King Air Takeoff & Landing With 12kt tailwind

Sinistar

Sinistar

En-Route
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
3,712
Display Name
Display name:
Brad
This weekend I was up at KDTL. On Friday I did two flights and the wind was pretty much 130@12kts all day after the heat came up. All other traffic was also using R13. Just prior to my second flight back to the Twin Cities I heard a plane land and it was a King Air but it came in on R31 which meant a 12kt tailwind. They taxied off, idled for a bit and then did a long back taxi on R13, turned around at the end and took off with a tailwind. Even more strange is that takeoff (31) is also upslope.

At this airport the main taxiway is closed for construction so I can kinda see the tailwind landing puts them off on the taxi way right after their rollout. But that following tailwind takeoff and going upslope as well meant a 3/4 length back taxi to boot.

Any idea what they might have been up too? I'm not trying to call them out. Rather it seemed like they were going out of their way to use 31, even if it meant a 12kt tailwind and now has me curious???
 
Downwind TO/L “practice”?
How long is runway?
 
Don't know about the takeoff, but the RNAV 31 has LPV mins, but the 13 approach only has LNAV. If they were practicing approaches (which it sounds like they were doing, since they didn't taxi to the ramp and shut down), and maybe they were just in the mode of using 31, so didn't think about turning around for takeoff.

Get a tail #? Or maybe an UNDie call sign?
 
wrbix said:
Downwind TO/L “practice”?
How long is runway?
Click to expand...
4502x75 and 0.8% up gradient.

They didn't announce much on the Unicom. I don't recall them announcing the back taxi, but wasn't listening for it either as I assumed they would takeoff on 13.

Taking off on 13 does put you out over the water if you continue the upwind. And turning the left downwind for the 13 does take you right over town. There aren't any right hand patterns specified though.

Maybe they like their abort options on 31 better (its not city and water).

Still makes no sense.

And it wasn't some privately owned King Air. It was completely badged in the logos of the largest health care provider in the region.
 
Professional pilot. 12 kt tail wind is not that big of a deal.

I'll do downwind take offs and landings if it makes it convenient for me, such as shorten taxi time or put me on a close to direct after take off, or get me away from an approaching thunderstorm quicker. it is not as unsafe as many lesser experienced people try to make it out to be. With that said sometimes it is not smart to attempt.

I have done tail wind landings and take offs on one way in, one way out runways. Just part of the job.

But if you are not comfortable doing tail winds, then don't do it. But it is not violating any regulation to do so.

I remember when Southwest was not allowed to do 5 knot downwind landings according to their operations manual. That would tie up everyone else while waiting for them to land or take off in the opposite direction of the rest of the traffic. Again, just part of the job.
 
Zeldman said:
Professional pilot. 12 kt tail wind is not that big of a deal.
Click to expand...

That's like saying 100lbs overweight is not that big of a deal. Almost every turbine airplane has a 10kts tailwind limitation on takeoff. I'm 99% sure King Air has that too.
So they exceeded AFM limitations. That is a big deal, especially for professional pilots.
 
Really, really dumb question: Is this a case where the tailwind actually might help since there is also a up slope?
 
Sinistar said:
Really, really dumb question: Is this a case where the tailwind actually might help since there is also a up slope?
Click to expand...

No, it will push you down the runway that much faster without any gain in "relative" airspeed with respect to wings......ie, 12 knots indicated (if your airspeed indicator actually measures such a low speed) is the new 0 relative to the leading edges. Like has been said, it isn't that big of a deal in a turbine aircraft that is probably well above worrying about takeoff roll vs runway length. I'm not personally familiar with the King Air, and if there is a 10 knot tailwind limit, then I guess that qualifies as a big deal, though I don't know why there would be such a limitation. Just a guess, but maybe they didn't do any testing beyond that, and thus don't have takeoff/rejected takeoff performance tables for reference above 10 knots.....though that seems bizarre since the thing has been certified for so very long. Maybe some king air guys can chime in.
 
35 AoA said:
No, it will push you down the runway that much faster without any gain in "relative" airspeed with respect to wings......ie, 12 knots indicated (if your airspeed indicator actually measures such a low speed) is the new 0 relative to the leading edges. Like has been said, it isn't that big of a deal in a turbine aircraft that is probably well above worrying about takeoff roll vs runway length. I'm not personally familiar with the King Air, and if there is a 10 knot tailwind limit, then I guess that qualifies as a big deal, though I don't know why there would be such a limitation. Just a guess, but maybe they didn't do any testing beyond that, and thus don't have takeoff/rejected takeoff performance tables for reference above 10 knots.....though that seems bizarre since the thing has been certified for so very long. Maybe some king air guys can chime in.
Click to expand...


99% of turbine airplanes have a 10kts tailwind limitation.
Also, most of them don't have any published performance charts beyond 10kts tailwind.
Nothing bizarre about it. Turbine planes should not take off with 10+kts tailwind component.
 
mtuomi said:
99% of turbine airplanes have a 10kts tailwind limitation.
Also, most of them don't have any published performance charts beyond 10kts tailwind.
Nothing bizarre about it. Turbine planes should not take off with 10+kts tailwind component.
Click to expand...

fair enough. In practice, it still isn't that big a deal in theory. Bizarre might have been the wrong term, but I guess that supports my hypothesis. I'm not sure why you say that turbines shouldn't do it. It isn't exactly good aviating of course, much like not using all available runway during an intersection takeoff (Id say that is a pretty similar comparison), but you don't just instantly crash :) I get that if you don't have performance charts to reference, you are kind of entering test pilot land, which isn't really where anyone should put themselves, but 12 knots vs certified 10 knots? That is a pretty insignificant difference. Just playing devils advocate here......not saying I have ever taken off with greater than a 10 knot tailwind in a turbine......or 20+. :)
 
35 AoA said:
fair enough. In practice, it still isn't that big a deal in theory. Bizarre might have been the wrong term, but I guess that supports my hypothesis. I'm not sure why you say that turbines shouldn't do it. It isn't exactly good aviating of course, much like not using all available runway during an intersection takeoff (Id say that is a pretty similar comparison), but you don't just instantly crash :) I get that if you don't have performance charts to reference, you are kind of entering test pilot land, which isn't really where anyone should put themselves, but 12 knots vs certified 10 knots? That is a pretty insignificant difference. Just playing devils advocate here......not saying I have ever taken off with greater than a 10 knot tailwind in a turbine......or 20+. :)
Click to expand...

Insignificant? I've had a pretty scary tailwind experience. I'll be happy to show the video in person, I won't post it online, but it wasn't fun. The 10kt limitation is also for possible compressor stall when spooling up the engine.
Reported 10kts and a slight 14kt gust and suddenly you need 400-500ft more runway. There are places when that is not insignificant. Tailwind sucks!
 
Keep in mind that a limitation in someone's manual might not be the same as the manufacturer's limit (if there even is one). So just because you see a 10 knot limit in one place doesn't mean someone else (especially someone flying Part 91) in the same airplane has the same limitation. Not to say that the King Air doesn't have an actual 10 knot tailwind limit (I have no idea), but seeing a Part 91 turboprop landing and taking off with 12 knots on the ass wouldn't even raise an eyebrow from me. I think he's more of an asshat simply because he went against the flow of traffic. ;)

I'm not saying it's right, but even if it weren't legal it's certainly not unusual. PoA tends to be a pretty black and white board - I think it'd blow many people's minds if they knew just how much some 135 and 91 operators bend the rules to make the flight 'work'.
 
Zeldman said:
Professional pilot. 12 kt tail wind is not that big of a deal.

I'll do downwind take offs and landings if it makes it convenient for me, such as shorten taxi time or put me on a close to direct after take off, or get me away from an approaching thunderstorm quicker. it is not as unsafe as many lesser experienced people try to make it out to be. With that said sometimes it is not smart to attempt.

I have done tail wind landings and take offs on one way in, one way out runways. Just part of the job.

But if you are not comfortable doing tail winds, then don't do it. But it is not violating any regulation to do so.

I remember when Southwest was not allowed to do 5 knot downwind landings according to their operations manual. That would tie up everyone else while waiting for them to land or take off in the opposite direction of the rest of the traffic. Again, just part of the job.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t answer the question asked though, regarding why they’d back taxi to a tailwind takeoff.
 
kayoh190 said:
Keep in mind that a limitation in someone's manual might not be the same as the manufacturer's limit (if there even is one). So just because you see a 10 knot limit in one place doesn't mean someone else (especially someone flying Part 91) in the same airplane has the same limitation. Not to say that the King Air doesn't have an actual 10 knot tailwind limit (I have no idea), but seeing a Part 91 turboprop landing and taking off with 12 knots on the ass wouldn't even raise an eyebrow from me. I think he's more of an asshat simply because he went against the flow of traffic. ;)

I'm not saying it's right, but even if it weren't legal it's certainly not unusual. PoA tends to be a pretty black and white board - I think it'd blow many people's minds if they knew just how much some 135 and 91 operators bend the rules to make the flight 'work'.
Click to expand...

On most PT6 turbines it's either a specific limitation in the AFM, or the performance charts don't go beyond 10kts (and they cannot be extrapolated). So that way almost every PT6 plane is (legally) limited to 10 kts tailwind.
I think on King Air it's an actual limitation though.
 
mtuomi said:
That's like saying 100lbs overweight is not that big of a deal. Almost every turbine airplane has a 10kts tailwind limitation on takeoff. I'm 99% sure King Air has that too.
So they exceeded AFM limitations. That is a big deal, especially for professional pilots.
Click to expand...

The dash 8 I flew could take off and land with up to 20 knots up the bum. We had some additional limitations, such as bleeds off flaps 35 dry runway. I’ve doe it a couple times where the winds were about to that 20 knot mark. Not greasy landings and longer take off rolls.

Also fwiw, you can only utilize the wx report provided to you. Has to be official, atis, tower report, that sort of thing. “Hey bob, there’s a tailwind ya know” doesn’t count. And for giggles and grins, if the component is less than 10, push em up quick before the wind shifts!
 
Salty said:
This doesn’t answer the question asked though, regarding why they’d back taxi to a tailwind takeoff.
Click to expand...
Exactly! They purposely did a really long runway back taxi instead of a nice short taxi on the taxiway to a downslope runway that would have been into the wind. Weird?

Sounds like the King Air is a pretty awesome plane that could probably do this all day long.
 
35 AoA said:
No, it will push you down the runway that much faster without any gain in "relative" airspeed with respect to wings......ie, 12 knots indicated (if your airspeed indicator actually measures such a low speed) is the new 0 relative to the leading edges. Like has been said, it isn't that big of a deal in a turbine aircraft that is probably well above worrying about takeoff roll vs runway length. I'm not personally familiar with the King Air, and if there is a 10 knot tailwind limit, then I guess that qualifies as a big deal, though I don't know why there would be such a limitation. Just a guess, but maybe they didn't do any testing beyond that, and thus don't have takeoff/rejected takeoff performance tables for reference above 10 knots.....though that seems bizarre since the thing has been certified for so very long. Maybe some king air guys can chime in.
Click to expand...

If your ASI is indicating 12 knots (presuming, as you stated, that it would work at that speed) then you would be rolling at 24 knots. 12 knot aircraft speed - 12 knot tw = 0 indicated. 24 knots ac speed - 12 knot tw = 12 knots IAS. ;) Let's not get all sillied up with ground speed vs airspeed, k? :)
 
mtuomi said:
On most PT6 turbines it's either a specific limitation in the AFM, or the performance charts don't go beyond 10kts (and they cannot be extrapolated). So that way almost every PT6 plane is (legally) limited to 10 kts tailwind.
I think on King Air it's an actual limitation though.
Click to expand...

I understand all that, but just to play devil's advocate, what if this guy was Part 91 and there isn't anything about a tailwind in the limitations? Just pulling my old Cheyenne manual off the shelf, there is no mention of a tailwind limitation anywhere, but as you noted the performance charts' tailwind component goes to 10 knots. But also, the headwind component only goes to 30. Does a 91 guy have to stay within those limits? My Warrior manual has its tailwind data going to 5 knots, with the headwind to 15. Certainly a Warrior driver doesn't see these edges of its takeoff and landing tables as controlling, so why would someone flying a Cheyenne (and to my point, perhaps a King Air)?
 
kayoh190 said:
I understand all that, but just to play devil's advocate, what if this guy was Part 91 and there isn't anything about a tailwind in the limitations? Just pulling my old Cheyenne manual off the shelf, there is no mention of a tailwind limitation anywhere, but as you noted the performance charts' tailwind component goes to 10 knots. But also, the headwind component only goes to 30. Does a 91 guy have to stay within those limits? My Warrior manual has its tailwind data going to 5 knots, with the headwind to 15. Certainly a Warrior driver doesn't see these edges of its takeoff and landing tables as controlling, so why would someone flying a Cheyenne (and to my point, perhaps a King Air)?
Click to expand...

You're right, I forgot 91 doesn't directly need to know t/o performance data. FAA would kill you with a 91.13 faster you can say "part 91" though if you run out of runway.

And if we REALLY dig deep into regs, there is this:

91.503

(a)(5) In the case of multiengine airplanes, one-engine inoperative climb performance data.

Can't have that data with more than 10kts tailwind.
 
mtuomi said:
You're right, I forgot 91 doesn't directly need to know t/o performance data. FAA would kill you with a 91.13 faster you can say "part 91" though if you run out of runway.
Click to expand...

Oh absolutely - this is more of an academic discussion. It's amazing how much of this stuff I've forgotten over the years. :)
 
mtuomi said:
You're right, I forgot 91 doesn't directly need to know t/o performance data. FAA would kill you with a 91.13 faster you can say "part 91" though if you run out of runway.

And if we REALLY dig deep into regs, there is this:

91.503

(a)(5) In the case of multiengine airplanes, one-engine inoperative climb performance data.

Can't have that data with more than 10kts tailwind.
Click to expand...
91.503 doesn't apply to King Air 90s, 100s, or 200s (except maybe the increased gross weight modded 200s)...300s and larger only.
 
Lachlan said:
If your ASI is indicating 12 knots (presuming, as you stated, that it would work at that speed) then you would be rolling at 24 knots. 12 knot aircraft speed - 12 knot tw = 0 indicated. 24 knots ac speed - 12 knot tw = 12 knots IAS. ;) Let's not get all sillied up with ground speed vs airspeed, k? :)
Click to expand...

I guess that is a possibly more succinct way of saying what I was talking about.....wasn't trying to bring in groundspeed, because of course that makes brains explode sometimes :)

But you are absolutely right....in the example I gave, what I should have said would have been "at 0 knots indicated you are actually going 12 knots, and when the needle comes off the peg to 1 knot, you are actually going 13 knots"...again, confusing if people aren't thinking ground speed.
 
35 AoA said:
I guess that is a possibly more succinct way of saying what I was talking about.....wasn't trying to bring in groundspeed, because of course that makes brains explode sometimes :)

But you are absolutely right....in the example I gave, what I should have said would have been "at 0 knots indicated you are actually going 12 knots, and when the needle comes off the peg to 1 knot, you are actually going 13 knots"...again, confusing if people aren't thinking ground speed.
Click to expand...

But ground speed is a really big consideration for airplanes, especially regarding tail winds. Tailwinds increase takeoff distances and add enormous amounts of energy during landings compared to headwind or zero wind landings performed at proper V speeds. Landing into a 12 knot headwind decreases the groundspeed by 12 knots below IAS stall speed; a 12 knot tailwind will increase ground speed at landing AT LEAST 12 knots above whatever speed the IAS reads at touchdown. You can't have a meaningful conversation about TO/L ops regarding tw without raving about ground speed. ;)
 
mtuomi said:
(a)(5) In the case of multiengine airplanes, one-engine inoperative climb performance data.

Can't have that data with more than 10kts tailwind.
Click to expand...
Speed for best rate OEI and the rate of climb at that speed (the performance aspect of it) don't change with wind. If there's nuthin' to hit in front of you you're golden.

kayoh190 said:
Oh absolutely - this is more of an academic discussion.
Click to expand...
QED ;)

Nauga,
from both ends of a few veeeery long runways
 
Lachlan said:
But ground speed is a really big consideration for airplanes, especially regarding tail winds. Tailwinds increase takeoff distances and add enormous amounts of energy during landings compared to headwind or zero wind landings performed at proper V speeds. Landing into a 12 knot headwind decreases the groundspeed by 12 knots below IAS stall speed; a 12 knot tailwind will increase ground speed at landing AT LEAST 12 knots above whatever speed the IAS reads at touchdown. You can't have a meaningful conversation about TO/L ops regarding tw without raving about ground speed. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, all very true, and I'm quite comfortable with the summation math of tailwind/headwind and its effect on groundspeed vs IAS.....your point was exactly my point (that a tailwind takeoff doesn't make an uphill roll any better, specifically). I'm saying that takeoff and landing in a proportionally high powered airplane, with low rotation/approach speeds on a long runway, 12 knots isn't really that big of an issue (limitations aside). I've been suckered into landing a jet that flies a normal final at 140-150 knots indicated, on the standard Navy 20 knot tailwind duty runway (because it is too much work to change runways of course) at 4000 ft field elevation many a time before I learned to just say no. THATS a groundspeed problem :)
 
Last edited:
Not so much for takeoff, but if the gradient is steep enough it can be advantageous to land with a tailwind.

Same can be said for a downhill takeoff.
 
My money would be on because it has the LPV
 
mtuomi said:
And if we REALLY dig deep into regs, there is this: 91.503

(a)(5) In the case of multiengine airplanes, one-engine inoperative climb performance data.

Can't have that data with more than 10kts tailwind.
Click to expand...

Didn't we just get done agreeing that a tailwind component is really only of interest on the ground? Once in the air, the airplane climbs the same. It is only when you reference a ground track and the need to avoid obstacles like the end of the runway that the tailwind is at all relevant.

This site says 10kt tailwind limit for KA. https://www.flashcardmachine.com/king-air-350opslimits.html
 
bflynn said:
Didn't we just get done agreeing that a tailwind component is really only of interest on the ground? Once in the air, the airplane climbs the same. It is only when you reference a ground track and the need to avoid obstacles like the end of the runway that the tailwind is at all relevant.

This site says 10kt tailwind limit for KA. https://www.flashcardmachine.com/king-air-350opslimits.html
Click to expand...

I would say accelerate-go and accelerate-stop distances are part of that data...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top