Tailwind landings are fairly easy to do (in a PA-28), but the low go-around is a death trap. Two of the 10-or-so fatal accidents in Denmark during the last 10 years have been tailwind go-arounds that failed to clear the departure-end obstacles.
Some pilots think tailwind landings should be avoided at all cost, but I think they should be practised if you are going to use them at all, which could be in case of a sloping runway demanding an uphill landing, or in case of a one-way ILS with the weather below circling min's. Doing it for noise reduction ... ? - I agree with Niel, why not a low powered steep approach into wind?
I brief tailwind landings something like this: Check actual tailwind component compared to what you have planned as your max. Accept less crosswind component than you would usually - since you will have to manage it for a longer run and a longer time. It is easy to go high on final. Don't fly a short final - it should be long enough for you to recognise early if you are going high - in which case you should go around immediately because your landing distance calculation just went out the window. If runway length or departure-end obstacles are ANY concern, decide early at which altitude you are committed to land - then make a mental note when a go-around is NO LONGER an option. This way of thinking is disturbing to some pilots, less so if they are trained glider pilots. - Fly the final approach with the short-field threshold speed - not more. That would be 73 mph (63 KTS) for a fully laden PA-28-161. (Reduce by 1 KT for each 75 lb below max). Usually there will not be much of a wind gradient, but any gradient will work opposite of what you are used to, so it will tend to increase airspeed and prolong the float. Be patient and don't force the airplane down - which would usually bend the propeller, or worse.
If running out of runway during ground roll and considering going around, then imagine what it will be like running off the runway at low speed compared to FLYING into an obstacle at climb speed.
I avoid tailwind landings in taildraggers and other types with poor ground directional stability like the AA-1 and the Bonanza. If you chose to do the tailwind landing, the PA-28 is not a bad choice in my experience. My personal limit is 10 KTS TWC on long wide runways.
I don't think that pilots having any trouble with speed control or directional control during normal landings should do tailwind landings.
Apologies for writing so much, but this is fairly fresh in my memory after I have trained someone (in a PA-28-151) planning to go to a strip where landing is always in one direction (and take-off is always the opposite).
A C172 settles on the runway quite fast compared to a PA28 if your approach speed is just a little too high. In those cases, it just keeps on floating above the runway.
So, arrived ok. But didn't do the tailwind landing.
I was only thinking about the noise procedures and requests by the airfield for attempting it, but when i saw the plates this morning after i received them, i had a WTF moment.
To land tailwind on the requested runway also has a little 2% gradient the wrong way... a headwind and uphill meant less than 200 meters :) well happy.
Thanks for replies tho, very useful all.
Fly the final approach with the short-field threshold speed - not more.
Not if there are wind gusts. A gust during a tailwind landing will decrease your airspeed. You have to keep a safety margin.
[edited to add a blank line after the quoted paragraph]
sounds like EDTQ - Pattonville ?
sounds like EDTQ - Pattonville ?
No it wasn't - the same size but about an hour north.
Actually having been there its all a bit of a nonsense. All landings take place in the southerly direction because of the gradient, and I am informed that you can accept some quiet strong tailwinds because of the steepness.
Wonder why the AIP goes into lots of noise details? Maybe to appease locals.
The last time someone came to grief at our home airfield, it was due to a downwind landing: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Gulfstream%20AA-5A,%20G-MSTC.pdf
I used to fly this aircraft on occasion, and it wasn't the best climber being the 150hp version (but once you were done with the climb, very pleasant to fly). And with the castoring nosewheel they aren't much fun taxiing downwind (worse with a quartering tailwind). Going off on a tangent, I remember flying an AA5B (Tiger) on a long trip once, and having the right brake seize on during the rollout meaning all I could do is go around in tiny circles until we got it freed off. Fortunately it was at a non-towered airfield and late at night so no one was watching...
Back when I was living in Houston, I used to tow gliders behind a Pawnee at the Soaring Club of Houston. Our procedure there was to actually deliberately return downwind in the tow plane if it was less than 10 knots to speed up the turnaround (basically, come to a halt near the line, swing around, ground crew would grab the rope and hook up the next glider). It could be very busy on a nice day. What mitigates the risk at this airfield though is that it is basically a large cow pasture so not only long but fairly wide, and the Pawnees in a full slip with flaps still make a pretty steep descent with a little bit of a tailwind so you can still nail your landing point. Having a steerable tailwheel and being on grass made the ground handling pretty tame. So we would routinely land downwind if the wind wasn't strong.
On the other hand I'd never want to land the Auster downwind particularly on a hard surfaced runway. The tailwheel is free castoring (basically it's just like a shopping trolley wheel), so in a 10kt tail wind basically there would be no control whatsoever apart from the heel brakes below 15 knots or so, which is going fast enough to suffer a damaging ground loop. We did upgrade from the truly diabolical cable operated drum brakes (often you could take off with two working brakes, then on landing find that one had vibrated out of adjustment and have only one working brake, leading to embarassment at airfields with control towers when you tried to taxi in a crosswind - had to give up, and get out and push - a particular joy of vintage aircraft ownership I'm glad is behind us!) to hydraulic ones, but I'd still not ever want to land it with a tailwind.
I think there are two reasons why landing with a tailwind needs so much more runway.
The first is the obvious one – the tailwind. Your ground speed is higher as a result.
The second is less obvious, and is to do with the wind shear working in the opposite way. If you land into a headwind (the usual way) the wind shear combined with your inertia means that as you descend, your IAS reduces without you reducing power, and this makes the plane want to land. But if you land with a tailwind the wind shear combined with your inertia means that as you descend, your IAS increases without you reducing power, and this makes the plane want to fly, so you have to reduce power (and/or approach at an even lower IAS to start with) in order to land.
Does anybody agree?
No. I think it’s the opposite- with headwind you have slight IAS increase and with tailwind decrease.
As you descend, with inertia maintaining your forward speed, any headwind reduces (= wind shear) so your IAS reduces.
