Mungo Man, another interestingly worded SOP.
Perhaps the following is a pedantic review, but confusion often comes from ill structured SOPs when under high workload and in time pressured situations.
The text encourages the assumption that all wind reports are mean winds; a reasonable view, but perhaps it does not consider errors in reporting wind *.
Is the mean calculated (computation) or just an eye-ball figure by the observer? In some circumstances the mean wind may have included gusts (the max and min) of a varying wind *.
The commander is allowed to use judgement in gusts, but what is assumed about the ability to judge, what are the risks, how might these be countered.
IMHO, the management have relinquished their responsibility and passed it to the commander – unfair, the commander is someone who they should be protecting - his safety is their safety. Everyone has a safety responsibility which should not be given up.
My interpretation of the text describing the max demonstrated crosswind associates the gusts with an airspeed increment for the approach, but some people might associate this with a crosswind gust – already stated in the previous text.
Whilst airspeed increments in gusting conditions reduce the risk of low energy situations during the approach, crosswind gusts require increased control activity, perhaps encountering a limiting situation close to the ground or even on the runway – more rudder required as speed reduces (until wheel side force helps the situation).
In strong gusting crosswinds, a prudent commander might reduce the crosswind limit by half of the gust increment.
Who in the airline has made the ‘considered’ judgement that the max value is not limiting, how did they determine this – fact or supposition? If this is the manufacturers wording (certification speak), then who can discount that the real ‘limit’ might be a few knots higher?
And where is the advice for operating on a wet runway?