Deadly plane crash at Aspen airport

[Rookie50]

I see no reason to ever accept a 20 knot tailwind

Ceiling is at 200 AGL. Only approach available
to you is an ILS to a 10,000 foot runway with
a 20 knot tailwind. Circling minimums are 600.
Widespread low ceilings. Other airports within
your fuel range have worse wx.

What do you do?

Free advice: work on your stick & rudder skills,
even though they are no longer fashionable,
because pilots are "systems managers" now,
I am told.

This is an unpopular opinion, but make the
limitations your airplane's, not yours.

Fine, of course I'd do it. Options are worse. My comment is in reference to someone who was being nice in accommodating a 737 in good weather. I would not accept that.

Nothing to do with an ILS to minimums sir.

Why accept additional risks for no pressing reason?

[GRK]

Mon Colonel,

Are you saying that you would willingly exceed aircraft limitations? Why would you be in the position of having to shoot an ILS with a 20 knot tailwind in the first place? Would you only carry enough fuel to put you in that corner? The regs in the world I work in require TWO alternates if the weather is looking like what you suggest. To intimate that it's ok to willingly exceed aircraft limitations is not very responsible.

[Colonel Sanders]

Are you saying that you would willingly exceed aircraft limitations?

Where does it say that you can't land a 172 with
a tailwind? That's what Rookie50 and I are
discussing, with 70 knots over the numbers.

As I mentioned before, I did a head-on takeoff
and head-on landing in a Pitts S-2C with 20
knots of tailwind at an airshow in Central
America. The AFM lists no tailwind limitation
to the best of my knowledge.

[GRK]

My mistake then, I saw references to larger aircraft I guess…I was thinking AFM limits where there for a reason. Silly ain't it?
GRK

[pelmet]

I fly out of a sometimes busy airport (CYLW) with only one runway and mountainous terrain (not nearly as steep as around Aspen and only 1421' above sea level) and on a lot of occasions land with 5-7 kts of tailwind. The control tower here likes to keep the runway with the ILS active as much as possible.

On one occasion I was on a 5 mile final with jet traffic ahead of me and a 737 a few miles behind me and the wind at the airport changed to 10g21 (direct tailwind) and I was offered a runway change, knowing that if I took a runway change I would force the 737 to also take a runway change I opted to accept the tailwind and simply added 6 kts to my final approach speed to account for the gust factor and landed without incident. The 737 turned down the runway change as well and landed normally. The only difference was I used some more runway and some of the illusions were different with the higher ground speed. I was flying a Piper Tomahawk by the way.

Was that stupid on my part? After reading this thread and watching the video's I am second guessing myself but still feel as long indicated airspeed is maintained and you have sufficient runway a tailwind shouldn't be a big deal.

I have landed with tailwinds plenty of times but I only do it if there is reason to do so after considering the situation. Maybe it is convenience with a 5 knot tailwind. A straight-in is done instead of going all the way around and landing the other way and backtracking. A place I used to do it was Stratford. But it was early n the morning and I listened out early to see if there was other traffic and realized that there was potential for a Nordo guy around. The runway was long for the type flown. I used to land a 182 on a 2200 foot runway with a 5 knot tailwind to reduce taxi time in skydiving ops. I have done it to avoid sun in my eyes on final. All once again when considering runway length, runway conditions such as wet or slippery, traffic, terrain issues, etc. In other words there is at least a reason to do so and you consider things. Tire wear is an issue as well.

In the example above, I probably would have landed into wind as there is no reason to start landing with larger tailwinds just to do it. You could easily have just taken the other runway and offered to do a couple of orbits while the 737 landed in whatever direction he decided to land. So bottom line for me, sometime with a reasonably light tailwind(such as below ten knots for convenience. For stronger winds, only for safety reasons. That is just what I feel is prudent. I have only ever seen max tailwind limits in large aircraft. Either 10 or 15 knots.

For tailwheel aircraft, I would suggest always landing into wind unless you have a lot of experience and really know what you are doing with the type being flown.

[pdw]

While we're at it, now that we've covered some points about the tailwind landing question, what do the tailwind take-off limitations end up being at an airport like this.

Seeing that their take-offs are one way and the landings are in the the opposite direction, are they letting these aircraft blast off when they are chasing 10 or 15 knots or more ?

[Colonel Sanders]

For tailwheel aircraft, I would suggest always landing into wind unless you have a lot of experience and really know what you are doing with the type being flown

+1

Most people struggle with keeping a taildragger straight
with a head/crosswind.

You need a bit of practice before you can comfortably
accept (quartering) tailwinds in a taildragger. But the
aircraft is perfectly capable of it, with sufficient runway
length, iff the pilot can avoid PIO's in yaw and pitch.

This is somewhat technique-intensive, despite what you
might have heard.

[pdw]

Once set up in this extreme tailwind landing with touchdown the stakes change as soon as the decision is engaged to go around yet another time. Now it again becomes the take-off situation with the immediate expectation of gaining enough airspeed to achieve stable flight and climb away with enough of a rate to clear the mountain obstruction ahead.

Not the usual expected increases in relative wind here (the associated airspeed or altitude gain) for rotation / early climb as what the into-wind takeoff will normally provide.

[switchflicker]

We've been beating the tailwind limitation to death here. Now let's check our POH or AFM to see if it is really listed as a limit, or a maximum demonstrated tailwind. I think in a lot of cases, the aircraft was only demonstrated to handle a certain tailwind 'cause that's all Mother Nature was providing that day. If it's the max demonstrated, then it's not a limit. Not real smart to exceed it in any case, but lots of times the line pilot has far more time on the particular type than the fellow who did the certification flights and can handle tailwinds better.

[ahramin]

Tailwind limits for my work aircraft: 10 knots, including gusts.

I have never seen a FCOM with a demonstrated tailwind component listed anywhere. I'd be surprised to learn any aircraft has such a thing.

[Canoehead]

The Dash 8 has a tailwind limit (takeoff or landing) of 20KTS with the appropriate supplement and configuration. It's a hard limitation.

[pdw]

The Dash 8 has its large power supply centered very well.

Looking at a photo, the engine nose cones are nearly lining up with the leading edge, so when battling up to "20KTS" either-way / takeoff or landing it has all of its excess power lined up just right when it all needs to be applied at once at slow landing / go-around airspeeds (and regardless of what the weight is within its W&B-envelope).

[Maynard]

Pdw how come I feel as if I neither understand your posts, or the relevance of them?

[pdw]

OK will check that out ... and do some re-reading.

Landing 20kt tailwinds on flat land with the 20kt limitation is different than if at more than twice 'allowed' ... which is what the "10kt" aircraft does here (where it might not have it's "high mounted" thrust as close to centreline and actually supports the P.I.O. ?)

[7thirtyseven]

Yer killin' me pdw! !!

[pdw]

]Pdw how come I feel as if I neither understand your posts, nor the relevance of them ?

Since you're into this discussion ... you mind pointing out what's irrelevant about any of the points made ?

[7thirtyseven]

One little word wrong and it can mess up the whole meaning ...

Exactly what I keep telling my wife.

[pdw]

Chasing "33kts" there to get over the threshold was no longer a comparison to anything less, like 5kts 10kts or 20kts. (As long as that is clear.)

[justwork]

Pdw how come I feel as if I neither understand your posts, or the relevance of them?

+1 to each post on this page. I have no clue what you're talking about, either because it straight up doesn't make sense or is wrong.

Explain to me the logic behind your dash 8 tail wind theory? Something about something being lined up with the leading edge is the reason that plane wont have any problems with tail wind?

Why conducting a go around with a tail wind means youre going to fly into the mountains, you wont have an increase in airspeed after setting go around thrust or power?

Referencing tail wind limitations for an airport? An airport doesn't care as far as I know, its up to the pilots to accept or deny a clearance that is not safe. I believe they'll let you do what ever you want as long as there is no loss of seperation.

[pdw]

Explain to me the logic behind your dash 8 tail wind theory? Something about something being lined up with the leading edge is the reason that plane wont have any problems with tail wind?

Simple; can't PIO as easily if the go-around thrust doesn't push nose up (low hanging engines) or push nose down (highmount).

[Sidebar]

Simple; can't PIO as easily if the go-around thrust doesn't ... push nose down (highmount).

I flew a lot of go-arounds in CL600/601, and, if there was indeed a nose-down pitching moment from the engine position, it was easily overcome by normal aft forces on the control column. I have lots of ideas about what might have happened to this flight in Aspen, but none of them involve high-mounted engines as a contributory factor.

[justwork]

Explain to me the logic behind your dash 8 tail wind theory? Something about something being lined up with the leading edge is the reason that plane wont have any problems with tail wind?

Simple; can't PIO as easily if the go-around thrust doesn't push nose up (low hanging engines) or push nose down (highmount).

When you initiate a go around what do you do? Do you set the power and close your eyes? Do you pitch nose up or allow the plane to crash? Are you a pilot?

[pdw]

Clearance to land in a mountain valley chasing 40mph gusts across the threshold that are aligned to the runway heading must be a first or extremely rare, so as a pilot I wouldn't be able to answer these questions, nor know who would.

What chance is there ANYONE on here would ever get the chance to do something like this with passengers ?

[oldtimer]

IMHO everyone is chasing the effects and advisability of accepting a tailwind on landing. What about the passengers in the back who say that since they are paying big bucks for the flight, get then to Aspen or get another job because if you will not do it, I know someone who will. That was a factor in the G3 accident a few years ago where some Hollywood dude got upset when the flight crew determined the flight could not get there before curfue so the Hollywood idiot in the back gets on the phone with the owner/boss who gets on the phone with the flight crew and explains a few facts. Similar to the Bieber shit show where big money talks.

[goingmach_1]

For the record, in the AFM for the Challenger, "the maximum tailwind component approved for take-off or landing is 10kts."

Looks like the PIC, will have some explaining to do. Im sure the insurance company will advise the owner that because there was a AFM limitation exceeded, the Certificate of Airworthiness was not in force, and therefore the insurance is not in force either.