes is all very well in a multi crew environment. However in training PPL's that is not what we are aiming for. Since a touch and go is a relatively normal procedure, it is not beyond the wit of man that we teach our students to make appropriate configuration changes themselves.
I agree that it is not necessary for licence issue, but since every examiner expects it, then we have to train for it.
I have always taught students to work in a very methodical manner and so far have had not one problem with letting students perform Touch and Goes in a variety of different aircraft and a variety of different surfaces.
Obviously all aircraft types are different, but in general, when training there are just a few types used. Cessna, Piper, Robin (or whatever they are called this week) mostly all simple, docile machines that don't cause problems in this situation if handled properly.
Taildraggers are a different matter somewhat and more thought is required.
The type of flap operation needs to be thought of too. Pipers and their manual "handbrake" mechanism, allows you to change flap setting very rapidly, so the issue of power first or flap first isn't as relevant.
Cessna and Robins have a much slower electrically powered system. If for example you are flying a C150 and are approaching with 40 flap for whatever reason, then you need to get the flap moving into an appropriate position as soon as possible. In the C152 with the gated flap lever, this is easy, C150's with just a manual control of the flap setting makes things different again.
If you apply full power immediately and then start to motor the flaps in a C150, then she'll be trying to take off whilst you are still moving the flaps. How is that a sensible thing? Much better that you land, move the flaps into an appropriate setting, then apply full power. Simple, easy and less prone to mistakes than throwing your hands around the cockpit as the aircraft accelerates to flying speed and beyond. Less chance of going off the side of the runway as you aren't having to cope with any yaw from the addition of power.
I am assuming of course that you have more than adequate runway length to do all of this safely.
Last edited by Say again s l o w l y; 12th Feb 2009 at 10:35.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: An island somewhere
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously no-one is immune to mistakes.
I studied ergonomics at University and I have to say, that most light aircraft are utterly appalling in many different ways. I know we have conventions on the shape of knobs etc, but mistakes are too easy to make.
I studied ergonomics at University and I have to say, that most light aircraft are utterly appalling in many different ways. I know we have conventions on the shape of knobs etc, but mistakes are too easy to make.
So, to avoid the problem, it's either a case of trying harder not to make the mistake, or having SOPs that prevent the circumstances from arising where the mistake can be made. You advocated the former, the Bonanza/Baron Pilot Proficiency Program requires the latter.
Pointing that out, apparently, is evidence that PRuNE has gone to the dogs!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You haven't gone to the dog's islander. I thought your points were valid.
I am very much advocating having standard procedures to minimise problems. It is done in the airline world for a reason. It works.
However, it would help that aircraft are also designed to minimise potential problems. Difficult with machines designed in the 50's before ergonomics had been thought of.
I am very much advocating having standard procedures to minimise problems. It is done in the airline world for a reason. It works.
However, it would help that aircraft are also designed to minimise potential problems. Difficult with machines designed in the 50's before ergonomics had been thought of.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Touch and Go or .... G\A
Just come across this thread .... as a fairly low hour instructor I thought I would throw in a few of my own thoughts and solicit some feedback ...
For a planned touch and go - I would teach flaps then power - has to be this way - at least for a C172 assuming full flap landing - which admittedly may not always be the case - applying full power with full flaps will get very messy very quick - aircraft leaps into the air - but this will be short-lived as speed decreases very quickly - in the older 172 I sometimes use - we can not maintain level flight with full flap
This approach is fine on a 3000m runway (I sometimes teach from) as the student has plenty of time to get the aircraft under control following the landing roll - select appropriate flap and then apply takeoff power
But I also teach from 400m tarmac strip - on various different SE aircraft - in general we do NOT allow touch and go - every landing is a short field - if you mess up the approach then G/A EARLY - for this I would teach Power then Flap
Key to the G\A is to arrest your descent and transit to the climb as quickly as possible - so apply full power - maintain safe flying speed (massive pitch change on 172 on application of full power with full flaps)
- this may mean depending on type - level flight, small ROC or even small ROD - but speed and control of descent is critcal in the early stage of G\A - next flaps up in stages - adjusting attitude to maintain speed and increase ROC .... then once at take off flap treat as normal departure
I teach on various SE aircraft - we also use a tecnam - you can climb with full flap on this aircraft albeit at reduced ROC - but same thing - apply full power - attitude change to arrest descent or even small ROC - select takeoff flap and transition to appropriate departure attitude
Lastly .... re-trimming is of course important - for the C172 and a G\A from full flap i would recommend rough re-trim after full power to reduce stick forces which can be considerable - then fine trim once flaps start coming up
best cheer neil
For a planned touch and go - I would teach flaps then power - has to be this way - at least for a C172 assuming full flap landing - which admittedly may not always be the case - applying full power with full flaps will get very messy very quick - aircraft leaps into the air - but this will be short-lived as speed decreases very quickly - in the older 172 I sometimes use - we can not maintain level flight with full flap
This approach is fine on a 3000m runway (I sometimes teach from) as the student has plenty of time to get the aircraft under control following the landing roll - select appropriate flap and then apply takeoff power
But I also teach from 400m tarmac strip - on various different SE aircraft - in general we do NOT allow touch and go - every landing is a short field - if you mess up the approach then G/A EARLY - for this I would teach Power then Flap
Key to the G\A is to arrest your descent and transit to the climb as quickly as possible - so apply full power - maintain safe flying speed (massive pitch change on 172 on application of full power with full flaps)
- this may mean depending on type - level flight, small ROC or even small ROD - but speed and control of descent is critcal in the early stage of G\A - next flaps up in stages - adjusting attitude to maintain speed and increase ROC .... then once at take off flap treat as normal departure
I teach on various SE aircraft - we also use a tecnam - you can climb with full flap on this aircraft albeit at reduced ROC - but same thing - apply full power - attitude change to arrest descent or even small ROC - select takeoff flap and transition to appropriate departure attitude
Lastly .... re-trimming is of course important - for the C172 and a G\A from full flap i would recommend rough re-trim after full power to reduce stick forces which can be considerable - then fine trim once flaps start coming up
best cheer neil
