Being a long-time tenant at a non-towered airport I’ve become increasingly fascinated by how other pilots behave. The roughly 500 towered airports in the U.S. have their own problems, but rogue pilots doing whatever pleases them isn’t a primary issue. It’s a concern, but it’s not a daily problem.
At non-towered airports — all 19,000 of them — it is a daily concern. More than a concern actually. It’s a matter of safety that is all-too-easily ignored by the exact people who are most at risk of paying the price for such a laissez-faire attitude.
The other day I was at a non-towered airport that has a published runway recommendation. When the winds are below 5 knots, Runway 9 is the preferred runway. There are a variety of reasons for this proposition, reasons we as pilots don’t need to know in detail. Like the tensile strength of the 2024 aluminum products in our fuselage skins, it’s okay if we just trust the experts to make choices that we can accept on faith. They’re smart people. We don’t have to question every aspect of their choices each time we climb into an aircraft.
On this day I found a situation unfolding that is far too common. A pilot was flying the traffic pattern for Runway 27, the exact opposite direction indicated by the local recommendation.
Admittedly, the wind was out of the west. But it was only 4 knots. Based on the published and widely disseminated information pertinent to that airport, the pilot should have been using Runway 9.
Being genuinely curious as I taxied out to the runway I made a courteous but sincere radio call, “Are y’all going to stick with 27 or will you be turning around to use Runway 9? The winds are below 5 knots.”
The response was quick, but somewhat sheepish. A CFI came on the frequency with a voice that was less than confident: “I don’t want my student to land with a tailwind.”
Now let’s be clear. That’s just flat-out good advice. Landing with a tailwind is not typically a pilot’s first choice. Landing and taking off with a headwind is generally preferrable. Generally, but not always.
Let me take the devil’s advocate position on this one. While my perspective may rankle you a bit — it may even cause you to mutter unkind epithets under your breath and vow to never take my advice — it is still a valid perspective that deserves consideration.
If you fly long enough and often enough and into a sufficient number of places, the odds are you will one day find yourself being instructed to land with a slight tailwind. Yes, at a controlled airport it is entirely possible, even likely that you will from time to time be instructed to land on Runway 9 even though the wind is definitively coming from the west. A direct tailwind.
There are certain landing strips where you can virtually guarantee that happens on a regular basis. One unique but highly vaunted example being KTTS, the Space Florida Launch and Landing Facility in Titusville. I’ve had the opportunity to land there exactly once. A couple days later I had the privilege of departing from that same length of pavement in the opposite direction. In both cases, the direction of the wind was immaterial.
When landing at KTTS I was given instructions to enter a mid-field right base to Runway 15. On departure I was instructed to take off from Runway 33. This is the case for most, if not all, traffic into and out of this legendary strip.
You see, there is only one taxiway off the runway at KTTS. It is at the south end of the 15,000-foot strip. That taxiway is the only way onto or off of the runway.
As a result, controllers are loathe to give a guest instructions to land on Runway 33, followed by a 2.5 mile taxi back to the ramp. Nor are they likely to offer the Runway 15 option on departure. The runway is big. Really big. A reasonably proficient pilot should be able to deal with operations out of that strip regardless of which way the wind is blowing.
Similarly, you may find yourself arriving at a controlled field where the winds were light and variable an hour before, but now they remain light but from a dedicated direction. Let’s use that same example of Runways 9 and 27. If Runway 9 was in use earlier and traffic has been flowing smoothly into and out of the pattern, the tower controllers are unlikely to go through the process of turning the pattern around to accommodate a four-knot wind even if it is coming directly from 270°.
If the wind strengthens and persists, it’s likely they will make that change. But if the wind remains light, especially if it continues to shift this way and that, the odds are good that you’ll be instructed to land or take off with a tailwind.
Life is full of surprises. That truism isn’t automatically suspended when we step onto airport grounds.
Which brings us back to the issue of CFIs who train their students to never take off or land with a tailwind. Remove the word “never” and that’s good advice. Include it and you’ve made a rule that your student will almost certainly be forced to break at some point.
What’s the value in teaching a rule you know to be erroneous?
The question for CFIs is this: Do you want to train your students and your flight review clients to meet the minimum standards and pass the test or do you want to provide them with real-world insights they can use to keep themselves safe in a wide variety of situations?
The devil’s advocate in me thinks the better lesson is: “You want to land and takeoff with a headwind whenever possible. However, there will be times when you find you have no choice but to land or takeoff with a tailwind. This is where your PIC judgment comes into play. It’s up to you to decide if you can make that landing or perform that takeoff safely, or whether you need to land somewhere else, or whether you should put off your trip to another day.”
In the end our safety all comes down to well-informed decision-making. It’s counter-productive to teach a student to never do something that we know they may need to do from time to time. It might even be instructional malpractice.
Give that some thought then let me know what you think, pro or con. Go ahead. I encourage the feedback.
I am indebted to my private pilot instructor who, when the pattern was empty, would declare it was time for “Mozart” landings. What this entailed was landing on all four runways in turn. Variations on a theme like so many Mozart pieces. In this way, in quick progression, I was able to practice normal, right crosswind , left crosswind and tailwind landings. Not only did I get to practice the different landing types but also got to feel the differences between control inputs within a time frame that was meaningful.
If we as pilots fly long enough we will encounter a tailwind, whether by choice or by nature. Surface winds can, and do, change at the very last second. Pay particular attention if winds are reported variable. Exposure to tailwinds during training marks a good instructor, for he is preparing the applicant for that moment in time when they do encounter a tailwind. When it comes to landing into the wind or near into the wind as possible regardless of windspeed, I always choose as near into the wind as possible in my amphibious float plane when landing on hard surface. It takes very little wind to move that sucker around with those big floats hanging down. No problem on the water. We generally always land into he wind. The best example of an extreme airport with a one way in and one way out is Aspen, CO. You land on 15 and takeoff 33. One can take off 15 but they first have to sign a waiver to do so. I went into Aspen a year ago landing 15. I took off with an 8 kt tailwind on 33. Runway is 8,000′ long at 7,820′ elevation. My 182 performed flawlessly in the tailwind. Preferred runway or not, the pilot is solely responsible for the safe operation of their aircraft. Their choice to land into the wind should be wholly respected by all.
Getting a “recommended calm wind runway” published for operations when winds are less than 3 knots (FAA’s definition of “calm wind”), has been a constant battle at one particular multi-runway airport in my neck-of-the-woods. There have been many NMACs with pilots opting to play “chicken” with other pilots using other runways.
At least the CFI in your example used a reason based on what he/she was taught at the “rote” level. They just haven’t progressed up the “understanding-application-correlation” ladder yet.
That’s way more acceptable than the “it’s not convenient to reach my hangar”, and “it takes too much gas” excuses we get around here.
Why not use the runway “most nearly aligned with the wind” as I believe the FAR-AIM puts it, if it doesn’t endanger or inconvenience anyone?
Training aside, IMHO it’s dumb to land with a tailwind if you don’t have to–esp in a taildragger.
I will choose a 5 knot headwind over a 5 knot tailwind every time.
YES, it is necessary to teach a student how to land and what to expect while landing with a slight tailwind… BUT, if the CFI is training a relatively NEW student, it might NOT be a good idea. to introduce this concept too early.
Gotta’ learn the basics first.
In any event, if you are going to go against convention, you had better have a good reason to do so and make sure that you announce your intentions clearly so as not to confuse other traffic and cause conflicts.
Also, it helps to look into the reasoning for such recommendations to better understand them.
Jerry King
Where I was based for a long time (towered airport), runway 2 was the active with a light tailwind, which meant that for some students, tailwind landings started on day 1. As long as the winds were within the intended limits, it really wasn’t anything noticeable.
Agree completely with Jamie. Downwind takeoffs and landings should be part of any curriculum. In the real world, there are many airports, towered and non-towered, which have a recommended runway which is intended to be used with a light tailwind. Where I’m based, I have several times seen the wind socks at both ends both showing a tailwind at the threshold. There are also the one-way in and out airports. But maybe the most important value is the skill when there is an emergency. That’s when you have no choice of when the descent is going to start. And that descent starting point may only give you one place to land which may be a downwind approach. Without some experience in downwind landings, good luck.
Jamie, categorizing a CFI with a student under the topic of “rogue pilots” and “laissez-fair attitude” is pretty strong just because they chose other than the “recommended runway”. Look up “recommended”. It would actually be dangerous for pilots to believe it means something more than that. I’m glad you were on the radio to question their judgement and second guess what the student should be practicing on that particular lesson. Otherwise, who knows what may have happened : ) Let’s question the pilots (apparently not smart) but never the “experts” (smart) who are not in the cockpit.
I agree with Jamie, pilots need to learn this as they may need to make a downwind landing. Pilots have died attempting to make downwind landings in a 5 kt. tailwind. Tailwind landings should be part of the curriculum for private pilot training so that they will recognize what is happening to them as the plane floats down the runway when landing.
When I was actively flying our club’s Cessna 172S, I experienced times when I had to land/takeoff with a tailwind. My home base was a Class C airport and the controller assigned to our GA runway, depending upon traffic load, would work with a pilot who desired to test the takeoff/stopping length at various tailwind speeds.
While doing so, I would estimate the percent of the runway needed for both takeoff and land. If I could takeoff or land in 10% of the runway total length (typically 10,000 ft.), I would be okay to attempt a takeoff or landing, having a safe option to quit the attempt when I reached 40% of the runway length.
With a shorter runway, I would consider taking off. However, landing requires more consideration of the distance you require. My typical takeoff distance was less than 500 feet with very light headwinds. I also had attained similar performance with full flaps in similar wind conditions.
It really comes down to “knowing your particular aircraft.” For example, the prop pitch may be different from another pilot’s fixed pitch prop.
I live on a private Airpark. In light wind conditions, people who live on the north side takeoff on 18. They land on 36. People on the south end do the opposite. Doesn’t seem to be a problem.