Hypothetic situation

[UA-RESURRECTED]

You're enroute VFR to a non-towered field that has say 2 runways oriented in different directions. Upon approaching the field, you are unable to raise a unicom operator despite several call-ups. There is also no known traffic in the pattern as requests for traffic to advise go unanswered. This field has no ATIS or any type of weather-reporting equipment. You overfly the field for a "wind check", but for whatever reason, you're unable to get a clear view of the sock, T, whatever...

If the runways are fairly long, is it EVER acceptable to simply land with complete disregard for the current wind conditions?

 

[ackattacker]

Fly a circle at a constant rate of turn. Where you end up tells you which way the wind is blowing.

 

[pgcfii2002]

Rock your wings and look for light gun signals.

 

[epic!]

check the closest airport that has ATIS

 

[sqwkvfr]

You're enroute VFR to a non-towered field that has say 2 runways oriented in different directions. Upon approaching the field, you are unable to raise a unicom operator despite several call-ups. There is also no known traffic in the pattern as requests for traffic to advise go unanswered. This field has no ATIS or any type of weather-reporting equipment. You overfly the field for a "wind check", but for whatever reason, you're unable to get a clear view of the sock, T, whatever...

If the runways are fairly long, is it EVER acceptable to simply land with complete disregard for the current wind conditions?

Sure.

Provided you own the aircraft, only you are on board to get hurt in the event that something goes wrong and there is no one on the ground that you might injure.

You know, you've been trolling on this board for a very long time now...are you about finished?

(...standing by for the normal "I have a serious question and all you wanna do is pick on me!!!" response from this dude.)

 

[ackattacker]

You're enroute VFR to a non-towered field that has say 2 runways oriented in different directions. Upon approaching the field, you are unable to raise a unicom operator despite several call-ups. There is also no known traffic in the pattern as requests for traffic to advise go unanswered. This field has no ATIS or any type of weather-reporting equipment. You overfly the field for a "wind check", but for whatever reason, you're unable to get a clear view of the sock, T, whatever...

If the runways are fairly long, is it EVER acceptable to simply land with complete disregard for the current wind conditions?

If you want a serious answer to your question, the answer is "no". You should have at least some idea of what the wind situation is. Otherwise you are behaving recklessly, and possibly exceeding a limitation of your aircraft. Part of basic piloting is remaining aware of the general weather situation. Before you left you should have received wind forecasts and reports. Enroute you should have been keeping an eye on your groundspeed and wind correction. There are literally dozens of ways to determine the basic speed and direction of the wind.

 

[UA-RESURRECTED]

True, there would be no excuse for doing it. Trees, smoke, water, crab angles, nearby reporting stations, yeah there's probably a dozen ways to obtain wind information in the air. My question was basically inquiring on just how serous the dangers of doing this would be. If you're landing a 150 on a 10,000' runway, I can't help but think that nothing worse than a go-around would result, not that that justifies attempting....

I NEVER had any doubt that it was a bad idea.

 

[ackattacker]

If you land with a strong tailwind you risk tire failure, and if something does go wrong you are going to crash with a much higher forward energy.

 

[Waldom]

The attitude reflected in your hypothetical reflects an unhealthy reliance on communication radio and a lack of basic airmanship fundamentals. This is not meant as a disparageing remark toward you, but I am concerned about the quality of your flight instructor.

I gather that you are working on solo cross-country work now. Your instructor should long ago have taught you to "read" the surface wind by being aware of smoke from ground fires, power plants and industrial smoke stacks. You should also be able to deduce the direction and even the approximate velocity of the wind by looking at the surfaces of ponds, lakes, and rivers. When the surface wind is over 10 knots, it can often be seen by studying the movements of row crops or, in a dry or desert area, by blowing dust. This stuff should have been covered from your first hour of instruction.

Control tower and Unicom advisories, ATIS and ASOS/AWOS broadcasts are great things, but remember that they are simply observations of recent history. A lot can change in 10 minutes. You should always be looking for evidence of wind direction and velocity especially as you fly a landing pattern....on every approach and every landing on every type of airport, controlled or not.

Sorry this turned into a lecture, but as long as I am at it, let me throw in a caution regarding unicom advisory frequencies. Monitoring them for reported traffic while approaching the airport and making position reports as you enter and fly the pattern is a very good practice. Don't assume, however, that because you hear no other traffic for that airport that there is none. Lots of pilots either do not have a radio installed in their airplane, have turned it off or tuned the wrong frequency if it is installed, or simply missed your calls even if they are on the proper frequency. Keep you eyes open and your head on a swivel.

And one last note. Even if the wind is blowing straight down one runway, don't assume that it is the only one in use. Someone may be intentionally practicing crosswind landings on another one. Or they might be flying an airplane that requires the longest runway on the field regardless of the wind direction. There is also the possibility of a pilot out there that wasn't able to obtain a landing advisory, does not know how to deduce surface wind, and is just winging it and hoping for the best.

 

[UA-RESURRECTED]

Great info, thanks.