Letter to ALPA regarding TAILWIND operations
 

I'm a former Air Traffic Controller at MEM -- currently assigned to AUS. While at MEM, I filed a Safety Disclosure with the United States Office of Special Counsel (OSC) regarding unsafe practices in use at MEM.

Two areas of concern regarded aircraft exiting the Class B airspace without notification (due to volume), and aircraft landing/departing with an excessive tailwind component. I was especially concerned with the tailwind issue, as this appeared to be clear example of PROFIT over SAFETY which benefited FDX Corporation.

My complaint was referred to the Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of Inspector General (OIG) for further investigation, and the investigation was recently completed. I have been afforded the opportunity to respond to the IG's investigation before it is made public.

I sent a letter to ALPA today via their web site. A copy of that letter may be found here. This letter asks ALPA for information relating to tailwind operations.

If you are willing to provide me with any information relating to tailwind operations, I could use some help in this area. I'm looking for accident or incident reports that have been attributed to tailwind operations; company policies regarding tailwind operations; and any additional training or ALPA guidance regarding tailwind operations.

I don't want to know what you CAN do, or what you are WILLING to do -- I want to know what you are SUPPOSED to do. If you are tired of being placed in an unsafe predicament by ATC and the FAA with regards to tailwind operations -- please contact me.

Thanks,

I'd be willing to bet most turbojets have a 10kt AFM tailwind limitation, and that would be written into company SOPs...with the PIC always having the discretion to refuse some or any tailwind component in the interest of safety.

Personally, I have no problem landing my airplane with a 10kt tailwind, provided I still meet 80% landing factored distance (part 91) AND the runway isn't contaminated.

In my limited experience many tailwind-prone airports are due to airspace and/or traffic constraints; MDW is notorious for tailwind operations (SWA overrun a few years ago had this as a contributing factor), as is PHL trying to land RJs on 35. PWK also does regular tailwind ops, with the ILS 16 Circle 34 being pretty typical.

Can you define what you considered is an excessive tailwind landing component?

Do you know as a controller what the maximum certified (safe) landing crosswind components of each carrier is?

I have been with 4 different airlines and all had a 10 kt limitation. Obviously you have to account for quartering tailwinds.

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.

Bingo IC ALL. The controllers don't need to know what wind limitations the different carriers have.

So with that being said, I'd like to know from AUS ATC what he felt was excessive?

If the tailwinds were 10 knots or less, I wouldn't call that excessive. And thus, no need to whistleblow anything. But if there was some deception going on, then that is a game changer.

That's funny - throughout my former airline training, it was "duly noted" that if we land on 22 at EWR, then we can flow way more jets than landing on 04.

737 classics had a 10 kt tailwind limit, the NGs had 15 I think.

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.

In Aspen we had to ask the tower to stop "helping us out" by telling us the tailwind was at 10 kts. The 20kt windsock was horizontal and if you declined the takeoff, in a couple of mins the tailwind would suddenly be exactly 10 kts!

My point is, it seem ATC tries to "help" us out, and 99% of the time very appreciated. When it's a safety issue tho...I don't want a shortcut.

Hope you do well with this matter before the FAA. Keep us posted.

Leaving LAX a few days ago, the winds on the ATIS were giving a tailwind in excess of 10 knots NOT including gust. One would have thought it was going to take the governators' signature to turn the airport around. we were going to be overweight for all conditions for the duty runway due to tailwind, and even if it came below 10kts, it was going to require removing pax/bags. Good idea. Then we hear Singapore, Ba and a few others calling (after we had asked) and were asking for the airport to be turned. LAX response was to tell us that their winds now showed (basically) an 8 knot tailwind... steady.. (yeah right) and that to go opposite direction would be an hour+ delay. The controller asked each pilot what his limit was.. and they were all... wait for it.... 10 knots!! All Boeings... all 10 knots. I disagree with IC ALL... they should (probably do) know this. It is not rocket surgery, and it is common. Probably what is more to the point is that they don't want noise complaints, and will do ANYTHING to avoid them.