Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 19
By Crash one
#1787866
Our group which consists of me and no one else insist on full stop landings. The strip is 600 metres with trees at the end of 24 which requires a backtrack.
Scraping by on the bare minimum legal requirements is not the best idea in my, not at all humble, opinion! A touch and go only exercises the circuit, line up and final approach.
As I was told, “a tailwheel landing is not over until the pilot is in bed with someone!”
Miscellaneous liked this
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1787878
Lockhaven wrote:
lobstaboy wrote:I interpret the 90-day rule the other way round. Touch and goes are not acceptable. They should be full stop landings in both nose wheel and tail wheel aircraft.


Your interpretation of the rule may well be safer, but it is not the legal version of the currency requirements, the rule is exactly as posted early by @riverrock


Mmm yes I know, but my point is that a touch and go is not a landing. During s touch and go a substantial amount of the control of the aeroplane continues to be down to the aerodynamic controls. It's only a landing if the aeroplane is going slowly enough for a full transition to whatever the normal way of control/steering on the ground would be - taxi speed in other words.
Doesn't have to involve a backtrack, but it mustn't be a sort of kiss the mains on the ground and off you go again (which is what I see a lot when folk want to get the 90 day rule squared away).
User avatar
By Lockhaven
#1787883
lobstaboy wrote:
Lockhaven wrote:
lobstaboy wrote:I interpret the 90-day rule the other way round. Touch and goes are not acceptable. They should be full stop landings in both nose wheel and tail wheel aircraft.


Your interpretation of the rule may well be safer, but it is not the legal version of the currency requirements, the rule is exactly as posted early by @riverrock


Mmm yes I know, but my point is that a touch and go is not a landing. During s touch and go a substantial amount of the control of the aeroplane continues to be down to the aerodynamic controls. It's only a landing if the aeroplane is going slowly enough for a full transition to whatever the normal way of control/steering on the ground would be - taxi speed in other words.
Doesn't have to involve a backtrack, but it mustn't be a sort of kiss the mains on the ground and off you go again (which is what I see a lot when folk want to get the 90 day rule squared away).


A touch and go should still involve putting the tail on the ground, the aircraft will be slowing as its reconfigured i.e. flaps and trim settings before advancing the power to take-off again, I think that method is perfectly acceptable, if that uses up to much runway then stop and back track.
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1787886
Lockhaven, I think we probably agree :) (I see in my earlier post I said full stop landing - and I don't mean that, as I contradicted myself later on).
But I do maintain that too many people, particularly in nose wheel aeroplanes, don't let it slow down enough on the ground for it to count as a landing.
User avatar
By mmcp42
#1787895
given that "a good landing is one you can walk away from" does that imply slowing to walking speed?
kanga liked this
By PeteM
#1787901
Maybe!

I recall meeting a wall of low cloud whilst flying north. Ground to flight level something.

So a prompt 180 and a landing at Newcastle with a stonking cross wind. Ran out of brakes as we slowed and had to persuade madam to wing walk me from the eastern end toward the apron. Thankfully for my marriage (but not long term!), the fire brigade came and rescued her and got us to the western apron........

By the time the weather clearly she had still not forgiven me.......
By Crash one
#1787907
A touch and go is not a landing wherever the wheels are because the pilot’s mind set is not on landing with a view to stopping, it is on the process of getting it up again before running out of runway or flat unobstructed terrain. This often involves the smallest of contact with the ground whilst reconfiguring for the “go”.
It may well be a forgone conclusion that as soon as the mains touch on a nose wheeler you can relax.
Not the case with a tailwheel.
During my training in a 152 it was £1.50 for a touch and go. My instructor was the owner of the club and had a financial interest in such things and often had me touch down far too late with no chance of stopping before hitting the fence, the only thing to do was get airborne. I would not call that a landing!!
3000 metres of runway I could do three touch and go to a height of ten feet and stop at the last one.
Would that count?
By proteus
#1787941
lobstaboy wrote: It's only a landing if the aeroplane is going slowly enough for a full transition to whatever the normal way of control/steering on the ground would be - taxi speed in other words.


What about those who taxi with the tail up? :)
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1787945
Crash one wrote:3000 metres of runway I could do three touch and go to a height of ten feet and stop at the last one.
Would that count?

You know in the context of this thread that's not so tongue in cheek as it first seems. Without specifying a distance flown, height gain etc...if a touch and go counts then I think your 3 in 3000 counts. :thumright: :D
By Crash one
#1787946
proteus wrote:
lobstaboy wrote: It's only a landing if the aeroplane is going slowly enough for a full transition to whatever the normal way of control/steering on the ground would be - taxi speed in other words.


What about those who taxi with the tail up? :)


That’s called being in control! :D
By Crash one
#1787948
Miscellaneous wrote:
Crash one wrote:3000 metres of runway I could do three touch and go to a height of ten feet and stop at the last one.
Would that count?

You know in the context of this thread that's not so tongue in cheek as it first seems. Without specifying a distance flown, height gain etc...if a touch and go counts then I think your 3 in 3000 counts. :thumright: :D



Of course it should count, but would you consider it adequate to carry pax after a long lay off? :D
What’s the chances of stalling at “dead man’s corner” if there isn’t one?
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1787949
Crash one wrote:
Of course it should count, but would you consider it adequate to carry pax after a long lay off? :D

Absolutely not, it is certainly not in the spirit of the rule. That said there are some who are not overly worried about having 3 landings of any sort. :wink:
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1787961
Crash one wrote:
proteus wrote:
lobstaboy wrote: It's only a landing if the aeroplane is going slowly enough for a full transition to whatever the normal way of control/steering on the ground would be - taxi speed in other words.


What about those who taxi with the tail up? :)


That’s called being in control! :D


Nothing for amateurs.

For that sort of thing you need experience and money; a lot of both.
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 19