Recent Flight Experience
RAJA0519
Can anyone confirm this? If you do three T/O and Landings to a full stop at
night within 90 days, and have not flown in Day VFR for 90 days are you now
current in both day and night or just night.
Hilton Goldstein
61.57: Three fullstop TOs and landings at night make you current for
both day and night.
Hilton
--
Hilton Goldstein..............................hilton@sgi.com
650-933-5254 (phone)......................(fax) 650-390-6159
M/S 42M-945, 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd, Mountain View, CA 94043
http://reality.sgi.com/hilton
H2O is hot water, and CO2 is cold water.
ASHMOE
I think both day and night.
ASHMOE
Jim Sokoloff
Hilton Goldstein <hil...@sgi.com> writes:
> RAJA0519 wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone confirm this? If you do three T/O and Landings to a full stop at
> > night within 90 days, and have not flown in Day VFR for 90 days are you now
> > current in both day and night or just night.
>
> 61.57: Three fullstop TOs and landings at night make you current for
> both day and night.
Does "full stop" here require taxi off the runway and shutdown, or
would a "stop and go" suffice (with a complete cessation of forward
motion, but remaining on the runway)?
---Jim
Greg Bullough
In article <m1nvhs3...@fardm2.boston.deshaw.com> "Jim Sokoloff" <soko...@tiac.net> writes:
>
>Does "full stop" here require taxi off the runway and shutdown, or
>would a "stop and go" suffice (with a complete cessation of forward
>motion, but remaining on the runway)?
'Full stop' means 'not a touch-and-go.' It probably is defined somewhere,
but it is quite well understood amongst pilots to mean 'not a touch and
go.'
I would understand landing on the runway, and stopping all forward
motion, and then taking off from that point as a 'full stop.' Perhaps
not the best idea in the world, but a legal 'full stop' none the less.
A more usual notion of full stop is land, taxi back, and take off
again (which actually, if you get lucky, may never involve an
actual total cessation of all forward motion, but there you have
it!).
By now, some people are probably asking 'what's the big deal about
'full stop? After all, you arguably have to have your act together
in chaining a series of tasks when doing a full-flaps landing ending
in a touch-and go.'
True, and especially so in a tricycle-gear aircraft where the landing
becomes more and more of a non-event once the wheels touch for the
last time.
*I* think that the 'full stop' is aimed at the pilots of taildraggers,
where just being able to touch the wheels on the tarmac does *NOT*
necessarily imply that you'll bring the aircraft to a stop under
control. There are *at least* a couple of transitions between
touchdown and stop, and the bird can 'get away' from you at any
time until it is 'full stopped.'
None the less, the requirement for all aircraft is 'full stop,' no
matter which end the tailwheel is on.
Greg
--
Greg Bullough | AFM Local 1000 AFL/CIO
g...@eclipse.net | K2GWB
| PP-ASEL
www.eclipse.net/~gwb for Compass Rogues & NY Chantey Sings
Dave Mould
In article <gregErs...@netcom.com>, Greg Bullough wrote:
> By now, some people are probably asking 'what's the big deal about
> 'full stop? After all, you arguably have to have your act together
> in chaining a series of tasks when doing a full-flaps landing ending
> in a touch-and go.'
My thoughts are that a "full stop" landing is demanded because it is safer
than a touch-and-go. There is no need to play with flaps, carb-heat or power
whilst controlling the aircraft at a relatively high speed on the ground.
No danger of running out of runway if the "touch" is a bit too deep, and
the "go" is a bit too tardy.
==========
Dave Mould
Not a QFI
==========
John R. Johnson
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Greg Bullough wrote:
>
> *I* think that the 'full stop' is aimed at the pilots of taildraggers,
> where just being able to touch the wheels on the tarmac does *NOT*
> necessarily imply that you'll bring the aircraft to a stop under
> control. There are *at least* a couple of transitions between
> touchdown and stop, and the bird can 'get away' from you at any
> time until it is 'full stopped.'
>
> None the less, the requirement for all aircraft is 'full stop,' no
> matter which end the tailwheel is on.
>
The "full stop" requirement is indeed aimed at taildraggers. Only for a
taildragger does the daytime recent flight experience requirement call for
full stop landings. Touch and goes are accepted for tricycle gear currency.
A "full stop" is required for all aircraft at night, because the roll out
is no longer trivial.
John
John R. Johnson
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Dave Mould wrote:
>
> My thoughts are that a "full stop" landing is demanded because it is safer
> than a touch-and-go. There is no need to play with flaps, carb-heat or power
> whilst controlling the aircraft at a relatively high speed on the ground.
> No danger of running out of runway if the "touch" is a bit too deep, and
> the "go" is a bit too tardy.
>
That is surely the reason the FAA requires "full stop" landings at night
for currency. The "full stop" requirement for taildraggers has more to
do with the old taildragger saying "fly it until you tie it!"
John
Greg Bullough
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.980422123248.2303t-100000@reliant> "John R. Johnson" <jo...@siu.edu> writes:
>
>A "full stop" is required for all aircraft at night, because the roll out
>is no longer trivial.
Seems like it might also be because touch-and-goes are to be discouraged
at night (especially for someone not night-current). If you're going
to do a t&g, you really should *know* how much runway you have left to
screw with. That determination isn't as easy at night as it is during
the day.