BE-20 taking off down wind with a steady 25 knots and close to full load of passengers. 25 degree day. No reason to do that. No obstacles, no weather to deal with; probably just didn't want to back-track to the other end (which would have taken a couple of minutes).
I do seem to recall the arrogant attitude of the PIC that afternoon....as he was climbing in he shouted to a couple of people standing at the ramp edge to get out of the way because they were about to start. I yelled back... "try taking off into the wind this time".
Lousy decision making on the crews part. They used up all of the runway on departure. And I mean all of it.
Switchfoot.
If true this is gross neglicence on the part of the crew.
No different than the pilot on trial now in Winnipeg, except they did not crash.
However any crew that bone headed are likely to crash sooner or later
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
I wouldn't assume the pilot is stupid. The reason for taking off with a 20 knot tailwind could be simply that the regulations required it. Here at Edmonton with the closure of runway 34 if IFR you must meet spec visibility of I think about 2 1/2 miles in order to use runway 12 whereas you can take off with 1/2 mile visibility on runway 30. They have closed 34/16 and added high requirements of visibility to use 12. It is a stupid situation created by bureaucrats but if the wind is 120 at 20 and visibility is 1 1/2 if you want to depart and the airplane has the required performance you must go with the 20 knot tailwind or be violated. We have that exact situation today.
Commercial operations involve managing risk against efficiency. There are times when a downwind takeoff or landing result in considerable time savings and thus are very operationally efficient. However a decision to do a downwind takeoff/landing has be preceded by a clear and dispassionate assessment of the risks and must be supported by POH/AFM data. Most smaller aircraft have published data for downwind components up to 10 knots, therefore as far as I am concerned that is the limit. Whether or not any downwind component should be accepted is pure pilot decision making and is situationally dependent. Given the facts in the original post on this thread I can only conclude that the pilot(s) took an unnecessary and IMO foolish, risk
BTW, I have always tried to get at least one downwind takeoff and landing for my CPL students as the aircraft will perform/respond differently and the ability to safely conduct a downwind takeoff and landing is IMO an essential tool in any CPL's toolbox of skills.
jjj wrote:Liability and common sense aside - perhaps you could appeal to this person's consideration of how hard he/she is on equipment.
If every T/O and landing was with monster tailwinds - you'd chew up brakes and tires like crazy.
jjj
if runway length is not an issue you most likley won't wear the breaks out as you shouldn't be touching them. the only time I've ever seen tires being wrecked was from people new to the plane (couldn't keep their heels on the floor for touch down).
in short, no it's not a big deal for a tail wind T/O or landing in a king air
I'm not sure how T/O preformance of a king air 200 is a flight training issue, I think the moderator who moved this might have his head up his rectum. What flight schools use a king air 200?
But... But... The school told me they had one so I could get TURBINE TIME!!!
I landed a taildragger in dead calm once that turned to a tailwind around the time I touched down. The plane corrected it to a headwind, then a tailwind, then the wind was mostly my cursing as the dust settled.
But... But... The school told me they had one so I could get TURBINE TIME!!!
I landed a taildragger in dead calm once that turned to a tailwind around the time I touched down. The plane corrected it to a headwind, then a tailwind, then the wind was mostly my cursing as the dust settled.
LnS.
which also has nothing to do with the TO and landing preformance of a king air 200
Anyone taking off or landing with a wind over what is published in the charts should give their heads a shake, sure 95% of the time you will be fine but the problem is if anything happens your room for error is gone. Lose an engine on a 25 knot tailwind take off and I doubt you'll make it over the trees, or lets say you have to reject and go off the end of the runway and it was shown that you had even a 15kt tailwind an insurance company will eat you alive. The point I'm getting at is WHY do it, maybe to save your company a few $$ in fuel? is that worth a potential lawsuit against you? or worse being in a fatal accident? any reputable company would much rather have you backtrack and take the headwind if it will be over a 10kt tailwind, WHY? It has been written in blood and they know a few extra lbs of fuel burnt is cheaper than an accident. So unless your landing with a 30kt tailwind because your plane was on fire and about to blow up it is reckless and dangerous.
PS look at the charts in the book if you notice takeoff and landing distance get exponentially greater for every kt on the tail.
Every tailwind is a headwind when you turn the aircraft around.
Unless you are dealing with a large slope, take the extra time to fly a headwind.
Anyone else notice this topic is four years old? And why is it in Flight Training? Is Montair still flogging their King Air to unwary and rich students?
There's a formula with regard to the increase in energy with small increases of speed.
The aircraft might just need another 2,500 feet of takeoff distance, but should a failure occur how much distance will it need to stop?
There's balanced field length.... I suppose this might be shorter if one plans on using trees, buildings, and other obstacles to shorten the stop distance.
At one field I watched 737s and CRJs take off with 10 - 20 knot tailwinds... On one occasion a CRJ went off the end of the runway, smashed into the ice in the lake beyond and 55 people died!
Was a tailwind a factor? I don't know, but give me an energy reducing headwind any day.
Is this another case of people doing something that history has proven to be hazardous, and getting away with it?
I've been asked the question why do we do it this way? many times. Sometimes I don't have a ready answer; it's because flying training has always been done this way... Sometimes pilots go against this classical training and the reason becomes apparent in an accident.
Has anyone read "Sagittarius Rising"? Cecil Lewis tried a downwind takeoff in a Sopwith Camel and thought it worked out very well. Perhaps that's why we need more hours training than he did?
SII wrote:so 25 kts on the tail at a 10%/2kt increase adds an extra 2500' on a 10 000' runway who cares?
That's the thing it isn't a linear increase in distance required to take off it is exponential, for every kt in tailwind you add your takeoff distance increases susbstantially, for the aircraft I fly it increases our balanced field length upwards of 1500' for just 10kts of tailwind. How much is that increased by 25Kts? I don't know but I sure don't want to kill anyone trying it out
What do the Cessna charts say again? Something like, "Decrease takeoff distances 2% for every ten knots headwind. Increase by 10% for every two knots tailwind."
I've done it before, used 4000'/4500' of a 11 000' runway. that left me with 6500' to stop. remeber kids your going airborn even with a V1 cut so the max g/s your doing is 115kts. now I'm not sure if you realize with that 6500' left, you have enough room to go from a complete stop accelerate to V1 reject the takeoff and come to a complete stop twice in a zero wind condition with that much room left.
6,500 feet OK, but brake fade perhaps, loss of directional control, there's all kinds of factors that would make me feel a lot more comfortable having the wind reducing the groundspeed rather than increasing it.
Then there's minimum climb gradient. Is this factor calculated before departing with a tailwind?
My problem with a thread like this is it has a tendency to form absolutes in a persons mind -- plant the seed tail winds are bad -- very bad for t/o and landings. This sometimes has the ability to hide something that could be more risk than the tail wind - absolute rules of thumb can work in areas where there are choices and really no need to accept a down winder except for convenience but there are areas when down wind could be the prudent choice -
Iqaluit -- then Frob was the scene of such a choice gone wrong(weather related) -- DC-3 chooses to land downwind off the approach - non event - T-Otter decides to circle after his approach because of same wind and kills 9 people
You have to know your airplane - and what it will do so when the day comes and you are backed against the wall it helps create an uneventful outcome -
I personally have landed 40 kts downwind when my alternate went flat after missing destination -- very uneventful except to maintain the glide scope - no other choice but I also knew from past experience that the landing was not going to be an issue.
Biggest problem for most pilots doing a down wind landing -- float ---- hit the target and life is good - don't worry about the arrival -- we all slam them on from time to time -- pride is cheep
