Your logic works just fine until the wheels touch down and the airplane slows. Airplanes don't "feel" tailwind when they are in the air. But they do "feel" tailwind when they are on the ground. Tailwheel airplanes have enough built-in divergent stability on the ground as is...they don't need a tailwind to add to it. It's hard to appreciate the difference unless you are a tailwheel pilot...and I don't mean that as some kind of snobbish remark - just fact.
3 planes in the pattern doing touch-and-go's with a 4 knot tailwind
- Thread starter Old Geek
- Start date
Your logic works just fine until the wheels touch down and the airplane slows. Airplanes don't "feel" tailwind when they are in the air. But they do "feel" tailwind when they are on the ground. Tailwheel airplanes have enough built-in divergent stability on the ground as is...they don't need a tailwind to add to it. It's hard to appreciate the difference unless you are a tailwheel pilot...and I don't mean that as some kind of snobbish remark - just fact.
Greg Bockelman
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 11,098
- Location
- Lone Jack, MO
- Display Name
Display name:
Greg Bockelman
Well, technically, the airplane doesn't feel ANYTHING. It is the perception of the PILOT that is the issue.
As I stated.
Yes, however - I did not express concern about 4KTS - I said you may be asking for trouble with 8KTS on your tail in light taildraggers - ie. a J-3. It's not that 8KT is not doable, it's just that you're stacking the deck against yourself the higher you go.
And second, any degree of tailwind still does make a difference. This is the most important point - If you land in zero wind, with 20KTS of speed on rollout, you have 20KTS of air flowing over the rudder. With an 8KT tailwind, when you are traveling 20KTS on rollout, you have 12KTS of air flowing over the rudder. This = reduced control authority = less control. Taildraggers are a different animal. There is a reason tailwheel pilots are generally more wary of wind direction than trike pilots. Trikes obviously experience a similar reduction in airflow over the rudder, but the landing gear configuration tolerates this to a much greater degree than in taildraggers...due to the inherent stability of the nosewheel configuration.
Last edited:
Captain
Final Approach
True.
My point is if you mounted a tiny wind sock on a Steerman wing and landed in a 4 kt tailwind the sock would show the wind coming from the front all the way untill the plane was taxing at less than 4 kts.
The only true issue would be the slightly increased ground speed and the hit on performance and that would be comprable to landing the same plane at a higher elevation and the resulting higher TAS and same hit on performance.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
In the end, it's a PIC call.
Unless you've got some really obnoxious pilots at the field, you can often call them and advise you need to use the other runway and ask that they extend their pattern to do so. In the end, though, you need to make sure it's safe with respect to both winds and traffic.
As a bit of thread drift to your question, I do find that it can occasionally be advantageous to accept a tailwind for TO or landing. I recently accepted a TO with a tail wind at a controlled field where doing so saved 10+ minutes of taxi to the parallel runway (the entrances to the RWY I used were closed at the opposite end, but tower could clear me for TO from the end I wa at if I'd accept a tailwind). But I wouldn't do that unless I knew the plane's perfromance well enough to know that it would be safe to do the takeoff.
Unless you've got some really obnoxious pilots at the field, you can often call them and advise you need to use the other runway and ask that they extend their pattern to do so. In the end, though, you need to make sure it's safe with respect to both winds and traffic.
As a bit of thread drift to your question, I do find that it can occasionally be advantageous to accept a tailwind for TO or landing. I recently accepted a TO with a tail wind at a controlled field where doing so saved 10+ minutes of taxi to the parallel runway (the entrances to the RWY I used were closed at the opposite end, but tower could clear me for TO from the end I wa at if I'd accept a tailwind). But I wouldn't do that unless I knew the plane's perfromance well enough to know that it would be safe to do the takeoff.
Captain
Final Approach
Not true. See my above post. Some J-3 time would make you see the light.
See my above post and you may see the light.
Besides, that same J-3 landing into 4 kts would then have to turn around and taxi with the same 4 kts across the tail. The key here is we're talking about 4 kts.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Pretty sure that the Maule that ground looped at OSH probably would have appreciated landing into the light winds... there was definitely a quartering tailwind when he touched down on 27. Not that it's an excuse, plenty of other taildraggers did fine, but it was a contributing factor.
See my above post and you may see the light.
I understand about the increased groundspeed, really. Simply having more groundspeed at touchdown (as in high DA conditions) is NOT the problem.
But do YOU understand what I'm saying about decreased rudder authority (caused by the tailwind) as the airplane slows during the landing roll?
Tell you what, you go find a J-3 tailwheel instructor and tell him/her that you want to land in a 20KT tailwind, since the "only true issue" would be that you would be touching down 20KT faster. If after they stop laughing, and take you seriously enough to take you flying and show you why it is NOT the "only true issue", you may actually learn something. Since you clearly have no significant tailwheel experience, and cannot understand why this really does matter in taildraggers, I cannot convince you here on an internet forum.I never raised an issue with 4 kts. But the number is irrelevant - it's the point that you don't seem to understand. I don't mind carefully taxiing a J-3 in a 20KT tailwind. I've done it. But I sure as hell would never land with that same 20KT on the tail. There's not much that can go wrong or get damaged with 20KT on the tail at slow (emphasize "slow") taxi speed as long as the controls are positioned correctly. But you sure as hell are not going to like the landing roll with 20KTS on the tail. When you're rolling on the ground through 20KTS, you'll have ZERO airflow over the rudder. Not good. Are we getting any warmer?
Last edited:
Captain
Final Approach
I understand about the increased groundspeed, really. Simply having more groundspeed at touchdown (as in high DA conditions) is NOT the problem.
But do YOU understand what I'm saying about decreased rudder authority (caused by the tailwind) as the airplane slows during the landing roll?
Theres one major point of mine you keep leaving out. Let me try to delicatly emphasize it. Its a preety solid cornerstone of my point. Here it is:
4 kts.
See there? Its not 8 kts and its not 20 kts. Its not a tornado or a hurricane. Its 4 kts and on the landing roll with a 4 kts tailwind the wind comes off the nose at...here it is again...4 kts.
4 kts a pilots should be all done flying and it shouldnt be a problem.
Reading and comprehension skills? See below. And do you realize yet that you're wrong about your "only true issue" statement, even though you're now trying to divert attention and claim that someone said a paltry 4KT was a problem, which did not happen?
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,258
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
4 Kts not a problem? That's the title of the thread???? Apparently it is a problem for someone.
Captain
Final Approach
Not a problem for me.
I think this may be an issue of a forum not conveying intent well. I thought Roscoe was taking issue with me and my claim that landing with 4 kts was the same as landing at higher elevation but i see he is quoting others (well, one other and himself) so maybe its not me at all.
I think this may be an issue of a forum not conveying intent well. I thought Roscoe was taking issue with me and my claim that landing with 4 kts was the same as landing at higher elevation but i see he is quoting others (well, one other and himself) so maybe its not me at all.
Traveler0471
Filing Flight Plan
As a CFI I'd advise you all to always land into to wind, even the 4kts kind. Spend some time in a J3 or any tail wheel aircraft and see just how important it is. Sure there were times when flying company equipment and because of traffic flow and scheduling I've busted that personal rule. But if I'm teaching or flying my family some where it will always be into the wind. Because I'm the one responsible, not ATC or the other pilots landing downwind.
DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
I disagree.
I do a fair amount of conventional gear flying, and certainly don't find that to be the case.
Yes, you'll eventually wind up at a place during your roll-out where there's greater groundspeed than airflow over the rudder; this isn't significant in aircraft with a steerable tailwheel, and it isn't significant in aircraft without steerable tailwheels, either.
Captain
Final Approach
This would be touch down. If (standard ISA day at sea level) you touch down at 60 kts with a tail wind of 4 kts then the GS would be 64 and the TAS would be 60.
However your next thought is true...'this isn't significant'.
The issue is when you get to zero airflow over the rudder. The plane is doing 4 kts and the relative wind is zero. I say so what? You're going 4 kts and that's taxi speed. Most pilots are capable of taxiing with a 4 kts breeze coming from any direction.
Tail wheels may be more susceptible, but that just means they have to use control inputs to the ramp when a tricycle gear could not worry about it.
Last edited:
Rudder authority is definitely reduced during rollout, but the amount and whether one feels it doesn't matter or is insignificant is a matter of opinion, skill, and risk tolerance. It's also a continuum as the wind speed increases...from not significant to very significant. It also depends on the airplane. 4KT may not matter much in a J-3, but I don't know anyone who would say 15KTS on the tail during landing is insignificant or doesn't matter.
Captain
Final Approach
I certainly agree here.
DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
Rudder authority isn't reduced. It really doesn't matter.
Who said anything of 15 knots on the tail?
Quite a few aircraft have certification limits of 10 knots on the tail.
When faced with a takeoff or landing on an uphill/downhill runway, I'll usually takeoff downhill and land uphill regardless of the winds, unless they're excessive, regardless of whether or not it's a conventional gear aircraft.
We land conventional gear airplanes and enter reverse regularly; with the propeller reversed, airflow over the tail is reduced or killed off early in the roll with far more than 4 knots of airspeed. Sometimes raising the flaps and lowering the tail first is the order of the day, but often as not it's a matter of getting on the rudders and brakes where necessary and bringing in the reverse while the tail is still in the air. It reduces the roll-out and taxi time, which cuts down on turnaround time on the ground.
Not really any different than having a higher groundspeed with a tailwind.
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
True.
And that just might be why I prefaced my statement with:
kkoran
Pattern Altitude
Actually, ATC calls it 'calm' when it is less than 3 kts.Heh... I thought the official "calm" was 3 knots or less. Now you have me digging to find it. Not that it matters. 3... 4... just land.
BillTIZ
Final Approach
As long as "off the end" was into the overrun and not a ditch.
Landing downwind and long is poor planning for the pilot, to get caught low away from the airport, using that tail wind to stretch the glide, but more than enough energy to roll the length, but not fly a pattern.
Still not sure why you think that. When airflow over the rudder (during a tailwind) will always be less than than your groundspeed by whatever the wind veloclity is, I don't understand why you can say rudder authority isn't reduced or doesn't matter. If you have a 15KT tailwind and you're rolling 15KT down the runway, what kind of rudder authority do you have? It's zero, BTW. Normally, under no wind conditions, you won't reach zero airflow over the rudder until the plane is STOPPED. Obviously at this point, rudder authority is a moot point. As long as the airplane is moving, I would prefer not to diminish my rudder authority in a tailwheel airplane.
Nobody...who cares? 4KT or 15KT is not the point...and by your logic none of it really matters. Would love to see video of you landing a J-3 in a 20KT tailwind. Hell, give it a little quartering component just for kicks...no problem.
Extra groundspeed at touchdown is not the issue...I could easily land the Cub doing 53KTS (33KT stall + 20KT), but that doesn't mean landing in a 20KT tailwind is just the same as carrying 20KT extra on touchdown. Again, find me a Cub pilot who will do this. And before you ask who said anything about a Cub, substitute Cub for anything else that makes you happy, at whatever other windspeed that makes you happy.
Last edited:
DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
What are you talking about? You invented a 15 knot tailwind a moment ago, and now it's a 20 knot wind. Who'd talking about landing with a 20 knot tailwind, but you? Speak for yourself. Don't put words in other's mouths.
Do you have a steerable tailwheel and brakes? Yes? Then what's your problem?
Do you have a non-steerable tailwheel and brakes? Then what's your problem?
Do you have a non-steerable tailwheel and a tailwheel lock? Then what's your problem?
Can you not fly the airplane?
Do you not have much conventional gear experience, or are you simply afraid of your aircraft?
How about an Air Tractor, or an Ag Truck, or a Dromader, or a Thrush, or an Ag Cat?
Seeing as you brought it up, same for a cub.
When I land an ag aircraft such as a 502 or 802, I apply reverse thrust during the roll-out, and this blanks out the tail; there's no more rudder authority, and it's not a steerable tailwheel, either. It's occurs at a lot more than 4 knots, or 20 knots, too. 50 knots, 80 knots of groundspeed; it's the reverse thrust getting the airplane slowed down and stopped, and that's happening at a time when the tail is still in the air, or just after setting it down; land and suck up the flaps to drop the tail, and haul in the reverse thrust, or put the mains on the ground, leave the flaps alone, and bring in reverse; watch the tail settle as the airflow over the tail is killed off by the reverse thrust.
You don't appear to know what you're talking about, because if you had the experience of having no rudder authority at higher speeds in conventional gear aircraft (which you obviously don't), you might not be making such a big deal about nothing.
Captain
Final Approach
And there's the issue.
You're 15 kt tailwind with 15 kt GS equals zero air over the rudder (prop wash excluded). So, at what speed can you handle no rudder authority? That speed is likely lower in a tail wheel than a tricycle. Especially a tail wheel without steering.
BTW, when it comes to performance that higher ground speed is absolutely the issue.
You're 15 kt tailwind with 15 kt GS equals zero air over the rudder (prop wash excluded). So, at what speed can you handle no rudder authority? That speed is likely lower in a tail wheel than a tricycle. Especially a tail wheel without steering.
BTW, when it comes to performance that higher ground speed is absolutely the issue.
DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
A conventional gear airplane has steering. It's either got a steerable tailwheel, or a non-steerable tailwheel. Either way, the airplane has steering.
There are ways to increase airflow over the empennage.
Having no airflow over the rudder doesn't mean the airplane isn't controllable; it is. One needs to be proactive and take charge of the airplane, rather than simply letting the airplane do all the work.
Who's in charge? The pilot, or the airplane?
There are ways to increase airflow over the empennage.
Having no airflow over the rudder doesn't mean the airplane isn't controllable; it is. One needs to be proactive and take charge of the airplane, rather than simply letting the airplane do all the work.
Who's in charge? The pilot, or the airplane?
Holy hell, that's a lot of babbling considering that you have ducked my point. You said (in a previous post) that, "Rudder authority isn't reduced". And then above you state, ..."if you had the experience of having no rudder authority at higher speeds..." So which one is it? And still not sure why you're getting so hung up on the numbers that I mention...it's all related to the discussion. No, I'm not concerned about 4KT of tailwind. I would care about 20KT. Somewhere in between it becomes more problematic...it's all an increasing continuum. Do you not get that? I have plenty of tailwheel experience. I'm sure you're a lot better than me in the tailwheel airplanes that you fly that I don't, and I'm sure I'm a lot better than you in the tailwheel airplanes that I fly, and you don't. So if you're pulling the "mine's bigger than yours" card, then you obviously have some insecurities in your flying ability.
You and someone else (who has no tailwheel experience) seem to be implying that the notion that tailwheel pilots would want to avoid significant tailwinds on landing is completely unwarranted. And yes, I understand what a tailwheel is and what tailwheel steering is...and even brakes too...not that the Cub has very effective ones. I am talking about diminished rudder control pure and simple. It does exist. To a degree it's not a problem. But to a higher degree it is. The exact numbers depend on the airplane, pilot ability, and risk tolerance. That's all. Are we comprehending now? You can stop talking around that point and claiming I don't know how to fly a tailwheel airplane.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,258
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Exactly. Differential braking is the only way to turn a canard at slow speed. I go through brakes like crazy though!
DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
No. You stated that one wouldn't understand the significance of a tailwind on landing unless one has tailwheel experience, and went on to talk about how significant it really is.
It's not.
A tailwind does not diminish rudder authority; the rudder authority is zero in a calm wind, and it's zero at the point where forward speed equals the tailwind on landing with a tailwind. Beyond that point, it doesn't decrease; it's still zero.
If there's zero rudder authority, there's zero authority; one doesn't see a decrease simply because one has higher groundspeed than zero.
Whether one has rudder authority or not, one does have control of the aircraft, and that's what's important. Rudder authority can be regained by carrying power, which is a common practice for some in conventional gear powered aircraft.
Don't get too excited. I'm quite comfortable in my flying ability, as are my employers.
It was you that introduced the aircraft type when you said "again, find me a Cub pilot who will do this. And before you ask who said anything about a Cub, substitute Cub for anything else that makes you happy, at whatever other windspeed that makes you happy." Per your request, here's a cub pilot who disagrees with you, and here's a cub pilot who substituted other conventional gear aircraft that make me happy. You can add in there almost any other kind of conventional gear aircraft and it doesn't change the answer.
Whether you're talking about the largest single engine production airplane today in the AT-802, or a taylorcraft, cub, RV-6, fly-baby, PA-18, or any other conventional gear aircraft, if you can't keep the airplane straight while landing with a tailwind, then you have a problem. It has nothing to do with "mine's bigger than yours," although assuredly some of the aircraft I've mentioned are.
This isn't an issue of exceptional skill. It's a matter of basic flying ability, and if this seems unusual, fantastic, or difficult, then you need to seek some remedial training in order to come up to speed on routine techniques (such as maintaining control of the aircraft).
No, there's no reason to land with 20 knots of tailwind under most circumstances; one will naturally seek a landing into the wind as it results in less wear and tear, shorter distances, etc. However, one shouldn't have any difficulty landing downwind if the runway is adequate. Certainly the issue of "loss of rudder authority" is a non-issue, as there isn't a loss. Rudder authority decreases to none as the aircraft slows, and whether this occurs at a higher groundspeed or a slower one is really irrelevant; the aircraft is still controllable.
You are right....except what I am referring to is reduced rudder authority while the airplane is still moving. Like I said, zero rudder authority when the airplane is sitting still will never be a problem.
Great, since you are a Cub pilot, and you are going to quote me, I look forward to your video of you landing a Cub in a 20KT tailwind, since that is specifically what I was referring to when I said, "find me a Cub pilot who will do this".
I think both of us have a crystal clear understanding of the mechanics at work here, and I don't think either of us have a pilot skill problem, but the difference of opinion seems to be that I feel that there is a point for any particular airplane where it doesn't pay to push the envelope with tailwind landings, regardless of how good you are. I am not talking about 4KT. I am talking about more...how much more, well that depends - like I've already said. I don't think I'm stating anything radical here that other tailwheel pilots (than maybe yourself) generally disagree with. If so, other tailwheel pilots, please chime in.
Last edited:
DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
Of course I'm right.
Zero rudder authority while the airplane is moving isn't a problem, either.
Simply because the airplane is moving over the ground doesn't mean it's not controllable, without regard to rudder authority.
Which envelope would that be?
The phrase "pushing the envelope" specifically refers to the performance envelope for a particular aircraft, and landing with a tailwind does not do that.
It has nothing to do with being "good."
So the rudder is a completely irrelevant in the directional control department? There are three means of directional control - rudder, tailwheel, and brake. You're perfectly happy to throw one out the window? Sometimes you need all of them, and as much as they can give.
No **** it doesn't mean it's not controllable. But the simple physics of it means that you are giving up a degree of directional control power by taking the rudder out of the equation, or diminishing its power. All I'm asking is why would you want to reduce the effectiveness of a very powerful control surface?
If you think the rudder is completely irrelevant and important, have you ever seen those tailwheels that look like roller skate wheels? Do you think they have tons of grip? Do you think original Cub brakes work great, and that differential braking will save you from a ground loop when all else has failed? No, they won't. I think you're being deliberately dense for the sake of argument. Still would like to see your 20KT tailwind Cub landing video, since the rudder is such a useless control surface when on the ground.
Captain
Final Approach
Why would you want to? I don't know...to land? Have you ever landed a plane? If you have then by the nature of landing you intentionally 'reduced the effectiveness of a very powerful control surface'.
DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
You've never flown or landed a conventional gear airplane, have you?
A conventional gear airplane, by nature, is a rudder airplane. Not at all like a turbojet airplane where the rudder is by and large a decorative ornament.
That said, on the roll-out, rudder effectiveness eventually peters out as airspeed decays to nothing. It's said in a rudder airplane (conventional gear) one must fly the airplane to the tiedowns; the flight isn't over until the aircraft is secured and the paperwork done. This is true of tricycle gear aircraft too, but tricycle gear aircraft allow bad habits to develop, not the least of which is complacency.
When the airflow over the rudder decreases in a normal, calm-wind landing, one has very little groundspeed. When landing with a tailwind, the same thing occurs, but with a higher groundspeed. That's it.
Taken out of context you could say that and continue to put words in my mouth, but I didn't say that.
When there's no more rudder authority, then yes, it is irrelevant. It becomes relevant again when you give it a blast of power to temporarily restore some measure of authority, and that works whether you have a headwind or calm wind or tailwind.
When you've decreased the airspeed to the point of no more rudder effectiveness, then yes, the rudder becomes irrelevant in the "directional control department."
There are more than three means of directional control, as you've failed to include power and aileron use, as well as steering, the tailwheel lock, and other features, but it's you that said I'm "perfectly happy to throw one out the window." I did not. Again, take credit for your words, as I said no such thing.
When you're out of airspeed, then the rudder is already no longer effective, and is irrelevant. It's not thrown out the window; it's doing what always occurs during a landing. Depending on where you are in the landing, one or more of the directional control inputs is more important than the others. Rudder is important, but decreases in importance as the aircraft winds to a slower and slower speed, where other features become more significant in directional control.
Also equally important is consideration of the period leading up to, during, and after the transition from the flying tail to the tail on the ground. The transitory period is a very significant point, and one is going to have that control regardless of whether one has a headwind or tailwind during the tradition to set the tail on the ground. The only difference is the actual velocity over the ground. Otherwise, it's the same.
Seen them, serviced them, used them, installed them, landed them, flown them, yes.
Grip? Irrelevant. Their purpose it to keep the tail from dragging on the runway or gravel or grass. They're there to lightly support the structure, not to "grip" anything.
The original cub brakes were largely ineffective and someone who knows how to use the cub makes very little use of the heel brakes. The braking on the cub was very typical for aircraft of the day, and works just fine as intended. If you're to the point of ground looping and have already made that mistake, then the rudder or brakes may not save you from your own poor technique.
Very simple: don't ground loop in the first place. Keep the long axis aligned with the direction of travel. When that's in play, the aircraft won't ground loop.
What you think, of course, is irrelevant, but it's your original statements to which I took exception for their inaccuracy and error, and if you see that as a "sake of argument," so be it. It's entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
You've already stipulated that I probably can't land whatever it is that you fly...so what is it, exactly, that you fly? Must be some really challenging stuff worthy of NASA's finest, the way you're carrying on. It's not a cub, is it?
It makes one wonder how tens of thousands of students learned in cubs and did just fine. The airplane will never be as challenging as the mythology that surrounds it. It's a simple, find little underpowered kite, and it's a pleasure to fly. It's not the dreaded beast that some make it out to be. In the end, it's a very simple, very straight forward, very honest airplane to fly, about like any other.
TMetzinger
Final Approach
I frequently see this in the A/FD:
Calm Wind Runway (< 5 kts): XX
C172 POH says to add 10% for every 2 knots tailwind, up to 10 knots. So your landing distance should have been planned for 20% over your regular calm-wind distance. Landing into a 4 knot wind would have reduced your distance by under 5% compared to calm-wind.
So, unless your runway is short... just deal with it. It's common to have the calm-wind runway be the one most advantageous to operators in terms of noise reduction, places to land in case of engine failure after takeoff, etc.
Calm Wind Runway (< 5 kts): XX
C172 POH says to add 10% for every 2 knots tailwind, up to 10 knots. So your landing distance should have been planned for 20% over your regular calm-wind distance. Landing into a 4 knot wind would have reduced your distance by under 5% compared to calm-wind.
So, unless your runway is short... just deal with it. It's common to have the calm-wind runway be the one most advantageous to operators in terms of noise reduction, places to land in case of engine failure after takeoff, etc.
rainsux
Line Up and Wait
I'll conform with the pre-existing flow. If someone (tailwheel? student?
whatever ...) requests a change, I will accommodate them.
At our busy Class-D, it's not unusual for the tailwheel aircraft to request
the opposite direction so that they can operate into-the-wind. The tower
understands, and makes it work. Sometimes they change the active;
sometimes, the simply work them into mix.
whatever ...) requests a change, I will accommodate them.
At our busy Class-D, it's not unusual for the tailwheel aircraft to request
the opposite direction so that they can operate into-the-wind. The tower
understands, and makes it work. Sometimes they change the active;
sometimes, the simply work them into mix.
Last edited:
DouglasBader
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 896
- Display Name
Display name:
Doug
Most of the time when I arrive at an airport, if there's traffic using a particular runway, I'll simply blend in. If I choose a different runway, however, inevitably everyone switches to the other runway. People may be landing with tailwind, downhill, into the setting sun, and they'll keep on doing it until someone decides to switch...then follow.