Originally Posted by
PEI_3721
Thus if the rolling 'g' limit is determined by the pilot's limiting stick force, or that the structure does not break (although it might twist) within the AFM 'g' limits, as determined by flight test, this implies that if you can do it (rolling g) then it's OK ?.
While I have the feeling you're on the right way, I'm not sure I follow you completely here so let me try to clarify: to get certified, transport category aeroplanes have to withstand 3.75G positive without structural damage. Some terms & conditions also apply, the ımportant for us it is straight pull, no rolling. What you and Megan have posted is the requirement there would be no naughty surprises if the roll is ıntroduced at two third of that, which is (not at all coincidentally) 2.5G, the AFM limit. So while you are right that properly designed aeroplane should withstand roll abuse at its positive G limit, making advantage of it makes no sense operationally as one has no idea how much G one is pulling without G-meter and it can get you quickly into the uncharted envelope territories, not to mention it's harder to maintain spatial orientation while fighting the aeroplane in two axes simultaneously. Thence the folks who believe that 0.666 factor applies to the AFM limit are actually advocating the right stuff for the wrong reason.