Jay Honeck wrote:

There are very good, very real reasons why some rentals (and more
partnerships) specify "no touch & goes" in their written agreements.
It's the hardest thing you can do to your aircraft in "normal" (non-
aerobatic) use, period.

Further, any student knows that a touch & go is a much more difficult
maneuver to perform than a full-stop landing. It's harder on the
equipment (ask your A&P about tires, brakes, wheel bearings, etc., on
aircraft that do a lot of touch & goes), and carries with it the
increased risk of a botched go-round, etc.

This is why, by the way, your insurance goes up if you tell them that
your airplane is being used for training purposes. Actuarial tables
don't lie, and your plane is more likely to be damaged while training
a new pilot.


The insurance goes up if you are using your plane for training because the
actuarial tables show that having people who don't know how to fly yet have
a higher than normal rate of accidents.

While I will agree that idle to firewall is marginally more taxing on the
engine, let's remember where this thread started. It started with you being
concerned about engine life and that it is reduced because of practicing
engine out landings. The T&G debate got added later.

It all boils down to the fact that you are not doing yourself or your
aircraft a favor by not practicing engine out landings. Even if it is just
one a month at the end of a normal flight, treat the landing as a failure in
the pattern. You will have ZERO added stress on the engine because you are
just going to idle a few minutes sooner. Hell, it is probably less net
stress on the engine.