Full Reverse thrust use would create a situation where the company would pay a large fine and the crew penalised for it. “Airmanship” would have been to let the FO land the aircraft as briefed (probably reverse would have stayed in idle) and then forget all about stopping at golf and reduce braking to get off at foxtrot or full length.
Stopping was not an issue, plenty of runway. If stopping was an issue then of course go full reverse.

Yep Ollie. The ONLYreport of the wind at 15 knots for about 5 hours. All other TTFs both before and after BA's approach indicated more than that.

I've got no problem with them taking ATC at face value. I've got a massive problem with them telling ATC that their limit is 15 knots but that they can take 'a knot or two more than that'. Conveniently they didn't need to break the rules as per the clearance given to them. We all had a good laugh of their report of 22 knots 'approaching the flare'.

Don't criticise Keg because the TTF said.......All the other airlines he's been in haven't been as professional as his current employer. You'd think QF1, golf courses and the blind adherence of regulation might ring a bell.

You can't plan to land in the curfew shoulder period with greater than idle reverse. In the example I gave of our A380 arrival we could have landed with 15 knots tailwind had we been able to utilise full reverse. Of course it was available to us but then we wouldn't have been complying with the curfew act because we would have been planning to land using greater than idle reverse. Massive fine for Qantas and it wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to have crunched the numbers had we used full reverse and just submitted paperwork.

Of course maybe it was this rigid adherence to the intent of the curfew act, and not shoot an approach where the tailwind had been consistently reported as exceeding the certified limit of the jet even if we did use full reverse that makes some of us Austronauts.

Oh FFS. Yes. Let's praise the airline who are quite happy to accept a 'knot or two' more than the certified limit of the aircraft and demonise those who adhere to policy.

Meanwhile let's dissemble and distract with an entirely irrelevant 744 brake fire and evacuation and remind people that once a crew (from the same airline as the pilot telling of rogue behaviour in a different airline) made some poor decisions and errors even though there wasn't a hint of rogue behaviour such as ignoring or disregarding certified limits.

I like to think I'm a pretty practical bloke but I also value my life, my license, and my profession. I won't knowingly break rules. Limits are limits for a reason. Altitude restrictions are altitude restrictions for a reason. If that defines me as an Austronaut (or Oztronaut) then I'll wear the badge with pride.

I hope one day we don't have to scrape the remains of a crew off the end of a runway because they accepted a 'knot or two' more than the certified limits.

Stopping the aircraft safely comes before worries about Airport fines.

Kegs getting all wound up about a possible 2 kt. tailwind exceedence. If you are landing on a Rwy where 2 kts. makes a difference between stoping or not, you shouldn’t be there. From what I remember Certificated landing performance has a buffer of landing at v ref +15. So landing anywhere near v ref gives you some margin in hand. Reverse of course is not taken into account in stopping distance on a dry runway.
The PIC should be the final arbiter of any decision on these aspects not ATC, he has an accurate GS readout to compare with his airspeed.

So where is your limit exceeding limitations cessnapete? Two knots? Why not three? Four? If you're going to miss an altitude how much is OK? 100'? 200'? How am I supposed to know what your personal limit for missing requirements is when I'm sharing the airspace? Can you put up a list for the rest of us so we know exactly which limits you're prepared to ignore? EGT? MTOW? MLW?

In the SYD 34L 744 brake fire example cited by ernestkgann the aircraft did stop safely. That's not in dispute. They landed within their tailwind limit and the performance charts indicated they could stop well within the distance required. The brake fire (and subsequent evac) was due to excess grease on the axles, not the use of idle reverse. That use may have contributed to a fire but a fire would not have occurred without the grease. Are we clear on that one now? Are we cool that it's got zero, nothing, nada, zippo to do with the example I raised of a BA crew indicating they were happy to exceed certified limits?

I'd absolutely go around if the tailwind was indicating 16 knots coming across the fence and my certified limit was 15. If something else goes wrong and I end up off the side/end of the runway (even if it was a mechanical thing not of my making) I'm not sure the insurance company is going to be thrilled with me landing outside certified limits.

I'll say one thing for sure. This thread has certainly been illuminating. I didn't realise I shared the sky with people who were so cavalier about exceeding aircraft limits. They must be the TRUE Astronauts as clearly they know much more about the aircraft they're flying than the flight test engineers who created the limits.

Here here Keg. Well said.

Beautifully put Keg:D

It sure has. :sad:

It is interesting the number of people who are happy to sling **** at Australian pilots for sticking by the rules.

I agree there are those that walk amongst us that cant see the wood for the trees, but equally there are many amongst us that can see the big picture, are big T little C checkers and who live to provide quality training and impart knowledge.

People were willing to jump on Keg for the telling of his story, but to be honest i cant understand why, the BA crew, on repeated occasions, said they would willingly exceed the max certified tailwind component of their aircraft.

Unless i misunderstood him, his issue was not landing with 15 kts of tailwind, but the willingness of the other crew to disregard the limit, and not only disregard the limit but tell the world they were willing to do so.

I have no issues with a crew making an observation of the wind and making a determination that the wind is either inside or outside their limits, i personally dont get too wound up by FMC wind indications particularly in the last part of the approach, as they are not a super accurate indication of actual wind, but i will make a determination based on a whole bunch of considerations.

We need big picture thinkers not nit pickers, but i think that is a broader issue not limited to Australians.

I have not flown for an asian carrier but my friends that have or do tell me that their checking styles are very big C and very small T so to limit the Oztronaut tag to Aussies is a bit unkind.

Think we should have some rules for debating these arguments !

I’m amazed Keg can recall in such detail, radio exchanges from May 2015!:E I must pay more attention in future.:uhoh:

Well said Keg, I agree 100%.

Mate, when you hear a major carrier say over the radio three times that their downwind limit is 15 knots but they can take a knot or two more it tends to stick in the mind. If I went back through my iMessages I could probably find the message I sent to some mates the day I got home from the trip! I've told the story to a few others along the way as well as using it as a discussion point with various crew so it tends to stay fresh. :ok:

There are none so blind as those who will not see

That’s for you Fathom !

And the others.

Would you accept “a few knots extra” on your route check ? Try landing a 737 in Kalgoorlie/ Newman with a “few knots extra”. It won’t be pretty ! I’ve been checked by a few Oztranauts and it was not pleseant but usually it taught me something !

Rules are there usually for a good reason, disregard them at your peril !

Indeed - many of the recent posts rather prove the point made by the OP...............

Disregarding tailwind limitations is not a nit-picking sin. Tailwind limitation are a basic and importanat part of operating the aircraft. The Austranaught argument I thought , was about small unimportant issues that distract from the big issues, complicate the operation, and create distracting discussions that don’t need to happen on a busy flight-deck.

Aviation Enthus
 

See my post # 35 . It might help to answer your question a little bit .:ok:

Bonway
As a corporate jet captain who has operated extensively in the USA, don't even get me started on you guys. Talk about cavalier. I won't elaborate - anyone (non American) who has any time flying there will understand.

And anyone defending the BA crew who knowingly exceeded limits needs their heads read. I dont give a **** if ATC reported tail wind 15 knots. The BA crew made it clear that whatever ATC reported they were happy with. For ATC - report what it is and let the professionals say no, and the cavaliers say no wukkas.

And for the idiot who said whilst it was 22kts approaching the flare, it may have been different on the ground - FFS, when do you judge what the wind is, when the wheels hit, when you've stopped, when disembarking? Jesus, if 22kts in the flare, to you, is NOT definitive that the tailwind is over the limit, you deserve to have your licence torn up.