Tail Wind Limitations

[mutt]

Boeing permit the operation of the B777 and B744 with a 15 knot tailwind. Management are presently attempting to reduce this to 10kts for personal reasons!

We are therefore looking to do a quick survey, do you operate these aircraft types with either the 10kt or 15 kt limitation.

Thanks to the help.

[fireflybob]

My gut reaction is how stupid can you get? If the AFM permits 15 kt tailwind then why not utilise that facility which gives flexibility and has commercial merit?

I operated the B 737-200 for several years and we had a 15kt tailwind limit. I lost count of the number of approaches and landings I made at certain airports with a significant tailwind which avoided a hairy circle to land or even a diversion.

We are assuming that all the normal performance A regs are being complied with and all is still at the discretion of the commander in the specific situation.

[N1 and ITT]

Operating the 737NG with the TWL 15kts since long time. It's a limit, not a must...

N1

[Slasher]

737 15kts. At certain combos of runways/wx, sometimes only the ILS can get you in while the 10 knotters are circling overhead or diverting.

[CV880]

Cathay Pacific used to request (and pay for) a 15 knot tailwind Flight Manual supplement for all their aircraft when operating at Kai Tak however they were only interested in the take off performance data as a significantly greater payload could be carried off runway 13 with a 15KT tailwind compared to using runway 31 with all its obstacle related limitations in a 15KT headwind (several tons of payload on a 747). There were some visually hair raising take offs from some foreign operators using runway 31 simply because it was the active runway according to wind direction when CX would take a lengthy hold for a take off slot on runway 13 on the same day in the same conditions. Some UAL DC10-30 take off's come to mind during the period after UAL took over Panam's transpacific operation but they were not alone.

[Intruder]

Our limits are 10 knots for both the Classic and 744. IMO, that's plenty.

I don't know why you would want to takeoff or land with a 15 knot tailwind, anyhow. If you look at the takeoff penalties for tailwind, you will realize that it severely cuts into your safety margin. Your chances of blowing tires during or just after takeoff are also significantly increased, especially at high gross weights.

If you have to do it using your emergency authority in unusual circumstances, so be it. However, landing with a heavy tailwind is not something you want to do as a matter of routine.

[junior_man]

We can take off with a 15 knot tailwing in A 320 series.

The reason for wanting to do 15 knot tailwinds is for one way runways or runways with substantial weight penalties due to obstructions. For landings, sometimes only one end of the runway has an approach and either circling isn't permitted by the approach or ops specs.

Good example for something like this is Lake Tahoe California, KTVL

[Intruder]

The OP referred to the 777 and 747, which are not designed to operate from the short runways and small/restricted airports suitable to the 737 and A320. While 15 kt tailwind may work for a smaller airplane, it's not a good idea at all for the Whale.

[Watchdog]

Junior - the 3 companies I've flown 320's for all have 10 knot max tailwind - has your company got the 15 approval for a specific airport/s or why?

[nudger]

"If the AFM permits 15 kt tailwind then why not utilise that facility which gives flexibility and has commercial merit"

Maybe because some companies are downright dangerous in still wind not to mention a tailwind?

My previous employer is a good "case in point" with the number of "long landings" ie. greater than 1/3 of the runway or an extremely long (but can't remember? 12, 14, 16) seconds in the flare to trigger a FOQUA! :eek: