Aborted Take-Off

[jrh]

This has more to do with the instructor than the maneuver. If a student was allowed to progress far enough to damage the aircraft, the instructor would have some serious questions to answer. They should have not allowed an aircraft to exceed a parameter that he/she cannot recover for the student.

In the case of the 172RG incident, I never knew the instructor. They might have been a complete goof. I don't know. But it's still an example of how quickly things happen at low altitude.

In the case I witnessed from the ground, I knew the instructor, and she is a good, competent instructor.

As I just posted, I might be able to handle it no problem. But maybe on the 51st time after doing 50 aborts, something would get out of my control and metal would get bent. In general, I'm confident in my abilities as an instructor, but this is one area I'm not 100%, absolutely sure I'd be fine with. Those two examples I gave have put enough doubt in my mind that I don't care to experiment with it. Is this just a psycological barrier on my part? Maybe. Maybe I perceive the maneuver as having more risk than it actually has. Whatever the case, I don't want to find out the hard way.

I would get used to the aborted takeoffs. Every simulator training event and type rating ride for the rest of your life will include one (or five).

How many type rating rides take place in a light single with a student pilot on the controls?

I have no problem training for aborts. In fact, in a twin, I thought they were sort of fun. I just don't like this particular set of conditions.

 

[BobDDuck]

Probably the best thing to do would be to go up in a plane either with another instrutor or by your self and go to an airport with a long runway. Start doing aborts at 10-20 ktns and work your way up to aborting at 40-rotation. After you feel comfortable with that start aborting just after rotation and then up to about 50feet off the ground. Just make sure you have WAY more runway then you think you will need when you start doing this. Get comfortable with deadsticking the plane down from 50 feet up while in a climb attitude. When I was instructing I would very rarely throw a student an abort at anything after rotation, but there were one or two I did. These were also the CFI students that I would throw into a spin while they were teaching me stalls and then I would lock on the controls.

 

[NJA_Capt]

How many type rating rides take place in a light single with a student pilot on the controls?

That is why I made the "rest of your life" notation.

I have no problem training for aborts. In fact, in a twin, I thought they were sort of fun. I just don't like this particular set of conditions.

I have witnessed several actual "single engine" aircraft abort scenarios. One successful and some where an abort should have been executed.
A former student made an uneventful landing following engine failure after takeoff. I witnessed a single engine aircraft depart the side of a runway and come to rest inverted in a lake. The pilot could not get out and was rescued when one of us cut him out. Another departed the end of a 5500' runway when it "wouldn't takeoff."

I have seen first hand the importance of executing a proper abort. It needs to be prepared for and must be a conditioned response.....Even in a SE airplane.

 

[Ralgha]

I know what you're saying, but I don't think the attention inside versus outside has to be as big of a deal as you say it is. In a C-152 the cleanup is just, "Flaps up, carb heat off" and you're powering up again. In an Arrow it's just "Flaps up." Those actions can be performed mostly by feel, with a quick visual glance to verify them.

If that's all you're doing before taking off again then it's instilling more bad habits. What about trim? What about a last check that the mixture and prop are forward? A touch-and-go is teaching both a landing AND a takeoff, and should include all elements of each (another reason I don't usually do them). If it does not, then it is sacrificing the student's lesson for the sake of a few seconds.

Those actions most definitely should not be done by feel, especially in the Arrow. Only in rare cases should you manipulate anything in an airplane without visually verifying that it's the right piece of equipment, and on the ground you should never move anything without verifying it. Especially in a retract.

I always stress keeping control of the plane is number one priority. For instance, on a gusty day with strong crosswinds, I would tell a student to focus on flying and slow down before touching anything. On a nice, calm day I'd be more inclined to let them clean up while we're still rolling quickly. As long as they prioritize properly, they should be fine.

A deer can jump out on the runway infront of the airplane just easily on a nice day as a crappy one. The student should be doing it the same way every time. In addition to creating good habits, it makes it easier on them.

Of course, I do feel like a bit of a hypocrite when a student says, "We clean up the plane during every touch and go, so why shouldn't I clean up the plane before exiting the runway?" That line of thought has a point. My response is that cleaning up during a touch and go is necessary for a proper takeoff, while it's not necessary until clear of the runway during a full stop landing. I say to only do the minimum amount necessary.

Another reason I don't generally do touch-and-goes. Never just do the minimum amount necessary, either go the whole way and get it done right, or don't do it at all. Habits are powerful things.

Remember, I said that it's largely not the risk that causes me to not do touch-and-goes.

THE FINE PRINT: "You" is not referring to any particular person and should not be taken personally.

 

[bob loblaw]

I understand JRH's argument and I commend him for not doing something he doesn't feel comfortable doing. However, there is another way to teach a simulated engine failure during climbout that is safe and just as realistic. Climb up to an altitude you feel safe and comfortable to put the airplane into slow flight with 10 degrees of flaps. As the airplane slows raise the nose to an attitude for a climb at VX. Once you reach a speed of VX, close the throttle and see what the reaction of your student and airplane is. This will reduce the risk factor and provide you with a safer margin of error. More importantly, your student will know what to expect if you pull the power on him at a lower altitude.

 

[jrh]

I have witnessed several actual "single engine" aircraft abort scenarios. One successful and some where an abort should have been executed.
A former student made an uneventful landing following engine failure after takeoff. I witnessed a single engine aircraft depart the side of a runway and come to rest inverted in a lake. The pilot could not get out and was rescued when one of us cut him out. Another departed the end of a 5500' runway when it "wouldn't takeoff."

I have seen first hand the importance of executing a proper abort. It needs to be prepared for and must be a conditioned response.....Even in a SE airplane.

Hmmm....very good point. You reminded me of the fact that I never want to see one of my current or former students get into an accident and wonder if I could have done anything differently in their training that would have saved them. That would be a terrible feeling.

I've been thinking about this, and it seems kind of ridiculous that I haven't done aborts because of what I've seen, yet never been actually trained on.

I have a recurrent training flight for myself coming up next week. I think I'll ask to do one or two aborts with the instructor there to see what they're like. Then I'll decide how comfortable I am doing them with a student.

 

[Ralgha]

I understand JRH's argument and I commend him for not doing something he doesn't feel comfortable doing. However, there is another way to teach a simulated engine failure during climbout that is safe and just as realistic. Climb up to an altitude you feel safe and comfortable to put the airplane into slow flight with 10 degrees of flaps. As the airplane slows raise the nose to an attitude for a climb at VX. Once you reach a speed of VX, close the throttle and see what the reaction of your student and airplane is. This will reduce the risk factor and provide you with a safer margin of error. More importantly, your student will know what to expect if you pull the power on him at a lower altitude.

It's absolutely good that he doesn't do something he feels uncomfortable with, but this substitution, while better than nothing, is not as realistic as doing it near the ground. Being near the ground dictates only a slightly different response (and an identical initial response), but the psychological difference is huge. Students who handle engine failues just fine at altitude can freeze up with a failure near the ground.

Another benefit of practicing aborted takeoffs (before rotation) is it gets the student away from the "we're getting off the ground no matter what" mindset, which is actually pretty common in GA pilots. Step on a brake at the start of the takeoff roll and see how many pull the power back right away. Not many (especially students), at least when it's unexpected.

 

[bob loblaw]

It's absolutely good that he doesn't do something he feels uncomfortable with, but this substitution, while better than nothing, is not as realistic as doing it near the ground. Being near the ground dictates only a slightly different response (and an identical initial response), but the psychological difference is huge. Students who handle engine failues just fine at altitude can freeze up with a failure near the ground.

Another benefit of practicing aborted takeoffs (before rotation) is it gets the student away from the "we're getting off the ground no matter what" mindset, which is actually pretty common in GA pilots. Step on a brake at the start of the takeoff roll and see how many pull the power back right away. Not many (especially students), at least when it's unexpected.

I totally agree, but if he starts at a higher altitude, he can progress to a lower altitude with comfort. Very similar to an aerobatic pilot who performs at his first airshow, you don't go lower until you have the experience and confidence to handle it.

 

[jrh]

If that's all you're doing before taking off again then it's instilling more bad habits. What about trim? What about a last check that the mixture and prop are forward? A touch-and-go is teaching both a landing AND a takeoff, and should include all elements of each (another reason I don't usually do them). If it does not, then it is sacrificing the student's lesson for the sake of a few seconds.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Flaps are the only thing you absolutely HAVE to get in order to clean up the plane. That is to say, it is the only task that must be "reset" for a safe takeoff. The prop, mixture, and fuel pump should already be in the correct position (forward, full, on) because of the before landing check. I do have the student verify the position of those controls. I didn't mention it at first because I don't consider it as much of a distraction to verify something, versus changing it.

As for trim, I'll be honest, I don't have the student do anything with it. In an Arrow or C-152 it doesn't matter for the takeoff, as long as the trim was set reasonably on the approach. I know that in other planes it does matter, and if I were instructing in those planes, I would modify the way I clean up after a touch and go. I heard a saying one time that I really like. It said something along the lines of "Fly the plane you're in right now, not the plane you used to fly and not the plane you're going to fly." I take that to mean, get rid of old habits from other planes, and don't fly a 172 like a 737. I try to teach with that in mind.

I can see what you're saying about doing everything as though you're taking off for the first time, but that can be taken too far. The runway items I teach in the Arrow go like this:

Transponder -- Alt
Pitot heat -- Set
Strobes -- On
Landing light -- On
Fuel pump -- On
Mixture -- Rich
Prop -- Forward

Do you expect the student to do all of that during every stop and go? The last three are what really matter.

Those actions most definitely should not be done by feel, especially in the Arrow. Only in rare cases should you manipulate anything in an airplane without visually verifying that it's the right piece of equipment, and on the ground you should never move anything without verifying it. Especially in a retract.

I agree. Maybe I wasn't very clear again. When I say, "Do it by feel, verify it visually," I mean, "Put your hand on the control by feel, glance to make sure you got the right one, then perform whatever action you need." I've never seen anybody come remotely close to putting their hand on the gear lever by accident when operating this way. I also don't consider doing it this way to be a significant distraction when rolling.

Also, the one exception to this would be retracting the flaps. I don't see any reason to visually verify that you're grabbing a big bar between the seats. There's nothing close that you could accidentally get, in the same way the gear lever is close to the throttle quadrant.

A deer can jump out on the runway infront of the airplane just easily on a nice day as a crappy one. The student should be doing it the same way every time. In addition to creating good habits, it makes it easier on them.

That's true. But this is one area where I think the small risk is worth the small benefit. I don't think the chance of a deer jumping in front of the plane is worth avoiding touch and goes. We see things differently. That's all.

Another reason I don't generally do touch-and-goes. Never just do the minimum amount necessary, either go the whole way and get it done right, or don't do it at all. Habits are powerful things.

Reference my words above about the entire "Runway Items" flow in the Arrow. I think "doing it the same way every time" has to be tempered with "do it the practical, safe way every time."

THE FINE PRINT: "You" is not referring to any particular person and should not be taken personally.

No offense taken! If you haven't noticed yet, I like a good debate.

 

[Ralgha]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Flaps are the only thing you absolutely HAVE to get in order to clean up the plane. That is to say, it is the only task that must be "reset" for a safe takeoff. The prop, mixture, and fuel pump should already be in the correct position (forward, full, on) because of the before landing check. I do have the student verify the position of those controls. I didn't mention it at first because I don't consider it as much of a distraction to verify something, versus changing it.

As for trim, I'll be honest, I don't have the student do anything with it. In an Arrow or C-152 it doesn't matter for the takeoff, as long as the trim was set reasonably on the approach. I know that in other planes it does matter, and if I were instructing in those planes, I would modify the way I clean up after a touch and go. I heard a saying one time that I really like. It said something along the lines of "Fly the plane you're in right now, not the plane you used to fly and not the plane you're going to fly." I take that to mean, get rid of old habits from other planes, and don't fly a 172 like a 737. I try to teach with that in mind.

I can see what you're saying about doing everything as though you're taking off for the first time, but that can be taken too far. The runway items I teach in the Arrow go like this:

Transponder -- Alt
Pitot heat -- Set
Strobes -- On
Landing light -- On
Fuel pump -- On
Mixture -- Rich
Prop -- Forward

Do you expect the student to do all of that during every stop and go? The last three are what really matter.

No, what I meant was the stuff you should run a last check on the runway (as well as the obvious flight controls).

Mixture should always be checked on the runway just prior to applying power. Why? Because of the habit some pilots have of leaning on the ground (yes I know about the idle jet). Some pilots will lean their engine until it improves, which means the engine is just about leaned to cutoff. Apply power in this situation, and the engine will sputter and cough. Not an issue in the air as it's not leaned to the same extreme (always exceptions). Mixtures are forgotten before landing, and before takeoff, doesn't matter where it's SUPPOSED to be, it matters where it is. Same deal for the prop. Maybe they got distracted during the prop test and only got it partially recovered. Isn't going to work very well for takeoff. Check it every time, or it will be forgotten when distractions arise. Another possibile situation; they've been shown that it doesn't matter because the last check (before landing, or runup) guarentees that it's set right, unsafe assumption.

I too subscribe to flying the airplane your in, not what you aspire to be in. However, setting the equipement that is installed in the airplane is not flying something else. Flying a 3 mile final on a clear day is flying a 737. Checking gear down in a 152 is ridiculous. Setting the trim correctly for takeoff each and every time is not. It certainly does make a difference in a 152, sure it won't cause it to be unflyable, but it will change the control forces. I've only flown one airplane where I did not reset the trim for each takeoff, the 120, and that's because I never had to move the trim from the takeoff setting in the first place. Ignoring something that is a part of the airplane instils the notion that it's ok to ignore things. Actions speak louder than words and all that mumbo-jumbo.

To address the first part last, you don't HAVE to adjust the flaps for a takeoff. I have yet to fly an airplane that won't fly with full flaps. In my dumber years, I even performed a takeoff with full flaps (and guess what, it was from a touch-and-go!). Contrary to popular belief, the airplane handled it just fine.

I agree. Maybe I wasn't very clear again. When I say, "Do it by feel, verify it visually," I mean, "Put your hand on the control by feel, glance to make sure you got the right one, then perform whatever action you need." I've never seen anybody come remotely close to putting their hand on the gear lever by accident when operating this way. I also don't consider doing it this way to be a significant distraction when rolling.

Also, the one exception to this would be retracting the flaps. I don't see any reason to visually verify that you're grabbing a big bar between the seats. There's nothing close that you could accidentally get, in the same way the gear lever is close to the throttle quadrant.

It's not just the distraction of looking for something, it's the distraction when something goes wrong. What happens when you're cruising down the runway and that darn flap switch won't move (happens)? Maybe that carb heat knob just fell off (happened). Oh damn, I just broke off that big flap handle. I forsee the wiggle 1 departure, if not some weed whacking coming on.

That's true. But this is one area where I think the small risk is worth the small benefit. I don't think the chance of a deer jumping in front of the plane is worth avoiding touch and goes. We see things differently. That's all.

Let's run a quick analysis of the risk/benefit here.

Risks (these are only the immediate risks, not the habit forming and behavioual risks): distracted from controlling the airplane, possibility of something on the runway changing while distracted.
Gain (the one and only pro to a touch-and-go): saving a few SECONDS of time.

Yes, it really is just seconds that are saved in a touch-and-go vs. a stop-and-go. That equation looks quite out of balance to me. This doesn't take into account the fact that a touch-and-go is half a landing and half a takeoff, with all the associated bad habits of each.

Another downside to the touch-and-go, and I may have said this one already, is it conditions the pilot to stop flying the airplane when it touches the ground, leading to potential problems if a go around is necessary. Tell a student to go-around as/after they touchdown. What will they do? Most likely the standard clean-up items for a touch-and-go, ESPECIALLY if they are conditioned to do touch-and-gos. What should they do? Add power and get the hell out of dodge.

 

[Ralgha]

I totally agree, but if he starts at a higher altitude, he can progress to a lower altitude with comfort. Very similar to an aerobatic pilot who performs at his first airshow, you don't go lower until you have the experience and confidence to handle it.

Quite true, I wasn't thinking of it that way.

 

[jrh]

No, what I meant was the stuff you should run a last check on the runway (as well as the obvious flight controls).

Mixture should always be checked on the runway just prior to applying power. Why? Because of the habit some pilots have of leaning on the ground (yes I know about the idle jet). Some pilots will lean their engine until it improves, which means the engine is just about leaned to cutoff. Apply power in this situation, and the engine will sputter and cough. Not an issue in the air as it's not leaned to the same extreme (always exceptions). Mixtures are forgotten before landing, and before takeoff, doesn't matter where it's SUPPOSED to be, it matters where it is. Same deal for the prop. Maybe they got distracted during the prop test and only got it partially recovered. Isn't going to work very well for takeoff. Check it every time, or it will be forgotten when distractions arise. Another possibile situation; they've been shown that it doesn't matter because the last check (before landing, or runup) guarentees that it's set right, unsafe assumption.

I don't see what you're disagreeing with. I already said on every touch and go the student retracts the flaps, verifies the prop, mixture, and fuel pump, then applies power and takes off.

The flow/checklist that I posted is the "Runway Items" flow. We do that at the hold line after being cleared for takeoff. Like you mentioned, I teach students to lean on the ground until the engine improves, which makes for very lean taxiing. Then the flow takes care of everything once they're ready to go at the runway.

What's the problem with that?

I too subscribe to flying the airplane your in, not what you aspire to be in. However, setting the equipement that is installed in the airplane is not flying something else. Flying a 3 mile final on a clear day is flying a 737. Checking gear down in a 152 is ridiculous. Setting the trim correctly for takeoff each and every time is not. It certainly does make a difference in a 152, sure it won't cause it to be unflyable, but it will change the control forces. I've only flown one airplane where I did not reset the trim for each takeoff, the 120, and that's because I never had to move the trim from the takeoff setting in the first place. Ignoring something that is a part of the airplane instils the notion that it's ok to ignore things. Actions speak louder than words and all that mumbo-jumbo.

It's not ignoring anything! It's already knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that nothing needs to be changed!

Using your line of logic, everybody should do a "Flight Controls -- Free and correct" check after every landing, even though they just flew around the pattern with no problems. Or maybe they should taxi clear of the runway, do a quick runup, then depart again. It won't hurt anything, but it's not necessary either, because they already did one at the start of the flight and the engine is still running fine. Why should you check something that you know for a fact is fine?

What I'm saying is, you have to draw a line somewhere. Resetting trim might make a slight difference in the control forces, but not enough to be considered dangerous. In some planes it will, but in a C-152 or even an Arrow, it will not.

To address the first part last, you don't HAVE to adjust the flaps for a takeoff. I have yet to fly an airplane that won't fly with full flaps. In my dumber years, I even performed a takeoff with full flaps (and guess what, it was from a touch-and-go!). Contrary to popular belief, the airplane handled it just fine.

Ok, technically, you will probably get off the ground in most planes, under most conditions, with full flaps set.

Ever flown an old, worn out C-150 with 40 degrees of flaps extended on a hot day with a 5000 foot density altitude? You might barely get off the ground, but it'll take a LOT of runway to do so.

My point is that if something is going to get you, chances are good that not retracting the flaps will be it. I consider that to be a much more dangerous condition than something like being out of trim.

It's not just the distraction of looking for something, it's the distraction when something goes wrong. What happens when you're cruising down the runway and that darn flap switch won't move (happens)? Maybe that carb heat knob just fell off (happened). Oh damn, I just broke off that big flap handle. I forsee the wiggle 1 departure, if not some weed whacking coming on.

Like I've said before, teach PRIORITIES. Make sure the student understands that maintaining control of the plane is always top priority. If something happens like a carb heat knob falling off, ignore it. When rolling at high speed, a problem with the carb heat knob doesn't matter. Teach people to assess what matters and what doesn't.

Let's run a quick analysis of the risk/benefit here.

Risks (these are only the immediate risks, not the habit forming and behavioual risks): distracted from controlling the airplane, possibility of something on the runway changing while distracted.
Gain (the one and only pro to a touch-and-go): saving a few SECONDS of time.

Yes, it really is just seconds that are saved in a touch-and-go vs. a stop-and-go. That equation looks quite out of balance to me. This doesn't take into account the fact that a touch-and-go is half a landing and half a takeoff, with all the associated bad habits of each.

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't think the associated habits are necessarily "bad" habits. I don't think a touch and go is ultimately any more dangerous than a stop and go, if the touch and go is done properly and with the right mindset.

Look at it this way--a touch and go is like slowly rolling through a stop sign in your car. Do you always come to a complete stop at every stop sign, every single time you drive? There are those quiet intersections where you almost come to a stop, but not quite...look both ways, and roll on through. Or if you're in a line of cars waiting at a stop sign, the first car goes through, then all of the cars in the line slowly roll up to the sign, look both ways, and keep going.

Does that save you any time? Not really. Is it any more dangerous than a complete stop? Not really. It's one of those things that are commonly done because it doesn't make a difference one way or the other, and frankly, it just gets annoying to come to a complete stop every time.

Another downside to the touch-and-go, and I may have said this one already, is it conditions the pilot to stop flying the airplane when it touches the ground, leading to potential problems if a go around is necessary. Tell a student to go-around as/after they touchdown. What will they do? Most likely the standard clean-up items for a touch-and-go, ESPECIALLY if they are conditioned to do touch-and-gos. What should they do? Add power and get the hell out of dodge.

I don't think it conditions the pilot to stop flying. You just have to approach it with the right mindset. A pilot is flying from startup to shutdown. You can't get into the mindset of letting your guard down just because you're on the ground.

To finish my post...and I almost hate to use this as evidence...but look at 99% of flight training operations. The vast majority of students/instructors do touch and goes. There is no significant accident record to show for it. The FAA has never recommended abandoning the practice of touch and goes. It's the normal, standard, accepted way to train. If touch and goes produce such bad habits, why hasn't the flight training industry as a whole stopped doing them?


Ok, your turn.

 

[Mountain Flying]

As regard to the aborted takeoff I think it would be a good idea to go through the proceedure at least. When I was doing my commercial training I was in a 152 and did the run up and something didnt seem exactly right, Altho all the instruments showed everything was ok. I get on the runway and decided to use full length, As I got on the power The RPM's were lower then usual in a 152, checked carb heat for icing, oil pressure as usual taht all seemed fine. I decided to abort takeoff and the problem was more the calls that I got hung up on cause I have never done that so was wondering what to tell them etc. Anyways taxied off at first intersection and it was all good just was a little shocked at myself for freezing on a call. Turned out the starter solenoid kept the starter locked to the flywheel. Just something I remeber from training

 

[mtsu_av8er]

If touch and goes produce such bad habits, why hasn't the flight training industry as a whole stopped doing them?

Ever head the anecdote about the monkeys, cage and cold water?

 

[jrh]

Ever head the anecdote about the monkeys, cage and cold water?

That's exactly why I said....."and I almost hate to use this as evidence..."

 

[bob loblaw]

Touch and goes are an effective way to maximize the students time in the pattern allowing him/her to get more landing practice in a given hour. The average trip around the pattern (not a rule) is about .1 or 6 minutes. This will give you about 8 or so touch and goes in a hour. Doing full stops and taxi backs will give you roughly 5 full stop landings in a hour. I use both methods while teaching a student to land, touch and goes for the more advanced, and full stops for the less advanced.

Doing full stops with students who are having a difficult time landing, I can use the time during taxi back to the runway to discuss the landing and address weak areas. I taxi the airplane back which allows the student to relax and listen to my instructions.

When our students do a touch and go, they have to divide their attention between controlling and reconfiguring the airplane prior to adding full power to take-off. I require my students to glance and verify that they have the flap handle prior to moving it, that goes for any control on the aircraft. The student is then required to verify the flaps indeed are retracted fully before full power is applied.

As for cleaning up the airplane on the runway, there is nothing wrong with retracting the flaps on the runway, providing that this is a required item to do on the runway. When is it required to retract the flaps on the runway and not when clear and stopped off the runway? In a Skyhawk, the short field proceedure (according to the POH applified proceedure) is to retract the flaps which provides the airplane with better braking performance for a short field landing. This is done just after touch down. We tell students to never retract the flaps on the runway because we may inadvertantly retract the landing gear, but this is a required item in the 172 POH.

 

[Ralgha]

I don't see what you're disagreeing with. I already said on every touch and go the student retracts the flaps, verifies the prop, mixture, and fuel pump, then applies power and takes off.

I didn't read that you did, however I still point out that doing these things while crusing down the runway is distracting from the primary duty of guiding the airplane.

It's not ignoring anything! It's already knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that nothing needs to be changed!

You stated that the trim is not reset. It does need to be changed, and is not. True it doesn't matter much in a 152, that's not my point. My point is that the trim is being ignored.

Using your line of logic, everybody should do a "Flight Controls -- Free and correct" check after every landing, even though they just flew around the pattern with no problems. Or maybe they should taxi clear of the runway, do a quick runup, then depart again.

Flight controls and runups are not part of the entering runway flows, and are irrelevent here.

It won't hurt anything, but it's not necessary either, because they already did one at the start of the flight and the engine is still running fine. Why should you check something that you know for a fact is fine?

Just for expermental purposes, start doing a brief runup and mag check on each airplane you fly AFTER you fly for awhile. I'll bet money that you'll find fouled plugs on some of them, but that's outside the realm of my point.

What I'm saying is, you have to draw a line somewhere. Resetting trim might make a slight difference in the control forces, but not enough to be considered dangerous. In some planes it will, but in a C-152 or even an Arrow, it will not.

Not the point.

Ever flown an old, worn out C-150 with 40 degrees of flaps extended on a hot day with a 5000 foot density altitude? You might barely get off the ground, but it'll take a LOT of runway to do so.

Actually I have, I learned how to fly in old, worn out 150s with 40 degrees of flaps. They barely fly on a hot day with 5000 foot density altitude WITHOUT flaps. With any generalization, an exception can be found. You just found one.

My point is that if something is going to get you, chances are good that not retracting the flaps will be it. I consider that to be a much more dangerous condition than something like being out of trim.

In some airplanes yes. High performance ones, probably not. Again though, that's not my point. I'm not advocating ignoring the flaps in favor of setting the trim.

Like I've said before, teach PRIORITIES. Make sure the student understands that maintaining control of the plane is always top priority. If something happens like a carb heat knob falling off, ignore it. When rolling at high speed, a problem with the carb heat knob doesn't matter. Teach people to assess what matters and what doesn't.

I'm saying that if that happens while stopped, no assessing is necessary. No struggle to regain control after the shock of the unexpected occurs.

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't think the associated habits are necessarily "bad" habits. I don't think a touch and go is ultimately any more dangerous than a stop and go, if the touch and go is done properly and with the right mindset.

In and of itself, I agree.

Look at it this way--a touch and go is like slowly rolling through a stop sign in your car. Do you always come to a complete stop at every stop sign, every single time you drive? There are those quiet intersections where you almost come to a stop, but not quite...look both ways, and roll on through.

No I don't always come to a complete stop, however I (and hopefully ever other driver) still have my full attention where it's supposed to be, so the analogy is not quite accurate.

Or if you're in a line of cars waiting at a stop sign, the first car goes through, then all of the cars in the line slowly roll up to the sign, look both ways, and keep going.

This I'm not guilty of. Extremely dangerous practice. I treat the intersection as though no one proceeded me.

Does that save you any time? Not really. Is it any more dangerous than a complete stop? Not really. It's one of those things that are commonly done because it doesn't make a difference one way or the other, and frankly, it just gets annoying to come to a complete stop every time.

I completely agree, but it's not a good analogy to a touch-and-go.

I don't think it conditions the pilot to stop flying. You just have to approach it with the right mindset. A pilot is flying from startup to shutdown. You can't get into the mindset of letting your guard down just because you're on the ground.

Oh but it does condition to stop flying. In ground operations, you are NOT flying the airplane no matter what anyone tries to tell you. You are OPERATING the airplane, but you are not FLYING it. Touch-and-goes condition the pilot to change mindsets after touching down. It will condition a pilot to reconfigure before applying power to return to the air, which is the wrong action in a go-around situation. Try it. If they're on the ground when told to go-around (or if they touch it as/immediatly after being told) most people will tend to reconfigure first. There are always exceptions.

To finish my post...and I almost hate to use this as evidence...but look at 99% of flight training operations. The vast majority of students/instructors do touch and goes. There is no significant accident record to show for it. The FAA has never recommended abandoning the practice of touch and goes. It's the normal, standard, accepted way to train. If touch and goes produce such bad habits, why hasn't the flight training industry as a whole stopped doing them?

95% of drivers are idiots, but most of them manage to not crash 99.9% of the time. You're right, it's not good evidence.

 

[Ralgha]

Touch and goes are an effective way to maximize the students time in the pattern allowing him/her to get more landing practice in a given hour. The average trip around the pattern (not a rule) is about .1 or 6 minutes. This will give you about 8 or so touch and goes in a hour. Doing full stops and taxi backs will give you roughly 5 full stop landings in a hour. I use both methods while teaching a student to land, touch and goes for the more advanced, and full stops for the less advanced.

I never said full stop and taxi back, though there is a definate advantage in being able to discuss on the taxi back. I said stop, reconfigure, go.

In a Skyhawk, the short field proceedure (according to the POH applified proceedure) is to retract the flaps which provides the airplane with better braking performance for a short field landing. This is done just after touch down. We tell students to never retract the flaps on the runway because we may inadvertantly retract the landing gear, but this is a required item in the 172 POH.

Something I should query Cessna about, as retracting the flaps in a 172 doesn't do crap for stopping power in the amount of time that it takes to stop. The flaps are too slow, by the time they've moved enough to make a difference, there isn't enough airspeed to make a difference. Now, in an airplane with manual flaps, there can indeed be a benifit.

 

[jrh]

You stated that the trim is not reset. It does need to be changed, and is not. True it doesn't matter much in a 152, that's not my point. My point is that the trim is being ignored.
...
Flight controls and runups are not part of the entering runway flows, and are irrelevent here.

I think we're dealing with an issue of technique, not procedure here. I've never been taught to set trim as I take the runway, and that's not how I teach it. There is nothing wrong with setting/checking it as you take the runway, but you don't have to, either. There is nothing unsafe about not checking it.

There are some things that need to be triple-checked (say, landing gear extended in a retractable gear aircraft) because you absolutely, positively, HAVE to get it right. Other things, like trim, are less essential. That's why you set it once (I set it before the engine runup) and leave it. If we had to double or triple-check every task in the cockpit, we'd drive ourselves nuts.

Oh but it does condition to stop flying. In ground operations, you are NOT flying the airplane no matter what anyone tries to tell you. You are OPERATING the airplane, but you are not FLYING it. Touch-and-goes condition the pilot to change mindsets after touching down.

Ok, I still disagree with you on this. You're flying the plane on the ground any time you're moving fast enough that the wings produce noticeable amounts of lift (in a light plane, say, 20 or 30 knots). Until you are going slow enough to taxi, you are flying, even if your wheels are rolling along the ground. That includes touch and goes. And that's the attitude I approach touch and goes with--you have to take into account your speed, runway conditions, weather conditions, etc. when reconfiguring, because you are still FLYING and need to treat it as such.



I think this has been a good debate, but I bet it's only left you more convinced of why you do stop and goes, and left me more convinced of why touch and goes are perfectly acceptable.

What do you say we agree that in the whole scheme of things, we're both safe pilots, and chances are high that we'll both, along with our students, enjoy many years of accident-free flying? Otherwise, I think we could go back and forth nitpicking each others' ideas indefinitely.

 

[bob loblaw]

Oh but it does condition to stop flying. In ground operations, you are NOT flying the airplane no matter what anyone tries to tell you. You are OPERATING the airplane, but you are not FLYING it. Touch-and-goes condition the pilot to change mindsets after touching down. It will condition a pilot to reconfigure before applying power to return to the air, which is the wrong action in a go-around situation. Try it. If they're on the ground when told to go-around (or if they touch it as/immediatly after being told) most people will tend to reconfigure first. There are always exceptions.

Not picking on you or anything like that, but why would you call for a go-around once you are on the ground? If a hazzard appears in front of you, you are better off trying to stop since the plane will clearly be below flying speed. Whatever the obstacle, I would rather hit it on the ground while trying to brake to the slowest speed than trying to get the plane flying again while getting closer to the obstacle. The main difference is that with braking on the ground, you are slowing down. Trying to fly means you have to speed up and could hit the obstacle at a higher speed.