No Touch & Gos allowed
Worldstratospherecitizen
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UUEE & LFPB
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess your flight school is just making the future " pilots " trained in glass cockpits , and full 3 axes auto pilot for PPL ...
Very strange , but hey , you'll be flying an airbus anyway
Good luck to you ,
JBB ( who's going to go and do some Touch and Goes on a grass runway with a A/C without even a artificial horizon
)
Very strange , but hey , you'll be flying an airbus anyway
Good luck to you ,
JBB ( who's going to go and do some Touch and Goes on a grass runway with a A/C without even a artificial horizon
)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Out of a bag
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Out of a bag
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can assure you that this is an ATC controlled airfield. In the past when the pattern had gotten too busy, they have been the ones to ask for full-stop-taxy-backs. Now it is a blanket thing for the whole of this flying school.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wingo Wango
You have not understood how flying time is recorded in the aircraft log books and charged to the student if you can't see why this is about money, go back, read my first post on the subject and try to understand that he company is £££££ ahead from this move.
If this T&G ban is by the outfit that I suspect then 30 years of watching the GA business strongly sugests that money is the only motivation that the company has, they constantly been the masters of the hidden charge and restrictive rule to squeeze the last drop of money from the student.
Of course I could be wrong but I would guess that some minor inccident had been grabbed with both hands as a way of increasing income at the student pilots expence.
The T&G has been at the heart of pilot trainning since avation started so why all of a sudden has it become unsafe?
I would like to think that I have misjudged the situation but only time will tell.
If this T&G ban is by the outfit that I suspect then 30 years of watching the GA business strongly sugests that money is the only motivation that the company has, they constantly been the masters of the hidden charge and restrictive rule to squeeze the last drop of money from the student.
Of course I could be wrong but I would guess that some minor inccident had been grabbed with both hands as a way of increasing income at the student pilots expence.
The T&G has been at the heart of pilot trainning since avation started so why all of a sudden has it become unsafe?
I would like to think that I have misjudged the situation but only time will tell.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UAE
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BillieBob
Thanks for the information but that is exactly what I was saying to A&C?
And A&C, Please read the way you have worded your post, my understanding was that you were questioning who implemented the night qual requirement? and rest assured, not everyone on this website will be aware of everything.
YYZ
Thanks for the information but that is exactly what I was saying to A&C?
And A&C, Please read the way you have worded your post, my understanding was that you were questioning who implemented the night qual requirement? and rest assured, not everyone on this website will be aware of everything.
YYZ
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 961
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
some schools dont authorize touch and gos, too many got incidents by switching the gear instead of flaps, etc...
insurance companies pay for these incidents/accidents at a point they will ask you to not fly anymore...even grass runway are prohibited when you need to know soft landings.
when you have 2-3 plane crash in a month, like short of fuel or forgot to lower the gear and hard landing.
view the cost of the maintenance. I can see why they dont allow you to fly the plane they way we want...who to blame at the end?
just go in a flight schools, and see how some of us treat planes.
planes not tied down, flight control not secure, key and master switched on, food & paper on board...
if some were a little bit more respectful toward the plane they fly, schools wont pay some much insurance...
insurance companies pay for these incidents/accidents at a point they will ask you to not fly anymore...even grass runway are prohibited when you need to know soft landings.
when you have 2-3 plane crash in a month, like short of fuel or forgot to lower the gear and hard landing.
view the cost of the maintenance. I can see why they dont allow you to fly the plane they way we want...who to blame at the end?
just go in a flight schools, and see how some of us treat planes.
planes not tied down, flight control not secure, key and master switched on, food & paper on board...
if some were a little bit more respectful toward the plane they fly, schools wont pay some much insurance...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: swindon
Age: 44
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this a blanket ban on all T&G`s until you pass the test, or merely an extra restriction to be signed-off when you become proficient DURING the course?
I know a couple of schools that operate to the latter.
I know a couple of schools that operate to the latter.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: where it's yellow not green
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did my ppl out in florida. Training was done summer 2001, and there was no rule about touch and goes, but then went back for 50 hours flying in 2005 and the rule was now in place for students. I thought it was stupid, just put it down as a money making scheme, but then a few days later I took off after a touch and go with landing flaps still out. So I can see the case for and against. Im sure it wont catch on, I fly 737s out of Liverpool now and it would cause havoc if light aircraft had to full stop after each landing- im sure atc just wouldnt allow it for spacing.
I think one of the most important points during the ppl course is to put more and more responsiblity and trust in a student pilot, upto the point where they are capable of being pic. So wheres the sense in saying 'we no longer have faith in you performing a touch and go'?
Take your case to the head of training, get a petition going or something. If its who i think it is then theyre desperate for students anyway so theyll aim to keep the customers!
I think one of the most important points during the ppl course is to put more and more responsiblity and trust in a student pilot, upto the point where they are capable of being pic. So wheres the sense in saying 'we no longer have faith in you performing a touch and go'?
Take your case to the head of training, get a petition going or something. If its who i think it is then theyre desperate for students anyway so theyll aim to keep the customers!
Registered User **
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
more fuel burn due to higher numbers of squished bugs on the airframe?
There is no higher fuel burn. Let me remind you that fuel burn is a rate.
No, the TAS wil be lower and it will take more time to reach your destination. You will just take more time/pay more to reach the same destination.
There is certainly a financial aspect to it but I don't think it's that significant.
How many hours do you solo in the pattern? 5 to 10?
Imagining that half of that time is spent taxiing, you have 2.5 to 5 hours where the engine is turning at close to idle, saving maybe 4 gal/hour on a C-150 and around 6 gal/hour on a C-172/PA28.
That may save the school up to 100$ per student.
It is not really significant.
Don't forget that maintenance is a big cost for a school, certainly engine maintenance (about 20 000$ every 2000 hours).
There is no higher fuel burn. Let me remind you that fuel burn is a rate.
No, the TAS wil be lower and it will take more time to reach your destination. You will just take more time/pay more to reach the same destination.
There is certainly a financial aspect to it but I don't think it's that significant.
How many hours do you solo in the pattern? 5 to 10?
Imagining that half of that time is spent taxiing, you have 2.5 to 5 hours where the engine is turning at close to idle, saving maybe 4 gal/hour on a C-150 and around 6 gal/hour on a C-172/PA28.
That may save the school up to 100$ per student.
It is not really significant.
Don't forget that maintenance is a big cost for a school, certainly engine maintenance (about 20 000$ every 2000 hours).
Nichibei Aviation,
If it's the flight training school I think it is, the 'joke' is that a fuel surcharge was introduced when they changed their fleet from older AVGAS guzzling aircraft to aircraft running on lesser amounts of the cheaper Jet A1.
Making the fixed price course up to 4k more than expected
Oh and I forgot the extra wear and tear on the brakes
If it's the flight training school I think it is, the 'joke' is that a fuel surcharge was introduced when they changed their fleet from older AVGAS guzzling aircraft to aircraft running on lesser amounts of the cheaper Jet A1.
Making the fixed price course up to 4k more than expected
Oh and I forgot the extra wear and tear on the brakes
Registered User **
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are different flight schools that do this.
I am not refering to any of them but trying to clarify that all the saving that may bring is just around 100$ per student on an entire training...
Not much when you consider that they rip you off a few dozen K-bucks on your entire training!!
About JET A1 aircraft, the cost of JET A1 is significantly lower but maintenance is more expensive.
The Thielert engines for instance, you need to replace them completely every 2000 hours. Their reliability is also not very good.
Also, many schools are buying DA-42 which are very expensive aircraft, about half a million bucks at list price. The fuel costs are significantly reduced but until you can turn that investment into profit, it'll take quite some time.
The DA-42 is a state-of-the-art aircraft but me and my company slightly disagree with its philosophy, certainly when you think that it's the students who will need to pay for this high cost investment.
After all, training shouldn't be a matter of luxury...
But then again you can also start questionnig about schools that prohibite any training when you have more than 6kt X-wind...
I am not refering to any of them but trying to clarify that all the saving that may bring is just around 100$ per student on an entire training...
Not much when you consider that they rip you off a few dozen K-bucks on your entire training!!
About JET A1 aircraft, the cost of JET A1 is significantly lower but maintenance is more expensive.
The Thielert engines for instance, you need to replace them completely every 2000 hours. Their reliability is also not very good.
Also, many schools are buying DA-42 which are very expensive aircraft, about half a million bucks at list price. The fuel costs are significantly reduced but until you can turn that investment into profit, it'll take quite some time.
The DA-42 is a state-of-the-art aircraft but me and my company slightly disagree with its philosophy, certainly when you think that it's the students who will need to pay for this high cost investment.
After all, training shouldn't be a matter of luxury...
But then again you can also start questionnig about schools that prohibite any training when you have more than 6kt X-wind...
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wingo Wango
I shall try to make this clear.
Background
A few years ago I instructed at a reputable club that was forced to fly a large circuit and we got about 5 T & G landings an hour the average time to solo was about 16 hours.
I now instruct for a club that flys a very tight 800ft circuit , the average time to solo is about 11 hours.
So the first club takes about 5 hours longer to get a student off solo, it is my opinion that the number of landings that the student makes is about the same at both clubs but a student at the first club has to pay for about five more flying hours to reach solo.
Conclusion
The number of landings that a student flys are critical to progress.
Time in the air or taxing when flying circuits has very little effect on student progress.
The money issue
The time recorded in the aircraft and engine log book is take off to touchdown and that is what all the maintenance checks and time critical part lives are based on.
Most schools charge the student chock to chock time so the normaly flying a T&G circuit a student will get about 5-6 landings and 50 minuits in the air for an hours flying assuming about 10 min for the taxi time.
If the student has to taxi back each time the aircraft is only flying for about 20 minuits in each flying hour that the student pays for and the student is not getting the solo practice that they need.
Who wins?
Well lets think about this the school is now charging the same chock to chock rate but only putting 20 minuits of airframe and engine time on the aircraft they are also reducing the fuel burn as the aircraft burns considerably less fuel when taxing than is will in the air.
The student gets about 50% less landings per hour so will probably have to fly a few more hours to get up to the required standard.
As a money making scam its faultless!
Background
A few years ago I instructed at a reputable club that was forced to fly a large circuit and we got about 5 T & G landings an hour the average time to solo was about 16 hours.
I now instruct for a club that flys a very tight 800ft circuit , the average time to solo is about 11 hours.
So the first club takes about 5 hours longer to get a student off solo, it is my opinion that the number of landings that the student makes is about the same at both clubs but a student at the first club has to pay for about five more flying hours to reach solo.
Conclusion
The number of landings that a student flys are critical to progress.
Time in the air or taxing when flying circuits has very little effect on student progress.
The money issue
The time recorded in the aircraft and engine log book is take off to touchdown and that is what all the maintenance checks and time critical part lives are based on.
Most schools charge the student chock to chock time so the normaly flying a T&G circuit a student will get about 5-6 landings and 50 minuits in the air for an hours flying assuming about 10 min for the taxi time.
If the student has to taxi back each time the aircraft is only flying for about 20 minuits in each flying hour that the student pays for and the student is not getting the solo practice that they need.
Who wins?
Well lets think about this the school is now charging the same chock to chock rate but only putting 20 minuits of airframe and engine time on the aircraft they are also reducing the fuel burn as the aircraft burns considerably less fuel when taxing than is will in the air.
The student gets about 50% less landings per hour so will probably have to fly a few more hours to get up to the required standard.
As a money making scam its faultless!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by A and C
Who wins?
Well lets think about this the school is now charging the same chock to chock rate but only putting 20 minuits of airframe and engine time on the aircraft they are also reducing the fuel burn as the aircraft burns considerably less fuel when taxing than is will in the air.
The student gets about 50% less landings per hour so will probably have to fly a few more hours to get up to the required standard.
As a money making scam its faultless!
Well lets think about this the school is now charging the same chock to chock rate but only putting 20 minuits of airframe and engine time on the aircraft they are also reducing the fuel burn as the aircraft burns considerably less fuel when taxing than is will in the air.
The student gets about 50% less landings per hour so will probably have to fly a few more hours to get up to the required standard.
As a money making scam its faultless!
I've never heard of anyone calculating air time for each separate flight from a series of Stop and Go circuits.
Saying that, I wholeheartedly agree with you that it does appear to be a revenue creating scheme. If students are now only getting 3 or 4 circuits per hour instead of 6, 7 or even 8 it stands to reason they are probably going to need more flying hours to achieve and maintain the required standard.
But, hey, their taxying will be the best you've ever seen!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wingo
But you are assuming that the time to completion is the same, a ridiculkous assumption. It is not common for taxy time to be critical in getting a student through the test.
But you are assuming that the time to completion is the same, a ridiculkous assumption. It is not common for taxy time to be critical in getting a student through the test.