Narrative:

We were arriving runway 16R at den. ATIS winds were 230 at 13 gusting to 22. We were configured and stabilized for a flaps 22 approach with 5 KTS added as a gust factor. We checked in with tower just as the flight landing 16L was going around. Tower was busy coordinating. As we got closer we queried the tower to make sure we were cleared to land. Tower cleared us to land and then told us the winds. We made a normal approach and landed. When we heard another aircraft going around behind us we thought it was kind of odd; and then we heard the tower give the current winds as 350 at 17. We hadn't picked up on the fact that we landed with a 17 KT tailwind. We planned and executed the approach based on the ATIS winds; and didn't think to wonder why the aircraft beside us broke off their approach; nor did we really process what the winds were when ATC cleared us to land. I think that so often we don't really care what the winds are since they don't really limit performance in this aircraft (especially on a 16;000 ft runway); so it makes it easy to just tune out what ATC says. I know we did in this case and didn't realize that we had busted a limitation until other aircraft behind us started going around as well. The fact that denver was using a runway configuration with an 18 KT tailwind was certainly a massive threat; especially since we as a pilot group tend to go along with ATC in an attempt to make things run smoothly. We definitely need to listen to reported winds. In this case they had changed 120 degrees from a relatively recent ATIS; which also indicates that there might be other weather hazards in the area. Approach and tower need to do a better job of turning the airport around when realizing that multiple aircraft are breaking off approaches because of unsuitable wind conditions. And of course as a pilot group we can all do better at removing the stigma of go-arounds.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier First Officer reports learning after landing that a tail wind of 17 KTS existed at the time of touchdown.

Narrative: We were arriving Runway 16R at DEN. ATIS winds were 230 at 13 gusting to 22. We were configured and stabilized for a flaps 22 approach with 5 KTS added as a gust factor. We checked in with Tower just as the flight landing 16L was going around. Tower was busy coordinating. As we got closer we queried the Tower to make sure we were cleared to land. Tower cleared us to land and then told us the winds. We made a normal approach and landed. When we heard another aircraft going around behind us we thought it was kind of odd; and then we heard the Tower give the current winds as 350 at 17. We hadn't picked up on the fact that we landed with a 17 KT tailwind. We planned and executed the approach based on the ATIS winds; and didn't think to wonder why the aircraft beside us broke off their approach; nor did we really process what the winds were when ATC cleared us to land. I think that so often we don't really care what the winds are since they don't really limit performance in this aircraft (especially on a 16;000 FT runway); so it makes it easy to just tune out what ATC says. I know we did in this case and didn't realize that we had busted a limitation until other aircraft behind us started going around as well. The fact that Denver was using a runway configuration with an 18 KT tailwind was certainly a massive threat; especially since we as a pilot group tend to go along with ATC in an attempt to make things run smoothly. We definitely need to listen to reported winds. In this case they had changed 120 degrees from a relatively recent ATIS; which also indicates that there might be other weather hazards in the area. Approach and Tower need to do a better job of turning the airport around when realizing that multiple aircraft are breaking off approaches because of unsuitable wind conditions. And of course as a pilot group we can all do better at removing the stigma of go-arounds.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.