Touch and Goes versus Full Stop Taxi Backs

"Icebound" wrote in message
.. .
snip
Because I have tried to find a similar tailwheel rule in the official
Canadian rules, and have been unable to do so.

AFAIK there is no tailwheel endorsement required by CARs in Canada. I did
all my PPL training in tailwheel but have no TW endorsement. Insurance
companies can require any training they like.

So, Canadians, are we supposed to log tail-wheel Touch-and-goes as
landings,
or NOT???

from the CARs
401.05(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Subpart, no holder of
a flight crew permit, licence or rating, other than the holder of a flight
engineer licence, shall exercise the privileges of the permit, licence or
rating unless
(a) the holder has acted as pilot-in-command or co-pilot of an aircraft
within the five years preceding the flight; or

(b) snip

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Subpart, no holder of a
flight crew permit or licence, other than the holder of a flight engineer
licence, shall exercise the privileges of the permit or licence in an
aircraft unless the holder

(a) has successfully completed a recurrent training program in accordance
with the personnel licensing standards within the 24 months preceding the
flight; and

(b) where a passenger other than a flight test examiner designated by the
Minister is carried on board the aircraft, has completed, within the six
months preceding the flight,

(i) in the case of an aircraft other than a glider or a balloon, in the same
category and class of aircraft as the aircraft, or in a Level B, C or D
simulator of the same category and class as the aircraft, at least

(A) five night or day take-offs and five night or day landings, if the
flight is conducted wholly by day, or

(B) five night take-offs and five night landings, if the flight is conducted
wholly or partly by night,

101.01 (1)

"landing" - means

(a) in respect of an aircraft other than an airship, the act of coming into
contact with a supporting surface, and includes the acts immediately
preceding and following the coming into contact with that surface,

IMHO it could be argued (by TC) that stopping is an act that immediately
follows the coming into contact with a supporting surface and that stopping
is a part of a landing. Do you want to hire a lawyer to argue that a stop
is not a part of a landing? Lawyers love unclear regulations, which is why
they write so many of them. I cannot cite legal opinion or case law. IMHO
making 5 full stop landings each 6 months is the prudent action before
carrying passengers.

IMHO tailwheel is not a separate class and the required 5 landings can be in
a tricycle gear or TW and would apply to skis but not floats. I do not know
what would be required for ampibious floats but would guess that 5 land + 5
water would be required. IMHO any of these required TO&landings can be dual
(with CFI) or solo.

Happy landings

I decided that as I transition to complex and high performance planes, I will probably do more full stop taxi backs

Good idea. It's too easy to grab the gear handle instead of flaps in
the rush to clean up the airplane for the takeoff. (I've seen this
happen in a Baron with predictably nasty results) When I was a
brandy-new CFI I did T&G ad nauseum - Until I read an article in a
flying mag about the instructor being more effective by doing full stop
landings. The student is more receptive to instruction and critique
when not dividing their attention by flying the airplane. I think the
quality of instruction is more important than getting in a bunch of
landings in an hour.

Other posters have suggested T&Gs are appropriate for more experienced
pilots just out for practice. I agree, but personally would limit it to
fixed-gear planes. I guess it depends on your personal comfort level. I
once talked with an MD that regularly does touch&goes in his turbo
Bonanza. My guess is that after replacing a few cylinders well before
TBO he might be better off with full-stop taxi-back landings. That's
gotta be expensive...

"private" wrote in message
news:U2XVe.197819$Hk.65205@pd7tw1no...

"Icebound" wrote in message
.. .
snip
Because I have tried to find a similar tailwheel rule in the official
Canadian rules, and have been unable to do so.

AFAIK there is no tailwheel endorsement required by CARs in Canada.


After the issue came up, I have been searching through the regs at length
and have come to this same conclusion.


....snip CARS...

IMHO it could be argued (by TC) that stopping is an act that immediately
follows the coming into contact with a supporting surface and that
stopping
is a part of a landing. Do you want to hire a lawyer to argue that a stop
is not a part of a landing? Lawyers love unclear regulations, which is
why
they write so many of them. I cannot cite legal opinion or case law.
IMHO
making 5 full stop landings each 6 months is the prudent action before
carrying passengers.

IMHO tailwheel is not a separate class and the required 5 landings can be
in
a tricycle gear or TW and would apply to skis but not floats. I do not
know
what would be required for ampibious floats but would guess that 5 land +
5
water would be required. IMHO any of these required TO&landings can be
dual
(with CFI) or solo.


Having read and re-read that section, I would interpret it as per your HO
*except* the part about counting dual. If the CFI is PIC, then I would
interpret that you cannot. If *you* are PIC, then of course you can.

As a CFI, I don't like touch-and-goes because they tend to reinforce bad
habits. Specifically, during a touch-and-go, you need to retract flaps
before you add power. This is TERRIBLE reinforcement for go-around
procedures. I have often done BFRs for pilots who learned using T&G's, and
when asked to go around they almost always retract flaps before adding
power. This is very bad. My home field is relatively short, too, so I don't
do T&G's with my students.

When at a longer runway, I might do T&G's if my student just needs a lot of
landing practice, but in those cases, *I* always retract the flaps on the
ground, so that for go around, the student won't have the tendency to reach
for them.

ZikZak wrote:
As a CFI, I don't like touch-and-goes because they tend to reinforce bad
habits. Specifically, during a touch-and-go, you need to retract flaps
before you add power. This is TERRIBLE reinforcement for go-around
procedures. I have often done BFRs for pilots who learned using T&G's, and
when asked to go around they almost always retract flaps before adding
power. This is very bad. My home field is relatively short, too, so I don't
do T&G's with my students.

Why do you have to retract the flaps first when doing a T&G?

Matt

On 9/15/05 4:32 PM, in article , "Matt
Whiting" wrote:

ZikZak wrote:
As a CFI, I don't like touch-and-goes because they tend to reinforce bad
habits. Specifically, during a touch-and-go, you need to retract flaps
before you add power. This is TERRIBLE reinforcement for go-around
procedures. I have often done BFRs for pilots who learned using T&G's, and
when asked to go around they almost always retract flaps before adding
power. This is very bad. My home field is relatively short, too, so I don't
do T&G's with my students.

Why do you have to retract the flaps first when doing a T&G?

Matt

Because Cessna-172s don't take off very well with full flaps. I suppose you
could add power and then retract the flaps, but then you're rolling with
lots of drag and runway behind you is useless. In any case, it seems to be
conventional to retract-then-power when doing T&G's, and that produces bad
habits.

As a CFI, I don't like touch-and-goes because they tend to reinforce bad
habits. Specifically, during a touch-and-go, you need to retract flaps
before you add power. This is TERRIBLE reinforcement for go-around
procedures. I have often done BFRs for pilots who learned using T&G's, and
when asked to go around they almost always retract flaps before adding
power. This is very bad. My home field is relatively short, too, so I don't
do T&G's with my students.

Why do you have to retract the flaps first when doing a T&G?

Because Cessna-172s don't take off very well with full flaps. I suppose you
could add power and then retract the flaps, but then you're rolling with
lots of drag and runway behind you is useless. In any case, it seems to be
conventional to retract-then-power when doing T&G's, and that produces bad
habits.

Only those Cessna's with 40 degrees of flaps may be unable to climb.
Cessna's limited to 30 degrees of flaps can and will climb with full
power. You have to know how to "milk" the flaps up as airspeed increases
to fly properly, though.

ZikZak wrote:
As a CFI, I don't like touch-and-goes because they tend to reinforce bad
habits. Specifically, during a touch-and-go, you need to retract flaps
before you add power.

I did my primary training in Cessna 150s. We always hit the power first. The
switch required constant pressure to keep the flap motor turning, so you would
be a long time on the runway before adding power if you did it the way you describe.

I never did T&Gs in my Maule. Thinking about it, I think it would be dangerous
in that plane.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Why do you have to retract the flaps first when doing a T&G?

On a 172 you also beat the hell out of the flap structure when at full
power and 40 degrees down. If you are slow getting them up there is a
tendency to wheelbarrow too.

"Icebound" wrote in message
...
snip
IMHO tailwheel is not a separate class and the required 5 landings can
be
in
a tricycle gear or TW and would apply to skis but not floats. I do not
know
what would be required for ampibious floats but would guess that 5 land
+
5
water would be required. IMHO any of these required TO&landings can be
dual
(with CFI) or solo.


Having read and re-read that section, I would interpret it as per your HO
*except* the part about counting dual. If the CFI is PIC, then I would
interpret that you cannot. If *you* are PIC, then of course you can.



Hello Icebound,

I agree that 401.05(1)(a) recency does require that a pilot be PIC, but am
not convinced that the PIC requirement extends to section 401.05(2)

401.05(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Subpart, no holder
of
a flight crew permit, licence or rating, other than the holder of a flight
engineer licence, shall exercise the privileges of the permit, licence or
rating unless
(a) the holder has acted as pilot-in-command or co-pilot of an aircraft
within the five years preceding the flight; or

(b) snip

401.05(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Subpart, no holder
of a
flight crew permit or licence, other than the holder of a flight engineer
licence, shall exercise the privileges of the permit or licence in an
aircraft unless the holder

(a) has successfully completed a recurrent training program in accordance
with the personnel licensing standards within the 24 months preceding the
flight; and


On this section (2)(a) subject, the last self paced study program form was
delivered in issue 4/2004 of the Safety Letter and expires Sept 29,2005.
The last TC Safety Letter I received is issue 2/2005, it is the latest
issued posted on the website.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/sy...tp185/menu.htm
..
The Sept 29,2005 form is also the latest self paced study program on the web
http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/Sy...85/4-04/600.ht
m
Do you know of any changes to this program? Is it still available for use?
Have you received a new form or notice regarding this program?

and back to the subject of landings

(b) where a passenger other than a flight test examiner designated by the
Minister is carried on board the aircraft, has completed, within the six
months preceding the flight,


IMHO, unless the CFI is also a DFTE then they MUST be PIC, (unless pilot has
other recency) as a non current pilot cannot carry a legal passenger. AFAIK
there is no requirement that the required (for currency) landings be
performed solo or as PIC, and there is no mention of this as a requirement
in 401.05(2)(b)(i)(a or b). After a period of inactivity I have often taken
a CFI for a rust removal flight and was told that these landings could be
counted for currency.


(i) in the case of an aircraft other than a glider or a balloon, in the
same
category and class of aircraft as the aircraft, or in a Level B, C or D
simulator of the same category and class as the aircraft, at least

(A) five night or day take-offs and five night or day landings, if the
flight is conducted wholly by day, or

(B) five night take-offs and five night landings, if the flight is
conducted
wholly or partly by night,

Can you provide a cite in the CARs that requires the landings be made PIC?
ISTM that section (2) deals with recurrent training, which should be
conducted by a CFI. While the concept of "sole manipulator of the controls"
is not used in the CARs it seems to me to be what is required by
401.05(2)(b)(i)(a or b). I note that it seems that (in Canada) there is
always a "notwithstanding clause" and in this case would mean that the PIC
requirement in section(1) would not apply to section (2)? The only
requirement I see is to "complete" (ie perform) 5 TO&landings.

Happy landings,