Touch & Go Advice
My early years as an airline instructor had me converting 200 hour CPLs fresh out of the 'sausage factory' on to DC3 and F27. As we did not have simulators, we had to do it all on the aircraft - steep turns, stalls, engine-out - the lot. Being cost-driven meant we had to get them up to a minimum standard for line training in a reasonable time (I think we were allocated 10 hours per trainee). These old aircraft could be a handful at low speed, particularly in a crosswind, so at least half of the allocated time was for take-off and landing training. I quickly surmised that touch & go would not teach them anything useful, as it all happened so quickly they never got to see what the engines were doing, how to handle the throttles smoothly, or when to transfer from ground steering to primary flight control steering, and back again on landing.
In the absence of formal documentation, and presumably because there is no Level D simulator available for the type, I suggest that the OP could develop a simple routine and policy for stop-go training. Simply:
Runway length - at least double the normal TOD/ASD under the most adverse conditions of W.A.T.
Aircraft weight - minimise
V Speeds - try to find 'canned' speeds that work for both take-off and approach, ie a V2 at a take-off flap setting close to Vapp at landing flap - this greatly reduces workload
Checklist for on the runway - limit items to flap, trim, spoilers retracted (if applicable) & reversers stowed (if applicable)
Brake temperatures - if BTIs fitted, monitor; if not, limit number of cycles within a given time
Gear - leave down for brake cooling (but mentally prepare to retract it if an engine fails at a critical time)
Landing checklist - cut out extra 'fluff' but always recheck gear is down & flap as required!
But if the type is supported by an available level D simulator, why do this at all? Operators need to push back against authorities who demand additional base training after a full conversion on a level D simulator.
Touch & go in complex aircraft is negative training. With higher speeds, greater weights and less tolerance for delay, the actions required to bring the thing to a stop (ground idle, spoilers, reverse, brakes) are what need to be reinforced, so a long runway where stop & go can be practiced provides more positive training.
Touch & go training is more relevant for beginners needing to learn the aiming point, sort out flare height, maintaining centreline, etc. PPL & basic CPL stuff.
Just remain aware of brake temperatures, so don’t overdo the braking!
Touch & go training is more relevant for beginners needing to learn the aiming point, sort out flare height, maintaining centreline, etc. PPL & basic CPL stuff.
Just remain aware of brake temperatures, so don’t overdo the braking!
Use your back taxi time to evaluate your performance from your previous approach and landing.
sorry 'bout that.
No issues at all - military do it all the time.
This was phased out, certainly in the VIP fleet, which at the time was BBJ and Challenger 604. They don't do touch and go training on the Falcons either.
Before it was phased out, the minimum runway length was 8000 feet for a 604 touch and go and with a new "student" pilot, having flown nothing other than a CT4 and a PC9, there were occasions when you were grateful for that length of pavement!
I'm not sure what the rules are for the other 737 derivatives in the RAAF inventory (eg Wedgetail/Poseidon) or the A330 (KC30) - perhaps someone knows?
josephfeatherweight
Do you know if they perform touch & goes in the sims or is it ‘all’ stop & taxi back for the next circuit?
Many years ago (2005?) I happened to be at Canberra when a 604 was doing circuits on 35. I’m thinking it must have been ‘touch & goes’ as they seemed to come around fairly quickly.
I found out later the final landing was after a no flap approach. It was noticeably quicker over the fence.
Do you know if they perform touch & goes in the sims or is it ‘all’ stop & taxi back for the next circuit?
Many years ago (2005?) I happened to be at Canberra when a 604 was doing circuits on 35. I’m thinking it must have been ‘touch & goes’ as they seemed to come around fairly quickly.
I found out later the final landing was after a no flap approach. It was noticeably quicker over the fence.
Do you know if they perform touch & goes in the sims or is it ‘all’ stop & taxi back for the next circuit?
The 604 was certainly doing touch and goes up to 2014 (and probably into 2015/2016) - the practice was ended, i understand, as a safety mitigation.
Certainly when I was in the RAAF, there were a number of safety "instances" that occurred during touch and go training, that evidently led to them opting for stop, reposition and go.
I remember being a bit miffed when I found out they weren't doing T+Gs anymore - I thought, "How is a junior pilot going to get some landings under their belt?"
But, in hindsight, it was a reasonably dynamic maneouvre for a junior pilot and I recall the manufacturer saying that "these aircraft really aren't supposed to do T+Gs."
Indeed, the most recent biz jet type I've flown doesn't even have a procedure in the FCOM for a T+G.
Canberra was a challenging place to do circuits - high terrain to deal with, often unpleasant turbulence and "spurious GPWS cautions" when trying to conduct visual circuits.
I found out later the final landing was after a no flap approach. It was noticeably quicker over the fence.
But, it could have been a Flapless approach - we went through a stint of "Flap Fails" that lead to these. About the only time a 604 flies an approach like a "real jet" - at Flap 45, it flies final with its nose pointing at the ground like a C172!!
Last edited by josephfeatherweight; 7th Nov 2020 at 10:34.
Touch and Go in a high performance aircraft.
Cons:
Pros:
Cons:
- The student is maxed out by the manoeuvre, and has no "quiet time" to absorb the lesson of the last approach and landing.
- The instructor is maxed out re-configuring, and has no time to observe the errors of the last landing, or de-brief them.
- The chance for flap selection errors increase significantly.
- Runway performance requirements are a guess, it's not possible to calculate them given the variables in touch down and re-configuring (makes it a bit dodgy legally, and insurance wise, if you're not calculating them as well.)
- With no V1 calculation, there's no trigger for correctly handling a real-world problem like a blown tyre or bird-strike induced engine failure.
- Brake temperature becomes an issue quickly.
- It's adverse training. Train how you fly, fly how you train. It induces negative transfer of skills - a lack of awareness for reverse thrust and brake application on landing and a lack of awareness of checking correct acceleration and V calls on take-off.
Pros:
- The company saves a minute amount of money in training time (no money in airborne time).
Excellent summary by Checkboard - particularly the reference to runway performance - it is indeed a guess, hopefully mitigated by the use of a very long runway.
The only part I would query would be the brake temperature reference - more of an issue for "stop, reposition and go", no??
The only part I would query would be the brake temperature reference - more of an issue for "stop, reposition and go", no??
