The touch-and-go landing has its roots in the military training programs of World War II, when pilots had to be trained and placed into service in minimal time. This practice became popular in civilian training for economic reasons. There is no reason to perform touch-and-goes in place of full- stop landings other than to save time and money. Not having to slow to a crawl and taxi back for takeoff after every landing increases the number of landings that can be made during an hour on the Hobbs meter. (The financial penalty for making full-stop landings is noticeably less when a recording tachometer is used to calculate rental charges.)
Those who practice circuits and bumps (as the British call them) at the airport in Malaga, Spain, have great incentive to avoid full-stop landings whenever possible. Instead of being charged by the landing, pilots there must pay $62 for each 90 minutes' worth of landings, irrespective of the number made. (There are no extra charges for bounces.)
One would not expect the subject of touch- and-goes to be controversial, but there seems to be a growing number of flight instructors opposed to the practice. For starters, they claim that a touch- and-go deprives the student of completing the landing roll and the experience this provides. Frankly, I consider the rollout to be a no-brainer in nosewheel airplanes unless the wind is challenging and/or the runway surface is slippery.
These instructors also claim that touch-and- go landings are a form of negative training. From his first flight, a student is taught the importance of completing the before-takeoff checklist. He then observes this safety practice being disregarded during a touch-and-go landing. The CFI becomes responsible for ensuring that the student does not forget to reposition the flaps, trim, and carburetor-heat control.
One popular school in the Dallas area forbids its instructors from making touch-and-go landings in its twin-engine aircraft. This ban was imposed because some pilots — in their haste to reconfigure the aircraft for takeoff during the abbreviated landing roll — have inadvertently retracted the landing gear. Such gear-up accidents, of course, are not limited to twins.
When training required in an airplane cannot be conducted in a simulator, airlines and the military take advantage of touch-and-go landings in all types of aircraft, including the Boeing 747.
Another problem cited by some CFIs is that the touch-and-go does not give them an opportunity to critique the student about the just-completed approach and landing. Instead, they are forced to administer their admonishments during the climbout, when the student is preoccupied with flying the airplane, watching for traffic, and conforming to the dictates of the pattern. Taxiing back for takeoff affords the instructor more time and certainly a more relaxed atmosphere in which to teach.
My practice is to take advantage of both types of landings. I use full-stop landings when a student is in the early stages of learning to land and needs experience in bringing an airplane to a safe taxi speed. I also use them when a prolonged discussion is needed, or when other conditions warrant. Otherwise, I utilize the cost-saving advantage of the touch-and-go. Arbitrarily removing this practice from an instructor's bag of tools is unnecessarily cruel to a student's bank account.
A procedure used by some instructors at busy airports is to request "the option" from the tower controller during every approach. When so cleared, the instructor has his choice. He can have the student execute a touch-and-go, a full-stop landing, a stop-and-go landing, or a go-around, depending on what is deemed appropriate at the time. The student, of course, is kept on his toes, because he never knows what to expect.
Another advantage of requesting the option on every approach is that it allows the instructor a chance to appraise traffic. If several aircraft are waiting for departure, a touch-and-go can be made to eliminate the lengthy delay that would result from being placed at the end of the takeoff line. On the other hand, if no one is waiting to go, a full- stop landing can be made with only a minimal time penalty.
Instructors absolutely opposed to the touch- and-go can take advantage of the stop-and-go landing. When operating from sufficiently long runways and after being cleared for the option, the instructor can have the student make a complete stop on the runway, followed by an immediate takeoff from a standing start.
There is one airport in Europe — I cannot recall which one — that has a touch-and-go line painted across the runway. Airport regulations state that the "go" portion of a touch-and-go must commence prior to reaching this line. The primary purpose of this is to prevent excessively long landings during a touch-and-go. Otherwise, an airplane would be too low over the departure end of the runway and create excessive noise for airport neighbors.
Pilots quickly learn that landing in the touchdown zone is rewarded with permission for a touch-and-go. If unable to demonstrate the needed proficiency, they are penalized with a full-stop landing. This translates into an economic incentive for safety.
Not a bad idea.
Related Articles
