Aviatard wrote:Agreed that the instructor shouldn't forget to lower the gear, but my point is that once the student begins reaching for the gear handle, you'd be hard pressed to have time to see and react in time to stop him from raising it.
A quick slap to the hand or punch to the face would prevent this from happening.
That is what I thought..... untill it happened to me . I was the instructor when during a touch and go, my student had a brain fart and in a second it was all over except for the crying....and yes it occured after a whole flight practicing go arounds and engine failures...
In retrospect the failure occured because I had failed to appreciate the risks of the touch and go manoever in a complex aircraft and mitigate those risks. After this accident I now treat the touch and go with a lot more respect. I use a standard and briefed SOP with a clear and unvaring divison of cockpit duties. After the aircraft has touched down the student keeps his left hand on the control wheel and his right hand on the throttles. I will then set the flaps, props, and trim to the takeoff position, check the engine instruments and call "configured for takeoff". the student then applies full power and starts the takeoff. When we did touch and go's in the two crew, 705 aircraft I used to fly, we required a third pilot in the centre seat who did all the aircraft recofiguration actions. This was in recognition of how easy it was for things to go wrong during the very busy time inherent in touch and go operations.
happyav8r wrote:So, um, how's the multi instructing going?
Pretty good, especially with all the advice. I am now doing circuits first before going out to the practice area. still haven't done an engine shutdown, but I plan on half tanks, cold, high pressure day and over an airport
Stevo226 wrote:I am now doing circuits first before going out to the practice area.
I disagree with this one, but to each his own. I believe when transitioning to a new type one should do BFM's before learning how to land. I think one should have an understanding of the slow flight and stall characteristics of the type they are flying before they attempt a landing not to mention just basic handling of the aircraft. After all, what is a flare but a transition from the normal flight range through slow flight to a stall. I prefer to know how the airplane handles in those ranges at a safe altitude before I attempt doing it at a mere 50'. Not to mention its easier on my nerves if they know how the airplane handles up at altitude first before I bring them close to the ground. This prevents alot of frustration, and is easier on the airframe. Bigger & faster airplanes will just kill you that much faster.
"The good engine takes you to the scene of the accident"
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by FlaplessDork on Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Stevo226 wrote:I am now doing circuits first before going out to the practice area.
I disagree with this one, but to each his own. I believe when transitioning to a new type one should do BFM's before learning how to land. "
To be clear, I wasn't advocating that the first flights should be spent doing circuits. What I meant was that when you get to teaching circuits, they should be done at the beginning of the flight, before heading out to the practice area. Of course you'd want to get some basic handling covered first before trying to land the aircraft.
Big Pistons Forever wrote:
I use a standard and briefed SOP with a clear and unvarying divison of cockpit duties.
I do a similar thing, at least for the first couple of flights where the student is exposed to circuits. The circuit is a flight test item, however, so they also need to do this on their own. I'd hate for the first unaided circuit to be during the flight test.
Aviatard wrote:To be clear, I wasn't advocating that the first flights should be spent doing circuits. What I meant was that when you get to teaching circuits, they should be done at the beginning of the flight, before heading out to the practice area. Of course you'd want to get some basic handling covered first before trying to land the aircraft.
Roger. I realised that after reading through the posts again.
Big Pistons Forever wrote:
I use a standard and briefed SOP with a clear and unvarying divison of cockpit duties.
I do a similar thing, at least for the first couple of flights where the student is exposed to circuits. The circuit is a flight test item, however, so they also need to do this on their own. I'd hate for the first unaided circuit to be during the flight test.
No where in the TC flight test standards guide does it say a student must demonstrate a touch and go landing during a ME flight test. The touch and go is done for solely to save time and I see no reason why the examiner cannot be assigned the aircraft configuration duties during the touch and go. In fact I would see the requirement to assign the duties and then properly brief the division of duties as a good example of CRM, since the student is by TC direction acting as as PIC. If the examiner refuses to do the duties than the flight test can be accomplished with a series of full stop landings, although my preferance would be to give the 300 bucks to another examiner.
We should not forget that the touch and go is a flight training manoever, it is not part of normal aircraft operations.
If you have an extra crewmember (and an instructor at that) and you're doing a touch-and-go in a complex(ish) aircraft, it only makes sense to have the right seat reconfigure the aircraft for the "go". It's just too busy a situation to have an inexperienced student fumbling around in such close proximity to one little lever that could seriously ruin your day.
In the jet I fly, when we do touch-and-go's, cockpit duties are thouroghly briefed prior to even stepping foot in the aircraft and reviewed again prior to engine start. Every pilot (727 so we have 3) has specific duties - the PF's, other than the initial advance of the thrust levers, is to fly the aircraft...and that's all. We also have certain things that will turn the touch and go into a "stop" such as deployment of the speed brakes or reverse thrust. While those don't necessarily apply in a piston twin, I would suggest that setting very firm limits on when the touch and go would be aborted - and making that SOP...
As you said earlier, touch and gos are not a normal procedure and should be treated as such. I see no reason why TC couldn't adopt a policy to reflect that.
I brief that I will reconfigure the aircraft and the students only job is to track the centreline and hold the controls appropriate to the conditions. I will say only one of two things after the aircraft has landed and is rolling on the runway: "aircraft is configured for takeoff" or "reject". His only two responses will either be "max power" as he advances the throttles for takeoff or "reject" in which case he will ensure the throttles are at idle and apply max braking.
. I was the instructor when during a touch and go, my student had a brain fart and in a second it was all over except for the crying....and yes it occured after a whole flight practicing go arounds and engine failures...
