Exercising the option

Touch-and-goes 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. Having to slow to a crawl and taxi back for takeoff after every landing decreases the number of practice landings that can be made per hour.

One would not expect the subject of touch-and-goes to be controversial, but there seem to be a growing number of flight instructors opposed to the practice. For starters, some of them claim that a touch-and-go deprives the student of completing the landing roll and the experience this provides. Frankly, most instructors consider the rollout to be a no-brainer in nosewheel airplanes unless the wind is challenging or the runway is contaminated.

Some instructors claim that touch-and-go landings provide negative training. From his first flight, a student is taught the importance of completing a checklist before every takeoff. He then observes this safety practice being ignored during touch-and-go landings. The CFI becomes responsible for ensuring that the student does not forget to reposition the wing flaps, elevator trim, and carburetor heat (when applicable) during a touch-and-go.

Some flight schools forbid their instructors from making touch-and-go landings in their twin-engine aircraft and complex singles. This is because some pilots—in their haste to reconfigure the aircraft for takeoff during the abbreviated landing roll—create the danger of inadvertently retracting the landing gear.

On the other hand, both the airlines and the military have utilized touch-and-go landings in all types of aircraft. When I was with TWA, for example, we made touch-and-goes in all our aircraft, including the Boeing 747 and the Lockheed L–1011.

A complaint made by some instructors is that touch-and-goes do 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 subsequent climbout when the student is preoccupied with flying the airplane, watching for other aircraft, and conforming to the dictates of the traffic pattern. Taxiing back for takeoff affords the instructor more time and a more relaxed atmosphere in which to discuss a student’s errors.

My practice is to utilize both types of landings. I use full-stop landings when a student is in the early stages of learning and needs experience in the entire process of returning an airplane to Earth. I also use them when a prolonged discussion or instruction is needed following a landing. 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 towered airports is to “request the option” from the tower controller during every approach. When so cleared, the instructor has the option of having his student execute a touch-and-go landing, a full-stop landing, a stop-and-go landing, a low pass, or a go-around, depending on what is most appropriate at the time. The student, of course, is kept on his toes because he does not know what to expect. Another advantage of requesting the option on every approach is that it gives 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 otherwise result from a full-stop landing and having to then taxi to the end of a lengthy takeoff queue. 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 a takeoff from a standing start.

There is an airport in Europe—I cannot recall the 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 purpose of this is to prevent excessively long touch-and-go landings, being too low over the departure end of the runway, and creating excessive noise for airport neighbors.

Pilots quickly learn that landing within this touchdown zone is rewarded with approval to make a touch-and-go. If unable to demonstrate the needed proficiency, they are penalized with having to make a full-stop landing. This translates into an economic incentive to develop proficiency. Great idea. <

BarrySchiff.com