drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
I've done rolling run-ups at a CFI's direction. I guess I'm going to hell for that.
Poor RG...
- Thread starter Nick6485
- Start date
I've done rolling run-ups at a CFI's direction. I guess I'm going to hell for that.
But your head isn't down in a checklist or copying down a clearance. At worst during a rolling runup, you're maybe quickly cross-referencing the tach, everything else being by feel. Ie- you're attention isn't (or shouldn't) be diverted for that long. If it is, well that'd probably be the time for someone to not do them; is what my take on them would be overall.
tgrayson
New Member
Eh? It is done. The people who inadvertently pull up the gear have hundreds or thousands of touch and go's under their belts. After the demonstrated failure of this sort of training, your idea is to do some more of it?
Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.
TFaudree_ERAU
Mashin' dem buttons
So insanity would be an FBO prohibiting touch and go's because they are "expecting" someone to inadvertently retract the gear, even though it's done at hundreds of other flight schools every day with no adverse results?
I guess I shouldn't go flying today, because it has been demonstrated that people crash on severe clear days.
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
The type of people who say there shouldn't be any T&G in a retractable gear airplane are the same types of people who usually say you should never do a single engine missed approach in a twin. I think both examples place way too much emphasis on 'never'. They are edge cases, surely, but do you want to be able to just fly 99.5% of the time and not be prepared for the other 0.5%?
On landing and start porpoising in a RG like a Mooney, or any other forced T&G scenario... do you perform a GA/T&G ---or since you've never been trained thoroughly how to do them or your club prohibits them, or whatever--- do you just try to salvage the landing?
Similarly on a single engine approach you lose the glideslope below MDA, you go past the VDP and end up too high... do you just try to salvage the approach because you absolutely must get on the runway or do you go missed and try again?*
* After checking the POH to see what the single engine climb gradient is at the density altitude of field elevation of course, which should have been done while holding or during delay vectors while you were performing your other checklists.
On landing and start porpoising in a RG like a Mooney, or any other forced T&G scenario... do you perform a GA/T&G ---or since you've never been trained thoroughly how to do them or your club prohibits them, or whatever--- do you just try to salvage the landing?
Similarly on a single engine approach you lose the glideslope below MDA, you go past the VDP and end up too high... do you just try to salvage the approach because you absolutely must get on the runway or do you go missed and try again?*
* After checking the POH to see what the single engine climb gradient is at the density altitude of field elevation of course, which should have been done while holding or during delay vectors while you were performing your other checklists.
tgrayson
New Member
By that sort of reasoning, there is no such thing as an unsafe practice, since every activity we might label as "unsafe" is, in fact, performed by large numbers of people without incident.
You'll have to construct a better argument than that.
Soku39
Well-Known Member
We had the same exact thing happen at my old flight school. They fly 172 RGs, and the banning of touch and goes was considered, however after discussing it with all of us CFIs it was decided that it is a valuable procedure and we would continue to do it. I im the camp of people that say want to mitigate risk. Leave the airplane in the hangar every day. There is no reason to feel rushed doing a touch and go, verify everything before throwing take/off power back in. I am happy to see most of you feel as I do. This is nothing personal against those that don't, and of course I can understand flight school owners being wary of the procedure after having this happen to them.
jrh
Well-Known Member
This has been an interesting debate that is quickly going nowhere.
It's all about risk management and what one person considers an acceptable vs. unacceptable risk. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer in this case. Nobody can "prove" the best way to operate.
TFaudree_ERAU
Mashin' dem buttons
You're basically saying that we should prohibit any sort of non-standard flight maneuver because there is a slight chance that something might go wrong. Therefore, we should prohibit flight all together, because there is a slight chance that any number of things could go wrong.
I think you and/or your flight school are doing a dis-service to the students by prohibiting touch and go operations. One day, they'll wish they knew how.
I've landed long due to wind shear (performance gain that I failed to recognize) on a 2300' runway in a 182RG. I'm glad I was taught a proper touch and go procedure, because had I tried to stop by the end of the runway, I would have been picking corn cobs out of the wing vents.
tgrayson
New Member
You're confused on a couple of issues: 1) My flight school does not prohibit touch and go's. 2) I do touch and go's in a complex aircraft all the time. However, I do understand why a flight school might prohibit them and I think it's a reasonable point of view, but that doesn't mean that I have to adopt it.
The point under discussion is t&g's in a complex aircraft and any training you did in a complex aircraft was irrelevant to the wind shear situation you described, since the standard fixed-gear t&g procedure would work fine. Probably a better lesson learned with the wind shear is to go around when the anticipated touch down point is too far down the runway.
Soku39
Well-Known Member
Devils advocate: You should have gone around.
This topic is eventually going to end up going in circles.
To me though, the best way to operate is not to take any operation that has risk, and blatently label it "unsafe" just to shield people from making a mistake. Hell, all of flying is unsafe if you really think about the risk factor of it. But we train people for normal operations, and in each of those operations we train the contingencies....the "what if's" the "what can go wrong" and how to prevent them. So take someone that has been doing T&Gs in a 182, and put them into a 182RG now. Is it better to just prohibit T&Gs, thereby taking the judgement ability and learning away from the pilot? Or is it better to train the pilot on the new set of contingencies and the new potential gotcha's of doing T&Gs now, that were not present when he was doing them before. Are they now more risky for that pilot to perform than they were before in the fixed-gear plane? Of course they are. Are they unsafe? Of course not.
We're so busy trying to protect pilots from themselves with inane rules, that we get guys that can't think outside the box. With the little risk taken in an operation, the reward is a pilot who can build judgement, experience and confidence. If a flight school doesn't want to take risks, or even wants to attempt to squash every risk out there; they shouldn't be in business. We're talking a T&G, not penetrating a thunderstorm. And with that, T&Gs have been being performed since the beginning of aviation, and continue to be done so in aviation. What's all of a sudden made them unsafe? The quality of pilots?
I just feel that if we want to go down the road of prohibiting fairly normal maneuvers/operations in aviation, we're creating a slippery slope. I could cull through the myriad of NTSB excerpts from the past few decades for GA, pull out any number of accidents that have happened for the same exact cause or during the same exact maneuver, call that an unsafe practice, and have it prohibited. And then, airplanes woudn't even be able to get off the ground without breaking a policy.
TFaudree_ERAU
Mashin' dem buttons
Devils advocate: You should have gone around.
Judging "long" on a 2300' runway is a little more difficult than on a 8,000' runway. We're talking a 300-500' difference between normal touchdown point and being "long".
And this was back in my rookie days.
ian
Well-Known Member
i agree with this
jrh
Well-Known Member
I think you just defined "risk management."
I agree. I have no interest in prohibiting T&Gs. In fact, one could even make an argument for T&Gs being *safer* than full stop landings because they typically require less runway and put the plane into a better position should there be an engine failure on takeoff.
But that's beside the point.
What this ultimately comes down to is money. Flight schools aren't in the business of providing the best training possible. That's right. You read it correctly. Flight schools aren't in the business of providing the best training possible. They're in the business of providing the best training possible *balanced* against the least economic risk possible. A flight school's policies aren't developed strictly as a community service to pilots--there are financial impacts to consider for every decision.
An important part of my job as a flight school manager is to set policies and procedures in place that minimize our risk while maximizing our profitability.
We have all kinds of policies that try to balance these two sides. We won't rent our aircraft to anyone unless they've flown with us within the past 90 days. We allow non-instrument rated private pilots to fly in MVFR conditions, but only if they consult with one of our instructors prior to launching. We don't allow operations off of grass runways unless the renter has done a "grass runway checkout" with one of our instructors first.
None of these things are required by regulation, or even commonly accepted practices maybe. But we've said as a company, these are the rules that will keep our customers happy enough to keep using us, yet protect us and our aircraft enough to keep us in business long term. If somebody doesn't want to follow these procedures, we deem them too risky to do business with and would prefer to lose their business...a short term loss for a long term gain of maintaining an accident/incident free operation.
My *philosophy* is that T&Gs in RG aircraft are relatively low risk. I've come to that conclusion through my own experiences and observations, but I couldn't specifically define where they fall on the risk spectrum.
Therefore we don't prohibit them. The small risk of allowing them is offset by the profit available from keeping our customers slightly happier.
Other flight schools have different philosophies. Some might say, "We can prohibit T&Gs without losing any revenue." They either perceive the risk to be higher, or maybe just feel like if they can eliminate even a small risk without a penalty in another area, why not? And really, can you blame them? They're running a business, not a community service to make Super Duper Good Ace Pilots at any expense.
I'm not sure if I've expressed my point very clearly. Hopefully you get what I'm trying to say.
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
I'm surprised they do at all now. We accept otherwise avoidable risk in every flight. The military certainly does a better job with ORM, which is understandable given the additional risks to contend with.
I think this ties in well with the VFR over Boston Harbor thread from a few days ago. Is there increased risk being out of gliding distance from land? Absolutely yes. How much risk is really being taken? A few minutes, I think most all of us would do. A few hours, the risks just got a lot bigger, and deserve consideration for additional contingency planning.
Being over water isn't inherently and different than being low over an urban area with no suitable fields. But we don't restrict single engine flying to dry lake beds except in the highest risk cases (experimental planes with test pilots).
Inverted
mmmmmm wine
The ultra rare occasion that you have to do a go around once you are planted on the ground(I have never had to do this but could think of several reasons why I would need to) a pilot who has never practiced cleaning up a complex aircraft on the runway and taking off again is going to find themselves in real trouble if they panic trying to get off the runway because they have to.
To me properly teaching a pilot/student complex aircraft operations and NOT signing off a complex endorsement after a freaking hour of flight prevents this kind of crap. As an instructor you cannot properly verify the student/pilot's habits in that aircraft as far as gear operations go. And doing 2-3 hours in the pattern doing touch and goes can develop proper habits for raising the flaps and not the gear. I just cannot see how a properly trained pilot would do this I am sorry if I am being ignorant but every single complex plane I have flown I never ever even accidentally touched the gear handle instead of the flaps not even for an instant.
In the meridian the gear and flap handle are maybe a foot apart with almost nothing in between, no lever column just a couple gauges. And it has never even crossed my mind to grab one instead of the other.
To me properly teaching a pilot/student complex aircraft operations and NOT signing off a complex endorsement after a freaking hour of flight prevents this kind of crap. As an instructor you cannot properly verify the student/pilot's habits in that aircraft as far as gear operations go. And doing 2-3 hours in the pattern doing touch and goes can develop proper habits for raising the flaps and not the gear. I just cannot see how a properly trained pilot would do this I am sorry if I am being ignorant but every single complex plane I have flown I never ever even accidentally touched the gear handle instead of the flaps not even for an instant.
In the meridian the gear and flap handle are maybe a foot apart with almost nothing in between, no lever column just a couple gauges. And it has never even crossed my mind to grab one instead of the other.
Agree that's what's happening. And with that, that should be made clear when a blanket prohibition is being put in place like no T&Gs in complex, it shouldn't be hid under the excuse of "unsafe". (which is what I believe these particular schools are doing).
But the difference in what you're doing above is not that you're outright prohibiting those stated ops, just saying "if you want to do them, get checked out with us in order to do them," which is perfectly reasonable both from a safety standpoint as well as an insurance standpoint.....ie: "let us train you in that or know that you're competent to perform [grass landings] before we let you go out and do them". Nothing wrong with that at all.
That's their right to do as a business, but again, don't hide the reason behind some BS excuse of "we're preventing an unsafe operation," and be up front with "we're trying to not lose any revenue." Safety is not something that's to be used as an excuse for some other ulterior motive.
Soku39
Well-Known Member
Hey don't take it personally, due to the nature of the thread I was just playing devils advocate for risk management. As in you should have gone around, it's less risky than landing, you he should not have flown to a 2300' runway, there's more risk!, you should not have flown a complex aircraft it's riskier!, you shouldn't have taken off in the first place, leave it tied down.. that kinda progression.
That was all.