I worked the midnight shift last night at MEM during the FDX inbound/outbound, and I have a few questions about tailwind and crosswind components.

Here's the scenario: MEM was landing to the north, using RWY 36L and 36R. The surface wind is 090/08, so we were also using RWY 09 instead of RWY 27. The very first aircraft that checks in on the Tower frequency states that there is a "... direct 30 knot crosswind component from 2,000 feet down to 300 feet, then 12 knots direct all the way down to touchdown." I issue the PIREP to the next couple of aircraft, and am informed that it's actually a tailwind all the way down to 300 feet.

Replys from pilots receiving this PIREP were: "Oh God...", "Oh Lord", "That sounds like fun", "Oh geez", "What?", and other words and phrases indicating that the approach and landing were going to be very interesting.

We had several aircraft elect to go-around and try again; some aircraft rolled all the way to the end and were not able to turn off where we would normally expect; the long rollers caused at least one go around; and the requirement to issue these wind conditions to each arrival was simply excruciating and time consuming.

So... how do you folks feel about a 30+ knot tailwind that changes to a 30+ knot direct crosswind as you descend down to 300 feet, and then slowly changes to 12 knots all the way down to touchdown?

How "safe" is it to fly an approach under these type of conditions?

How difficult is it to fly an approach under these type of wind conditions?

Is this something that is fun and offers you an opportunity to display your skill, or is it something that you'd rather not be bothered with?

What is your company policy on these type of conditions?

What else should ATC know about your crosswind/tailwind concerns?

Does some guy in a suit at FDX mandate that you WILL land north under these conditions in order to save the company money?



Thanks,

MEM_ATC

 

The first thing I would have told you is that I need RW27 or the north/south flow ( don't mind). Next thing, after that was denied, would be a clearance to my alternate. I used to like to play, but now I'm an old man who just wants to get to the end of the pairing without getting killed or violated.
By accepting a 12kt tail wind (when our Co. limit is 10kts) you get to eat popcorn for an extra 2 minutes? My question to you is why haven't you changed flows upon recipt of the pilot report? Does "some guy in a suit" in the TRACON/TOWER decide you're gonna run operations with a 12kt tail wind?
I don't understand the pilot/controller mind set that you are relaying in this post.
Cheers,
fbh
Anchorage Based

 

MEM_ATC, most transport category aircraft have crosswind component max speeds of around 30 kts and tailwind max's of around 10 kts (talk to your super for exact numbers for Fedex a/c - he should have the numbers or know who to call to get them). Any kind of tailwind equals longer rollouts and any tailwind over 5 kts is definitely not desired. Landing in any type of gusty winds is not fun, but the conditions you describe would be very challenging. Anyone who would look at those kind of conditions as "fun" should get a psych eval. The company's position is that you should be able to land in any crosswind/tailwind less than the maximums, but they want you to go around if the approach becomes unstable or unsafe. I know Fedex asks for north landings for the inbounds from ATC, but it is your Super who should be making the call for what is safe.

 

Company or no company, It is a legal hard limitation on the MD-11 to not land with more than 10kts tail wind, as it is on most Transport Category aircraft.. under emergency authority, all bets are off. Getting packages/pax in on time would not qualify in my book (or most people books I know), but if you don't have the fuel to get to a suitable alternate then maybe... Therefor I say the runways must be changed at the airport if I'm going to go there.

 

I agree with FBH and CE,As a veteran landing in MDW (6446x150) our company limits the 75 to 10 kts as most companies adhere to. I have seen that flow control for ORD dictates landing 31C sometimes with a 8 kt. tailwind(wink,wink) resulting in a turnoff at the very end based on landing in the touchdown zone. I encourage you MEM ATC and your fellow coworkers to understand and respect our desire for safety sake to land on whatever rwy that provides our safety margin irregardless of flow control. I know or believe that my fellow aviators have no desire to increase your workload in this instance,

 

The way I understand the original post is...

The 30 kt tailwind, at 2000ft, changed to a 30 kt X-wind by 300ft. And, then reduced to a 12kt x-wind by touchdown.

I see nothing illegal about this. Tailwind and crosswind limitations are for takeoff and landing. Not approach.

In essence, these guys were flying their approaches(not landings) in a diminishing tailwind. So, is it easier to go from a diminishing headwind or a diminishing tailwind. I'm not sure. Seems like with the diminishing tailwind you'd at least be adding power to keep a constant airspeed/glidepath. With a dimishing headwind, you'd be reducing power to stay on glideslope and airspeed. Wouldn't you be more likely to land fast or long with a diminishing headwind?

Of course, the 12 kt x-wind would be the same, landing north or south. No problem with that.

 

How about ATC running the airport and switching the runway around to land into the wind. At some point ATC becomes negligent to their operational directives.

 

BB, it was a tail wind down to 300 feet. I realize it wasn't a cat 2 or 3 day but it's inside my 500 foot decision regime. We've had enough "bad days" around here in the last few years. I don't want to be the next one that we all read about and second guess.
fbh

 

Am I out to lunch here? I think I'd rather lose a 30kt tailwind at 300ft than lose a 30kt headwind at 300ft.

 

I'll bet ATCs' close association with the airports primary user had something to do with which way the airport was turned around (36L&R, 27) during recovery. It usually does there in Memphis. Shouldn't be that way, but I bet it was. Safety first, yeah, right!