"Landing at Brussels Airport will become more dangerous"

[C-46commando]

All technical discussions aside, I find it a bit worrying that some people are very at ease throwing "best aviation practices" out of the window so fast. I mean, after all, why worry about where the wind comes from! It's just 2 more knots!

[FlightMate]

Aren't all ryanair aircraft requesting landings with tailwind so as to get to their destination quicker?
Just kidding of course.

Le'ts be serious. Occasional landings with 10kts tailwind shouldn't bring accidents.
It's when all the flight are operated at such conditions that an accident is more likely to happen.
All about statistics. (same applies to landing minima, etops, ...)

If it is for sound reasons (like terrain, making approaches in the opposite direction more dangerous), sure, we understand.
If it is only to please a politician whose friends are complaining about the noise. No way.

Do we just have to wait for an overrun with killed pax to happen before people get real again?

Kalitta crashed not long ago, because they were using the shorter 02, active because of noise issues.

I agree with fcw though. 7kts of tailwind on 25s can bring the same safety level as 7kts of headwind on 07s, as they have no precision approaches. Or even hadwind on 02, as it is shorter.
Something to take into consideration when making the rules.

[Desert Rat]

15 knots tailwind is optional on airbus A/C's meaning that you can pay to get it changed in the AFM.

[Zorba]

Aren't all ryanair aircraft requesting landings with tailwind so as to get to their destination quicker?
Just kidding of course.

No joke, and not only RYR pilots request it.

[appel]

I don't really why there is all the comotion.
For the 737-800 its a difference of not even 100m with medium braking action and autobrake 1.
So if those pilots think it's unsafe to land with those 100m extra shouldn't be landing with 5 knots tw either.

[woutertheboy]

Aren't all ryanair aircraft requesting landings with tailwind so as to get to their destination quicker?
Just kidding of course.

No joke, and not only RYR pilots request it.

Are you serious? This is ridiculous. Even unbelievable

[A330]

I don't know about the technical details, but I guess the administration probably doesn't know either. I don't like this kind of decisions to be taken by government. It should be the aviation authorities, with ATC and ultimately pilots who should decide whether it is safe to land or not.
As an outsider, could someone give me an idea of how often these circumstances would occur, either in BRU or elsewhere?

[Flanker2]

I don't know about the technical details, but I guess the administration probably doesn't know either. I don't like this kind of decisions to be taken by government. It should be the aviation authorities, with ATC and ultimately pilots who should decide whether it is safe to land or not.

The final decision always rests with the commander. The administration is not taking a decision, it's widening the scope of the acceptable parameters. Pilots now have more options and if they deem safe can land with more tailwind, at their own discretion.

This is a reduction of restrictions, more freedom. Not a decision made by politicians, because no matter how much they decide, the final authority always rests with the commander.
I would expect that professional pilots would understand the difference between "you may do" and "you have to do", but apparently in today's 21st century commercial aviation even this poses a challenge for some pilots who are complaining.

Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

[EBBU]

Just a small remark,

the increase of the allowable tailwind component by the secretary of state has nothing to do with a pilot deciding to go around or not.

The change in tailwind component is an instruction that is to be used by TWR to see when they are allowed to choose a runway different from the preferential runway system. This system is a government decision to equally divide the noise pollution around the airport.

By increasing the allowed tailwind component the government wants to delay a runway change (away from the preferential runway system) for as long as possible. Therefore, pilots can expect more tailwind on final before there is a change in active runway.

The decision to go around is not directly linked to the tailwind (but it can be influenced by it).

[Flanker2]

EBBU, it depends on the articles you read.

Some articles say that the reason is to reduce noisy go arounds when the wind shifts.
Some articles say that the reason is to reduce landings on the 02 which cause noise pollution over Tervuren.

But regardless, the commander has the final say over the runway selection. If he/she is not comfortable landing in a certain tailwind, it's the commander's right to request another runway. If ATC doesn't want or can't grant it for instance because all other pilots don't mind, the pilot still has the option to hold and wait for another runway or divert his/her flight.

The final authority is always in the commander's hands.
Only people who don't understand this sacred principle will complain about it.

PS: VAPP on A32S varies between 112 and 154 kts depending on weight and flaps configuration. So it's not 2 kts of additional tailwind that will have any effect on braking performance on a 3000+ meter runway.
For a big B744 coming in at MLW with one T/R inop, on a runway with standing water, one could debate if any tailwind is appropriate, but it's not like ATC or the government will force him to land with tailwind...

So much drama about 2 kts, I think that the pilots are only helping any political campaign. The news would have gone unnoticed if they hadn't complained about it. Maybe the politicians were counting on them to complain? In any case, it's not like that that they will resolve the big problems of this nation.

[fcw]

Aren't all ryanair aircraft requesting landings with tailwind so as to get to their destination quicker?
Just kidding of course.

No joke, and not only RYR pilots request it.

Are you serious? This is ridiculous. Even unbelievable

There is no reason to be afraid boy!
In my airline we do a lot of tailwind landings, BUT we run a landing distance calculation before each landing, taking 1,5 times the reported tailwind into consideration and without the use of thrust reversers.
To this figure we add a safety margin of 67%.
eg: 10 kts tail, landing distance needed with reverse 850m, without reverse1000m, we will take 1100m (which would be needed for 15kts tailwind without reverse) and add 700m safety. So whilst 850m is needed we will only land if 1800m are available.
Some of our destinations make landings in one direction very tricky, due to terrain, lack of instrument approaches, displaced threshold,... Landing with 10 kts tail on the opposite runway is by far the safest course of action. The aircraft behaves a bit different with tailwind though and regulary practising them on long runways is a must. Of course we try to practise at airports where the tailwind landing shortens the distance, the taxi or simplifies the approach, this is called airmanship.

[FlightMate]

Sorry Flanker, but the way I read it in the press, is that the tailwind component will have to exceed 7 kts before BRU changes the runway in use.
(ie, on saturdays, the shorter 02 or 20 is used, and will still be the runway in use until the tailwind goes above 7 kts)

Yes, a captain can always ask for another runway, but it is likely to cause delay, thus fuel, thus money and pollution.

While I wouldn't mind landing on the 25s with (more) tailwind, I am more reluctant to do on the shorter 02, specially when the 25s could be made available with headwind, but are not due to noise restrictions.

I'll repeat myself: individual landings with tailwind shouldn't cause any more problems than with headwind.
It's when all landings are made with tailwind (with a safety margin much reduced), that an accident is more prone to happen. (statistics, ...)
Hell, airplanes already overrun runways in fair weather with headwind. Now imagine if ALL landings around the world were made with tailwind. Don't you think we would see more overrun?

Take the example of driving at 300 km/h on a highway. Do it once for a short period of time, you are likely not to crash and die. Do it everyday, and you have much more chances of dying because of it.

[tolipanebas]

In my airline we do a lot of tailwind landings, BUT we run a landing distance calculation before each landing, taking 1,5 times the reported tailwind into consideration and without the use of thrust reversers.

That's all very nice, but as I have been trying to explain, the problem with tailwind landings is not so much with the increment to the Landing Distance Required, because going by that popular -but wrong- theory, you could do a tailwind landing with say 60kts too then, provided your RWY is sufficiently long! ?

The problem with a tailwind landing is in what you have noticed yourself already:

The aircraft behaves a bit different with tailwind though

It does indeed, because in fact your aircraft isn't built for it.
As you surely know, it's a must to be stabilized by 1,000AGL (and at the very latest 500AGL) to guarantee both a safe landing as well as a successful go-around.
Stabilized means:
- on profile (so on glide most of the times),
- on the right track (so on the axis most of the times),
- correctly configured
- on speed, and here comes the last one which gets often forgotten:
- WITH THE ENGINES CORRECLTY SPOOLED UP AGAIN.

Now the thing is that the manufacturer has designed the plane in such a way that under normal conditions, the thrust you'll have to set on short final in order to keep speed in any landing configuration is significantly higher than flight idle thrust, the reason being that this will guarantee you a sufficiently quick reaction from the engines in a last minute decision to go-around.

Do tailwind landings and you'll notice your thrust setting on short final is going to be nearing the idle setting very rapidy in order to keep the required speed as tailwind increases, which indeed makes your plane fly a bid oddly, yet you can get acustomed to this indeed and it's all very nice as long as you 'just' landing, but it will quickly pose a problem in case you want to perform go around from say 60ft, because your engines will need far more time to spool up than what you only have.

How many times do you practice balked landings under tailwind conditions?
Or isn't that part of the 'airmanship' you refer too? In which case, it's better not to be too self-assured and simply avoid those kind of tailwind landings where you actually need to demonstrate premium piloting skills on your landing, as the skills required for what would otherwise be a routine go-around may not be there as your go around turns into a balked landing.

I am sure you agree that pushing throttles forward, only to notice thrust isn't readily available and thus hitting the ground like a certain crew in SFO discovered isn't exactly great airmanship either.

[B.Inventive]

Landing in tailwind is more dangerous than landing in headwind.

all other factors aside, if I get the choice I prefer to avoid tailwind.
Flying an A320, performing a non precision approach in headwind, is at least as safe as flying a tailwind ILS. (the aircraft design philosophy allows this)
While most operators out there will encourage their pilots to 'throw away their flying skills' and stick to 'following that green crossbar', some still encourage actual piloting technique.
Which is in my opinion the only way to cope with thing such as this.

[EBAW_flyer]

The big problem for me is that they do not take into account the tailwind during approach, but only on the ground.
In BRU, now already too often you have up to 15-20 kts tailwind on approach, with winds calming down sometimes as low as 50ft.
On those occasions, I report this to the tower, and mostly the only response is "roger" ...

[sn26567]

I am not a specialist and sometimes your posts sound like Chinese to me. But I would like to give you a tweet that was just posted by André Berger, Director of Flight Operations at Jetairfly: "Wind 13 max 22 kmph. Approach at 238. Headwind gives 216 kmph. Tailwind 260. Slow down 100 ton from 260 or from 216 is big difference."

[sean1982]

Freedom of speech is clearly not a democratic right that excists on this forum.
I dont care what ABE says. He's from the same club of god's gifts to aviation as panebas. Questioning a professional pilots airmanship on the base of a post and then going on about a stable approach is ridiculous. Any idea how many stable approaches this person allready flew in his career. I dont think he needs a lecture on that especially not when the airline has FDM and a clear stable approach policy. Off course if you only fly into airports that have ILS on all sides, the more tricky airports are supposedly easily forgotten.

If this is still Chinese, let me know!

[Atco EBBR]

The big problem for me is that they do not take into account the tailwind during approach, but only on the ground.
In BRU, now already too often you have up to 15-20 kts tailwind on approach, with winds calming down sometimes as low as 50ft.
On those occasions, I report this to the tower, and mostly the only response is "roger" ...

Don't think that your reporting is ignored. It happens quite often that a RWY change is done because of pilot reports even if the surface wind is within limits. So please, keep reporting...

[cnc]

why is sean1982's post removed? i don't agree with the context but it should be open for discussion.

[sn26567]

Aggressive posts with unsuitable language are removed without notice.

https://www.aviation24.be/rules/