Airborne_Again wrote:
So far three possible reasons have been suggested:• For engine cooling
• To avoid “banging” control surfaces
• To get the correct static rpm
I learned to put the nose into the wind, and everybody here does it. It was more of a “this is the way we do it” kind of thing, but there are some obvious reasons. In a tail dragger you may easily nose over (do you apply up or down elevator when the engine revs up? 
), and it is generally difficult to stay like that. When it’s slippery (snow, ice) you have no other choice, and you may easily blow away. Better cooling. Better control of the aircraft in general I would say. At what wind velocity ? might as well make it a habit instead of making it an unnecessary judgement call each and every time.
I try to stand waiting in the general wind direction, but I never turn around completely.
LeSving wrote:
In a tail dragger you may easily nose over (do you apply up or down elevator when the engine revs up? ), and it is generally difficult to stay like that. When it’s slippery (snow, ice) you have no other choice, and you may easily blow away.
Certainly before I put a tail wheel aircraft into a less stable situation due to run-up power, I prefer to minimize any other potentially destabilizing influence. Minimizing the possibility of a gust yawing the aircraft into wind is one way of doing that. Otherwise, if the aircraft were to yaw during run-up (brakes on light tail wheel aircraft are typically just strong enough to hold the plane during normal run-up and ice under the wheels wouldn’t help), then the outboard main wheel runs into a rock, then the tail comes up, then… prop strike. Multiple ‘issues’ can compound quickly and damage the plane before you react.
In answer to the original post, not every student will fly a forgiving nose wheel plane forever and all of them should understand that when taxiing a plane is potentially a very light sail in the wind, not a car. With a tail wheel aircraft I think you need to be thinking about the wind all the time, including during run-up, and aim to minimize the chance of a situation requiring rapid action to stabilize the plane. Obviously if winds are light, you don’t need to consider them as much regardless of aircraft type, but that’s not always the case.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I am not sure which of the main ground checks on most GA SEPs or MEPS are truly redundant or at least dont have some merit.
For me, everything concerning the set-up and configuration of the aircraft is vital: Trim, Flap setting, controls free, doors closed, pressurisation controller setup, etc.
But system checks? I do them for the stated reason (and some FOs who will report you otherwise), but if I would fly on my own I would really just skip them all.
I am learning to fly at a rather windy aerodrome near the coast (EDWF). I never heard about this turning into the wind thing. On Friday we did all the checks with a 17G22 tailwind. In fact most of our checks are done with a tailwind because of the taxiway layout. Nobody ever mentioned this could be a problem and to be honest I don’t see one either.
Edit: minor spelling mistake fixed
An interesting range of responses!
My take on this, for a normal tricycle gear plane, is:
(#) on my 170A “IR pre-test test” I had a mad examiner who said that doing the power checks with a tailwind (as I did) chucks stones into the prop
There are many issues where I am based and in the UK generally, to do with a lack of training on how to do stuff with due consideration to others, and this 360 degree turning in the confined runway hold area is one of them. A bigger one is the brakes-off to brakes-on billing system which encourages other crappy practices but that’s another topic.
MedEwok wrote:
In fact most of our checks are done with a tailwind because of the taxiway layout. Nobody ever mentioned this could be a problem any to be honest I don’t see one either.
It is a bit similar to parking jets always with the nose into the wind. Because allegedly jet engines don’t like a tailwind for startup. Unfortunately nobody told marshallers and airport layouters about this and therefore they will always marshal you into parking spots which are where they were drawn on the plan. Luckily the engines don’t really care – at work they see 500kt winds so what can 10kt of tailwind possibly do to them…
It’s interesting to see Peter’s comment on ‘normal’ as applied tricycle gear. About 90% of the sport planes owned by friends are ‘conventional’ (tail wheel) landing gear and in my environment it’s the norm that you learn on a tricycle gear plane, then more than likely when you get your own plane, it’ll have a tail wheel. I have one of each. Like they say, it’s a license to learn – and as is evident from some of the replies from those still learning, you don’t always know what you don’t know until maybe you get in over your head and it bites you. I have just one time felt a tail wheel aircraft making an uncommanded 180 with the tail wheel unlocked and free castering, and I didn’t like it
That aside, almost every US airport into which I operate has a run-up area large enough for small aircraft to get out of the way and at least partially align with the wind for run up. I make it a habit to get completely out of the way so turbine and etc planes can taxi by without issue – their fuel cost waiting for me to run up would probably be similar to my fuel bill for the whole flight. I also never, ever blow my prop wash at another plane or open hangar. Anyway, it’s hard to imagine somebody making a 180 on the taxiway itself to run up, then another 180 to taxi for takeoff, comical.
what_next wrote:
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I am not sure which of the main ground checks on most GA SEPs or MEPS are truly redundant or at least dont have some merit.
For me, everything concerning the set-up and configuration of the aircraft is vital: Trim, Flap setting, controls free, doors closed, pressurisation controller setup, etc.
But system checks? I do them for the stated reason (and some FOs who will report you otherwise), but if I would fly on my own I would really just skip them all.
In the Mustang the common view is that if you follow the full systems checklist every flight your battery voltage will be too low to start the engines. I do it regularly but not every flight. As you say, trim, flaps, controls, pressurisation, pitot heat and confirm FD/Autopilot set up correctly
In the Mustang the common view is that if you follow the full systems checklist every flight your battery voltage will be too low to start the engines.
The same on the Encore and Bravos I fly. If you want to do all the system checks as per manufacturer checklist you need very patient passengers (it takes no less than 15 minutes) and a ground power unit – otherwise your battery will be dead halfway through the checks. And as I said: Being able to engage the autopilot ( * ) or de-icing systems on the ground will give you no guarantee that they still work once airborne…
( * ) and for everyone flying with a MEL (either commercially or part NCC) it is better to find out that things don’t work in the air. You can then continue to destination and don’t get stranded somewhere far away 
what_next wrote:
( * ) and for everyone flying with a MEL (either commercially or part NCC) it is better to find out that things don’t work in the air. You can then continue to destination and don’t get stranded somewhere far away
Yes, amazing how often that happens….
