Don’t forget that once on the runway the object is to stay on it. This usually means applying more rudder as speed reduces; in some types this then requires compensating roll control. There are few aircraft which require immediate use of nosewheel steering. I have seen pilots rush for the NWS, disregarding the effectiveness of aerodynamic controls which results in a short term loss of control. We must not forget that the aircraft is still aerodynamically capable immediately after touchdown and that any wind gust can overpower NWS, thus continue to fly the aircraft when on the runway.
I found some interesting observations and recommendation on crosswind from a safety report in support of ALAR:
'Recommendations with regard to safety aspects of aircraft operations in crosswind - NLR'
Reported wind velocities should include gust if the gust velocity exceeds 5 Kt, as opposed to the current value of 10 Kt.
Pilot assessment of the actual crosswind conditions in relation to the operational limits of the aircraft should always be based on the reported wind, including gust.
Separate crosswind limits for takeoff and landing could be considered since this study shows that there is a significant difference between the accident/incident probabilities in both flight phases.
Runway conditions such as wet and contaminated should be considered in a more formal way during the certification of crosswind operations of an aircraft. It is recommended to publish such information in the form of a FAA AC and JAA AMJ.
The actual crosswind for a runway should be provided to the pilot in addition to the wind direction in combination with wind speed. This avoids miscalculation of the crosswind by the pilot.
Maximum demonstrated crosswind capability should always be considered as limiting and should therefore be placed in the Operations Limitations section of the AFM.
It should not be allowed to (advise the use of) operational crosswind limitations in excess of the demonstrated capability based on simulator investigations. Simulators in general lack fidelity in modelling of turbulence phenomena near the ground, and modelling of lateral-directional control characteristics in ground-effect to provide sufficiently reliable results for this purpose. Furthermore the quality of the mathematical ground model in combination with the motion and visual cues of a simulator is usually not high enough to allow sufficient confidence in the evaluation results.
It should be more clear in both FAR and JAR how the wind is defined, e.g. as mean wind based on a 2-minute period or wind including gust. In determining the maximum allowable crosswind for takeoff and landing, all airports should formally address runway friction coefficients and gusts.
It is recommended to analyse crosswind limits in combination with low visibility conditions.
It is recommended to analyse the possibilities of landing in strong crosswind conditions in combination with good visibility using an autoland system, to explore the use of higher crosswinds than normally defined by standard FAR/JAR autoland certification.