Having a VASI on final is hardly a good reason to land with a 10+ knot tailwind. If you can't fly a visual approach at night without getting yourself into trouble you shouldn't be flying at night, period. Just my 2 cents.

 

Cruz5350 and flyerjosh both have made valid points.

Whenever I have the choice I will choose to takeoff and land into the wind.
Thats how I did it in Aeroncas off dirt strips and still do it today in airliners.

I believe too often large airport dynamics have jets working downwind and it is not really the right thing to be doing.

 

RWY 14.

That's true, but they will flip it around if it's over a 10 knot tailwind. They usually wait until the last second to flip it though.

 

so the answer at the end of the day is what ? land into the wind

why is this so novel I must be missing something

 

Never flown a PC12, but here are my thoughts:

The OP has a valid concern. If you look at his scenario, it's more than just a regular night landing. He's landing in the middle of the night (00:35 lcl) after a pretty long flight (4hr). He doesn't say if he's familiar with the airport or not.

It's all well and good to say use your eyes, but remember that lots of night time landings have gone wrong due to optical illusions, depth perception etc.

I see the different holes lining up in the cheese.

Are there any instrument approaches to RW14? At the end of the day though, I'd take the headwind.

Pretty good human factors question.

 

Not missing anything......this is the type of Hangar flying talk/open discussion that I find the most interesting on this entire forum!

For my dollar - this type of discussion is much better than the whining and complaining about this regional or that regional taking this or that flying and the 99 different history lessons (all different depending on your viewpoint and biases) on the formation of this group or that.

USMCFLYR

 

Given this scenario, it doesnt matter what type of plane I was flying. Most airplanes are limited to 10 kts tailwind and this is my personal limitation (even if the runway is 12000 feet long) Adding that this is at night, it is not known from this example whether or not the other side has rising terrain or not. I have lived this long by not making a lot of assumptions in order to bend scenarios to work to my liking. My experience is that if there isnt a VASI or an approach to a runway, there is a reason. Think "Big Picture". We should all be able to make an approach at night without vertical guidance, however unless we know exactly what terrain or obstacles are on that side of the airport then we should err on the conservative side.
In fact the practice of building approaches in the FMS should only be used for secondary guidance and not a primary means of vertical guidance.
I'd say wait for the winds to die down and start looking at other airports to divert. Your boss might call you a pansy but you wont be playing russian roulette with his fancy plane.

 

Great points ovrtake92. To add to them IMO:
Absolutely correct! The *scenario* should be taken with the information available real time and will change constantly.

There are many reasons why a VASI/PAPI might be unavailable. Remember - they are *visual* aids and if properly commissioned AND maintained, they are fairly precise.

VERY important safety note: Non-precision RNAVs are being published showing a vertical Descent angle (VDA) and TCH on the approach chart. This information can be coded by avionics database providers to provide *advisory guidance* in the final segment. However, there is no TERPs criteria for obstacle clearance for the VISUAL segment of the path below the MDA. Consequetnly, if the VDA is blindly followed below MDA, an aircraft may come too close to, or impact obstacles or terrain penetrating the 34:1 surface extending out from the runway....
It is the pilot's responsibility to use the barometric altimeter to ensure compliance with altitude restrictions. Advisory vertical guidance is not approaved vertical guidance like that found on approaches with L/VNAV, LPV, ILS lines of minima. Advisory vertical guidance does not provide a TERPS-protected glidepath.

In short - BE CAREFUL!

USMCFLYR

 

@DirecTO
yes the airport is a frequent destination but the calm wind runway is 32 and of the year and half I have operated there, landed on rwy 14 maybe 2 times during the DAY. Not much of a night flyer, but have lots of cross/tailwind experience. Trying to stack the odds in my favor.

@overtake92
There is no rising terrain, it's pretty much flat land and a circling only approach. Not having landed on 14 that many times, "That" side of the airport is not that familiar and I would take the known tailwind effect with a VASI as opposed to the headwind and unknown obstacle clearance. Sorry to repeat, but try to stack the odds in my favor.

@Senior Skipper
It's a little bit of both, familiar with the RWY32 side, unfamiliar with the opposite side. Only a circling approach - doesn't help our discussion

Landing Total Distance:
Average Braking Technique, Ground Idle after Touchdown: 2780'

Landing Total Distance with Reverse Thrust:
Average Braking Technique, Full Reverse Thrust After Touchdown: 2280'

So we have an excess of 2500' (2524' if you want to do the numbers).
I am aware that those 2500 go by VERY FAST in an Oh ****! scenario.


VASI or Headwind which is the lesser of the two evils??? My argument is that,

Pretty much all of us here are professional's and know how to fly airplane's and what their aircraft's handling characteristics are, whether headwind or tailwind. If we all agree on that, then I think using the VASI is just stacking the odds in your favor.

 

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you if you think landing with a 10+ knot tailwind is "stacking the odds in your favor". Especially considering you just said the area is flat and there's no terrain on the "no vertical guidance" side of the airport. The most common accident in aviation these days is the runway overrun. Although you may get away with landing with a tailwind in a PC-12 all day long you are building habits that will bite you in the a$$ later.