So there we was... 30+ kts of wind shear at 300 ft AGL on final, clear and a million day in TX, 15 kts of direct tailwind changing to 15 kts of direct headwind at 300' AGL. The plane ahead of us had already gone around but we figured we were already established on final so we could take a look for ourselves, and of course we also went around.

Airmanship 101 came into play. The plane ahead of us elected to attempt another approach to the same runway, even though the wind shear was not related to a specific weather event such as a storm outflow, mountain wave, anything like that. The winds simply went from a 15 kt tailwind to a 15 kt headwind directly down the runway, at about 300 ft. That triggers go-around criteria for pretty much everyone I think.

Thing is, there was a somewhat shorter crossing runway, where the winds would be crossing at about 60 deg from runway heading. So it would go from a 60 deg quartering tailwind to a 60 deg front quartering crosswind, with surface winds still only about 15-20ish kts. That's certainly doable even with the shorter runway length that this crossing runway offered.

I guess my point... The crew ahead of us didn't attempt the crossing runway for whatever reason, and ended up diverting which undoubtedly was a "safe" course of action but which also undoubtedly cost thousands of dollars when there was a perfectly safe alternative course of action available in the form of a landing on the crossing runway. Are we failing our current generation of pilots by not teaching them to really think about their alternatives prior to simply re-trying something that didn't work the first time? Yes if the short runway would have had marginal stopping distance or, if for example, the crosswind was in excess of 30 kts then I could totally see picking the conservative course of action and diverting, but it wasn't even close. At touchdown on the crossing runway we had 11ish kts of crosswind component, 5-6 kts headwind component, and it was a clear VFR day with a dry runway. Are we not demanding our pilots learn from day one how to rough-estimate headwind and crosswind components to determine if any particular runway is even an option? Or was it just not these guys' day and they simply didn't think about it? Or perhaps they were afraid to ask to deviate from the runway advertised by ATIS (common student error number 472)?

It's been bugging me over the last month since this happened. Those guys had a perfectly safe alternative course of action (landing on the crossing runway) which they didn't ask ATC about, and then they diverted after a second go-around. We gave the crossing runway a shot (after discussing it and getting landing performance data following our go-around) and it was essentially a non-event, going from a left crosswind to a right crosswind at a nice safe 300 ft alt. Yea we had a combined 60+ years of aviation experience between us in the cockpit, but frankly I'm not usually the sharpest pencil in the drawer and it was my idea to try the crossing runway, so if I can think of it I'm pretty sure it's not rocket science. A student pilot ought to be able to consider using another perfectly safe runway when the alternative is another go-around and diversion.

Anyhow... Not a rant about the dang kids these days, but I was surprised and that hasn't happened to me in a while so I thought I'd bring it up to see if there's any discussion here. Where was the breakdown?

Edit - Before anyone jumps me for second-guessing the crew in the plane and the PIC decision, I'm not questioning their decision. They made a SAFE decision and executed their chosen course of action. However, there was an alternative course of action that they did not attempt, and they did not query ATC about the option of trying the crossing runway. I figure that's a fair discussion point without pointing fingers or being *critical* of a crew for choosing a safe course of action even if in hindsight it may not have been an optimal solution. This isn't 20/20 hindsight pointing fingers, it's a question about what happened and why.

Edit 2 - For those wondering, if my memory serves it was CRP. 7510' runway vs. 6080' runway, 50 deg apart.

 

Ok Karen.

Do you know what MEL’s they were carrying? Maybe the captain was high minimums? Was it the same equipment you fly? There are half a dozen reasons aside from you being Chuck Yeager and them being idiots. It’s weird that you’re still thinking about this a month later.

 

“Work, work, work, approaches, work, work, work, schedule, work, work, work”

 

Yeah…lots of possible factors that could have been present that would keep me from posting about this in a thinly veiled “I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, but then again I’m pretty much the sharpest tool in the shed” kind ow way.
Perhaps umpteenth leg in the last couple days and when crew was borderline fatigued. Maybe decided to just move this risk off their (and their passengers) plates because this time, this day, their experience told them to go conservative.

 

I wouldn't try again after two go-arounds, unless I was out of gas.

 

Still feeling good about posting that, OP?

 

Whatever. What's the point of this forum if people can't talk about flying? He had a point, it's fine. I don't think we need to shut him down for it.

 

I can't remember what happened on my own flight last week let alone be bothered by another pilot's flight a month ago.

 

Erhmegerd!!!! Errrrmensherppppp!!!!

 

FLENSR… The little Senator from SC has met his match when it comes to flip flopping… The crew took a safe option by diverting. But if he could have a made it be it’s with the crossing runway or had better decision making skills. You have some growing up to do chum.