That's correct for a shear type change. I don't think, that was what he was describing.

Also correct. And, if the wind shift he described was rapid...You just made my point, that it would be better to approach in a decreasing tailwind, like they were. I'd rather try and recover from a 30kt airspeed increase than a 30kt IAS decrease at 300ft. AGL.

I think switching directions would result in a less stable approach. But, that's what we get paid the big(?) bucks for. Making that decision. And then, being able to fly these aircraft in challenging conditions. I prefer, clear and calm. But, it doesn't always work that way.

 

Back in July, on my second trip off of IOE, I was cleared to intercept final to 18L while on a vector of about 140 descending to 2000ft. As I intercepted final at 2000ft, I had a 55kt crosswind from 270, I was out of limits (31kts) until about 500ft, and landed with about 15kts steady direct crosswind. Was a lot of fun, especially since we saw the black smoke over on 18R from our MD-10 with the gear collapsed (we were the next plane to land)!

In January, coming from the south, on an early Sun morning, ATIS had us landing south with winds from the west. On the arrival we were swapped to 36R with 30-40kts of quartering tailwind from the SSW, the wind shifted at about 500ft to about 15kts quartering headwind from the NW. A lot of work for my FO as he intercepted the LOC and ended up going high on the GS due to the big tailwind.

In both cases, and often in less "extreme" conditions, I make mention that Go Arounds are free, just in case it gets REALLY ugly.

These conditions can be a TON of work, and can catch you off guard in the absense of PIREPS and calls from APP or TWR. ATIS usually doesn't have this info.

I think if we just know what the conditions are on the approach, not just what the ATIS winds are, can go a long way to making these approaches perfectly safe. Rember, a heavy MD with app. speeds near 170, with 30-40 kt tailwind (200+ kts GS) will need 1000+fpm to MAINTAIN glideslope, get above and you're looking at probable GPWS callouts and go arounds!

I think FedEx likes us to land north, shorter tax into the ramp.

 

In a situation like that the PNF (pilot not flying) would be calling the tailwinds out on approach. (they're auto updated every second off of our mission computer) It's a judgement call, but a steady 12kt tail sends me around.

 

If he has the proper crosswind landing correction in, the INS wind will go to zero!

 

The first post said the the winds were reported by ATC at 090/8. Sure no one would land with a reported tail wind that was over a limit. And no one goes around because the fms says over 10. Not sure why not but I've never seen it. I don't think pilot reports dectate an offical wind report.
Am I wrong or did all you guys get off on the wrong track.

 

With the latest change in the FOM to the Stabilized Approach criteria, an unexpected tailwind WILL result in an unbriefed exceedance of 1000 fpm, and the PM would be required to "state that the aircraft is not stable and identify the condition" (sink rate). The Captain would then be required to "command or initiate a go-around unless in his judgment this would create a greater hazard to flight safety."


This is a change from the previous edition, where "descent angle and rate ... appropriate for the type of approach being flown" was the rule. With the new rule, "if an approach requires a sink rate greater than 1,000 fpm, a special briefing shall be conducted." Absent the PIREPs and the consequent expectation of sink rates in excess of 1,000 fpm, there would be no "special briefing," and the result would be a go-around.



Food for thought.






.

 

Controllers need to use the most favorable winds runway in any case. Especially with Fedex pilots. They have a hard enough time keeping it on the runway as it is.

 

Nice dig. Must be a good feeling to believe you're better than 5,000 pilots from all kinds of backgrounds.

You wear a crown in the cockpit of your whale by chance?

 

I fly small aircraft, but I would rather lose the 30kt headwind than a 30kt tailwind.

Coming in with a 30kt headwind I have excess power in, which is easier to withdraw, as I notice my airspeed increasing.

With a tailwind, as the wind dies down to become a crosswind, I will now be low and slow, which is definitely less desirable.

Especially with you guys having to anticipate power additions right?

I don't know...never flown a jet.

 

I think those conditions were safe for landing. In the AF we maintian a Min Groundspeed to account for the possible shear, on the go they could have decreased climb performance when they start picking the tailwind back up. I would check for obstacles and have an idea whether I could clear them engine out.