Narrative:

The last two nights; the inbound sdf has landed runways 17 with a tailwind. Tonight the winds were a 15 knot tailwind down to a couple of hundred feet AGL with a rapid shear to 7-8 knot tailwind. After landing; I queried tower why we were landing south with a tailwind and was told there was some activity at ft. Knox. (This caused the first officer to wonder if the winds were 11 knots would we cancel the sort and everyone go home?).while I understand there may be times where landing operations must be conducted with a tailwind; ATC should recognize this is an abnormal situation. We were vectored for runway 17L at 4;000 ft AGL on a heading that would have caused us to intercept final 1-2 miles inside of the FAF. All the while asking if we had traffic in sight to follow below us. We declined and were given another turn to the east and descent to 3;000 ft a few miles west of the localizer. My point is that landing operations with a tailwind should not result in super tight vectors; hoping crews will be able to accept traffic in-sight and figure out separation on their own. Tailwind operations often result in aircraft spending more time on the runway; not less.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Pilot reports of landing with a tailwind and is not happy with the circumstances. Aircraft is turned in inside the outer marker and pilot is questioned if they have traffic they are following in sight.

Narrative: The last two nights; the inbound SDF has landed Runways 17 with a tailwind. Tonight the winds were a 15 knot tailwind down to a couple of hundred feet AGL with a rapid shear to 7-8 knot tailwind. After landing; I queried Tower why we were landing south with a tailwind and was told there was some activity at Ft. Knox. (This caused the F/O to wonder if the winds were 11 knots would we cancel the sort and everyone go home?).While I understand there may be times where landing operations must be conducted with a tailwind; ATC should recognize this is an abnormal situation. We were vectored for Runway 17L at 4;000 FT AGL on a heading that would have caused us to intercept final 1-2 miles inside of the FAF. All the while asking if we had traffic in sight to follow below us. We declined and were given another turn to the east and descent to 3;000 FT a few miles west of the localizer. My point is that landing operations with a tailwind should not result in super tight vectors; hoping crews will be able to accept traffic in-sight and figure out separation on their own. Tailwind operations often result in aircraft spending more time on the runway; not less.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.