Maybe I'm wrong...I don't know

Ben, he was talking about takeoff, not landing. Given the information he had, he made a less than desirable decision, IMHO. If this was a landing, and given your set of conditions, then yes, he could be forced into a possible tailwind landing situation. Certainly you would not recommend any pilot to purposely choose to land with a tailwind when the winds favor one with a headwind. Regardless, I'm pretty sure the chief pilot lost his lunch because the OP acted on reported wind that did not favor the runway used. And I'm sure the chief pilot was acting in the interest of safety, not malice.
 
CFI.William said:
"...winds were fairly calm. I got my engine start done and got the minute weather. Winds were reported from the N directly down the runway at 5kts but the sock was limp."

Mtns2Skies and i: Do I even need to point this out?
Click to expand...

I work right next to KGRR, and their AWOS/ATIS has reported BKN/OVC when it's been SKC and vice versa. AWOS can be wrong. Were you one of the CFIs to come out and yell at him?
 
<sigh> Here we go again, sucking all the endorphins out of GA flying ... :rolleyes: ;)
 
A good CFI knows when to give a student a firm talking to, or even sometimes a whack with a newspaper. Departing with a few knots tailwind is NOT one of those times.
 
DavidWhite said:
A good CFI knows when to give a student a firm talking to, or even sometimes a whack with a newspaper. Departing with a few knots tailwind is NOT one of those times.
Click to expand...

Anything less than 5kts I don't even consider wind.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Oh I always thought they were at ground level I apparently thought wrong... What about this scenario (completely hypothetical) AWOS/ASOS is reporting for one runway and the windsock advocates for the reciprocal... then what? :dunno: It would imply windshear for sure.
Click to expand...

Or the wind is calm on the ground and the sock just happened to stop in a position that suggests opposing wind, even though there's no wind actually holding the sock in that position. And you can also have a field with windsocks on each end that do not agree. That is not likely wind shear either. Wind shear is a short-lived phenomenon. Disagreeing windsocks usually means wind swirls in different directions due to differences in terrain, trees, buildings, etc. at each end of the field.
 
Last edited:
CFI.William said:
You mentioned "chief pilot". I'm assuming there is a standard operating manual or a variant that you agreed to when you signed the rental agreement? If there's a clause in there that prohibits you from takeoff/landing with a tailwind, I'd say you have no excuses. If there isn't, I'd say you made a PIC decision, and the outcome did not bite you, your passenger, or your airplane, this time. Was it the best decision? No. Was it a terrible decision? Eh.

In your situation, I'd ask if saving a couple minutes flying the standard traffic pattern is worth the risks you added to your operation should things go badly. You could have taken off into landing traffic. Not everyone self announces at uncontrolled airports. You could have executed your takeoff roll when the wind suddenly picked up. You could have experienced an engine failure on climb out and the wind could push you far enough away that limits your options. Your decision to conduct a short-field takeoff should have been your final hint as to whether your decision is a good one.

But all that aside, was your decision in the best interest of safety for you, your airplane, your passenger, your friends, your family, or the public safety? Ponder on that next time you fly. If you find yourself making a decision because it's "more convenient" without considering the risks, I suggest you read the FAA's handbook on Risk Management, and participate in some WINGS seminars on the topic.
Click to expand...

CFI.William said:
Ben, he was talking about takeoff, not landing. Given the information he had, he made a less than desirable decision, IMHO. If this was a landing, and given your set of conditions, then yes, he could be forced into a possible tailwind landing situation. Certainly you would not recommend any pilot to purposely choose to land with a tailwind when the winds favor one with a headwind. Regardless, I'm pretty sure the chief pilot lost his lunch because the OP acted on reported wind that did not favor the runway used. And I'm sure the chief pilot was acting in the interest of safety, not malice.
Click to expand...

I really didn't need a laugh today, but I got one anyways. Thanks.
 
If you think taking off with a few knots of tailwind is a safety issue, then you need to leave the traffic pattern more.
 
Unless you caused someone to divert, the CFI was out of line. We have a calm wind runway, but that is still done all the time at my airport, as long as it doesn't interfere with traffic.
 
EdFred said:
Anything less than 5kts I don't even consider wind.
Click to expand...
A lot of towers don't either. Less than 5 kts. and they use the calm wind runway even with a slight tailwind.
 
Everskyward said:
A lot of towers don't either. Less than 5 kts. and they use the calm wind runway even with a slight tailwind.
Click to expand...

Well those towers need a stern talkin' to! I suggest William to tell them how wrong they are.
 
At a local uncontrolled field there is a preferred runway and use of it is strongly encouraged when winds are 5 kts or less. Hence, downwind takeoffs in light wind occur all the time.

Personally, I don't see a big problem with what you did. You did the math, you knew the parameters, nothing was cut close and you had a successful flight.

Don't beat yourself up over it.
 
vintage cessna said:
If you we're taking a check ride which runway would you have selected?It was a bad thought process because you planted doubt in your mind from the beginning, hence your decision to perform a short field takeoff.
Click to expand...

I view that more as a calculated decision, not covering for a bad decision. :dunno:
 
DavidWhite said:
A good CFI knows when to give a student a firm talking to, or even sometimes a whack with a newspaper. Departing with a few knots tailwind is NOT one of those times.
Click to expand...

You mean like when the student spills the coffee, right? :yes:
 
Thanks for all the input and opinions guys. My confidence has been restored.

In all fairness to the CFI, he didn't know me from a new private pilot to a high hour commercial pilot...I can't fault him for that but my annoyance was more that I was being talked to like a father talks to his 5 year old and that someone in the office may have been stomping their feet.

We all have seen crazy things happen at uncontrolled fields. Radio calls, position reports, wrong traffic patterns and even heinous 5kt tailwind departures.

I never once had any doubt of the safety or outcome of my takeoff. This was early in the morning and there was no other traffic coming or going at the time. Spending an extra .1 to go around the field is not a big deal and convenience wasn't the deciding factor here. I took into consideration multiple factors prior to my decision. Had the winds been reported at 6kts or more, I would have departed the more appropriate runway. I'm glad to see that the majority take the common sense approach here.

MAKG...were you at KHAF this weekend?
 
sacbluesman said:
Thanks for all the input and opinions guys. My confidence has been restored.

In all fairness to the CFI, he didn't know me from a new private pilot to a high hour commercial pilot...I can't fault him for that but my annoyance was more that I was being talked to like a father talks to his 5 year old and that someone in the office may have been stomping their feet.

We all have seen crazy things happen at uncontrolled fields. Radio calls, position reports, wrong traffic patterns and even heinous 5kt tailwind departures.

I never once had any doubt of the safety or outcome of my takeoff. This was early in the morning and there was no other traffic coming or going at the time. Spending an extra .1 to go around the field is not a big deal and convenience wasn't the deciding factor here. I took into consideration multiple factors prior to my decision. Had the winds been reported at 6kts or more, I would have departed the more appropriate runway. I'm glad to see that the majority take the common sense approach here.

MAKG...were you at KHAF this weekend?
Click to expand...

What are you going to do next time given the same conditions?
 
Last Summer, I participated in young eagles flights from a 2600 ft airport. We set up an established pattern and everyone used that runway. For a while winds shifted to about a 5kt tailwind. At that point, everyone was taking off and landing with this tailwind. No one felt it was significant enough to change the established runway, and no one had any issues.

I just don't see what the problem is with the OP's decision.
 
skidoo said:
Last Summer, I participated in young eagles flights from a 2600 ft airport. We set up an established pattern and everyone used that runway. For a while winds shifted to about a 5kt tailwind. At that point, everyone was taking off and landing with this tailwind. No one felt it was significant enough to change the established runway, and no one had any issues.

I just don't see what the problem is with the OP's decision.
Click to expand...

What you witnessed was herd mentality. I don't think, given the circumstances what the OP did was dangerous. The problem is, he had a choice between A and B. B was a sure thing. He chose A , even though he wasn't sure, because it was more expedient.
 
N801BH said:
What part of the " WINDSOCK WAS LIMP " don't you understand:dunno::mad2:
Click to expand...

Windsock is not exactly going to be flapping around at 5 kits. The guy is questioning his own decision making. In his first post he says that in retrospect he should have made a text book takeoff. In his last post he says 1 kt difference on the AWOS he chooses the other runway. The CFI makes him feel 3 ft tall because he can't defend his decision.

Before he took off he didn't feel exactly right about his decision . My point is , he should listen to those feelings and not choose expediency. Granted, it was not dangerous, but he wasn't sure it was really the right decision at the time, he needed to come here for affirmation. Make what you are sure is the right decision at the time the decision will be executed.
 
vintage cessna said:
Windsock is not exactly going to be flapping around at 5 kits. The guy is questioning his own decision making. In his first post he says that in retrospect he should have made a text book takeoff. In his last post he says 1 kt difference on the AWOS he chooses the other runway. The CFI makes him feel 3 ft tall because he can't defend his decision.

Before he took off he didn't feel exactly right about his decision . My point is , he should listen to those feelings and not choose expediency. Granted, it was not dangerous, but he wasn't sure it was really the right decision at the time, he needed to come here for affirmation. Make what you are sure is the right decision at the time the decision will be executed.
Click to expand...

Objection. Presents facts not in evidence. Nowhere did he say he didn't feel right before the take off.
 
EdFred said:
Objection. Presents facts not in evidence. Nowhere did he say he didn't feel right before the take off.
Click to expand...

Over ruled. He conducts a short field takeoff and not because it is a short field or for practice. Jury may infer that the OP was uncomfortable with his selection of runway.
 
vintage cessna said:
Over ruled. He conducts a short field takeoff and not because it is a short field or for practice. Jury may infer that the OP was uncomfortable with his selection of runway.
Click to expand...

I've done short field takeoffs when it was neither for practice, nor because I was uncomfortable with my selection of runway. Move for mistrial.
 
EdFred said:
I've done short field takeoffs when it was neither for practice, nor because I was uncomfortable with my selection of runway. Move for mistrial.
Click to expand...

Immaterial, EdFreds habits or peculiarities have no bearing on the OP's state of mind or reasoning. Denied. Mr Burger, please sit down, Mr Mason continue.
 
Last edited:
vintage cessna said:
Over ruled. He conducts a short field takeoff and not because it is a short field or for practice. Jury may infer that the OP was uncomfortable with his selection of runway.
Click to expand...

Nope, neither of those. He did it to provide himself a greater margin of clearance over the obsticle at the end of the runway.

Could you please give me a clear definition of a short field and perhaps your guidelines for when a shortfield takeoff is appropriate? It's clear you feel he inappropriately used the shortfield technique in this situation.
 
pilot117 said:
Nope, neither of those. He did it to provide himself a greater margin of clearance over the obsticle at the end of the runway.

Could you please give me a clear definition of a short field and perhaps your guidelines for when a shortfield takeoff is appropriate? It's clear you feel he inappropriately used the shortfield technique in this situation.
Click to expand...

He did a short field take off because he stated he knew he should increase distance 10 percent for every 2 kits of tailwind. So, for a 5 kt tailwind, that would be a 25 percent increase right? Why not use the other RWY, where you don't need the extra margin.? In a 172 with one passenger at 40 Degrees F, 3200 ft available, I'm not even thinking short field. I don't think his use of a short field was inappropriate , just points to a flaw in his decision making. If you are not sure , pick the safer of the two options.
 
vintage cessna said:
He did a short field take off because he stated he knew he should increase distance 10 percent for every 2 kits of tailwind. So, for a 5 kt tailwind, that would be a 25 percent increase right? Why not use the other RWY, where you don't need the extra margin.? In a 172 with one passenger at 40 Degrees F, 3200 ft available, I'm not even thinking short field. I don't think his use of a short field was inappropriate , just points to a flaw in his decision making. If you are not sure , pick the safer of the two options.
Click to expand...

So if I am at Northern Air in Grand Rapids and there's a 7kt wind out of the west, I should taxi 2 miles to the other end of the field because I'm not safe if they give me the option to depart on 8 which is right there? In either scenario 3200 vs 10,000 makes 0 difference in a 172.
 
vintage cessna said:
He did a short field take off because he stated he knew he should increase distance 10 percent for every 2 kits of tailwind. So, for a 5 kt tailwind, that would be a 25 percent increase right? Why not use the other RWY, where you don't need the extra margin.? In a 172 with one passenger at 40 Degrees F, 3200 ft available, I'm not even thinking short field. I don't think his use of a short field was inappropriate , just points to a flaw in his decision making. If you are not sure , pick the safer of the two options.
Click to expand...


I can (almost) agree with that thought process.:yes::eek:..

But, I just quit sniffing glue yesterday so maybe I am not thinking properly.:nonod::nono:
 
N801BH said:
I can (almost) agree with that thought process.:yes::eek:..

But, I just quit sniffing glue yesterday so maybe I am not thinking properly.:nonod::nono:
Click to expand...

Yeah, but what's the T/O roll of a not at gross 172 at ISA -10? 800 feet? plus 25%...0h N0Z, I'm only going to have 2200 feet left after take off. I'm so unsafe!!!
 
EdFred said:
So if I am at Northern Air in Grand Rapids and there's a 7kt wind out of the west, I should taxi 2 miles to the other end of the field because I'm not safe if they give me the option to depart on 8 which is right there? In either scenario 3200 vs 10,000 makes 0 difference in a 172.
Click to expand...

The OP made no mention of a long taxi. He , as he stated, chose the "downwind" RWY because it was in line with his direction of flight.

I imagine that if you made a decision, it would be with confidence and you wouldn't require affirmation from anyone and that you would put someone that attempted to admonish you for that decision in their place.
 
vintage cessna said:
He did a short field take off because he stated he knew he should increase distance 10 percent for every 2 kits of tailwind. So, for a 5 kt tailwind, that would be a 25 percent increase right? Why not use the other RWY, where you don't need the extra margin.? In a 172 with one passenger at 40 Degrees F, 3200 ft available, I'm not even thinking short field. I don't think his use of a short field was inappropriate , just points to a flaw in his decision making. If you are not sure , pick the safer of the two options.
Click to expand...

No flaw there, just adding an extra safety margin, which is never a bad thing. IMHO the CFI was way out of line. I have been in situations where I chose downwind takeoffs because of lower obstacles in that direction and the machine was heavy. This was not even close to stretching the abilities of the airplane. I see more and more CFIs lately who think at 1k they have the aviation world by the tail and are always the supreme dictator of what is and is not acceptable. Then they move into the right seat of a CRJ and are back where they belong, a neophyte with an ego.
 
vintage cessna said:
The OP made no mention of a long taxi. He , as he stated, chose the "downwind" RWY because it was in line with his direction of flight.

I imagine that if you made a decision, it would be with confidence and you wouldn't require affirmation from anyone and that you would put someone that attempted to admonish you for that decision in their place.
Click to expand...

I also have quite a few more hours and ratings than the OP to solidify my stance. He now has a little more experience to solidify his stance.
 
EdFred said:
William -

Did you actually read the part where he said the windsock was limp?
Click to expand...

further to your previous post (and some of the chime-in ninnies as well) I would add "and the goat you rode in on."
 
About 10 years ago, I had a pimply faced CFI with about 400 hours criticize my choice to make a down wind landing a CMI in 500-8 under a deck of ice. Of course, CMI has thousands of feet, and the heck I was going to CTL with ice (albeit cleaned by boots, but not pristeen) under those conditions. I recall takiing about half the runway.

He left with a new opening which occured in front of his student. Never heard about it after that....picked up my pax and left. HIs boss was sitting in an office with the door about 10 feet from the conversation. Needless to say, Flightstar got no fuel purchase from me that day.

Hmm. I wrote the guys' name down. I wonder what regional he's still FO'ing at.....I wonder if the kid "gets it" yet.

To the OP, you do the numbers, if the numbers work out with adequate margin, you're doing it acceptably. But actually do the numbers, when you do something counter to "Common wisdom".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top