It worries me somewhat, not least on PPrune where there's some track record of such behaviour, when people start publishing what seems like authoritative information from long experience - but on closer scrutiny is substantially nonsense.
For example:-
"Demonstrated" crosswind tells you exactly that
Is indeed true, but then subsequently
it usually specifices for which kind of pilot (some old POH says usual, some say average, it depends on when it was written).
Is untrue - the concept of an average pilot exists in some airworthiness standards, albeit using other forms of words, but is not and never has been used in aircraft manuals: either civil or military. The anonymous poster then says something that actually is close to true, such as:-
But, these are writings in old POH, new ones often tell you "max allowed crosswind" or "standard ops max limit crosswind"
Neither of those terms are in use, nor ever have been. Recent civil manuals do not list "max allowed" or "permitted", that exists in some pre-1970s manuals, and military manuals. More recent civil manuals use "maximum demonstrated" - which essentially means what the company test pilots achieved without scaring themselves, with the caveat that certification standards require this to exceed some minimum values, normally referenced to stall speed.
This next is also substantially untrue:-
these wordings do have an impact on air incident investigations as well as insurance coverage.
I'm sure there's one or two obscure cases somewhere - but the POH crosswind limits are not normally discussed in BOI/AAIB reports, nor in insurance claims.
Chickenhouse - I'm not sure who you are, although I can guess. But for goodness sake stop playing stupid games. This is the third time in the last few weeks [that I have spotted] when you have posted substantially untrue information, phrased with great authority - and such things can cause damage, and have done before. Show a bit more responsibility.
G