hoggsnortrupert, I’m not sure where I am on your scale of assessors; probably in all categories, and particularly after a poorly judged crosswind landing one might as well be a monkey.
Whilst the certification requirements may not be precise, they do, with additional flight test guidance, provide a basis for determining crosswind conditions suitable for an ‘average’ pilot – on an average day, etc, etc, - all things being equal – except they rarely are.
The manufacturer’s tests involve ‘considered’ opinion; however, in my experience not by an individual but as a team effort. Both crewmembers have probably flown the test, and in alternate directions for a given crosswind. After which the air and ground-station data is reviewed, then discussion with AeroD, airworthiness, training, and occasionally the certification authority.
The manufacturer may have flown landings in conditions beyond ‘the max demonstrated’, but in circumstances where the conditions were unstable or data unavailable. This experience is often used when considering the results of actual tests – either a lenient or a more restrictive judgment. However, what might be known to a test crew is unlikely to be available to a line pilot, thus operation beyond max demonstrated is best treated as ‘handling unknown’.
Crosswind certification is one (if not the only) area where there is no margin at the limiting condition; compare with Vmo-Vne, Vref-Vs, or runway length required. Most flight operations provide the crew with considerable protection from the randomness of the environment and occasionally their own judgment; crosswinds can be very unforgiving.
Pilots who land in cross winds/gusts greater the max demonstrated, in the circumstances which you describe, are not necessarily ‘unsafe’ – that’s a relative term, but they are, perhaps unknowingly, accepting high risks.
Often high risk operations are successful, and this is used to redatum a pilot’s norm – a biased, habitual behavior.
We rarely understand all of the risks taken in an operation or the effects of ‘so called’ risk alleviating procedures; it might only require a small change in the conditions to invalidate what a pilot has assumed from previous inappropriate use.
You correctly respect a hard ‘limit’, but interpret max demonstrated as something with margin; I disagree.
As explained above and in previous posts the as-yet-undetermined ‘hard limit’ may only be at max demonstrated +1kt; thus any landing above max demonstrated might have unacceptable risk with severe consequences.
Rules, what do we do with them? "the generation of the now" have no idea on how to use professional discretion.
Rules don’t prevent crews from exercising discretion; they enable discretion, which can be exercised on the safe side of the rule (limit), without bias, and being fully aware of the assumptions being made.
Whilst I would agree that many pilots, both old and new, fail to comprehend this, it is not necessary to encourage pilots to take risks to exercise their discretion.
Discretion (prudence, judgment, carefulness, caution, responsibility) is not intended to identify risk taking opportunities; it is to minimize risk, thus maximizing safety.
Refs:
CS 25 Certification of Large Aircraft (FAR similar).
AC 25-7A Flight test guide for certification of transport category airplanes.