Originally Posted by IC ALL

I don't think a controller needs to know either limit. It's up to the pilots to apply the limitations of their airframe to the operation of said airframe. ATC should advertise the winds that exist when they cut the ATIS and that exist when they give a landing clearance.

Now, if ATC is being pressured into lying in some way to the pilots about the winds, that's a different issue. And it's an issue that should be given a great amount of attention.

Originally Posted by AUS_ATC

No... I do not know what the crosswind component is for each aircraft or for each carrier.

I do know that MEM had a crosswind component chart that was used for runway selection, and those values were violated on a regular basis. If FDX wanted to depart south and land north -- the other airport users were essentially forced to go along with the selected configuration. To request a runway more aligned with the wind, would result in holding or diverting, and pressure was placed on the pilot to go along... get along.

Additionally, our local Standard Operating Procedures specified runway use and selection. These SOP's incorporated and referenced the above mentioned crosswind component chart. This crosswind component chart did NOT take wet runways into consideration. These SOP's were violated on a regular basis.

When the Converging Runway Display Aid (CRDA) was installed, our local SOP was altered to incorporate tailwind restrictions for all aircraft landing on RWY 27. This was also violated on a regular basis.

Consider this: Heavy Jets on approach to RWY 18L/18R with the wind 130/10. The Heavies have a ten knot headwind, and the Category Small or Large aircraft landing on RWY 27 had a 10+ knot tailwind. The Controller downstairs in the TRACON was tasked with "hitting the gap" on the ghost target, and "ties" often resulted. The Tower Controller solved these ties by asking the RWY 27 aircraft to make s-turns, reduce speed inside the marker, or by issuing go-around instructions and hoping (praying) to miss the RWY 18L/18R arrivals. The RWY 27 go-around aircraft was often instructed to "stay low" so as to avoid traffic on approach to land on RWY 18L/18R (an assignment below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude), and these go-around aircraft flew through the wake turbulence associated with the RWY 18L/18R arrival traffic.

No... I can't answer your question about excessive tailwind components with regards to aircraft performance or company SOP, and that is why I've asked for input. I can tell you how an excessive tailwind component affected me and the other Air Traffic Controllers at Memphis Tower/TRACON -- and I alleged to the United States Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of Inspector General (OIG) that these situations were unsafe.

Thanks,

AUS_ATC

Originally Posted by LivingInMEM

Every limitation I have seen is 10 kts, so that is likely pretty common. As a matter of fact, the 10 kt limit was even mentioned in an article about the American Airlines aircraft that recently ran off the runway. FWIW, the report was that he was offered the opposite direction for wind and declined.

I disagree with the concept that they don't need to be familiar with tailwind limitations. First of all, THEY set the duty runway. They need to know something about aircraft performance to do that.

As far as it being a simple matter of pilot responsibility, I'd invite you request an opposite direction landing during the nightly inbound rush at MEM and see how long it takes to get on the ground. I agree that the PIC is the ultimate responsible party, but expecting ATC to set the runway in use without regard to tailwind limitations is expecting the responsible pilots to orbit for a while.

Originally Posted by rickair7777

Perhaps ATC managers resist turning certain airports around even when conditions would warrant? Pure speculation on my part.

Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy

AUS_ATC:

I applaud the fact that you're not afraid to speak up when something isn't the way it should be. We need more of that in our society.

However, in the scenario above (winds 130/10), neither aircraft had a full 10 knots of headwind or tailwind.

I suspect you have not worked in NYC, DC, or Atlanta, where S-turning on final or altitude hold downs on missed approach for crossing traffic (LGA) are, well, standard operations. I'm not saying I really agree with those type of manuevers, but it happens daily if not hourly and that's what pilots get paid money to do.

With that being said, I just wanted the particulars assuming you could share because the FAA is going to want to know those as well. If I was the person making the airport runway decisions, I would most certainly give runway priority (headwinds) to the FedEx heavies over GA or light aircraft. If anyone requested the other runway, then work them in.