WTF good would that nonsense have done me?
I could not agree more. I wasnt being serious - sorry a bit of a strange sense of humour.
I was seeking to make the point that IF it was "illegal" to land with a cross wind over that demonstrated then presumably the pilot would have to declare a pan or mayday because he could reasonably expect the uc to collapse on landing.
For me the fact remains that these days with such a high risk of product liability etc if the lawyers had intended to say LIMITING then I think they would have managed to use that word in the POH - if the word LIMITING is not used then I think it is entirely reasonable for the pilot, insureres, CAA and any one else who cares to comment to consider it to be demonstrated NOT limiting.
In short, I dont understand and you havent convinced me DFC, why you believe otherewise?