KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Saving a student time and money. Some of us don't have the luxury to train at an airport that has a whopping total of 15 operations a day.
Poor RG...
- Thread starter Nick6485
- Start date
Saving a student time and money. Some of us don't have the luxury to train at an airport that has a whopping total of 15 operations a day.
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
Yup. Oddly enough, it's not the actual system that is a pain (well, in my admittedly nearly-insignificant mx experience) but the simple fact that on a Cessna all the moving parts are buried between the floor and the belly of the airplane. On a Piper the entire floor area covering the gear mechanism comes out so you don't have to reach through a little access panel to get to everything.
PFGiardino
Well-Known Member
I like the touch and go. Excellent tool for division of attention, stick and rudder skills, and decision making. It's just as easy to pull the gear lever on a rollout to a full stop anyways, so all of you nay-touch-and-goers should teach to stop the airplane on the taxiway to clean up every time as well. You teach nervous nancying, I'll teach proficiency.
Just imagine a freshly certificated/endorsed private pilot doing a complex touch and go for the first time ever with their lovers and friends on board. Not the kind of thing I want my signature associated with.
Just imagine a freshly certificated/endorsed private pilot doing a complex touch and go for the first time ever with their lovers and friends on board. Not the kind of thing I want my signature associated with.
awf
Well-Known Member
I wish my instructor was like this he gets on me if I haven't started the after landing checklist the second I'm clear of the runway. Transponder, mixture, lights, tune ground on the radio he wants me doing all my checklists while taxiing I hate it. When doing full stop taxi backs he has me call the tower for take of clearance when I reach the last taxiway before the runup area. That way we can roll right out on to the runway and go without stopping. After landing, he has told me to start my taxi back before atc has cleared me to enter the main taxiway and said "you don't need clearance to enter a taxiway from the runway, just go"
Is this OK for him to train me to these methods? I don't feel comfortable with it and have told him but he says it's the way he wants me to do it.
wjmiller3
Well-Known Member
When taxiing an airplane you should be doing NOTHING but taxiing the airplane. Thats how runway incursions happen from people not paying attention to what they are supposed to be doing, and looking down at radios, lights, mixture, ect., you should be looking outside.
As far as after landing, I get off at the first available taxiway. I do not taxi back until cleared, but I do get off the runway.
True, but learning how to multi-task while taxiing will make you better at doing such things while flying solo. Tuning a new frequency when you are asked to report when you have ATIS for your destination, or making that 360 degree turn that tower just told you to execute while still answering him and keeping the traffic in sight.
Of course. But by that logic, stalls shouldn't be allowed due to the possibility of a spin, or for that matter, man shouldn't fly at all.
Point being, a mistake can be made at anytime, and at any number of times where it might be subjectively termed "catastrophic". That's the inherent risk. What can be taught is better attention to detail and the times to not be complacent.
wjmiller3
Well-Known Member
Nope, taxiing is not a muti-tasking operation. That's how runway incursions happen...
Agree on that one. Same with copying down a clearance while taxiing......nothing so important that can't wait until the aircraft is stopped to accomplish.
tgrayson
New Member
No, you do them with sufficient altitude to allow recovery. Or do you advocate them at pattern altitude?
Unfortunately, human beings aren't good at that and no amount of training is going to change that. We rely to much on habit and automatic routines, which can betray us as this example shows. We summon the flap raising subroutine and our processor executes the gear raising routine instead. Happens all the time, which is why our bottle of milk sometimes ends up in the freezer.
No. Point being that anything can happen at anytime, with or without prior notice. Train some SA into people and train them to be methodical. That's one of the best insurances against lowering risk long-term. A touch and go is a normal operation, whether done in a retract or a fixed. It shouldn't be something to be feared.
Unfortunately, human beings aren't good at that and no amount of training is going to change that. We rely to much on habit and automatic routines, which can betray us as this example shows. We summon the flap raising subroutine and our processor executes the gear raising routine instead. Happens all the time, which is why our bottle of milk sometimes ends up in the freezer.
I agree. And things can definitely betray us in this sense. That's why it should be emphasized to people in training when whats considered routine may not be so routine....ie-time and place to be more alert than other times. Is there risk? Of course there's risk. But curing the headache by cutting off the head (ie- removing judgement by instituting a broad restriction) is a narrow solution to the wider risk at hand.
tgrayson
New Member
Every major institution involved in air transportation has put into place rules, regulation, and policies designed to prevent pilots from being put into situations where they make mistakes. And then they put in levels of redundancy to rectify mistakes that occur. And finally, they encourage pilots not to make mistakes.
Clearly, these institutions accept that training pilots isn't sufficient.
In your view.
Of course they do, and I agree with that to an extent. My point being some are completely valid, while others may be an overreaction, IMO.
In your view.
True.
I should've said they should be. 
nosehair
Well-Known Member
Excellent example! Following this logic, it would seem that a sufficient amount of 'programming' would fix the processor.
In your example, the programming was done in a simple unstressed manner, but the call-up was under duress, so the processor malfunctioned. Of course. A human is in a different program when stressed. Flight training, including gear operation, needs to be trained in a fashion that proceeds from simple to complex. You know how the FOI explains that?
Which is the main problem in most all flight training - most people don't wanna spend a lot of time in primary training - learning absolute control and mastery of the aircraft machine. They are too focused on achieving PTS minimums at the least cost. Just do normal routine get past the checkride stuff. Don't spend any time getting actually proficient at unusual situations.
The bottom line is that most all accidents are preventable with a sufficient amount of training that is focused on the specific problem of that particular student.
It is a sad state of the aviation training industry that such policies as no touch-n-go's, no spins, or no actual IMC, or must always fill up the tanks even for a local flight, or all the "safety nets" that schools put around students because the main number one objective is to rent, not to teach.
These so-called 'safety' policies actually cause the accidents that occur after flight school.
One of the main causes of accidents is an off-airport landing due to fuel starvation. Well, of course. The PPL who never had to workout an actual fuel consumption problem, except on his knowledge test and groundschool environment, because the flight school and/or his overprotective underconfident instructor always made him/her take-off with full fuel and always have 2 hours reserve, and in real life, his lack of experience in fuel management causes a surprise when the tanks are near empty.
A forced touch and go can, and will, happen. A late go-around due to a really bad gusty cross-wind. I'm sure you can think of many reasons why a surprise can happen in any phase of flight.
It seems, to me, that any where a particular situation causes a spike in accidents, that particular area needs more training. That has been my mode of operation all my life. I have focused on the specific problem areas, such as touch and go's, spins, actual IMC, flying with just enough fuel to accomplish the mission, and no more, and so on.
Of course, this kind of training is fed in at the students rate of learning. All the safety nets and no-no policies are good for the beginner, but by the time he/she is ready to be certificated to carry pax, he/she must have been trained to think before acting.
This kind of thinking seems to have been dropped from the syllabus. I see too many people actually believing that training to minimum standards and rote PTS monkey demonstrations is sufficient to put people out in airplanes in our system.
Your comments, and those others who would 'restrict' the learning just to save time and money, help continue this cancer of pilot training. Maybe not on purpose, and maybe you really believe that these 'no-no's' for 'students' are really in their best interest, but please consider my long-time learned opinion. You're a smart guy. I am not trying to 'overule' your opinion, but am trying to engage in intelligent discussion over this 'training' philosophy.
Can you support your opinion that such training should not be done?
Baronpilot244
Killick Stoker
I think its a matter of opinion - the twin I teach in as a matter of school policy is no T 'n' G's because the gear handle is on the opposite side to normal (its on the co-pilot's side of the panel and the flap switch is closer to the pilot). The owner has directed that we come to a full stop and clear the runway to do the after landing flow.
The school I did my Comm ME with had a Seneca and we were banned from T 'n' G's in that because an instructor geared it up by thinking he had the flaps and the squat switches didn't do their job - 2 new engines and props, plus some belly damage. A full stop and taxi back might have prevented that - maybe not.
A gear up costs roughly $30k per incident on average - this is passed on one way or another to the customers who pay their premiums.
ATP doesn't allow touch and go in the Seminole. Stop and go's are allowed however.
I don't care what others do in their own retracts - I just don't care to do it (certainly not in the Baron I flew) and I don't/can't allow my students to do it!
Bp244
jrh
Well-Known Member
No, it's not ok. In fact, I strongly advise against it. Those are very bad habits to get in to. If I were you, I would find some literature from the FAA or AOPA about how to prevent runway incursions and show it to your instructor. He might not listen to you, but he ought to listen to respected organizations. If he's still not convinced, tell him you'd like to work with a different instructor.
Back to the topic at hand...I'm pretty much with MikeD on this one, for all the philosophical/theoretical reasons he's already articulated.
I watch KC-135s and E-4s (basically a military 747) doing touch and goes at my home airport every day. What makes them so special?
I also used to teach for a college flight program. We did literally thousands of touch and goes per year in our complex aircraft. They had never had an inadvertent gear retraction in the 30 year history of the school. I don't know what the magic ingredient was, but apparently we knew how to fly and teach complex operations safely without banning touch and goes.
jrh
Well-Known Member
Very good point. I agree.