B

Bob Axsom

Well Known Member
When landing your collection of parts and labor that you are trying to establish as an airplane and learn to fly at the same time, I think you should be totaly focused on completing the landing safely as an individual survival critical event with adequate air speed. Just my opinion.

Bob Axsom
 
Touch 'n goes rank right up there with crow hopping, IMHO. Big throttle changes on or near the ground, at barely or almost flying speed, in a plane you haven't flown before is asking for trouble.

Bob
 
An "interesting" OP with no background?

Firstly, I would say
...and learn to fly at the same time
Click to expand...
seems even more dubious as a Phase 1 activity than touch'n'goes ;)

In the UK, the "Phase 1" equivalent is min 5hrs, inc. 1 x 2hr flight, 15 landings, and a "Flight Test" flight (to a defined Schedule - 5min climb, VNE dive, stalls etc.). Having done a number of them for other people:
  1. It is quite a realistic Test Period for an RV built to plans.
  2. The US Phase 1 testing seems possibly appropriate for a genuine experimental / 1st of type design, but seems to me excessive for the 2000th RV-7 with an IO-360 and Hartzell prop etc. :)

If you can do 15 full stop landings in that space of time, achieve the initial 2 hrs break in, and other test requirements in an efficient manner, please let me know how (albeit these are UK requirements).

My POV would be that "Touch-n-Goes" not a good thing in Phase 1 Testing is rather a broad brush statement, and not necessarily true. Of course, at some points in Phase 1 for some specific build specifications, it might be.

Just my 2c

Andy
 
Are you talking about a touch and go where the mains just touch the runway and then jam the throttle in and get outta dodge or are you talking about a real well formed touch and go that could, if need be, be turned into a stop and go. One that gives you the opportunity to consider and re-set the flaps for a takeoff and take a moment to reflect on what your doing while rolling down the runway a short ways. Not to be telling you guys how to fly. Most of you already know which ways up but I've gotten some of my best training from a check ride instructor, way back when, who actually taught me how to manage a throttle on final. He seriously stressed that the throttle moves one direction on final, (FP) Back. If you found yourself having to goose power into the landing in any amount it was a failed landing. You do it if you have to, to make the runway but it's bad form. In five minutes the form of my landings changed 100%. Speed management was everything to this guy. Also jamming the throttle into the panel was a no go with him. He stressed a nice smooth power up. His words were "one of these day's you're going to jam that throttle in and you're your engine will just die out". Takes about three to four seconds to go from idle to full power. Following his instructions changed the landscape of flying for me for the better ever since. Therefor it's my opinion that touch and goes would be totally legitimate maneuvers for any phase of flying so long as you're not slamming your plane in which I'm thinking shouldn't be done at any time with any plane anyway.
 
are you trying to start a new, very interesting, conversation?

Because that statement is rather ambiguous...

My Phase 1 was 40hrs if, in that time, I am a dangerous dude if I do tng's then I have to say... :confused:

because you also say "and learn to fly at the same time" well, I dont want to pat myself on the back but I can keep any craft that is physically able to overcome lift vs weight and thrust vs drag airborne...

Now.. landing that sucker is a different thing... So if I truly want to be the master over that beast that I erected in my garage then that requires landings.... full flap, no flap, with engine, no engine, no wing :eek:
And that, my friend, requires touch and goes, bucket loads of tng's....

I have flown my RV7 for a little over 80hrs now and just recently is the first time that I am truly comfortable in my baby. Why? because I have practiced so many engine outs and emergency patterns (part of every flight, ex Air Force guy what can I say) STARTING during phase 1, that I am able to land that sucker come what may. I figured that IF something would happen that it will most likely be during my phase 1 because, like you said, it is an untested craft. THATS why I do tng's during phase 1 because that is when I most need it. I know that she loves me just as much as I love her; but, someday she is going to try and kill me, and she is going to do that when I least expect it so I am prepared...

As a last note if you would say, touch and goes on your first and second flight than I have to agree with you. To each his own but I would not do it because I have no idea what is going on up there, I keep a safe mindset and that is that its gonna quit on me any time now....

just my humble opinion...

marco
 
Good thoughtful responses

Well, why did I post my thought on the subject? Earlier today (it is yesterday now actually) a friend of mine sent a message to our group about his friend that had just been killed in the third flight of the plane he had built (not an RV). He reported that there were some trim issues on the first flight that he worked on and the second flight was good. A witness to the third flight said he was doing touch and goes when he crashed short of the runway and was killed. I think landing as a terminal process is less prone to division of thought than the continuing series of flight operations involved in a touch and go. I also believe that this is not a good thing to do when the airplane has not been thoroughly debugged after its multi-year creation process and the pilot is not thoroughly familiar with its flight characteristics.

Bob Axsom
 
Bob I have a hard time believing that touch and goes are the cause of a crash. They are in essence simply a landing followed by simply a take off. In fact since no one can read the mind of the pilot there is no way to know whether that future landing was actually going to end up being a touch and go for sure even if his announced intention was for it to be a touch and go. The opportunity to change ones mind is always a factor. As I hinted at in my last post. My belief is that accidents on final are caused very often by improper power management. I'm not speculating on any particular accident I'm just putting it out there.
 
I am assuming the warning would be against going out planning to do pattern work early on in Phase I. Myself, I waited until the plane/engine had about 10-15 hours on it before I started doing pattern work.
 
There is a lot that goes into a decision to do pattern work. After purchasing my 6 I felt I needed a lot of work in the pattern. I had never flown light aircraft and never flown a taildragger. Both are serious transitions. I got good training for the tail wheel signoff and used a RV6.
At that point it was time to really learn about the aircraft. My home field is not suitable for touch and go's for a variety of reasons especially if you are training.
I used long runways with lots of clearway. This gives a lot of confidence in the ability to walk away from the aircraft if something goes wrong. I would think a similar thought process should go into where to do test flights. Wide long runways with lots of clear way would be my first choice.
Now that I am approaching 100 hours in the aircraft I still will not do touch and gos at some airports. Short narrow runways and tall trees don't leave options. Its hard for me to comment on phase 1 testing since I have never done that kind of flying. I have done post maintenance check flights after major overhauls. If someday I am lucky enough to build my perfect RV8 the first flights will be on a long runway with touchdown planned 2000 feet down the runway. There will not be drop offs or obstacles off the ends. That gives lots of options in the event of engine or control issues.

George
 
Bob Axsom said:
A witness to the third flight said he was doing touch and goes when he crashed short of the runway and was killed.
Click to expand...
First, my condolences to you and your friend. But if he crashed short of the runway, it's not clear to me how the touch-and-goes contributed to the accident... Is there something about that type that you would set up differently on final if you were doing a touch-and-go vs. a full-stop landing?
 
I tried to avoid the traditional run of these threads

Snowflake said:
First, my condolences to you and your friend. But if he crashed short of the runway, it's not clear to me how the touch-and-goes contributed to the accident... Is there something about that type that you would set up differently on final if you were doing a touch-and-go vs. a full-stop landing?
Click to expand...

I did not personally know the builder/pilot but I have raced with the man that reported it several times since 2005. He seemed deeply disturbed so I think we lost another good man from our tiny segment of humanity. Be that as it may, I did not want to provide fodder for the typical death thread that we have seen so much of lately but rather offer a small positive thought about something very early in the marrage between a creator and his imperfect creation (phase 1 testing period - which I don't think of as a long time) that I think will make the process safer.

It is not the difference in the landing segment of the touch-n-go that motivated my post but the lack of methodical progression through the flight test program collecting the data, experience and maintenance to allow the pilot to make consistent and safe landings. I think touch-n-goes force the pilot to slur over the detail landing requirements at a time when the pilot is not well prepared to deal with them. That is the reason for my post.

Bob Axsom
 
Flight Test Plan

I've read this thread with some interest and would like to contribute some thoughts.

In order to obtain your airworthiness certificate, each of us had to generate a flight test plan for Phase 1. I'm not sure what everybody else's looked like, but I had very specific objectives for each and every flight. I had a flight test card that I printed out for my kneeboard which was tailored to the flight, and called out relevant procedures. I know I had a card devoted to take offs and landings in different configurations, but that was very late in Phase 1, and only after entire flights had been spent on slow flight, stalls, climb performance, glide performance, etc. Still, the flight was not 'touch and goes' for pilot proficiency, it was take offs and landings to evaluate aircraft handling and performance in different configurations. There is a difference.

At the risk of putting words in Bob's mouth, I think the point of this discussion is to highlight the point of Phase 1 testing. Phase 1 is meant to test the aircraft, prove that it is controllable and reliable throughout its operating range, and do so in the safest and most controlled environment possible (i.e., with a plan and a sole occupant who is focused on the plan and mentally prepared to handle situations that arise while executing the plan). Phase 1 flight testing is not a continuation of transition training for the pilot. If a pilot feels that a Phase 1 flight is being used for his own proficiency, perhaps he should re-evaluate his qualifications to carry out Phase 1 testing.

I haven't searched for it, but is there a thread where people are sharing their Phase 1 flight test plans for comment?

Paul
 
Mike Seager trains with Stop and Go

I did transition training with Mike Seager and we did LOTS of stop and go's during the training. I asked about touch and go's and he recommend not doing them and to focus on the landing separately from the take off. Time to retract flaps, adjust pitch trim, etc on the runway with the plane stopped. Another CFI I know said he understands that the FAA will be moving to recommending stop and go's rather than touch and go's for training.

Regards,
 
mrblob said:
I've read this thread with some interest and would like to contribute some thoughts.

In order to obtain your airworthiness certificate, each of us had to generate a flight test plan for Phase 1. I'm not sure what everybody else's looked like, but I had very specific objectives for each and every flight. I had a flight test card that I printed out for my kneeboard which was tailored to the flight, and called out relevant procedures. I know I had a card devoted to take offs and landings in different configurations, but that was very late in Phase 1, and only after entire flights had been spent on slow flight, stalls, climb performance, glide performance, etc. Still, the flight was not 'touch and goes' for pilot proficiency, it was take offs and landings to evaluate aircraft handling and performance in different configurations. There is a difference.

At the risk of putting words in Bob's mouth, I think the point of this discussion is to highlight the point of Phase 1 testing. Phase 1 is meant to test the aircraft, prove that it is controllable and reliable throughout its operating range, and do so in the safest and most controlled environment possible (i.e., with a plan and a sole occupant who is focused on the plan and mentally prepared to handle situations that arise while executing the plan). Phase 1 flight testing is not a continuation of transition training for the pilot. If a pilot feels that a Phase 1 flight is being used for his own proficiency, perhaps he should re-evaluate his qualifications to carry out Phase 1 testing.

I haven't searched for it, but is there a thread where people are sharing their Phase 1 flight test plans for comment?

Paul
Click to expand...

totally disagree. It should not take 40 hours (or 25 even) to accomplish all the objectives required to ensure the plane is working the way it should. Testing and self-training/proficiency building are concurrent events. The hours and landings you log in your log book during phase 1 are not distinguished from any other by the FAA or insurance in regards to pilot proficiency. Landings are landings regardless.

I'd never flown an RV8 in my life prior to my phase-1, and never flown behind a Skyview Panel with GTX330 or GNC 300XL. Never flew with an infinity grip with 6 functions on the stick either - the first flight was the beginning of phase-1 for the plane and the pilot (me) - testing the plane and training myself concurrently throughout. Part of the 40 hours is a buffer to ensure you are proficient enough to carry passengers, fly at night, and IMC (if so equipped) when you enter phase II. I was done with my test plan in under 15 hours (including a full spin recovery evaluation).
 
RV8R999 said:
totally disagree. It should not take 40 hours (or 25 even) to accomplish all the objectives required to ensure the plane is working the way it should. Testing and self-training/proficiency building are concurrent events. The hours and landings you log in your log book during phase 1 are not distinguished from any other by the FAA or insurance in regards to pilot proficiency. Landings are landings regardless.

I'd never flown an RV8 in my life prior to my phase-1, and never flown behind a Skyview Panel with GTX330 or GNC 300XL. Never flew with an infinity grip with 6 functions on the stick either - the first flight was the beginning of phase-1 for the plane and the pilot (me) - testing the plane and training myself concurrently throughout. Part of the 40 hours is a buffer to ensure you are proficient enough to carry passengers, fly at night, and IMC (if so equipped) when you enter phase II. I was done with my test plan in under 15 hours (including a full spin recovery evaluation).
Click to expand...

Yes Ken, but you are a trained and qualified military test pilot...right? Do you think that all of the 300-hour private pilots out there without your experience can do it all in the same amount of time? Think about your audience - do YOU want to be the reason that someone without a lot of time goes out and prangs his airplane because Ken said it was so easy?

If you read the relevant FAA documents on Experimental Aircraft flight testing, you'll find that their opinion is that Phase 1 is NOT for pilot training - it is for aircraft testing. If you can finish that up more quickly than your 25 or 40 hours, then great. I'm not that good - took me a bit longer, and longer still to really get comfortable that the avionics suite was fully checked out.
 
Ironflight said:
Yes Ken, but you are a trained and qualified military test pilot...right? Do you think that all of the 300-hour private pilots out there without your experience can do it all in the same amount of time? Think about your audience - do YOU want to be the reason that someone without a lot of time goes out and prangs his airplane because Ken said it was so easy?

If you read the relevant FAA documents on Experimental Aircraft flight testing, you'll find that their opinion is that Phase 1 is NOT for pilot training - it is for aircraft testing. If you can finish that up more quickly than your 25 or 40 hours, then great. I'm not that good - took me a bit longer, and longer still to really get comfortable that the avionics suite was fully checked out.
Click to expand...

If someone prangs their airplane because of something YOU interpreted as ME saying was easy then they probably deserve it.

This has nothing to do with formal training and everything to do with organization and prior thought

Paul, can you honestly say you are not gaining experience ie training yourself everytime you fly? To say you are not TRAINING during phase 1 is ridiculous - Especially if you've never flown the make/model and configuration you built.

Did you debrief yourself after every phase 1 flight and apply what you learned to all subsequent flights? If yes, you were training. If not, shame on you.

My first flight I climbed out at about 95mph because it was muscle memory from 1500 hours of BD4 time and quickly realized CHTs didn't like slow climbs. Next flight I climbed at 130 - Training occurred.

Never landed an -8 before first flight and only had 5 hours in a -6. Tried to 3-pt the -8 to a full stop. Wasn't pretty. Next time used a wheel landing and greased it - Training Occurred.

Had limited experience with FP props. Realized on first flight you really have to plan the descent profile early otherwise it is difficult to slow down and easy to overshoot the pattern even with a full slip - Training Occurred as this has nothing to do with making sure the airplane is functioning correctly - it is an artifact of an unfamiliar (to me) configuration which required corrections on subsequent flights to avoid the overshoot = training.

The list of training which occurred during my phase-1 goes on and on and yes I'm a trained test pilot and still needed training during phase-1 - which I happily provided to myself. I'm sure the FAA will be ok with it.
 
I fully agree with Bob and Paul, ESPECIALLY if you are flying a taildragger. The sudden application of power to this lightweight airframe can have you pointed at the weeds pretty quickly unless you apply a lot of rudder. Why do it now? I'm not saying don't ever do it, but not in the early stages of Phase 1.

Oh, and by the way, you can add high speed taxi tests to that as well. Totally pointless and unnecessarily risky in an unfamiliar airplane. (tread drift coming)
 
f1rocket said:
I fully agree with Bob and Paul, ESPECIALLY if you are flying a taildragger. The sudden application of power to this lightweight airframe can have you pointed at the weeds pretty quickly unless you apply a lot of rudder. Why do it now? I'm not saying don't ever do it, but not in the early stages of Phase 1.
Click to expand...

Why do you need sudden application of power during a T&G? I add power slowly for take-off. I also add power slowly during a T&G usually keeping the nose wheel from every touching the runway.
 
Ron Lee said:
Why do you need sudden application of power during a T&G? I add power slowly for take-off. I also add power slowly during a T&G usually keeping the nose wheel from every touching the runway.
Click to expand...
Great. I just wouldn't advise anyone from trying to do this during phase I while you're trying to sort out the airplane.

I also said taildragger. ALMOST ANY application of power will cause the nose to turn due to the thrust and torque of the engine. The point being you are in a new (to you) airplane. Get a little nervous and apply power too heavily and not have your feet ready to dance, and you're just asking for an interesting few seconds. Been there, done that unfortunately.
 
Roy Thoma said:
I did transition training with Mike Seager and we did LOTS of stop and go's during the training. I asked about touch and go's and he recommend not doing them and to focus on the landing separately from the take off. Time to retract flaps, adjust pitch trim, etc on the runway with the plane stopped. Another CFI I know said he understands that the FAA will be moving to recommending stop and go's rather than touch and go's for training.

Regards,
Click to expand...

I got my private without ever doing a touch and go. On my check ride the examiner asked for one, and I told him I'd never done one. He said, "OK, full stop then."
 
Our local flight school has banned T&G's in their trainers unless an instructor is onboard. They had a guy cartwheel a C150 a few years ago doing em and that was that. They somehow coupled what happened to the fact that he was doing T&G's.

I did what seemed like a million of them in my primary training many moons ago. Never thought much about it...

I am neither for em or against em. I do think however that they will make you a better pilot because of the extra skill and multitasking required. Add a TW to the mix and you definately will learn to use your feet....

I would say that T&G's in the first few hours of phase I is most likely not the best idea for someone with limited experience in that type airplane.
 
Touch-n-Goes

Wow............... Now even touch and goes are dangerous! Maybe I need to reconsider this whole thing!

I can see the accident report now: Pilot was doing touch-n-goes and didn't file a flight plan!
 
indeed

lmfao

"...Pilot failed to come to a complete stop..."

Watch out for that airport guy with the notepad and the camera...

But seriously though I wonder where the bottom is regarding this lowest common denominator type approach. I dont say I agree or disagree with paul when he mentions "...do YOU want to be the reason that someone without a lot of time goes out and prangs his airplane because Ken said it was so easy?..." I just wonder on what audience are we going to base our posts? 300? 200? 100 hrs? what about IR rating?

I this what you guys call a "thread drift? ;-)"
 
Last edited:
leaker311 said:
But seriously though I wonder where the bottom is regarding this lowest common denominator type approach. I dont say I agree or disagree with paul when he mentions "...do YOU want to be the reason that someone without a lot of time goes out and prangs his airplane because Ken said it was so easy?..." I just wonder on what audience are we going to base our posts? 300? 200? 100 hrs? what about IR rating?
Click to expand...

I read about a good way to figure out when you are an experienced pilot - it's when you stop saying "boy, when I have XXX hours (more than I have now), I'll really be experienced!" and start realizing that no matter how much experience you have, there is way more that you still have to learn. If you have reached that magical inflection point in between where you think you almost know it all....you're at the most dangerous point in your flying career....

An interesting definition to think about, whether you agree with it or not.

(BTW, I LOVE touch and goes, think they are excellent practice, and used to do dozens of 'em at a time. We don't allow them at our current airpark because of noise for the neighborhood, so I've slacked off, but I still believe in them. But they don't show it my Phase 1 test cards unless they help me get a specific test point other than "yup, the airplane will do touch and goes...")
 
You must log in or register to reply here.