Interesting to read the different perspectives on the T&G thing. My initial reaction was “if your not comfortable with T&Gs how can you expect to execute a successful go around?” Every one of my real life go arounds have occurred after I had my wheels on the ground. On one occasion it took both hands on the stick to keep the nose down till I’d gained enough altitude to reduce throttle so I could take one hand off the stick and roll in some nose down trim.

My primary instructor never let me reconfigure the airplane while doing T&Gs and I guess I just assumed that’s how everyone did it. It’s a basic pilot proficiency skill in my mind.

I understand doing stop and go's or full stops when first transitioning to an aircraft but I agree that touch and go's are a vital skill to practice for the reasons stated above in a go around situation. I practice t&g's in various configurations (tail still up or down with flap changes) because I have initiated go arounds in many phases of landing including rollout. The most common scenario when I go around during rollout is due to adverse surface conditions, generally on lakebeds. My standard setup to a new spot or even an old spot on a new day (conditions can change a lot) includes a low pass or two and tire drags to feel out the surface. But sometimes when I'm slowing down, the surface is softer than I thought based on drags. In this situation, I make the decision to go around while I still have some speed and haven't sunk in too far. Over time I've had to do this less because I have developed more of a feel for the surface based on my drags but I'll admit it still gets me sometimes.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

TradeCraft wrote:…..Skywagon go arounds are not voodoo. Max Power - Retract Flaps. As fast as you say it, you perform it.

You forgot what might be the most important item--- trim.
Also, get the cowl flaps open so you don't cook anything.
And in most situations, full power is not required for a go around--
just enough power to get back in the air and establish a positive climb rate.
95% of the time I land my 180 with40 degrees flaps & just about full nose up trim --
it's quite a handful on a go-around until you get the flaps back to 20,
and more importantly get the trim back down closer to the proper climbout setting.
It's lots easier to handle with less-than-full-power set til then.

hotrod180 wrote:

TradeCraft wrote:…..Skywagon go arounds are not voodoo. Max Power - Retract Flaps. As fast as you say it, you perform it.

You forgot what might be the most important item--- trim.
Also, get the cowl flaps open so you don't cook anything.
And in most situations, full power is not required for a go around--
just enough power to get back in the air and establish a positive climb rate.
95% of the time I land my 180 with40 degrees flaps & just about full nose up trim --
it's quite a handful on a go-around until you get the flaps back to 20,
and more importantly get the trim back down closer to the proper climbout setting.
It's lots easier to handle with less-than-full-power set til then.

@TradeCraft

Yeah, full power and landing configuration in a wagon is not a good combination. Don't know if my arms are strong enough to push the yoke forward hard enough to keep the aircraft from pitching to a VERY nose high attitude. I don't know where people get the idea that go-around requires "max power", its not an emergency maneuver. Increase power, get the flaps to 20, get a bunch of nose down trim in, and then if the situation requires more power.

Bottom line, a gentle touch is required.

Hate the sidetrack this thread, I feel for the accident pilot, seems like a great fellow with LOTS of knowledge about 180s. Nothing but the best to him.

Apparently what I think of as a touch and go and a go around are not what many others think of as a touch and go and a go around. For me they are not the same but are very different. Again for me, a touch and go is a normal landing completed through the phase where the airplane is on the ground rolling out but done flying with the configuration then changed to a normal takeoff configuration including takeoff trim set before takeoff power is applied. Again for me, a go around may or may not be a normal landing where the airplane may or may not be still flying, where go around power is applied and then the airplane configuration and trim are reset to a climb setting, A subtle difference but enough so that the go around training benefit of doing touch and goes is not obvious to me. As to CamTom12's comment on the military's requirement for training and checking of touch and go proficiency are you sure that they do not want students to do touch and go's for a perceived higher training efficiency in at a cost of higher risk. As for the check is it because they do not want students doing a higher risk maneuver, ie touch and go's, solo proving proficiency in the maneuver. So it comes down to my original question, it would be nice to know what percentage of loss of control accidents in Cessna 180/185 aircraft involve touch and go operations and if a high percentage of these accidents involve touch and go operations is risk worth the benefit. I don't really care what you do, or what works in any other model aircraft, just these two Cessna models. Thanks for you consideration.

Tim

That’s a bummer. That 180 lived next door for many years, and was the first 180 I ever flew in (back in the early 90’s). The previous owner loved that airplane and hated to sell it, but was really happy to hear it was flying again.

Not sure I have the heart to tell old J.O. That his 180 is gone.

bat443 wrote:Apparently what I think of as a touch and go and a go around are not what many others think of as a touch and go and a go around. For me they are not the same but are very different. Again for me, a touch and go is a normal landing completed through the phase where the airplane is on the ground rolling out but done flying with the configuration then changed to a normal takeoff configuration including takeoff trim set before takeoff power is applied. Again for me, a go around may or may not be a normal landing where the airplane may or may not be still flying, where go around power is applied and then the airplane configuration and trim are reset to a climb setting, A subtle difference but enough so that the go around training benefit of doing touch and goes is not obvious to me. As to CamTom12's comment on the military's requirement for training and checking of touch and go proficiency are you sure that they do not want students to do touch and go's for a perceived higher training efficiency in at a cost of higher risk. As for the check is it because they do not want students doing a higher risk maneuver, ie touch and go's, solo proving proficiency in the maneuver. So it comes down to my original question, it would be nice to know what percentage of loss of control accidents in Cessna 180/185 aircraft involve touch and go operations and if a high percentage of these accidents involve touch and go operations is risk worth the benefit. I don't really care what you do, or what works in any other model aircraft, just these two Cessna models. Thanks for you consideration.

Tim

Tim,

Efficiency is definitely a factor, but the purpose of training to a standard and demonstrating proficiency to that standard is to reduce risk like you said.

Disclaimer: my opinion follows.

I believe in a crawl-walk-run methodology.

In this example, I’d consider a stop and taxi back as crawling, a touch and go as walking, and a go around as running.

Nearly every aspect of a go around is exercised in a touch and go, though at slower speeds. If a person is afraid of walking, they shouldn’t depend on being able to run when the time comes.

I don't think a T&G is a good tool to prep for go arounds. Especially if on the ground and my airspeed has decayed below what I need to SAFELY get into the air, in full control. I carry hull & liability insurance for those times when I can't safely lift off of the runway and an ostacle "appears" in front close enough that I can't avoid it. There's a whole lot greater risk of totaling my plane and injuring or killing all on board if I hit that object at flying speed than if I've decelerated to something less while on the ground. E=MV**2 is sort of a natural law. The number of botched go arounds with bad outcomes allso is lard to overlook.

"Again for me, a touch and go is a normal landing completed through the phase where the airplane is on the ground rolling out but done flying with the configuration then changed to a normal takeoff configuration including takeoff trim set before takeoff power is applied. Again for me, a go around may or may not be a normal landing where the airplane may or may not be still flying, where go around power is applied and then the airplane configuration and trim are reset to a climb setting,"

Tim[/quote]

The above is how I always looked at a touch & go vs a go-around - I didn't know there were other ways to look at it. Is there an FAA definition?

A touch and go should be a good landing followed by a good takeoff. A go around is a decision to continue flying or takeoff where the tactical situation is fluid. It may involve a dive, a climb, a rudder turn in ground effect, or other. Like the spot landing without power, we should be proficient and current. In real life, slowing to stall in ground effect at the numbers makes just landing short of the problem default. Rounding out and coming down when the airplane decides to quit flying leaves the dangerous go around as default and is just scary.

7GC wrote:"Again for me, a touch and go is a normal landing completed through the phase where the airplane is on the ground rolling out but done flying with the configuration then changed to a normal takeoff configuration including takeoff trim set before takeoff power is applied. Again for me, a go around may or may not be a normal landing where the airplane may or may not be still flying, where go around power is applied and then the airplane configuration and trim are reset to a climb setting,"

Tim

The above is how I always looked at a touch & go vs a go-around - I didn't know there were other ways to look at it. Is there an FAA definition?

Here's what the glossary of the Airplane Flying Handbook says:

Go-around. Terminating a landing approach. Pages 8-12 through 8-14 describe the maneuver and points out that the risk of a bad outcome increases as the aircraft gets closer to the ground before initiating the maneuver. No surprises there! T&G maneuvers aren't addressed.

The Pilot/Controller Glossary says it differently: GO AROUND− Instructions for a pilot to abandon his/her approach to landing. Additional instructions may follow. Unless otherwise advised by ATC, a VFR aircraft or an aircraft conducting visual approach should overfly the runway while climbing to traffic pattern altitude and enter the traffic pattern via the crosswind leg. A pilot on an IFR flight plan making an instrument approach should execute the published missed approach procedure or proceed as instructed by ATC;...

While a T&G is defined simply as departing a runway after landing without coming to a full stop.

IOW, any definition posted on forum is probably on point.

I guess it comes down to personal risk management choices, i prefer not to take the additional risk associated with a touch and go. And for what it is worth I have done both touch and go's and go a rounds in many aircraft types ranging from Cessna 150,s to DC8's. It is not that I am afraid of touch and go's or go a rounds for that matter, I just choose not to take the additional risk of doing touch and go's when the choice is up to me. As an aircraft owner who purchases hull insurance I would be much happier, to use CamTom12's terms, if people who had trouble walking would not try to run until they had learned to walk. Unfortunately in the civilian world that is not how it always happens.

Tim

niente qui

Cannon wrote: That’s a bummer. That 180 lived next door for many years, and was the first 180 I ever flew in (back in the early 90’s). The previous owner loved that airplane and hated to sell it, but was really happy to hear it was flying again. Not sure I have the heart to tell old J.O. That his 180 is gone.

Same thing happened with my friend Lloyd.
He owned a C170 for about 30 years,
painted it, did a 180hp conversion, leather upholstery--
it was a real beauty and his pride and joy.
The he got old, lost his medical, and his wife started in on him about flying without it,
so he reluctantly sold the 170.
The guy who bought it ground-looped it in pretty short order, totaling it.
Meanwhile, the original owner moved out of the area,
but I'd see him at the NW aviation show & at the Arlington fly-in.
He always asked how the guy was doing with his old 170-
I never had the heart to tell him it got wrecked,
so I always said "just fine".

When the 180 departed the wind was calm and the aircraft departed to the north, an hour later a front moved in and the wind with it. All was well on approach with a good wind out of the south, with a steady wind at a slight cross from the west and landing to the south. Touchdown was at the horn and full flaps. After touch down a gust picked the plane up, full power was added but the aircraft drifted to the east, to much flap and to little airspeed and the gust now on the tail the plane just could not climb, contacted the ground a few hundred feet east of the runway. AWOS reported wind out of the south at 18 gusting to 32. Just because when you depart the wind is calm does not mean it can change an hour later. Lots of lessons to learn here...

Just read this thread, and interesting perspectives.

I have a total of maybe 150 hours in 180s, but we’ll north of 4500 in 185s.

Never do 3 points on pavement in a 185??? Holy shit, why not? I’ve done lots, and they’re no big deal. All the folks I’ve checked out in a 185 have done them as well. That little wheel aft is for steering....use it, but land straight and KEEP it straight...that’s the key.

Go around: At some point in checking someone out in one of these, I get them set up with a full flap , low power approach (start them high so they have to go idle power) just as they’re entering the flare, I give them a go around.

They’ve now seen the only really ugly characteristic these airplanes have. And if you think a 180 gets your attention there, the 185 has 70 more HP......

Now, I know some folks use partial power there. I don’t, normally. 99% of adult males can handle the forces. Most women can’t...they just don’t possess the upper body strength, so for them, partial power may be the answer.

But the problem with partial power is how much is enough? And sometimes, it’s a LOT. Try a 185 on amphibious floats with a load. Even ones on wheels with a big cabin load can take a lot of power to arrest the descent and initiate a climb.

Now, add a high density altitude, where that engine and prop are already seriously compromised and the wing isn’t making near as much lift.

I use full power, BUT any time I’m in a full flap approach, I roll in some nose down trim on short final. Doesn’t take a lot.

If I continue the landing, that nose down trim really helps me stick the landing...which will generally be a tail low wheel landing. If I go around, that bit of nose down trim significantly reduces the stick forces in the initial go around. Max power, arrest the descent to level the plane, more nose down trim, flaps carefully to 30, then 20, and climb.

Touch and goes don’t count for FAA training or currency in tailwheel a/c, so initially, I do stop and goes with a newby.

Once they’ve got a really good handle on all types of landings, we do T/G landings on one wheel. Then land on one wheel, pick it up, land on the other wheel, etc.

Once they’re doing that drill (and these are not “landings” according to the FAA) competently, I’ll sign them off and go find a bar, cause my nerves will be hosed.

I’m no weight lifter by any means, but I can fly a 185 away from a full power go around, even with the flaps at 40 and full nose up trim. I’m not saying it’s fun....

MTV

I'm not a 180/185 driver. I don't think I've ever ridden in one. So I won't begin to know what's the best way to land one. Heck, although I'm a "legal" tailwheel pilot without needing an endorsement (not legal to carry passengers, obviously, without 3 full stop landings), I admit to being a poor excuse as a tailwheel pilot.

But I do have some strong thoughts about touch and goes and go arounds. In my opinion, speaking as a pilot who has been around the barn for awhile and as a former instructor, they are two entirely different things. Practicing T&Gs doesn't create the necessary skills for a go around. Practicing T&Gs doesn't do very much of anything, other than allow more landings to be crammed into a short period of time, but at a higher risk. Practicing T&Gs might allow a pilot to get good at T&Gs, but other than for practice, how much of flying actually involves T&Gs? If I sit and watch a batch of students do T&Gs for a couple hours, a huge percentage won't slow the airplane down to much under flying speed before pouring the coals to it--and that's not a real landing. A real landing involves touching down, and most importantly maintaining control while slowing to taxi speed. The NTSB files are replete with examples of LOC during the transition from flying speed to taxi speed. Why? I surmise it's because many of the pilots haven't practiced a crucial skill, transforming a flying machine into a ground machine.

Practicing real go arounds, on the other hand, is genuinely useful to develop a necessary skill. Granted that we don't often have to go around, but when we do, we have to do it right. Doing a go around right is entirely different from doing a T&G. In a T&G, typically the airplane is reconfigured for the departure while rolling on the ground, typically at a speed just below lift off speed. But in a go around, power is applied first--and frankly, except for those singles that tend to torque roll on a full power application at slow speeds, most of the time that should be full power. Whether manual or electric flaps, as soon as the power is fully applied, get the flaps up part way, typically half way, to reduce drag. That's true for every single I've flown, and perhaps true for most of them. Then immediately retrim to help get the nose down by reducing the pressure on the yoke. None of that takes long--a few seconds at most--if true go arounds have been practiced at all. But the pilot can't sit there, waiting for things to happen. Especially if the pilot doesn't have the strength to overcome the yoke, getting retrimmed right away is essential.

Incidentally, an important part of any go around is deciding to go around. That's something that needs to be practiced, as well.

So what do I do, personally, to be reasonably good at go arounds? Well, I don't do touch and goes. I've maybe done one or two in the time I've owned my current airplane, which is almost 15 years. I've done a lot of taxi-backs, but not touch and goes. I've done several practice go arounds each year, perhaps half a dozen, from different places in the approach, including almost touching down.

I've done perhaps a total of half a dozen go arounds for real in that time, for one reason or another. Only one did I consider to be a marginal example. It was one in which I made the decision pretty late, at a high DA (close to 10,000') with a heavy airplane, and although I firewalled the throttle, the airplane continued to settle and actually touched down before climbing out. In my post flight analysis, something I do after almost every flight, I chastised myself only for the late decision (and not noticing the change in wind direction sooner). Everything else was done just the way it should be done.

Cary

I very much agree, Cary.

A common error in tailwheel airplanes is increasing approach airspeed for headwind conditions and too much for gusts. Pilots who want the same rate of closure with a strong headwind may experience the wing still flying at almost zero ground speed. Unless the tail is up and the wing level, the wing will fly. No question about wheel landing here. If we're going too fast (airspeed) to get the tail down after the gust quits, we have a wild ride ahead.

The only advantage to going too fast to land is that the ailerons are as effective as the rudder. Adverse yaw, leveling the wing with aileron rather than with rudder, increases the lateral disruption of gusts, however. We have to slow down sometime. The tailwheel airplane's design makes slowing to just above stall safer in the air than on the ground.

Karmutzen wrote:This subforum is accident analysis, I'm curious to hear more from experienced 180 pilots on how to keep our collective hull insurance rates down.

I am reluctant to consider myself an "experienced 180 pilot" but I have owned one for the better part of a decade. It all boils to risk assessment. That skill is what separates the kids from the adults. This is nothing new yet poor risk assessment continues to be the leading cause of many (most?) aviation accidents and incidents. When we talk about "pilot error," the error that we are usually referring to is an error in judgement where a pilot mis-analyzed a risk. Usually the result is a scare or a story, but sometimes an accident or incident is the result.

To me, that means that I try hard to identify and then stay inside my limitations. I see some guys doing some pretty cool stuff in a 180 in Idaho, like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IoyaI7ZMIw&t=109s. But that doesn't mean that I can go do that today. Maybe later if I warm up to it and the conditions are right, but not today.

In a prior flying job, we had to fill out a risk assessment worksheet before every flight. Nice concept, but the reality is that risk assessment is dynamic. It doesn't stop when you clear the prop and start the engine. You might go out and plan to do X or Y in an airplane but when you get out there you might see that Z is a better option. It takes maturity to make that decision, because we pilots are goal-oriented individuals who like to accomplish what we set out to do. But sometimes the better decision is to back off and try again another day.

We as aviators owe it to ourselves to be students of risk assessment and to learn from others. That's why this forum and this type of discussion is so valuable. I believe that the mark of a true professional aviator -- and I use that term to describe anyone who takes aviation seriously, regardless of whether they make a living at it or not -- is the desire to learn from their and others mistakes. If I am ever sitting around the fire pit telling stories, I am more interested in learning about your screw ups and your close calls than your success stories. Those are certainly the stories I tell about myself, and I have several. But somehow I am still here, still flying, and have yet to scratch an airplane. But I might tomorrow.

So as to touch and goes vs. stop and goes, it comes down to risk assessment. If you think you are proficient enough to reset the flaps and trim on the roll, more power to you. And if you aren't proficient enough, then don't do it! And if you aren't sure, then the answer is you're probably not. But get a buddy or a CFI to ride along with you while you figure it out.