With the wind?

If a tower phrased a take-off clearance "cleared for |
downwind takeoff" it would be because the pilot requested
that runway and the tower was getting it on tape, that the
pilot knew and accepted the procedure. If the wind was not
significant and a taxi to the other end of the airport was
long, using a runway with a little wind component on the
tail might be very reasonable. It depends on runway length,
departure profile and terrain balanced by aircraft
performance.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Stubby" wrote in
message . ..
|I can remember at least one tower communication, "N12345
cleared for
| downwind takeoff". And, at the standard procedure at
Pepperell, MA
| where I learned gliders, was to take off on 06 and land on
24. This
| allowed for an aborted take off into a cornfield rather
than a pile of
| granite. So, downwind is not unheard of, but not
preferred because it
| uses more runway.
|
|
| smallg wrote:
| Okay, I've never even had a flying lesson, which
| may explain it, but yesterday afternoon I stopped
| by a local airport to watch some planes, and noticed
| that the tower had them all taking off and landing
| more *with* the wind than against it. The wind
| was blowing at around 10-12 mph (around 10
| or so knots) and the windsock appeared to agree.
| I know about crosswind landings and t-offs,
| but I always thought once the wind was giving
| more of a tailwind than headwind, it was time
| to change directions. BTW, these were all small
| planes, as this airport doesn't accomodate anything
| bigger than corporate jets. Just curious, thanks!
|
| -----
| Jay McKenzie
| http://home.bellsouth.net/p/pwp-wstviews
|
|

There's no such phraseology as "downwind takeoff." The controller is
required to issue the wind when you takeoff with a tailwind component,
this can be accomplished via the ATIS and would be obvious when you
listened to the tape.

Jim Macklin wrote:

If a tower phrased a take-off clearance "cleared for |
downwind takeoff" it would be because the pilot requested
that runway and the tower was getting it on tape, that the
pilot knew and accepted the procedure. If the wind was not
significant and a taxi to the other end of the airport was
long, using a runway with a little wind component on the
tail might be very reasonable. It depends on runway length,
departure profile and terrain balanced by aircraft
performance.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:ZPVXf.7715$t22.1714@dukeread08...

If a tower phrased a take-off clearance "cleared for |
downwind takeoff" it would be because the pilot requested
that runway and the tower was getting it on tape, that the
pilot knew and accepted the procedure.


The phraseology is just "cleared for takeoff", the pilot's request would
already be on the tape so adding "downwind" would accomplish nothing..

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:ZPVXf.7715$t22.1714@dukeread08...
It depends on runway length,
departure profile and terrain balanced by aircraft
performance.

Sure does. I remember a CAA safety evening, where the presenter showed a
photo with an aircraft poised to take off with the windsock pointing in
pretty much the same direction, and said: "Why isn't this as mad as it
looks?"

The photo had been cleverly taken/cropped and done at a jaunty angle so that
the pole of the windsock was just off the side of the picture - and there
were no reference points from which you could realise that, in fact, the
runway had a socking great downslope.

D.