Respectfully, this is why military aviation has a lot of accidents. You shouldn't be teaching techniques unless they've been approved as acceptable techniques by NATOPs/StanEval. And no, this technique is not taught in civilian aviation for a plethora of reasons already explained below.

Shortly after I left VT-6, there was an accident where an IP had been telling his students to abort if they were below a certain speed at a certain distance down the runway. Student watches the IP do a touch a go and takes the aircraft away from the IP because he was too slow at that magical point. The aircraft went off into the dirt. Luckily both pilots and aircraft survived.

Maybe on the C-5 TOLD it is. But other airplanes, maybe not. On the four Boeing's I've flown (I can't remember for the McDs anymore), thrust reversers operating on all engines are factored into the landing distance calculation.

I agree about that once the thrust reversers have been deployed, you're committed to the landing. Every airplane I've flown prohibited a go-around after TRs were deployed.

The USAF does touch-n-goes every day in the KC-10, even on shorter runways like McGuire's RWY18/36 with 7,126' available. As long as the PF and PNF know the procedure, touch-n-goes in heavies are not a big deal at all.

PTB -
What Tummy is putting out about landing speed at the distance remaining boards was part of the curriculum in my community. We also did roll-n-gos down to 100kts - showing the go-around capability (it usually took around a 1000' to get back airborne).

Thanks sailingfun for laying out the numerous reasons that a touch-n-go/roll-n-go is different in transport category airplanes than a tactical fighter. All that stuff about changing trim settings and flap positions and such weren't a factor since none of it changed in the smaller aircraft. I used to hear about all the things happening in the cockpit of the T-44s on the touch-n-gos when I was at Corpus Christi talking to the VT guys and I was amazed. In my current aircraft we are allowed to perform them - at least as one pilots - not sure about the aircraft IPs.

The USAF does touch-n-goes every day in the KC-10, even on shorter runways like McGuire's RWY18/36 with 7,126' available. As long as the PF and PNF know the procedure, touch-n-goes in heavies are not a big deal at all.[/QUOTE]

I have no doubt a light KC10 can do that. Put 285 people, 500 bags and 25,000 lbs of additional cargo onboard and I bet it gets a bit more sporting!

Do you remember the approximate date? I'd be interested in reviewing the HAZREP.

It's part of the curriculum in Primary now. I suspect PurpleToolBox may have left VT-6 before the T-6B came online. Regardless, "double the board" is in the Contact FTI now.

Is this thread about Jetsuite overrun or Military TnG's?

Any new info on the overrun? Causal factors, crew SOP's.

There is an excellent discussion on another forum I frequent where a few pilots that have Phenom 100 time have discussed the "unusual" (my words) characteristics that are part of braking that jet.

I'm certainly not implying it had anything to do with this, but it is interesting.

Additionally, another poster looked in FlightAware and posted the jet showed a 180 knot groundspeed "on final" (they didn't say how far on final).

I deem it to be legitimate thread drift...the overall topic here is "safety" and this is good info and food for thought ;)

I don't remember the date. Too many beers ago. If I recall, it was a Coastie IP at the controls. Not sure about the service of the student.

I am glad to see that the technique is sanctioned. It makes sense now that I read up on the T-6, it has no BETA (***? That had to be a stupid USAF requirement). The most infuriating thing for me going through training was learning or dealing with IPs who had sketchy techniques. When I became an evaluator, it was one of the things I tried to reign in.

Also, I am embarrassed to say that I mistyped earlier. I was in VT-3, Red Knights! The Shooter's "Welcome to VT-6" was hanging in our ready room. Oh I miss those days, good times!

I understand your concerns. The discussion was somewhat related to the accident which started the thread. Hangar flying like this produces a lot of discussion which is great learning for all of us.

I think this accident will teach us that even if legal, it's much safer to land into the wind when landing on a wet and short runway, especially when you don't have spoilers or reversers.

Everything about this accident is speculation until the formal report is issued. Thankfully nobody was hurt.