Tailwind landings

[co-joe]

The problem with taking the 5 kt tailwind today is that tomorrow you'll take 6 or 10 kts, because 5 wasn't that bad. And eventually you'll be that Challenger going into Aspen Colorado with 33 kts up the tail pipe...

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 18&t=93785

I love crosswind landings cause to me it's all about skill. I hate tail wind landings cause to me it feel like luck...

[pelmet]

The problem with taking the 5 kt tailwind today is that tomorrow you'll take 6 or 10 kts, because 5 wasn't that bad. And eventually you'll be that Challenger going into Aspen Colorado with 33 kts up the tail pipe...

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 18&t=93785

Tailwind landings within certified limits can be done quite easily depending on the circumstances. Some airports have this as standard at least up to 10 knots for preferred runways. It does not mean that most of us will be eventually doing it up to 33 knots.

[Colonel Sanders]

pelmet: I think the argument is that you should
never have sex, because sooner or later you will
wake up sweat-covered in a smelly room full of
Thai ladyboys.

[Tips Up]

pelmet: I think the argument is that you should
never have sex, because sooner or later you will
wake up sweat-covered in a smelly room full of
Thai ladyboys.

Oh man, that was a wild weekend.....

[pdw]

The problem with taking the 5 kt tailwind today is that tomorrow you'll take 6 or 10 kts, because 5 wasn't that bad. And eventually you'll be that Challenger going into Aspen Colorado with 33 kts up the tail pipe...

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 18&t=93785

Tailwind landings within certified limits can be done quite easily depending on the circumstances. Some airports have this as standard at least up to 10 knots for preferred runways. It does not mean that most of us will be eventually doing it up to 33 knots.

"the problem with taking the 5kt tailwind today is .... "

After seeing lots of light tailwinds as part of accident reports .... it becomes plain to see that a slight tailwind not expected or underestimated for contribution quite often could be part of at the cause. It has perhaps nothing really to do with how strong it is when you're aware of it ... excepting maybe the one with the "33 kts".

[slam525i]

The problem with taking the 5 kt tailwind today is that tomorrow you'll take 6 or 10 kts, because 5 wasn't that bad.

I always thought part of the learning process was that you gradually raise the limit until either you reach the limits of your skill or the limits of the airplane's performance, and then you realize what the limits are. (Provided you don't exceed the book limits, but especially if there's no hard book limits. I'm thinking cross-winds in particular.)

You take a 5kt tail wind today. tomorrow you take 6. The next day you take 8, but it gets a little too exciting and you learn not to do it again and stick to 6 or less.

Same thing with cross winds. Today you do 10 kts. Tomorrow you go at 12 kts, which happens to be the max. demo cross wind of the airplane. If you had no problems with it, is it truly un-safe to then do a 13-14 kt cross-wind landing?

If you make large jumps, then you may quickly exceeds your or your airplane's abilities, but I've never thought pushing a little at a time is a bad thing.

[PT6onH20]

.

[Colonel Sanders]

What do you mean by harrumphing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN99jshaQbY


Yes, I would know nothing about lawyers and
liability, compared to you.

[rt777]

The problem with taking the 5 kt tailwind today is that tomorrow you'll take 6 or 10 kts, because 5 wasn't that bad. And eventually you'll be that Challenger going into Aspen Colorado with 33 kts up the tail pipe...

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 18&t=93785

I love crosswind landings cause to me it's all about skill. I hate tail wind landings cause to me it feel like luck...

I think 33kt of gusty tailwind is a totally different story.

[shimmydampner]

5 kts is a gateway tailwind.

[burninggoats]

Just don't get me started on the guys I've flown with who insisted you needed to increase your Vref speed to help with the tailwind

[CpnCrunch]

Just don't get me started on the guys I've flown with who insisted you needed to increase your Vref speed to help with the tailwind

Only if it's variable.

[A346Dude]

I'd rather go off the end at < 20 kts than spin it into the ground doing a circling approach at circling minima.

[pdw]

Just don't get me started on the guys I've flown with who insisted you needed to increase your Vref speed to help with the tailwind

Only if it's variable.

Variable as defined in mathematics too (the variables), and not everyone is equal in math skills. Here's a place where achieving a basic level in understanding/practise of ordinary everyday math becomes very useful.

The landing/downwind Vref:
Catching up to a wind gust now for example occupies a longer duration, where landing groundspeed is that much (twice of wind-speed) faster than airspeed, longer on average than if its coming right at you as in a normal into-wind approach to land.

For this very reason falling short on the Vref-calculation might become less forgiving in opposite windsock, seeing that the gust-drop towards too-low an airspeed with the tail component now also takes somewhat longer to correct despite the comforting visual of approaching so much faster over/to the runway.

So any suggested attentiveness to adjusting a firm or slightly wider Vref-margin makes sense when the relative airflow against leading edges is less steady there in gust prone approach while at higher ground-speed of landing 'opposite', whether incorrectly or inadvertantly / on purpose, to the direction favored by the sock.

[CpnCrunch]

Variable as defined in mathematics too (the variables), and not everyone is equal in math skills. Here's a place where achieving a basic level in understanding/practise of ordinary everyday math becomes very useful.

The landing/downwind Vref:
Catching up to a wind gust now for example occupies a longer duration, where landing groundspeed is that much (twice of wind-speed) faster than airspeed, longer on average than if its coming right at you as in a normal into-wind approach to land.

For this very reason falling short on the Vref-calculation might become less forgiving in opposite windsock, seeing that the gust-drop towards too-low an airspeed with the tail component now also takes somewhat longer to correct despite the comforting visual of approaching so much faster over/to the runway. So attentiveness to adjusting a wider Vref-margin makes sense when the relative airflow against leading edges is less steady in gust prone approach while at higher ground-speed of landing opposite (incorrectly or inadvertantly / on purpose) to the direction favored by the sock.

Actually, I just meant that if there is a gust, you should probably be adding half the gust factor to your airspeed.

I'd rather go off the end at < 20 kts than spin it into the ground doing a circling approach at circling minima.

Surely if you're flying visually, spins and CFIT shouldn't be a problem. Shouldn't a well trained pilot be able to do a circling approach without making a hole in the ground? One company's checkride involves a circling approach with an electrical failure, low oil pressure, then engine failure, followed by a single-engine go-around due to a vehicle on the runway. Anyway, I think a well-executed circling approach might be a better idea than going off the end of the runway.

[Maynard]

I'd rather go off the end at < 20 kts than spin it into the ground doing a circling approach at circling minima.

Probably one of the dumbest things I've read today.
As long as your accurate with your touchdown, ie not floating it or trying to grease it, there should be no reason to go off the end with 20kts. Secondly, if your worried about spinning it into the ground during a circling, you either really doubt yourself, or need a lot of extra training...co-ordinate turns are quite simple.

[pelmet]

There are plenty of reasons to take a tailwind. It can save significant amounts of fuel on larger aircraft, as much as a couple of tons. The airport may be sing the tailwind runway for noise abatement. I used to land a 182 with 5-7 knots tailwind in skydiving ops to save time. I have landed with a tailwind to avoid having the sun in my eyes near sunset, especially on an old airplane which has oil that splatters on the windshield making it really hard to see outside. Or one of those one-way strips where you just are not going to land downhill.

Several years ago I was on a ski vacation in France and did some dual instruction on a Jodel at this airport. You always land in the same direction and takeoff in the opposite direction. The judgement is in how much wind you will accept. But, it is the only place where power was added after touchdown to go up the hill.

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/airport.php?p=2494

This is what it looks like on final in the summer...

https://www.google.ca/search?q=meribel+ ... 1280%3B960

[A346Dude]

I'd rather go off the end at < 20 kts than spin it into the ground doing a circling approach at circling minima.

Probably one of the dumbest things I've read today.
As long as your accurate with your touchdown, ie not floating it or trying to grease it, there should be no reason to go off the end with 20kts. Secondly, if your worried about spinning it into the ground during a circling, you either really doubt yourself, or need a lot of extra training...co-ordinate turns are quite simple.

No need for the personal attack.

All I'm saying is the risk associated with a poorly performed circling approach is higher than that associated with a botched tailwind landing. I may not be as smart as you, but I don't think it's dumb to minimize risk.

[cgzro]

Probably one of the dumbest things I've read today.

There is nothing dumb about looking at the relative risks of two alternatives. Not doing so, or implying otherwise however would be.

[Liquid Charlie]

electrical failure, low oil pressure, then engine failure,

Mmmmmm -- multiple unrelated -- hope that isn't during a ride --

[CpnCrunch]

electrical failure, low oil pressure, then engine failure,

Mmmmmm -- multiple unrelated -- hope that isn't during a ride --

It was a real checkride in a DHC6 (simulated failures), but now they do it in the sim. I think the idea is that if you can handle all that, you're ready for anything.

[davecessna]

where practicable, land and take off into the wind

Note "where practicable". Even without ATC
authorization (eg at an uncontrolled airport)
this is done all the time.

For example, you might have a short runway
which is directly into wind, and a faster, heavier
aircraft chooses to take a longer runway with
a crosswind. CYGK with a west wind.

Other times I have chosen tailwind:

- uphill/downhill
- obstructions at one end of the runway
- setting sun
- as OP mentioned, instrument approach
with lower ceilings. Circling not possible.

I've landed at Kingston in a 152 at night recently with a light tailwind (020 @ 5ish, RW 19, love that long bastard) to not piss off the Air Georgian guys who were on short final.

[CpnCrunch]

I've landed at Kingston in a 152 at night recently with a light tailwind (020 @ 5ish, RW 19, love that long bastard) to not piss off the Air Georgian guys who were on short final.

5 knots is reasonable, but much more than that I would be wanting a different runway. A while ago someone here kept saying he wanted to land on the reciprocal runway, and eventually FSS had to politely tell him that "there are 3 other aircraft in the circuit". There was a 3 to 5 knot tailwind at the time.

[Redneck_pilot86]

I've landed at Kingston in a 152 at night recently with a light tailwind (020 @ 5ish, RW 19, love that long bastard) to not piss off the Air Georgian guys who were on short final.

5 knots is reasonable, but much more than that I would be wanting a different runway. A while ago someone here kept saying he wanted to land on the reciprocal runway, and eventually FSS had to politely tell him that "there are 3 other aircraft in the circuit". There was a 3 to 5 knot tailwind at the time.

At what point does fitting into the traffic pattern override safety? If this particular pilot is not comfortable or capable of taking the tailwind, he has every right to request the recipricol runway, circuit traffic be damned. I'm quite capable of taking 15-20kts tailwind and do quite regularily, but if some inexperience ppl shows up I'm not going to just carry on and put him in the very dangerous spot of exceeding his own limits to accomodate circuit traffic.

[CpnCrunch]

At what point does fitting into the traffic pattern override safety? If this particular pilot is not comfortable or capable of taking the tailwind, he has every right to request the recipricol runway, circuit traffic be damned. I'm quite capable of taking 15-20kts tailwind and do quite regularily, but if some inexperience ppl shows up I'm not going to just carry on and put him in the very dangerous spot of exceeding his own limits to accomodate circuit traffic.

Good point, and I wouldn't have a problem changing direction to accommodate the plane, and I'm sure FSS would have asked us to change direction if the pilot had insisted.

It's also a good reminder that pilots should never be pressured into doing anything they aren't comfortable with (crosswinds, tailwinds, or anything else). If someone criticizes you for not flying due to weather, just smile while thinking that they'll probably end up in a smoking hole in the ground before too long. My personal limits are lower than the plane's limits.