Private Hire Banned Due Wx - Club Policies [Archive]

Bandit650

5th Dec 2006, 16:34

Hi All
Last weekend I called up my club to discuss the Wx before a private hire slot in a club a/c. Before I had chance to begin a sensible discussion on the winds (240/20G30) I was informed that all private hire of club a/c was "banned" due to senior instructor on duty judging it would be too hard to fly & it was "too bumpy anyway". By 3pm the winds were 240/19 (no gusts & straight down RWY) but the ban still remained. Hence the day was written off. My decision in the morning was nogo. But by 3pm it was definately flyable! As a new member I had not been told of this policy of banning private hire at their discretion.

No contact was attempted to inform me of the ban, I only found out when I called up to discuss the Wx with an instructor.

Curious to hear how others perceive this, and if other clubs operate similar policies.
Cheers!

pistongone

5th Dec 2006, 17:04

Sounds like a case of read the pilot order book. I had a very simmilar experience at a certain flying club down south! What made it worse was i had a rather attractive lady in tow and when we arrived at the airfield it was a lovely calm sunset:confused: She looked lovely in the photo i took of her next to the plane with her hair gently rustling in the breeze:ok: However, the CFI had decreed the forecast not suitable for PPL hire(even with 500hrs on me logg book:oh: )Hence no keys were left where they were supposed to be, and no phone call, even though they had mobile, office and home on the books:ugh: :ugh: So when i pointed out that if i had flown to L2K for example, the decision on the return trip to go/not go would have been mine and why didnt the same apply in this case? Read the pilot order book was the reply, and sure enough thats what it says!
Mine is not to reason why, mine is but to pay and (not) fly!
Syndicate or outright ownership is one solution!
Suffice to say i cancelled my mebership and now fly from a much more friendly place:ok: With my own access code for the hangar and keys etc!!
Just out of interest, it wasn't an airfield to the N.N.W of London sitting just to the north of a Lake was it?

Human Factor

5th Dec 2006, 17:30

At the end of the day, it's their aeroplane so it's their rules. The only way round it is to go somewhere with different rules (as it sounds like you have done) or buy into your own aircraft, either as a share or as a whole.

Monocock

5th Dec 2006, 17:42

HF - couldn't have put it better myself. It's not the renter's right to hire an aircraft, car or even a chainsaw come to that.

If the owner of the equipment decides the item is unavailable then there is little point in getting upset. Just move clubs to somewhere less stringent

Bandit650

5th Dec 2006, 17:45

rustle

5th Dec 2006, 18:50

Don't you think the club should attempt to contact the member if the item is "unavailable" though and tell them? We are talking about a club which charges almost £300 a year for the honour of flying with them.

Yes, they could have telephoned you and informed you that they were grounding all aircraft due weather.

Remember that your £300 p.a. speaks much more loudly than 300 posts on here ever will; so give it to someone who listens.

Chances are that wherever your current club/school are there is another nearby... ;)

rotorcraig

5th Dec 2006, 19:41

A friend and I regularly hire from a couple of locations.

One has very specific written minima for SFH published in the clubroom, the other has a more relaxed approach based upon the advice of the FI/CFI present.

My friend and I have discussed the pro's and con's of these approaches on various occasion and feel that there is "no right answer".

Agree that it's up to the owner/school to call their minima - they have aircraft, insurance and reputation at stake.

But I'd be very unhappy to turn up and find that they had declared poor wx and gone home without contacting me - terrible customer service :=

RC.

HR200

5th Dec 2006, 19:47

It is the same with my flying club. For some reason, even if the weather is flyable, VFR, winds not out of the limit etc, they still wont let me go.

They wont even get them out of the hanger.

It can be very annoying because it wastes days which are flyable.

VFE

5th Dec 2006, 20:01

Had a CFI interrogate me about my x-wind calculations prior to hiring an SEP a couple of years back - at the time I had a CPL/IR but he still wanted to know if I knew my stuff. And that was fair enough in my books - it's their aircraft and their airfield!

If they decreed it too bumpy or windy to fly then I'd certainly not ignore their opinion. Chances are they're more experienced in these matters than me anyway... and there's little point being up there wishing you were back down here now is there?! :rolleyes:

The part that would bug me is the lack of communication and if you're aggreived you should tell them.

<FI hat on>But the fact you didn't know that this sort of information is contained in the Pilot Order Book suggests to me that you might still be at the stage where you should respect the opinion of those with more experience than yourself.<FI hat off>

VFE.

Bandit650

5th Dec 2006, 20:21

[/QUOTE]<FI hat on>But the fact you didn't know that this sort of information is contained in the Pilot Order Book suggests to me that you might still be at the stage where you should respect the opinion of those with more experience than yourself.<FI hat off>
VFE.[/QUOTE]

Not sure if you're referring to my (the original) post or later posts, but if its mine I can assure you I have double-checked the entire club FOB again today (its online) and there is no mention of hire conditions. I think I also made it clear I phoned the club to get their view on the weather - thats how I found out all hiring was off! (i.e by chance).

The club in question was still conducting training flights on that day - so I have tried to establish what they perceive to be dangerous conditions for solo hire - this would be useful info to possibly amend my own criteria. I didn't get a conversation with an experienced flyer who had been flown on the day in question anyway - unfortunately. I got "so and so says its a bit too bumpy". That coupled with not being told solo hire was subject to conditions in the first place prompted me to field opinion about the subject here. CabAir, for example, do not operate any solo hire Wx conditions (I called them and asked) - its the pilot's call - they will provide sensible advice though (which as you indicate would be very foolish to ignore).

dublinpilot

5th Dec 2006, 21:33

I think if it's their aeroplane then it's their rules.

However I do think that if they cancel the flight they should phone you to let you know. After all they'd expect you to do likewise if you cancelled it.

My decision in the morning was nogo. But by 3pm it was definately flyable!

I'm curious about this though. Was this soley based on the wind reports?

The reason I say this, is because as I understand it, gusts of less than 10kts are not reported. Therefore the two wind reports actually vary very little.

As I understand it
240/20G30=240 degrees, average windspeed 20kts and peak gust in prior 10 minutes? was 30kts.

While
240/19=240 degrees, average windspeed 19kts, and no gust in prior 10 mintues exceeding 28kts. Because if there was a gust of 29kts it would be reported as 240/19G29. But a 28kt gust wouldn't be reported.

I might have the 10 minutes wrong, but the basic principle is the same. No report of gusts only means that gusts did not exceed 10kts above the mean wind speed. As the wind direction did not change, and the speed barely changed, then it's likely the gusts didn't change much either. Not much difference between the two wind reports at all, even if one 'looks' much better than the other.

The other way of looking at it, is if the earlier weather had a maximum gust of just one knot lower it wouldn't have been reported. Would you have considered 240/20 as being "definatably flyable"?

This is not intended to be a critisim, but rather simply a way of showing how metars can be misleading unless you understand what is and isn't reported.

dp

Dr Eckener

5th Dec 2006, 21:59

There are a couple of things worth considering.

1. Clubs usually have wx minima for flying, but at the same time pilots are of differing standards. I have on occassions allowed some flights to go ahead and not others, even though the pilots hold the same licence.
2. Maybe an aircraft went tech (hardly unusual), and they blamed the weather to get out of the hole.

Either way you should get a call though. If you don't like it follow the advice already given.

tacpot

5th Dec 2006, 22:00

I would expect any club to call a member who has an aircraft booked if the club needs to cancelling the booking, irrespective of the reason and regardless of the membership fee.

In this case, you called the club before they had had chance to call you. I would ask them whether they would have called you or would they have let you travel to the club without calling you? If the weather is so bad that they know your hire will not be allowed, I'd expect them to call you.(My club normally calls me, if they have time). But if the weather is iffy, I normally call them before they call me. And I cancel the booking if they say it is not flyable.

The fact that the day way flyable after 3pm is a seperate issue. It is quite likely that the club had other members who had booked to fly at 3pm, and who possibly did fly that day. But that was their slot, they got lucky, you didn't. If an improvement in weather was expected, I think they would have allowed you to have booked a slot had one been free. If no improvement was expected, I'd expect them to be trying to contact the other members to cancel their slots. What was the forecast? Did you ask about a later slot?

(I'm hireing at the moment and getting heartily fed up with the weather. I've just had my sixth night trip cancelled in four weeks! So I know how frustrating it is when you can't fly when you want to!)

Good luck

tp

Airbus38

5th Dec 2006, 22:06

Agreed with the consensus.

Should have a phone call (pet peeve of mine also if there isn't one, particularly as A/C go tech earlier in the day meaning you turn up to find none available, which could have been told to you before you travelled.)

FOB rules is rules so to speak. It can be a bit annoying though, as the original poster said:

The club in question was still conducting training flights on that day

Which does beg the question as to whether schools/clubs have one weather minima for instructors and one for anybody else. Won't knock this, somebody will have a reason for it.

Generally though, decisions made by CFIs etc. are made based on their experience and judgment. If you're at a club where you trust the senior staff, then you have to accept that if they make a decision it's because they feel that anything else would present unacceptable risk. Remember the adage about OLD/BOLD pilots. I guess a lot of accidents would have been prevented if an experienced hand was placed on the shoulder of the pilot as he walked out to the aircraft.

Alternatively, if you don't like/trust them, leave - but just beware that if you find somewhere that leaves the decision making to you, not unreasonable for a licence holder to make go/no go decisions, you're far more likely to end up 'up there, wishing you were down here.'

Dr Eckener

5th Dec 2006, 22:11

Which does beg the question as to whether schools/clubs have one weather minima for instructors and one for anybody else
This is correct. The ones I have worked at do. Teaching crosswinds would be an example. Also, general handling if the student is in early stages and not doing take-off/landing. Instrument appreciation, IMC, etc, etc...

VFE

5th Dec 2006, 22:12

2. Maybe an aircraft went tech (hardly unusual), and they blamed the weather to get out of the hole
That was my first suspicion however, if that were the case they'd be more likely to phone to put the hirer off in order to remove the possibility of them showing up at the club only to see people flying.

So based on this, I would say it was a produent decision not to fly based on actual conditions prevalent at that particular airfield not METARS from the nearest two majors, which as we all know (or should know) can be very misleading at times, especially at this time of year when one minute the wx is fine and the next it's bad.

Also worth mentioning is the affect of the surrounding airfield topography. This can make an enourmous impact on the take off and landing in windy conditions alone but if it's gusting more than 8kts (IMHO) it can present a hidden danger to some flyers. I have taken off in strong wind (but not reported as gusting) on a runway boardering upwind tree's before and the stall was jibbering at 10kts above normal initial climb speed due to the displacement of wind caused by the tree's.

Meterology is not an exact science - and when it's 'dodgy' it's always better to bin it IMHO.

VFE.

Bandit650

6th Dec 2006, 06:06

Some interesting and useful remarks here - thanks all. The point made about local topography is certainly something I'll become more aware of in future and so too how misleading METARS can be. To answer one of the earlier posts, the club specifcally told me they do not call hirers to inform them a slot is grounded as "they dont have the time to call everyone". Anyway, I have raised the issue of communication and policy awareness (just to re-iterate, no mention of wx criteria in FOB) in an email at the weekend but haven't received a reply yet (I'm probably blacklisted now as some sort of difficult customer!)
Reading the posts has lead me to consider risk perception vs. experience once again. The problem is that if I am not permitted to fly every time the sfc wind is >15kts or whatever, what happens the day I really have to land asap and the wind over the location has become 240/20G30?...I suspect the anxiety of thinking "oh the club thinks thats suicidal weather" is more dangerous than the Wx itself. I would prefer to develop experience of those conditions and know what to watch out for and how to handle the a/c differently rather than sitting in the clubhouse sipping tea and eating cake. This comes down to flying with experienced flyers I guess, and I have to say they seem to be in short supply at a lot of clubs these days :confused:. The two instructors I have flown with recently at this club have only 50 and 70hrs more than myself (integrated ATPL grads) they are very capable guys but after flying with an examiner recently with in well over 20k hours I know the training experience is simply in a different league.

Ideally, I would have liked to have heard "yes, its difficult conditions...but not dangerous for my experience..lets go up and I'll demonstrate the kind of issues lurking in these conditions and what you can do to handle them". What I actually heard was "sorry, all the instructors are busy" (not busy flying though obviously).

Perhaps my expectations are too high of FTO's these days and I should seek out an highly experience instructors for private tuition or something. I know for a fact I will never pick up valuable experience chatting in the club house and daring to venture out only on CAVOK days :ugh: particularly as I'm progressing towards professional flying.

Its a difficult area. If you come across as willing to fly in "dodgy" conditions you sort of immediately put yourself in the dangerous pilot bucket in the eyes of instructors which is fair enough - but how are you supposed to progress post PPL? To be honest, its the main reason for me doing a CPL/IR ... I want to take my flying to the next level.

I looking forward to hearing views on this!

unfazed

6th Dec 2006, 07:36

Many CFI's care more about covering their arses from "theoretical" insurance company non payment in case of an incident / accident. As clubs become larger they think more about this aspect of liability.

From my experience this leads to flying of the lowest denominator. The insurance company become the "bad guys" who can be blamed for a number of the CFI's decisions not to permit something or other......"well it's only because the insurance company won't pay out if we had an incident".

Unfortunately at some !clubs" the insurance company becomes the INVISIBLE CFI.

bigflyingrob

6th Dec 2006, 07:59

Sadly this reminds me of a gliding course I went on some years ago. We had perfect weather and 100% aircraft serviceability. Despite this I did not get to fly until the third day of the 5 day course and on the Friday the instructor did a "lead and follow" excercise. He went first, the winch went bang and took 30minutes to fix. By the time we got up there he was WELL gone. Me and another er sucker landed back on the ridge, had a brew, gave it up as a dead loss and went home.
It's called customer care in other businesses. I worked out later the flying costs per minute were greater than fast jets!
Amazingly they rang me up next year to see if I wanted another course!

ChampChump

6th Dec 2006, 08:12

Bandit
In response to your most recent post, I sympathise. For a long time, I had the same curiosity, conditions often being deemed unsuitable. Let loose with a PPL, one tends to want to seek ones own experience rather than seek out an instructor, especially if based away from the school environment. All the combined wisdom about getting the odd hour in dual is great and worthy advice and I don't disagree, but in real life it didn't happen like that.
However, it dawned on me slowly that what was deemed unsuitable for some types of aircraft and people was usable for others. When I acquired my own aircraft it then became a much greater responsibility than simply looking at the weather and forecasts: balancing those against the views of other, more experienced heads, not to mention the flyitis with which I'm afflicted.
If you don't have that option, or even if you do, then flying with other pilots is invaluable. I learned a great deal on some sorties in company with others. Simply flying in stronger winds than I would have used previously, for example.
I hope you can find a way...

Flyin'Dutch'

6th Dec 2006, 08:41

If you have a little read this little thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=254774) then you can understand why some folks are a bit wary of letting all and sundry set off in any kind of weather they see fit.

Bandit650

6th Dec 2006, 08:46

Please read the whole thread.

bigflyingrob

6th Dec 2006, 08:48

I also remember one incident when I was instructing. It was as thermally as hell up there and we were all drinking tea in the clubhouse.
Student turns up and announces it looked ok to him! I was in a bolshy mood so I said to him we would fly but if he was sick he was cleaning it up.
The term exorcist sick just about covers it!
To be fair he did a brilliant job of getting the cockpit clean but there was diced carrots everywhere!
:{ :{

Bandit650

6th Dec 2006, 08:54

Flyin'Dutch'

6th Dec 2006, 09:08

Understood, and I see your point. However, I'm not sure that one incident, the details of which have not been fully reported and investigated yet, leads to a proposition that you should only fly if someone else has deemed it fit. If PPLs are getting their licence but not be able to work out if weather is flyable for the intended route for themselves then there is a problem with the training they have received. IMHO.

There may very well be, especially if your subscribe to IO540's point of view.

However even with the best training regime and execution thereof people should understand that a PPL is a licence to learn, not a 'you know at all and there but for the grace' off you go.

It is difficult to find a happy medium, if nobody had said anything and the threadstarter would not have had the nouse not to go and fly and he would have come to grief we would have had a few pages on how irresponsible it was of the FTO/school/club to let someone go in dicey wheather.
Would we not?

:}

Bandit650

6th Dec 2006, 09:21

True. We probably would, but it does seem that the policies vary considerably. Some places act like car rental outfits, and others operate at the other extreme and seem themselves as lending (at considerable cost) you an aircraft if you ask nicely and only fly in perfect conditions. Guess I'm discovering when on that spectrim this particular FTO is.

pistongone

6th Dec 2006, 09:22

VFE

6th Dec 2006, 09:26

As an instructor who's been lucky enough to have gusty conditions prevail on a number of circuit stage students I can testify that it usually puts the wind up them (scuse the pun!) sufficiently to not want to go flying alone in similar conditions once they have their licence, without careful consideration.

After a tiring one hour session I always ask "now, would you go off flying in that sort of weather on your own, straight after getting your licence?" to which the reply is "no way Jose!". Obviously, when they have a few more hours in the logbook they may wish to push the bounderies a little further in order to increase their abilities but unless they have a frame of reference for wind and it's effects this is difficult and then of course you get Mr.100hr.PPL man turn up at the clubhouse saying stuff like: "it looks fine to me!"

A nice lesson in gusty wx is a good thing for them and far better they get a taster with an instructor when they have the chance rather than bumble through on their own. Most of my experience of dodgy conditions prior to instructing came from dual flying on my CPL and IR training with a competant instructor sat beside me.

VFE.

rustle

6th Dec 2006, 09:44

One point i haven't seen raised is Demonstrated crosswind limits! If its beyond limits then it should be a no brainer.

You probably haven't seen "Demonstrated Crosswinds" discussed in this thread because:

A) The original poster told us that ...the winds were 240/19 (no gusts & straight down RWY) but the ban still remained...

B) "Demonstrated Crosswinds" are meaningless except in helping to understand what winds were about on the day the aircraft was flown by the test pilot. Or are you suggesting they are a "limit" (legal or aerodynamic) of some kind?

Bandit650

6th Dec 2006, 09:57

You probably haven't seen "Demonstrated Crosswinds" discussed in this thread because:

A) The original poster told us that

B) "Demonstrated Crosswinds" are meaningless except in helping to understand what winds were about on the day the aircraft was flown by the test pilot. Or are you suggesting they are a "limit" (legal or aerodynamic) of some kind?

Indeed. Crosswind was not a factor. But a valid general point to raise obviously. The most fustrating aspect of the experience was that standing near the field a couple of hours later I could hardly feel a breeze. I phoned them on the mobile and they were still grounded as the senior instructor had decreed so a few hours earlier. I can understand full time instructors not been bothered if they fly or not but us that fly a desk Mon-Fri are!

eharding

6th Dec 2006, 10:19

But by 3pm it was definately flyable!

By 3pm they were probably just doing you a favour - sunset would have been in about an hour, and you would have faced landing at or about sunset, probably straight into sun, given the winds on Sunday. At my club things start to wind down at about 3pm at this time of year anyway - pumps will have shut just after 3, in order to give the groundcrew an hour's grace to get everything packed away in the hangars before sunset.

pistongone

6th Dec 2006, 10:22

My point Rustle is, the X-Wind limit of a plane surely is the limiting factor in deciding whether it is safe to TAKE OFF/LAND However you decide the X-Wind limit is your choice, book figure, own experience etc. The other factor, which i was mainly making(X-Wind limit being the pre-cursor)Is the TAXIING of aircraft in windy conditions! I thought that was plainly clear from my post:confused: So all you instructors out there, could you put your side over on correct taxiing techniques for windy conditions, as a plane needs airspeed to fly, so a bit more of it straight down the runway for free is hardly going to be a problem, however arriving at the threshold in one piece in a howling 50knot wind might be the problem most likely to cause the insurance Gestapo to come looking!

rustle

6th Dec 2006, 10:33

My point Rustle is, the X-Wind limit of a plane surely is the limiting factor in deciding whether it is safe to TAKE OFF/LAND However you decide the X-Wind limit is your choice, book figure, own experience etc.

But that isn't what you originally wrote, and it is what you originally wrote that I commented upon, obviously.

What you originally wrote was:
One point i haven't seen raised is Demonstrated crosswind limits! If its beyond limits then it should be a no brainer.

and I was merely trying to understand if you see the "demonstrated crosswind" as a limit of some description - be that an aerodynamic limit or a legal one. You obviously wrote "demonstrated crosswind limits!" for a reason.

pistongone

6th Dec 2006, 10:53

One point i haven't seen raised is Demonstrated crosswind limits! If its beyond limits then it should be a no brainer. But in the event of the original post, where the wind was blowing straight down the runway, the technique we should be discussing is Taxiing in strong winds. This should have been covered in the PPL training, i am sure it was with mine! How many low houred pilots know which way to push the stick taxiing down wind? Given that they would have had it drummed into them to keep the stick back when taxiing? Likewise with aileron inputs on the ground? Lastly, if you are landing in gusty winds, remember to up your approach speed to compensate for the gusts.
Lets face it, if the instructors are happy to fly in it, then the aeroplane is deffinitely capable and within limits!
I am sure you didnt read my original post, so i have highlighted the relevant part of it, which you appear to have missed Rustle.
The reason i wrote "Demonstrated cross wind limit" was surely that would be the place a school or instructor would want to start the evaluation of the capability of the aircraft to handle cross winds? Having said that, the main point of my post was the taxiing in windy conditions!

Flyin'Dutch'

6th Dec 2006, 13:14

Lets face it, if the instructors are happy to fly in it, then the aeroplane is deffinitely capable and within limits!

Most prangs in aviation are caused by the driver breaking it not the machinery going wrong.

rustle

6th Dec 2006, 13:27

I am sure you didnt read my original post, so i have highlighted the relevant part of it, which you appear to have missed Rustle.
The reason i wrote "Demonstrated cross wind limit" was surely that would be the place a school or instructor would want to start the evaluation of the capability of the aircraft to handle cross winds? Having said that, the main point of my post was the taxiing in windy conditions!

I did read your original post. Several times in fact.

What you appear to be saying, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that either:

1) We should ignore any opening comments you make and concentrate only on the things you say "secondly";

or

2) The "Demonstrated crosswind limits!" [sic] is a limitation of some description, rather than merely the crosswind present when the test/certification pilot flew on that particular day.

FWIW I agree with your comments about taxiing in windy conditions.

Flyin'Dutch'

6th Dec 2006, 13:37

moggiee

6th Dec 2006, 13:58

moggiee

6th Dec 2006, 14:03

Indeed Rustle is correct here.
The Maximum Demonstrated Crosswind is nothing more than a minimum crosswind limit that has to be achievable during certification process.
IIRC it is set at 0.3 of Vso.
The manufacturer does not have to demonstrate anything beyond that.
So for something with a pathetically low stall speed like the Maule you will see a Maximum Demonstrated Crosswind limit of 14 mph.
You can take it that for most aeoplanes you can safely go beyond that if you have the experience and currency.
It is maybe a good guidance for people with freshly minted licences and those converting onto type.
If the club own the aeroplane then they have the final say.

Would you lend your car to a mate in a blizzard, with icy roads, just because he says he "can handle it"? The club are responsible to the CAA and the insurers as well and their approvals and insurance policies require them to exercise due care over the hire of an aeroplane.

As for cancelling and then the weather improving - well, it has been known that on occasion the met man will make a mistake! He can be optomistic, pessimistic or just plain wrong - but the club/FI have to make a decision based upon the best info available. If the morning forecast says that the whole day is unflyable then perhaps an early cancellation saves people a wasted trip in.

Whether or not a club actually tell a member that they/ve cancelled is another issue - that's customer service, not flight safety.

Bandit650

6th Dec 2006, 14:27

Been monitoring the replies (as the original poster) and although a very interesting read we have now moved away from the specific issues the original posting raised. For example, I did not walk into the club demanding an a/c saying I could handle the Wx! So please continue the debate (as its very interesting to hear the views) but just wanted to note that the actual facts of the original posting have become lost...and we are now debating different scenarios.

BEagle

6th Dec 2006, 14:57

There are 2 main issues here:

1. The Hirer's limitations of use.

2. The Hirer's 'customer service.

Considering 'limitations of use', the Hirer should have clearly written limits outside which you would not be permitted to hire the aeroplane. These will probably encompass qualification and experience. For example, we lay down the following limits (we are inside Class D airspace and have to abide by rules made by others):

NPPL(SSEA) or PPL holders without IMC or Instrument Ratings:

(1) Outside the aerodrome visual circuit: 5 km visibility, 1500 m horizontally and 1000 ft vertically clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

(2) Within the aerodrome visual circuit: 5 km visibility, 1500 ft cloudbase agl and in sight of the surface.

(3) Under Special VFR within any CTR: 10 km visibility, cloudbase not less than 1500 ft agl and in sight of the surface unless more restrictive limitations are imposed by the relevant ATC authority

Wind limits:

(1) Pilots with less than 100 hr P1: 25 kt surface wind, 12 kt crosswind component.

(2) Pilots with at least 100 hr P1: 25 kt surface wind, 17 kt crosswind component.

If the Hirer doesn't lay down any such guidelines, relying more on Instructors' 'feeling in their water', I can understand you feeling annoyed. But, at the end of the day, you must abide by the judgement of those who are there to ensure that you don't get out of your depth.

Turning to 'customer service', if you have left a mobile contact no. with the Hirer, then it would be reasonable to expect that they would try to contact you on the day if the weather was looking iffy. Equally, perhaps you should do the same?

Normally, depending on their overall experience, we require all our members with less than 100 hours P1 to be authorised by a FI. If needs be, that can be done over the phone if the FI is satisfied that the flight will be made safely. As our Flying Order Book goes on to add:
"Although some of these club operating minima are more restrictive than those required by the ANO, we consider that our minima are safer particularly in the busy local airspace. Moreover, just because the weather is better than specified, pilots do not have an automatic right to fly. The final decision as to the suitability of the weather rests with the authoriser and, once airborne, with the aircraft commander."

pistongone

6th Dec 2006, 15:19

Rustle,
My opening comment was that no one at that point had mentioned X-Wind landings, and seeing as the weather, namely windy, was the apparent cause of the cancelation of the flight, then i would have thought X-winds to be pertinent to the safe conduct of a flight. As in the event of a diversion it could well be possible that a runway into wind was not available! WHAT IS THE CROSS WIND LIMIT OF AN AIRCRAFT?? Maybe the test pilot didnt have the strongest wind available to test the plane, a point i hadnt actualy considered. So what do you Mr Rustle do to decide your personal X-Wind limit? You do agree that there is a figure where landing with a given X-Wind component of X-kn would be likely to lead to a prang? For the sake of argument, i would venture to say that 18-20Kn would be my guess at the safe X-Wind limit on your average C172 with 4 Pax and a slim runway like Netherthorpe. In any event, the ability to taxi to the point where take off, and then landing become an issue, is what the main point of my post was! To which you seem to be in agreement. So you can consider my opening statment and make comment as you see fit. As i think the point was relevant, leading onto the main point of taxiing!
Happy crab/wing down style landings.:ok: :ok:
Surely the weakest link in the x-wind landing is the undercarriage? So crabbing it in with a high sideways speed would risk touching down the into wind wing and damaging the legs? Also i think you might find taxiing a tail wheel in high winds would be even more of a limitation than a nose wheel(thinking MAule here!)

moggiee

7th Dec 2006, 13:42

WHAT IS THE CROSS WIND LIMIT OF AN AIRCRAFT??
It is whatever the manufacturer has approved - and never more. However, the aeroplane's owners/operators are at liberty to impose lower limits or other restrcitions if they see fit.

There is never a case for a pilot to decide "I can handle a bit more than Piper/Cessna say the aeroplane is limited to". Would you do that with Vne, g limits, massd and balance?

For example, BA limit their FOs to 2/3 of the aeroplane max crosswind (not strictly part of this discussion but is of relevance).

unfazed

7th Dec 2006, 13:58

WHAT IS THE CROSS WIND LIMIT OF AN AIRCRAFT??

It is whatever the manufacturer has approved - and never more

Depends if it is a LIMITATION or max "demonstrated" also depends if the max demonstrated appears under the limitations section of the POH

Many threads on this one so be aware (not wishing to open up that can of worms).

Rod1

7th Dec 2006, 14:01

I have never ever seen the term “Cross wind limit” in a c of a POH. Can anybody point me at one? I have come across “Demonstrated cross wind component” , which is of course not a limit.:E

Rod1

pistongone

7th Dec 2006, 14:02

Totaly agree Moggiee, i wasnt asking from ignorance, i was just trying to understand Rustle's point, ""2) The "Demonstrated crosswind limits!" [sic] is a limitation of some description, rather than merely the crosswind present when the test/certification pilot flew on that particular day.""

Flying Dutch also wrote ""Indeed Rustle is correct here.

The Maximum Demonstrated Crosswind is nothing more than a minimum crosswind limit that has to be achievable during certification process.

IIRC it is set at 0.3 of Vso.

The manufacturer does not have to demonstrate anything beyond that.

So for something with a pathetically low stall speed like the Maule you will see a Maximum Demonstrated Crosswind limit of 14 mph.

You can take it that for most aeoplanes you can safely go beyond that if you have the experience and currency.

It is maybe a good guidance for people with freshly minted licences and those converting onto type.
I was begining to think i had missed something:confused: Thats why i wrote it in capital letters!
I think if Cessna say its 18kn, then thats what the insurance caompany would look at in the even of an accident:=
Wierd thread though!
PS, I would like to see a Maule taxiiying in 30 gusting 40kn conditions, without a wing walker or two:confused:
And quite surprised no one took up on the correct use of controls taxiing in high wind conditions:oh: :oh:

Rod1

7th Dec 2006, 14:16

When my AA5B got crashed about 4 years ago, by a friend of my then co-owner, it was landed way beyond its demonstrated crosswind component. The insurance co just paid up with no comment at all. I think the policy would have to explicitly state a limit, or that it was considering the DCC as a limit for them to get out of paying.

Rod1

rustle

7th Dec 2006, 14:23

For continued discussion about "crosswind limits" -vs- "demonstrated crosswind" I have extracted some data from 3 "club checklists" and one POH. (The POH data is marked with an *)

AA5B: Maximum Demonstrated Crosswind = 16 kts (Cabair in-house checklist) NB also contains the clause SOLO STUDENT LIMIT 10 kts

GA7: Maximum Crosswind Limit = 25 kts (Cabair in-house checklist)

BE76: Maximum Crosswind Limit = 25 kts (BCFT in-house checklist)

C310R: Maximum Demonstrated Crosswind Velocity = 19 kts (* POH)

So although the three club checklists are not the definitive documents for the aircraft in question, 2 state "limits" and one has a "max demonstrated".

The POH, which obviously is the definitive document for that aircraft, only describes the max demonstrated. This is not a limit.

Flyin'Dutch'

7th Dec 2006, 14:47

The reason that I wrote that Rustle was correct is 'cause he understands that it is not a limit!

It is the crosswind component that is demonstrated.

The minimum that a manufacturer has to demonstrate for certification purposes is that the aeroplane and testpilot can handle a crosswind component of 0.3 *Vso.

Nothing more.

Some demonstrate a higher one but that is still not a limit

Pistongone wrote:
Surely the weakest link in the x-wind landing is the undercarriage?

Nope it is the pilot!

:}

Flyin'Dutch'

7th Dec 2006, 14:51

It is whatever the manufacturer has approved - and never more. However, the aeroplane's owners/operators are at liberty to impose lower limits or other restrcitions if they see fit.

The manufacturer approves nowt in this area. They also do not guarantee that if you stick to the Maximum Demonstrated Crosswind you will allright!

There is never a case for a pilot to decide "I can handle a bit more than Piper/Cessna say the aeroplane is limited to". Would you do that with Vne, g limits, massd and balance?

The latter are all limits to which you have to adhere otherwise you are operating outside the POH limitations.

:ugh:

unfazed

7th Dec 2006, 15:03

So it looks like there is an example of an insurance company paying out when an aircraft has been flown beyound the max demonstrated XW limit

Guess that means all of those CFI's and clubs who bang on about the fact that they would like to fly but the insurance won't payout if there is an incident are incorrect in their assumptions.

Flyin'Dutch'

7th Dec 2006, 15:22

So it looks like there is an example of an insurance company paying out when an aircraft has been flown beyound the max demonstrated XW limit

Unfazed, it is not a limit!

Guess that means all of those CFI's and clubs who bang on about the fact that they would like to fly but the insurance won't payout if there is an incident are incorrect in their assumptions.

Not necessarily.

It may well be a stipulation in their insurance policy that they will not let some/all fly beyond a certain agreed crosswind component.

You can self limit in a lot of scenarios with insurances to get premiums down or ensure that you can have cover.

TB20 is certified for 5 people; agree with your insurer that you will only take a maximum of 4 on board and the insurance comes down. Not dissimilar to reducing your annual mileage in your car and get rewarded for that with a lower insurance premium.

rustle

7th Dec 2006, 15:23

The minimum that a manufacturer has to demonstrate for certification purposes is that the aeroplane and testpilot can handle a crosswind component of 0.3 *Vso.

Much as I hate disagreements, I'm going to disagree with you FD.

If we take "VS0" to mean "Stalling speed or the minimum steady flight speed in the landing configuration", then to meet your criteria above the C310R would have had to demonstrate a 72*0.3 or 21.6 kt crosswind. (where 72 KIAS is VS0)

It didn't: It demonstrated a 19 kt crosswind.

Where'd you get the 0.3*VSO from?

pistongone

7th Dec 2006, 15:25

Wrong Stuff

7th Dec 2006, 16:07

Where'd you get the 0.3*VSO from?
The minimum is 0.2 VS0.

englishal

7th Dec 2006, 16:33

Why does anyone want to fly in strong cross winds anyway?

I landed once with 25kts straight across the runway (TB10). Not sure what the max demonstrated is for the 10, but it was a greaser of a landing. I had sweaty plams at the time, I knew the wind was near the limit but wanted to get home :O Just left the flaps out and came in a bit faster, but even so there was not a lot of rudder left.

Flyin'Dutch'

7th Dec 2006, 16:40

Much as I hate disagreements, I'm going to disagree with you FD.

If we take "VS0" to mean "Stalling speed or the minimum steady flight speed in the landing configuration", then to meet your criteria above the C310R would have had to demonstrate a 72*0.3 or 21.6 kt crosswind. (where 72 KIAS is VS0)

It didn't: It demonstrated a 19 kt crosswind.

Where'd you get the 0.3*VSO from?

I was wrong; it's 0.2; the requirement came in for aeroplanes made after the mid '60s (?66)

Wrong stuff and you are right.

Flyin'Dutch'

7th Dec 2006, 17:01

Good point Unfazed.
Also for Rustle and Flyin Dutch, if the POH has a maximum demonstrated cross wind velocity contained within its pages, what would be the reason for such an inclusion, if its not intended to be indicative of the aircrafts limitations in that particular field?

As I said before, it is a useful pointer especially when fresh to flying or the aeroplane.

As i asked before, how would you decide your x-wind limits?

1. How much time and experience on the aeroplane and in similar conditions
2. Recency in flying in general, the aeroplane and conditions in particular.

Also how about some taxiing tips for windy days? Such like, stick back, froward, or neutral, aileron into/against wind?

The usual.

Especially in a tailwheel aeroplane.

Make turns so that you expose your rear end as little as possible to the wind.

Make sure you take it slowly.

Flyin'Dutch, your probably right about the pilot being the weakest link:}

:)

I think Rustle's figures prove something valid to this debate, namely the clubs all think the demonstrated x-wind limit to be more than the average student is able to deal with. So looking to go beyond these figures does seem to be a bit gung-ho!

I think that is probably a fair assessment from a club's point of view. There is big difference between students/(occasional) hirers/frequent flyers (owners?)

I think we all get Flyin'Dutch's point that the DCWV it is not of itself a limit, however i think in most cases of higher cross winds, you would almost certainly use another runway/field?

Of course. No point in landing in a significant crosswind when there is another runway available!

Do ask. People often stay on the runway in use just because everyone else does!

Check out this link http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_gad_webssl26.pdf Look at section 3.D where it state "know your own cross wind limit for the aircraft you will be flying. Don't make an approach If the wind is outside that limit. Note the use of the word LIMIT!

Well they don't always get it right but as I said the demonstrated crosswind figure is maybe a reasonable pointer.

RatherBeFlying

7th Dec 2006, 18:08

Once the wind is blowing 20+ kt, taxi becomes a problem as does getting the a/c secured before the wind blows it about.

Taildraggers are quite susceptible to having the tail blown around and you may want to be sure there will be enough hands available to secure the a/c after shutdown.

I have seen an unoccupied Pawnee do a pirouette as the wind changed -- the gas pump was narrowly missed:uhoh:

I had booked a Citabria last Sunday to fly off to a big runway for circuits and bumps, but the developing snow showers inclined me to stay local so that I would not find myself hitchhiking back. The loose melting snow on the runway changed my mind to the C-172 that a student had cancelled. But the new instructor did not yet have a key to the hanger. Nobody else was flying and I was not that much disappointed to leave it that way;)

unfazed

7th Dec 2006, 19:23

fLYINGDUTCH

Don't you know it's rather rude to "shout" at people by using daft bold letters

I know it's not a limitation but I must point out that for the PA28-161 although it is a max demonstrated crosswind component this information is contained within the LIMITATIONS section of the POH so by default it must be a limitation (even though it is not a physical limitation).:ok:

moggiee

7th Dec 2006, 20:39

Flying Dutch - may I just take this opportunity to express my heartfelt relief at never having to fly with you at the controls if you fly the way you talk when it comes to crosswinds.

Ever thought about what the word maximum might mean? Never mind the fact that it is only the "maximum demonstrated crosswind component" (as opposed to an actual "limit"), you will not find your POH giving you any higher figure than that.

As such, the POH "limit" is as far as a WISE pilot would push it because there is no proof that any higher figure is safe. It is the MAXIMUM demonstrated component - and until a proper test flying programme demonstrates a higher figure then that should be that.

Even if it might be legal to go to a higher component, it is almost certainly not smart. It is legal to throw yourself off the top of a very tall building without a parachute - but very few people would argue that it is smart!

dublinpilot

7th Dec 2006, 21:07

Well, I can't peak for the PA28-161 POH, but I do have the PA28-200R POH beside me.

Yes the Demonstrated crosswind component does appear in limits section, but it appears under the subsection of "Placards".

It does not say the aircraft is limited to a maximum (the word maximum or limit do not appear at all).

It simply says (after a few other required placards such as takeoff and landing checklists)

"On the instrument panel in full view of the pilot :
'DEMONSTRATED CROSSWIND COMPONENT - 20 MPH.' "

This is not a limitation, but simply a requirement to have the placard in place.

Manufacturers have no incentive to seek a higher value as everyone knows it's not a limit.

What is safe for any given pilot is a different thing. A new 'VFR only' pilot can legally fly in 3km viz across the Irish Sea, but it's far from safe.

Likewise flying in a much stronger crosswind than you are used to is not safe, but this doesn't have any relation to the demonstrated figure.

It would be wise for any pilot to gradually build up their experience of crosswinds slowly. Only when they are comfortable with a certain crosswind level should they try crosswinds a little stronger. That way they will slowly find their own limitations (or the aircraft's if that comes first). Certainly it would be unwise to jump straight in and take on a crosswind in excess of the Demonstrated Component before they have gotten used to landing in crosswinds close to the DC, but that doesn't make it a limitation (other than self imposed limitation).

Let me take you back to my earlier post on this thread.

If the Demonstrated Crosswind Component of your aircraft was 17kts. The Metar gave a 90 degree crosswind of 16kts.

Would you be happy to accept that, if you were used to landing the aircraft in 12kt-15kt crosswind conditions, knowing that it was lower than the Demonstrated Component?

There could well have been gusts up to 25kts at the time the METAR was issued, and these would not be reported (as they were less than 10kts above the mean wind speed). Would you be happy now knowing that? IF IT WAS A LIMIT you could have unwittingly exceeded it, but as it's not a limit, that's irrelevant.

The only way to avoid gusts which are above the Demonstrated Component would be to avoid crosswinds which exceed your DC figures minus 9kts. Hardly practical in the real world for many aircraft.

The DCC is not a limit and it's not a guide. It's simply reporting a skilled pilot should have no difficulty at this crosswind. A poor pilot may have lots of problems in these conditions and a reasonably competent pilot may have no problems in much stronger conditions.

Now can we please stop using the "L" word in this thread? It has no place in it.

dp

Bandit650

7th Dec 2006, 21:09

Fascinating debate - but beggining to feel like splitting hairs to me to be honest, particularly as crosswinds was never the subject of the original posting;)

To add my 2p worth...I've always regarded the demonstrated xwind component to be the effective limit - and was taught so during ab-initio RAF training. But as aircraft structures are designed to withstand 1.5 the design limit load (ATPL theory coming out to play :8 ) I'm sure you would get away with a higher xwind, yes.

The "Unfazed, its just a limit" in big text cracked me up. That was funny.
Cheers for that!:D Brightened up an otherwise dull evening of ATPL studying!

Take it easy all.
Bandit650

Airbus38

7th Dec 2006, 21:27

As such, the POH "limit" is as far as a WISE pilot would push it because there is no proof that any higher figure is safe. It is the MAXIMUM demonstrated component - and until a proper test flying programme demonstrates a higher figure then that should be that.

Totally agree. You can't just make the assumption that because it's the max demonstrated that that was as high a crosswind as was available and the a/c could have coped with more but the wind wasn't right. That's dangerous. What if the test pilot tried it beyond that and nearly stoofed it in, therefore determining that a higher figure is unreasonable? You just don't know. And remember...he/she is a TEST PILOT, and one would assume they know a bit about flying.

My question would be (and I don't pretend to be an expert, but I'd like to join the discussion as I'm interested to know the answer) - why is it such a wooly term anyway? Why can't they just say MAX X-WIND, just as they say MAX AUW or C of G LIMIT? Reason I ask is that I can only assume the flight testing is pretty thorough...If they can take the time to do all the design/build/structural analysis calculations/determining CG limits/speeds for efficiency....could probably go on for ever....why can't they give a maximum x-wind limit? How long would it take to find decent x-winds? Probably not long.

Don't know the answer for sure, but here's my thoughts (feel free to correct me, it's pure speculation!):

They would have to define the limit to be the point beyond which it is unsafe to operate the aircraft due to the unacceptable risk of a crash. Seems reasonable? Therefore, they will do some calculations to determine what the aircraft should be comfortable in dealing with (using 0.2Vso or similar) and then demonstrate the aircraft's ability to handle this condition. They then make an assessment of how the aircraft withstood this. If well, then possibly they take the aircraft to a larger x-wind component.

At some point they will decide that the workload on the test pilot is becoming unreasonably high and therefore conclude that this would also be the case for other pilots flying the aircraft. Maybe the aircraft could withstand more...but what's the only way to find out that it can't? Therefore the counsel of elders concludes that a sufficient x-wind performance has been reached to make the aircraft safe to fly, and publish a sensible demonstrated figure.

My summary of this - If you go beyond the maximum demonstrated component, you in effect become a test pilot. You have no idea when the aircraft will say NO, so why take the risk? In all probability, landings at a greater-than-published figure are a result of poor planning (weather forecast? have you got so little fuel that you NEED to land?) or GET-HOME-ITIS...why not wait for the shower to pass before making an approach? Why not land elsewhere?

Disclaimer: Sorry if there was no flow to that. I started typing without thinking where it was going. All of my talk about the testing process is speculation, and I would very much welcome thoughts from those who know how it really works!

moggiee

7th Dec 2006, 21:40

Now can we please stop using the "L" word in this thread? It has no place in it.
dp
When talking about restrictions placed upon an aeroplane or a crew member it has EVERY place in this thread. If an operator chooses to specify the maximum crosswind component for their aeroplane or crew then that is a "limit" placed upon the aeroplane/crew.

Flyin'Dutch'

7th Dec 2006, 22:04

fLYINGDUTCH
Don't you know it's rather rude to "shout" at people by using daft bold letters

I know it's not a limitation but I must point out that for the PA28-161 although it is a max demonstrated crosswind component this information is contained within the LIMITATIONS section of the POH so by default it must be a limitation (even though it is not a physical limitation).:ok:

Unfazed, it is not a limit!

Better?

:)

Fuji Abound

7th Dec 2006, 22:16

The POH will usually state the MDC - it is neither a recommendation or a limitation, simply a statement of fact. If the MDC is considered limiting it will say so under operational limits.

Are you wise to operate within the MDC?

Surely the answer is twofold.

Firstly, there has to be a tendency on anyone marketing an aircraft to want to demonstrate a high MDC. In order to achieve this the test pilot will be both very familiar with the aircraft and will have established a good technique. If you are prepared to land in conditions with a higher CWC then presumably you are satisfied that your level of skill on the aircraft is at least as good as the test pilot. So for example with say 300 or 400 hundred hours on type with a good number of landings at or around the MDC you may well feel able to explore a higher personal limit. Why not explore cautiously? In my experience a pilot with considerable experience on type will often consider the MDC conservative, sometimes very conservative.

Secondly, only an inexperienced pilot would ignore the other factors which will challenge the MDC. These may well include the runway conditions, his personal experience on type and overall currency, the stability of the XWC (are conditions gusty, what is the range of the gusts and what is the variation in wind direction) and his own level of fatigue. These components should surely all form part of his assessment as to whether he is prepared to accept a higher XWC than the MDC.

So to come back to the original question - should the XWC be a factor in determining whether a hirer should take the aircraft (and I note in this specific case it may not have been a factor because the wind was straight down the runway)? The school has a choice to make. Either establish limits which disregard the hirers experience. I guess that has to be the safe option. As with any limit or restriction there is no element of discretion and as long as everyone understands the rules the arrangement is clear - if you don’t like it go elsewhere.

Arguably our society is increasingly based on eliminating discretion because the excercise of discretion is always open to criticism as to whether the level of discretion exercised was reasonable in the circumstances.

The alternative is to allow some degree of discretion to either the school or the pilot. This would seem to be the more mature approach, however sadly could prove to be less financially viable unless the schools assessment of its hirers is sound.

Flyin'Dutch'

7th Dec 2006, 22:21

Flying Dutch - may I just take this opportunity to express my heartfelt relief at never having to fly with you at the controls if you fly the way you talk when it comes to crosswinds

I am pleased to have been able to provide some relief.

Sorry M but when people persist foolhardy in calling something a limit when it isn't despite having it explained to them in a variety of ways then there is no other option than to put something up big and bold!

I never shout.

Ever thought what the word maximum might mean? Never mind the fact that it is only the "maximum demonstrated crosswind component" (as opposed to an actual "limit"), you will not find your POH giving you any higher figure than that

QED a few times over on this thread!

It is the maximum crosswind they demonstrated during the certification process.

The minimum value they have to achieve is calculated, they don't have to go beyond that.

It is not the maximum they achieved in a trial and error fashion and beyond that value they scrapped a few airframes, turned to each other, scratching their joint heads, mumbling that this was obviously the maximum this airframe could cope with and they best stop trying now before they bankrupt the business.

:rolleyes:

As such, the POH "limit" is as far as a WISE pilot would push it because there is no proof that any higher figure is safe

There is also no guarantee that by sticking to it every pilot will be just fine.

It is the MAXIMUM demonstrated component - and until a proper test flying programme demonstrates a higher figure then that should be that

So what do you do when you come back from your cross country to find that the wind on any available runway is beyond the max demonstrated crosswind?

Circle until you fall out of the sky?

It is legal to throw yourself off the top of a very tall building without a parachute

Actually it isn't.

:}

combineharvester

7th Dec 2006, 22:22

Back to one of the original points....

A couple of years ago when i was weekend ops at a flying club i had to stay in all day to either contact or speak to trial lessons or hirers to cancel lessons and re book. It's on its arse enough as it is this business, without people not recieving any kind of customer service. Where i worked did not charge annual membership and you could speak to someone 9-5 seven days a week!
In some cases even when it was windy enough that the portakabin was making moves to leave the premises i had to stay there and ride with it!

Airbus38

7th Dec 2006, 22:29

So what do you do when you come back from your cross country to find that the wind on any available runway is beyond the max demonstrated crosswind?

Consider your fuel. A diversion might be the best bet, you have added that extra fuel to allow for it, haven't you?

Get back on the ground and give yourself a thouroughly good b*llocking for going on a cross country when there's a chance that the conditions on return might be unsuitable. Particularly if there's multiple runways, the wind wont go out of limits for all of them without there being a good hint of it in the forecast.

This GET-HOME-ITIS I have already referred to is what you don't want.

Fuji Abound

7th Dec 2006, 22:35

Consider your fuel.

No, I dont think so.

As I said above, consider your experience on type, the conditions (is the runway wet, is the wind gusty and to what extent is the wind veering), your level of fatigue and any other factors that might effect your performance.

That is why you are in command.

Having made that assessment you might conclude a diversion is the best option. If it is you had better check you have enough fuel.

After all that beat yourself up on the gorund if you like.

FD said nothing about whether or not you knew the XWC was going to be outside limits before you set off. If you did then make the same assessment before you go. If you didnt (becasue the forecast was wrong) deal with what you find.

Get Home Itis is making the assessment inappropriatley or not at all and yet still going.

Airbus38

7th Dec 2006, 22:43

Sorry, didn't want that to sound like I'm saying fuel is the only factor, maybe could have worded it better, but in all honesty fuel does buy you decision making time.

Just wanted to make the point that it sounded like FD was hell bent on landing at his home base no matter what, which obviously isn't the way to go. I think I'm in agreement with you anyway, so I'm not going to argue the toss!

Flyin'Dutch'

7th Dec 2006, 23:07

Just wanted to make the point that it sounded like FD was hell bent on landing at his home base no matter what, which obviously isn't the way to go.

Of course not!

The point I am making is that there will be situations where you have to make decisions on the hoof!

If you are in good currency and can consistently land your aeroplane at the MDC I hazard a guess you can do the same if the wind blows 3 or 4 knots harder.

Don't you think?

Plenty of days where the wind turns out to be that sort of factor or more different from the forecast, innit?

So what do you folks do? Wait until the day is over and then come to the conclusion that it would have been allright?

Considering that the MDC for a lot of GA stuff is around the 15kts mark does that mean you don't go out unless there is a wind forecast for less than 10kts?

After all a 10kt wind can easily become a 15kt one and veer/back a few degrees.

For the avoidance of any doubt: I do not advocate people flying outside their comfort zone at all but by avoiding any wind/crosswind people will get deskilled and then run the risk of getting caught out!

pistongone

7th Dec 2006, 23:19

moggiee

7th Dec 2006, 23:44

Flyin'Dutch, you made me laugh with the not legal to jump off a tower block without a parachute remark, that was a nice one:ok:
What a stupid law that is eh? Ello Ello Ello, plod here, sorry sir but i will have to arrest you because you are obviously dead and it would appear you have instigated this event yourself! :} :} :} The law's an ass!
Sorry for the slight thread drift:oh: :oh:
Sorry to disabuse you but.....committing suicide is not illegal in the UK and has not been so for a long time.

Killing yourself by jumping off a building is legal - but very stupid (in my opinion). You would be committing an offence if you killed or injured someone upon whom you fell, but what's the chance of making the charges stick? Of course, if FD wants to make the world a safer place by jumping off a tall building then I shall defend his wish to do something which is legal but stupid!

Of course there will be occasions where an approach has to be made at an out of limits airfield - I myself have done just such a thing when the whole of the Eastern side of Canada was wiped out by a blizzard (unforecast). On that day I had to fly a Cat1 ILS approach at the best airfield available - Goose Bay - with an RVR of 300m. I felt comfortable enough with the decision, but would not have chosen to fly that approach if a better option was available.

However, to argue that a pilot should seriously consider operating BY CHOICE in a portion of the flight envelope that has not been explored by the manufacturer is surely irresponsible. To argue that said pilot should define his own "comfort" zone is asking for trouble - it would imply that pilots would be OK to land at home if the crosswind was above the maximum demonstrated value, even though there may be an "in limits" airfield 20 miles up the road. Inexperienced PPL holders will do unwise things with aeroplanes and to encourage them to take risks is irresponsible.

Funnily enough, FD is one of those "perfect pilots" who is piling abuse on the pilot of G-BREP for choosing to operate his aeroplane in conditions that he (FD) defines as unsuitable, yet which the pilot of EP clearly deemed to be within his personal "comfort zone". See here: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=254774&page=2

So, FD - did EP's pilot break any limits or laws? Probably not - although you clearly believe him to be unwise. Yet you seem to feel it OK to make up your own rules on crosswinds!

You can't have it both ways!

Tell you what - why don't you post your ideas on one of the Professional fora on this site and see how much support you gain from people there? I would also be interested to hear what flying experience you have which leads you to your conclusions.

RatherBeFlying

8th Dec 2006, 00:21

Well, my old CFI when he gave groundschool frequently propounded:if you can't keep the nose pointed down the runway, you don't have enough rudder so, if there's no more rudder to be had, you will have to find another runway.

If you can touch down without drift with the nose pointed down the runway, your next task is maintaining directional control down to taxi speed. Just because you have managed the touchdown does not automatically assure this in the case of a touchdown beyond MDC.

If you do venture to attempt a landing beyond the MDC, you may find out the hard way that you can't.

421C

8th Dec 2006, 01:59

However, to argue that a pilot should seriously consider operating BY CHOICE in a portion of the flight envelope that has not been explored by the manufacturer is surely irresponsible. To argue that said pilot should define his own "comfort" zone is asking for trouble

No, it's asking exactly what the certification authorities intended when they defined, and continued to define, MDC as an advisory rather than limiting certification parameter. The idea is to give pilots' discretion to define their own "comfort zone". For very new and low time on type pilots the MDC or lower seems a sensible basis for an elective limit. For more experienced pilots, it's down to their discretion, period.

Yet you seem to feel it OK to make up your own rules on crosswinds!

Moggiee, as I read it FD is describing the prevailing rules and you are making up stricter ones.

I do find pilots' own tendency of "making up more rules from personal first principles" astonishing. If one added up the sum of "extra" rules people on forums banged on about as essential to safety, it would make the efforts of the regulators to restrict flying look trivial!

BEagle

8th Dec 2006, 06:26

Some people advocate increasing the approach speed in windy/gusty conditions. Whilst with a high inertia aeroplane that is fair enough (we used to add 1/3 of the max wind above 15 kts of wind in the VC10), for a low inertia aeroplane it will make things far more difficult during flare and touchdown - you stand the risk of floating about with the aeroplane unwilling to land whilst you are trying to maintain the centreline. So I would advocate flying an accurate, unadjusted approach speed using the 'point and power' technique to maintain the touchdown point with the control column and the approach speed with prompt power corrections.

My 'demonstrated' crosswind experience in the PA28 is higher than 17 kts! Had to go with a colleague to that patch of mud and gravel which masquerades as a major UK training aerodrome not far from Oxford (it must be a very important place as it now requires everyone to wear stupid yellow road diggers' coats when airside :* ). On arrival, we were told that the into-wind runway (27) was waterlogged and they weren't willing to let us use RW29. So we used RW19 with about 25 kts across; the approach and touchdown were no snag, but keeping the into wind wing down on the RW during roll-out was 'interesting'.... All my colleague (the CFI at the time) had said was "I'm glad it's not my landing, captain!":\

I won't do that again - if needs be, I will ask to use RW29 if it's ever that windy when I go there. But I will ask before setting off!

Rod1

8th Dec 2006, 07:30

I did much of my early flying in a Pup (DXC 25kn), I also have considerable time in DR400’s (DXC 20kn). In the real world several of the US types with a DXC 10 kn less than the European designs, are very similar in the way they handle X wind. I always assumed that the difference was due to liability rules in the US. Your average pilot, after appropriate experience on the types, would probably set his own limits for most of the aircraft at about the same figure.

Rod1

Adrian N

8th Dec 2006, 08:12

Tell you what - why don't you post your ideas on one of the Professional fora on this site and see how much support you gain from people there? I would also be interested to hear what flying experience you have which leads you to your conclusions.
Moggiee - I don't think you will find a professional pilot (one who takes an interest in GA, at least) who doesn't share FD's view. The demonstrated crosswind is in no way a "limit" imposed or suggested by the manufacturer - which must surely be clear from this thread by now. I believe that a Cessna 150 has a demonstrated crosswind of 13kts, but no reasonably experienced pilot would suggest that it can not safely be landed in stronger winds. The POH of my aeroplane (Jodel D140) says 17mph - but 20kts is quite safe, although it needs care to keep straight after landing. FD flies a Maule, which I think has a demonstrated crosswind component of 12kts or thereabouts; I have been a passenger in it when FD's syndicate partner (a professional pilot) has landed in a crosswind of 23kts - very smoothly and safely.
Regarding FD's experience, he's a shy retiring character.... but he's got plenty of experience flying a "difficult" taildragger from a short private strip, and despite the impression you may have formed is a very safety conscious pilot. I'd be happy to let him fly my aeroplane. Rumour has it that he has lots of flying and gliding qualifications that us humble PPL's don't have.

dublinpilot

8th Dec 2006, 08:48

it would imply that pilots would be OK to land at home if the crosswind was above the maximum demonstrated value, even though there may be an "in limits" airfield 20 miles up the road

How can it be "in limits" if there is no limit defined??

Also as I stated above, the word "Maximum" does not appear in the Piper Arrow section dealing with this. It's simply refered to as a "Demonstrated Crosswind Component". Does the word Maximum appear in other POH's? I don't have any others to hand.

dp

moggiee

8th Dec 2006, 09:59

A and C

8th Dec 2006, 10:22

As I understand it the Max demonstrated croswind is a structual limit and at 1.5x this speed if you land without "kicking off" the drift structual damage is likely to be done.

The C125 has 12 kt as the "limit" but at 18 Kt across a landing is not a problem if you are current on the aircraft.

The demonstrated croswind is not a limit to what the aircraft can do but it is a limit for the ham fisted pilot to stop them damaging the aircraft due to bad flying.

rustle

8th Dec 2006, 10:28

As I understand it the Max demonstrated croswind is a structual limit and at 1.5x this speed if you land without "kicking off" the drift structual damage is likely to be done.

Any reference for that at all?

I've never heard of it before...

Fuji Abound

8th Dec 2006, 10:42

I think there is still a lack of understanding about what the MDC is (and is not).

During testing the MDC may only arise from three landings. Whilst conditions have to meet the minimum requirements - that is all they have to meet. In certification the manufacturer may be motivated to demonstrate as high as possible MDC, but equally he may be motivated to get the aircraft certified as quickly as possible.

For the 400 the AFM says the MDC is 35 knots. However it immediately goes on to say this is NOT considered limiting on a dry runway with all engines operational.

In consequence the published MDC may be conservative, it may be very conservative or it may be realistic. In itself we simply do not know. All we do know, and can safely conclude, is that a pilot who is current on type could be expected to land / take off safely if they are operating within the MDC.

A great deal of knowledge about operating any type derives from experience. Less one forgets the manufacturer when he tested the aircraft did so when the aircraft was new, in a regulatory regime and marketing environment which might be quite different twenty years after.

So in short a manufacturer wants to get an aircraft certified as quickly as possible. The test pilot makes three landings that just meet the minimum requirements and the POH lists an MDC of 15 knots. What the manufacturer has established is that the aircraft can be safely landed in 15 knots of XW - period. He might well have been able to demonstrate a MDC of 20 knots but chose not to. What he has not done is explored the XW limitations and nor has he claimed he has. Moreover, he may well have gone on to specifically say the MDC is not limiting.

I can understand the problem which is I suspect people want someone else to establish safe limits in which they can operate and like to feel if they stay within these limits they are guaranteed not to come unstuck. Therefore they want to interpret the MDC as being a safe limit. Perhaps strangely (and even wrongly) that is not what it is. Stay within it and you should be safe, step outside it and you may be just as safe. Fortunately it is one of those areas where the pilot is still permitted to use his own judgement!

moggiee

8th Dec 2006, 12:24

Stay within it and you should be safe, step outside it and you may be just as safe.
But just how far outside it may we step before it becomes unsafe? Therein lies the problem.

If you get away with 5 knots above then you may be tempted to try 7kt, then 10kt, then 12 etc etc. At some point you will come unstuck - with a bit of luck you walk away with a few bruises and damaged pride. But should we really trust to "luck" as a policy?

moggiee

8th Dec 2006, 12:26

The demonstrated croswind is not a limit to what the aircraft can do but it is a limit for the ham fisted pilot to stop them damaging the aircraft due to bad flying.
Unfortunately the ham fisted pilot may also be equipped with a lame brain and a very healthy ego - a combination that is all too common amongst the private flying fraternity, I'm afraid (ask any club CFI).

Very often the worst pilots are the most confident - a lethal combination.

'Chuffer' Dandridge

8th Dec 2006, 13:03

Getting this thread back on track again.....

The owner of the aircraft is entitled to say what weather limits his aircraft should be operated to. If you don't like it, vote with your feet and go elsewhere. As for notification, you could always call them if uncertain of the WX conditions.

If operated outside any 'limit', and an accident happens, you can be sure that those slimy insurance monkeys will be the first to walk away from any settlement resulting from an accident..

My own club has limits. Certain pilots & instructors who are of 'known' ability are permitted to operate outside these, but then because of their experience, they are more than capable of doing so and can be relied on to make a sound judgement. Obviously there is a 'final limit'....but if they were to fly outside that, they wouldnt be on 'the permitted list' in the first place!

Flew with a guy a few months ago. I'd never met him before but was amazed at his overconfident manner even before we got in the aircraft. The wind was gusting 30kts, 7/8 cloud cover in intermittant +SHRA. This was his first flight on type, and despite me making hints that he might wish to save his money and come back on a better day, he insisted that he go flying and get checked out on type. I ended up flying most of the sortie and landed in +RA into a 25kt wind. Me - happy for the bad WX practice; Him - £120 less well off and very much not checked out!:ugh:

Bandit650

8th Dec 2006, 13:15

By sheer chance I happened upon this report on the Irish AAIB site which is relevant to this discussion....

(extracted from http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/7779-0.pdf)

"3. Crosswind Landings The manufacturer states that there is no crosswind limitation for the 172 M. The demonstrated crosswind is 15 knots. The following is from the Flight Manual relating to crosswinds: “The maximum allowable crosswind velocity is dependent upon pilot capability as well as aircraft limitations. With average pilot technique, direct crosswinds of 15 knots can be handled with safety”. Generally the pilot will use minimum flap setting required for the field length and use a wing"

Flyin'Dutch'

8th Dec 2006, 13:29

That's why I put it in " " marks - whilst from a semantic point of view there is no official "limit", there is a demonstrated crosswind which (by implication) is the maximum that the manufacture chose to evaluate/publish.
To take the aeroplane beyond this figure takes you into an area of the flight envelope where you have no proof that the aeroplane is controllable - it might be and it might not. I would suggest to you that operating beyond the demonstrated flight envelope is no smart.
I return again to my previous assertion that there is a difference between "legal" and "smart".
I think BEagle's post pretty much says what I've been saying - if you absolutely have to break the "limit" then so be it, but to plan to do such a thing is not a smart move. Doing it on a regular basis is pushing your luck.
Every aspect of aeroplane certification has a margin of safety built into it - whather it be crosswind, Vne, V1, obstacle clearance etc. etc. etc. But, and here is the important thing so for FD's benefit I will put it in capitals:
WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING FOR SURE JUST HOW BIG THOSE MARGINS ARE SO WE SHOULD NOT PLAN TO BITE INTO THEM.

Moggie, you forgot the bold; not quite sure if I understand where you are coming from.

:}

Sorry to fail so miserably.

I do fear though that you don't understand where I am coming from either!

The (maximum) demonstrated crosswind is no limitation in any shape, way or form. If you are competent and current and stay within it you are unlikely to run into trouble.

If you are competent and current then you are likely to find that on the other side of this magical number it ain't doom and gloom, Sodom and Gomorrah you let yourself in for.

That is indeed nicely demonstrated by BEagle in his post, as you rightly say.

The crosswind component he coped with was 50% in excess of what the POH said was demonstrated.

I am very much of the opinion that people should stay within the limits of their aeroplanes and their abilities and have on several occasions castigated mates went flying in crap conditions and then boast about it on internet forums.

In that vein I am quite happy to stand by what I posted on the Aberdeen diversion thread.

Not only were there gale force winds which make operating a small GA aircraft unsafe, it is also very clear that the driver was operating beyond his or her capabilities and that this outcome was predictable from the outset by anyone with the most basic knowledge of aviation and the weather.

Some on here claim that there is a safety margin built in establishing the Demonstrated Crosswind; as far as I know that is not true, happy to stand corrected if someone can quote chapter and verse.

Operating beyond limits, be it Vne, balance and to a certain extent weight, is unclever. To go beyond the demonstrated crosswind is OK as long as you know what you are doing.

That is the difference between aviating and driving an aeroplane.

That clubs/schools and the CAA use the figure of the demonstrated crosswind as a 'limit' might not be a bad idea given the countless prangs that people have, according to the AAIB reports, doing far less challenging things than landing with any crosswind.

:ok:

Fuji Abound

8th Dec 2006, 15:04

If you get away with 5 knots above then you may be tempted to try 7kt, then 10kt, then 12 etc etc. At some point you will come unstuck - with a bit of luck you walk away with a few bruises and damaged pride. But should we really trust to "luck" as a policy?

Isnt it called judgement?

I accept that there should be limits. I accept that whilst you are learning or gaining experience you are wise to operate within these limits. That's why the sort of restrictions some renters impose may be reasonable. However if you are going to fly regularly there will be occasions you are near the MDC and there will inevitably be occasions beyond the MDC. You will also inevitably assess what is within your personal comfort zone.

Personally, I think you would be wiser to fly with an instructor or someone with plenty of hours on type who is use to landing beyond the MDC and comfortable with doing so. Thats what I did - my ex-RAF instructor who told me the MDC was a joke and proceeded to demonstrate a few landings in XW 70% more than the published MDC.

All that said I appreciate some of your comments. Any exploration of the boundaries of the actual limits needs to be done with a great deal of caution and hopefully with the beneift of someone with plenty of time on type. Moreover the variations between types is significant and becasue the MDC on one is conservative it may well be realistic on another!

bookworm

8th Dec 2006, 16:16

AC23-8B FLIGHT TEST GUIDE FOR CERTIFICATION OF PART 23 AIRPLANES (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/469cd77d24955f4e86256da60060c156/$FILE/Final-Part1.pdf) is worth a look.
107. SECTION 23.233 DIRECTIONAL STABILITY AND CONTROL.
a. Explanation.
(1) Crosswind. This regulation establishes the minimum value of crosswind that must be demonstrated. Since the minimum required value may be far less than the actual capability of the airplane, higher values may be tested at the option of the applicant. The highest 90-degree crosswind component tested satisfactorily should be put in the AFM as performance information. If a demonstrated crosswind is found limiting, it has to be introduced in Section 2 of the AFM.
...
b. Procedures.
(1) Crosswind.
(a) The airplane should be operated throughout its approved loading envelope at gradually increasing values of crosswind component until a crosswind equivalent to 0.2 VSO is reached. All approved takeoff and landing configurations should be evaluated. Higher crosswind values may be evaluated at the discretion of the test pilot for AFM inclusion.

It's possible that the flight test is carried out on a 30 degC summer day. If I fly the aircraft in 10 degC does that "make me a test pilot"?

Flyin'Dutch'

8th Dec 2006, 16:23

Thanks guys for those eloquent posts; put so much better than I could ever hope to!

:ok:

VFE

8th Dec 2006, 17:13

As I understand it the Max demonstrated croswind is a structual limit and at 1.5x this speed if you land without "kicking off" the drift structual damage is likely to be done.
Is it?

I thought it was the x-wind speed at which full aileron deflection will not be sufficient to stop the aircraft rolling! If it's a limit then it is what it says it is and if it's a "demonstrated" then that's as far as chappie the test pilot got on the day he flew the thing.

As Moggie has wisely stated: you can push these things, but not forever. Do it your way by all means, but please never say that nobody tried to tell you otherwise. :=

VFE.