Why do schools teach into-wind engine checks regardless of wind speed?

Aviathor wrote:

Except for brake linings (pads) and tyres, and the inconvenience to the guy behind you

However, in Peter’s picture, it is about 10000% better that he did that than simply run-up on the taxiway and blasting Peter’s plane with whatever debris (sand, dirt, any other crap on the taxiway). His tail is pointed somewhere harmless. The space he’s in isn’t particuarly tight either – he can turn from where he is in that picture without scrubbing the inside tyre nor even using the brakes, given that it’s a PA28 with a solid linkage to the nosewheel steering.

At one Spanish airport, I was instructed by twr, marshaller and airport ops that taxying and parking was required with fuselage azimuth matching course of centerline markings. This was despite a 20G30 wind existing at the time. I wonder how a heavily loaded non-wheeled helicopter would hover-taxi in such circumstance.

I have not been able to find a published reference to that effect, an definitely not in the published AIP for that airport (LEMI) , although airport ops referred to unidentified certification limitations per ICAO Annex 14.

Would forum members know of such a regulation referring to the fuselage azimuth?

Until then, I had always assumed that the requirement, at least for aircraft in the small category, was that the aircraft remains on or near the centerline or at least with the landing gear within the taxiway edges, without a reference to the actual azimuth, but I may have been wrong.

Don’t really get your question:
A normal Trt-Wheel aircraft taxies in the direction of it’s “azimuth”. So for taxiing (despite the s-curves you have to do in some tailwheels to see where you are going) what would be the alternative of aligning azimuth with the direction of the taxiway?
For parking you could theoretically turn around the plane but esp. in heavy winds you typically want to use the tie down eyes that are installed on most (i.e. all) airports in a way that the wings need to be perpendicular to the parking centerline markings i.e. the plane is aligned with this centerline.

Hoovering copters are obviously something different…

One of the most experienced flight instructors I’ve flown with claimed to know the reason behind this. From his perspective, positioning the aircraft so that it wouldn’t crash into anything ahead if the brakes failed, or blast anyone behind (eg into a hangar or following aircraft) were by far more important issues.

He thought the reason to position into wind was down to the Spitfire in WW2, where the engine would overheat if this wasn’t done. But I couldn’t find any requirement in this Spitfire Pilot Handbook which refers to that. Perhaps it related to an earlier model.

I can see a lot of sense in the above.

I was once chatting to a chap with a mkXVI spit and a yak9 who said how important it was for him to be relatively quick from start up to getting away because of the overheating issue. Seems to tie in with what you are saying.

Malibuflyer wrote:

what would be the alternative of aligning azimuth with the direction of the taxiway?

S-turning to see ahead, or to position yourself into wind for the run-up, or to lookt in the direction of finals before entering the runway if the high wing blocks your view…all the time remaining close to the runway centerline.

Malibuflyer wrote:

tie down eyes that are installed on most (i.e. all) airports in a way that the wings need to be perpendicular to the parking centerline markings

This was especially painful at the referred airport since no tie-down eyes were available in the gusty 30kt wind, and into-wind parking was not allowed: ie you were supposed to park with your wings perpendicular to the parking centerline, but where is such requirement spelled out?