Narrative:

Aircraft XXX is a 'B' model versus 'B plus.' the forecast WX at ile was approximately 300/1 with a 5 KT tailwind. For planning purposes, we use the blue book table which in the 'B' model at ile allows 1 KT tailwind with flaps 20 degrees and an 800 pounds reduction for each additional KT of tailwind. This would be 4 KTS in this case or 3200 pounds. I apprised dispatch of this situation and, after several times, she finally said she understood and would call to lessen the load. This is why the flight was 2 hours late in departure. The next thing the gate agent is loading up 25 people and 1200 pounds of bags or about 2000 pounds more than the blue book allows. After more calls, I got them to off-load the extra weight. At the time 3 other 'B plus' models had departed for ile fully loaded. After the difference between 'B' and 'B plus' was realized by dispatch via forcing the off-load of passenger, dispatch put us into a 'B plus' nxxx. Although the 'B plus' allowed us to land with the weight at ile, I personally thought there was a strong possibility of rolling off the end. (Happened under the same circumstances with another pilot about 4 yrs ago at ile.) I have landed at ile hundreds of times including times with a stronger tailwind factor. However, the combination of 300/1 WX and a tailwind does not allow time to adjust for the shorter field. We used to ban lndgs at ile with any tailwind. I think that is too restrictive on a VFR day when you can see the field and better plan speed, touchdown point, etc. I think that landing at killeen with IFR WX is significantly more dangerous than VFR WX and we should rethink the ban on landing there when it is IFR and there is a tailwind factor.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SF3B CAPT QUESTIONS COMPANY LOADING PROC FOR ACFT OPERATING INTO ILE WITH TAILWIND CONDITIONS.

Narrative: ACFT XXX IS A 'B' MODEL VERSUS 'B PLUS.' THE FORECAST WX AT ILE WAS APPROX 300/1 WITH A 5 KT TAILWIND. FOR PLANNING PURPOSES, WE USE THE BLUE BOOK TABLE WHICH IN THE 'B' MODEL AT ILE ALLOWS 1 KT TAILWIND WITH FLAPS 20 DEGS AND AN 800 LBS REDUCTION FOR EACH ADDITIONAL KT OF TAILWIND. THIS WOULD BE 4 KTS IN THIS CASE OR 3200 LBS. I APPRISED DISPATCH OF THIS SIT AND, AFTER SEVERAL TIMES, SHE FINALLY SAID SHE UNDERSTOOD AND WOULD CALL TO LESSEN THE LOAD. THIS IS WHY THE FLT WAS 2 HRS LATE IN DEP. THE NEXT THING THE GATE AGENT IS LOADING UP 25 PEOPLE AND 1200 LBS OF BAGS OR ABOUT 2000 LBS MORE THAN THE BLUE BOOK ALLOWS. AFTER MORE CALLS, I GOT THEM TO OFF-LOAD THE EXTRA WT. AT THE TIME 3 OTHER 'B PLUS' MODELS HAD DEPARTED FOR ILE FULLY LOADED. AFTER THE DIFFERENCE BTWN 'B' AND 'B PLUS' WAS REALIZED BY DISPATCH VIA FORCING THE OFF-LOAD OF PAX, DISPATCH PUT US INTO A 'B PLUS' NXXX. ALTHOUGH THE 'B PLUS' ALLOWED US TO LAND WITH THE WT AT ILE, I PERSONALLY THOUGHT THERE WAS A STRONG POSSIBILITY OF ROLLING OFF THE END. (HAPPENED UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES WITH ANOTHER PLT ABOUT 4 YRS AGO AT ILE.) I HAVE LANDED AT ILE HUNDREDS OF TIMES INCLUDING TIMES WITH A STRONGER TAILWIND FACTOR. HOWEVER, THE COMBINATION OF 300/1 WX AND A TAILWIND DOES NOT ALLOW TIME TO ADJUST FOR THE SHORTER FIELD. WE USED TO BAN LNDGS AT ILE WITH ANY TAILWIND. I THINK THAT IS TOO RESTRICTIVE ON A VFR DAY WHEN YOU CAN SEE THE FIELD AND BETTER PLAN SPD, TOUCHDOWN POINT, ETC. I THINK THAT LNDG AT KILLEEN WITH IFR WX IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DANGEROUS THAN VFR WX AND WE SHOULD RETHINK THE BAN ON LNDG THERE WHEN IT IS IFR AND THERE IS A TAILWIND FACTOR.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.