ManaAdaSystem, re # 8, 11, 13
When expressing alternative views it would help if the basis for these were provided.
Whilst the size of a control surface could be interpreted as providing greater theoretical crosswind capability, this might not consider if control power can be achieved, or any adverse consequences when attempting to use it.
The control response or aircraft motion could be insufficient for the conditions; similarly piloting finesse. Thus the well considered advice to smoothly control the aircraft. The need to ‘kick’ the rudder could be an indication that you are near your crosswind limit; a lack of experience in the conditions, control coordination, or poor feedback - lacking a good feel for the aircraft.
Feel is particularly important in judging sideways motion, lateral movement vice sway of normal flight, seat of the pants accelerations - poorly represented (if at all) in simulation.
The consequences of large and/or fast yaw inputs in the roll axis requires similar consideration; and beware control reversals or cross control. The aircraft is physically limited, wind tip or pod scrape; both require significant margin to ensure an adequate level of safety.
In addition, even if an aircraft can be aligned with the runway for a landing, control is still required on the ground, perhaps a greater need than that required in the air.
A hazard of self reference definitions - your ‘max demonstrated’, is that any difference with the agreed industry definition increases risk in operation, reducing safety margins, and adds confusion to the complexities of operation.
Furthermore, there may be a greater hazard if an unwary pilot believes these erroneous statements.
In a professional forum individuals must consider their responsibilities in what is said; this is best defended with well considered opinion without assumption.
For general info:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zq6lxugvoc...ation.pdf?dl=0
(If no App, use website option)