Demonstrated X wind a pointless figure ?

[Pace]

Is there any practical value to a demonstrated X wind figure or is it only of value to novice pilots ?
I once landed a Seneca at double its demonstrated X wind and that made me realise it was no where near the actual limit of the aircraft
So why register it at all ?

Pace

[Radix]

.............

[Big Pistons Forever]

I once landed a Seneca at double its demonstrated X wind and that made me realise it was no where near the actual limit of the aircraft


Pace

Just because you can do something with an aeroplane doesn't necessarily mean you should. The demonstration x-wind component is like many things in flying a useful guide to pilot decision making.

I once landed a C 172 on a day where it was blowing 35 kts with a 25 kt cross wind component. With the wing way down and full rudder I held some crab right to touchdown and made a relatively uneventfull landing. However the aircraft almost overturned when I went to turn off the runway. My decision making that day left something to be desired.......

Anyway to answer the question, demonstrated X-wind component means at that wind velocity or less, the aircraft can be landed without requiring more than normal levels of skill or special maneuvering. When dealing with higher x-winds the pilot will need to make a personal assessment of the situation and their skill and currency levels.

The bigger issue IMO is that too many pilots seems to struggle to make an acceptable landing with a cross-wind significantly less than the demonstrated value.

[India Four Two]

In my limited experience of looking into demonstrated cross-wind components, the value seems to acrue to the manufacturer, who has to tick a box during the certification process.

They mostly only test up to the maximum value required by EASA/FAA - 20% of Vso, which results in ludicrously low values in the case of gliders.

Most gliders will handle much stronger cross-winds and some manufacturer's handbooks admit as much. On the other hand, some powerplanes I've flown feel right on the edge at the handbook crosswind value.

BPF's comment is very valid though. It's not just the landing but what happens afterwards. Many years ago, someone took my favourite rental 172 (i.e. cheap) to Lethbridge and landed in a gusty 50 kt Chinook wind. No cross-wind problems, since the runway was into wind. Thngs went to pieces when he turned round to backtrack and ended up inverted!

[Whopity]

They name says it all. It is the maximum that was Demonstrated during the certification process. It is not an aircraft limitation and is not related to rudder authority.

[Crash one]

I would say it is pointless. It could be accurate, it could be wildly inaccurate there is little way of knowing.
The aircraft owner becomes a test pilot as soon as this demonstrated figure is reached and may be far short of what is possible.
Also, can the original "demonstrated" be updated? Or is the figure cast in stone for that make/model?

[Mach Jump]

Not quite pointless.

It's just a minimum figure that the Test Pilot(s) established during the flight testing .

It could have just been the strongest crosswind that blew during the Certification process!


MJ:ok:

[Crash one]

We know how it was arrived at and when. The point is, how relevant, accurate a guide it is.
My a/c has a "demonstrated" 12knots the day it was certified 55 yrs ago, I, with just 250 hrs have little problem with 20knots, I am sure that in the hands of someone who can fly, an even higher figure could be achieved. So what is the point of the 12knots figure?

[Jhieminga]

Going out on a limb a bit here but I guess it might have something to do with the claim culture in some societies as well. Some pilots get in trouble before they even get near the demonstrated number and the wording may have been chosen to avoid claims after such incidents. You could also argue that it makes the aircraft more flexible to operate. Yes, you are in a sense operating as a test pilot once you venture above that number but as long as the rest of the paperwork doesn't say anything that converts it into a hard limit, you're able to legally operate in some serious crosswind conditions if you so desire. In the end it is up to you as a pilot to make the decision whether to land or divert to another, better placed, runway. The max demonstrated value in the books should at that point be a serious warning but if you are familiar with the aircraft and your own personal limits then the responsibility is yours to make that call.

[ChickenHouse]

"Demonstrated" crosswind tells you exactly that and it usually specifices for which kind of pilot (some old POH says usual, some say average, it depends on when it was written). It just gives you an idea how crosswind sensitive the bird is and what is usually safe. But, these are writings in old POH, new ones often tell you "max allowed crosswind" or "standard ops max limit crosswind" and these wordings do have an impact on air incident investigations as well as insurance coverage. In the case of "demonstrated" it is a hint, in case of "max certified" it is a setting for allowed POH operational limits. In first case and an incident you underestimated your skills, a mistake, in second case you violated operational limits. And be asured, a 1955 C172 will be case 1, while an after1986 C172 may be case 2.

[Genghis the Engineer]

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

[Jonzarno]

Is there any practical value to a demonstrated X wind figure or is it only of value to novice pilots ?
I once landed a Seneca at double its demonstrated X wind

If you had had an accident on landing and killed a passenger, especially if it had been in the US: would the demonstrated cross wind number have featured and carried any weight in the subsequent law suit?

[RatherBeFlying]

When your glider wing is knee high, you will find quite a bit less crosswind down there – the trick lies in dealing with the change in wind in the last few feet.

Just remember not to turn out of a crosswind. There's no aileron control when the wind is spanwise.

I scrubbed a flight in a 172 because of a 25 kt wind down the runway. The downwind taxi would have been problematic.

[PA28181]

I scrubbed a flight in a 172 because of a 25 kt wind down the runway. The downwind taxi would have been problematic.

Why?


There's no aileron control when the wind is spanwise.

So no airflow across the wings, ASI zero, glider still airborne?


I believe the EV 97 Euorostar states in the POH that beyond the 10kts DCC, rudder & aileron in-effectiveness could give problems. I know it's a different "certification" issue but you can't change the physics if the testing is reliable.


As an afterthought, it would be more useful if manufacturer's did actually state at what component the aircraft cannot be controlled safely during the landing phase, rather than the "test pilots" findings on a particular day. I'm sure that this figure could be accurately defined using modern aerodynamics software.

[pattern_is_full]

Demonstrated Crosswind is the point at which YOU become the test pilot.

Maybe your test works out - maybe it doesn't. What's your "Right Stuff" component?

If an accident or incident is a loss of control, of a type that suggests crosswinds were a factor (runway excursion, for example), investigators will most certainly look at the actual conditions, compared to the aircrafts's published characteristics.

And may well include the winds and aircraft procedures as factors in the accident - if not the primary cause.

ASN News » Report: Fokker 50 runway excursion when tired crew lands outside crosswind limits (http://news.aviation-safety.net/2014/12/16/report-fokker-50-runway-excursion-when-tired-crew-lands-outside-crosswind-limits/)

Accident: Carpatair AT72 at Rome on Feb 2nd 2013, runway excursion on landing, main and nose gear collapsed (http://avherald.com/h?article=45d25cc2/0001&opt=0)

In the second, expressed as:

"- the conviction of the commander that due to his experience and skills he could still manage a safe landing despite critical winds."

Ooops - wrong. :ouch:

[Pace]

If you had had an accident on landing and killed a passenger, especially if it had been in the US: would the demonstrated cross wind number have featured and carried any weight in the subsequent law suit?

Jonzarno

This is the very point I am making! In my case it was flying into Denham and the wind was fairly steady and directly across.

Strangely I had little expectation of landing and was more expecting to go around back into the air.

It surprised me when it settled quite nicely onto the runway.
But your point is valid! If your aircraft has say a demonstrated 15 KTS do you decline an approach and landing because its 20 KTS?

If for any reason you mess up and go off the runway could that demonstrated figure be used against you for even 1 KT over?

Pilots can mess up below the demonstrated X wind limit as well as way above and damage the aircraft.

As demonstrated is way off the actual limit I wonder what the point is of having a demonstrated figure at all ? and what use it is to anybody

addendum

regarding the incident posted above ( Fokker 50) please note it states that they exceeded the OPERATORS limit not the manufacturers demonstrated X wind figure. maybe the two were the same maybe not

Maybe Ghengis can explain? As a limit set to a percentage of rudder authority at a given speed might be more accurate and meaningful

Pace

[flybymike]

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.
I'm not sure whether English is Chickenhouse's first language.
English comprehension certainly isn't.

[PA28181]

According to his profile locations he has now moved from Nairobi to Wales, so language could be difficult:O

[Pilot DAR]

Great discussion, albeit with some speculation.

To answer the OP's question, for a current certification basis airplane. demonstrating compliance with the requirement for crosswind control is required:

Sec. 23.233

Directional stability and control.

[(a) A 90 degree cross-component of wind velocity, demonstrated to be safe for taxiing, takeoff, and landing must be established and must be not less than 0.2 http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/4de7128ac0aa833185256687006d0680/SectionRule/0.2F6%21OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif.]

Thereafter, presenting that demonstration of compliance in the flight manual is required:

Sec. 23.1585

Operating procedures.

(a) For all airplanes, information concerning normal, abnormal (if applicable), and emergency procedures and other pertinent information necessary for safe operation and the achievement of the scheduled performance must be furnished, including--
(1) ..... (2) The maximum demonstrated values of crosswind for takeoff and landing, and procedures and information pertinent to operations in crosswinds;.......


And to the standard:

...These procedures must be able to be executed consistently by pilots of average skill in atmospheric conditions reasonably expected to be encountered in service....

So it's not a secret conspiracy to "limit" what a pilot does with a plane, but the required presentation of information that the authorities consider appropriate to provide for the pilot.

It is useful to indicate to a pilot how much extra effort and precision they might have to apply to their flying as they approach, and possibly exceed that value. If they cannot manage the "demonstrated" value, perhaps some additional practice is warranted, as it is a "average skill" value - I think we might be expecting the test pilot to do even better!

Quick rules of thumb: If you cannot hold the runway centerline during the initial phase of the takeoff, perhaps abort, and rethink if you need to takeoff that runway at that time. If you cannot hold the runway centerline during final approach, completing the landing may be difficult. Maybe continue with caution, prepared to go around and look for somewhere else to land.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that there's a few aeroplanes where "demonstrated limit" is simply the worst that could be achieved before the aeroplane was certified and the certification team were well aware that they'd not reached the aircraft's limits - nor probably were particularly worried by that fact.

G

[Pace]

If you cannot hold the runway centerline during final approach, completing the landing may be difficult.

Surely that is a more accurate way of deterring the crosswind limit and adding a safety buffer between that maximum ?

I still am not convinced that demonstrated has any meaningful relevance to what an aircraft and pilot can handle and it seems to be very un scientific and out of the hat

Pace

[Pilot DAR]

Surely that is a more accurate way of deterring the crosswind limit and adding a safety buffer between that maximum ?

The "accuracy" during crosswind certification flight testing I have done, was the authority's insistence on really precise wind speed measurement at the time I flew the tests. Otherwise, it was simply could I do it, or not?

The most extreme crosswind test I have flown were both in Cessna Caravans. Happily, I well met the standard of "average skill" as I had less than 50 hours total time on Caravans for both test, so I could hardly be called "skilled" on type. One test was 38G45 knots, 40 degrees off the runway heading - which is "off the [Cessna] chart" for the Caravan. It seems to equate to about 32 knots direct crosswind, if I extrapolate Cessna's chart. This was coupled with the requirement that I fly full stall landings and takeoffs (tailstrike tests). There was a lot of chirping of wheels during that testing! I did reach and hold full pedal several times, so I knew I was close to the "limit" of my skill.

That made the subsequent test at 19G25 direct crosswind seem easier, but there was a huge keel affect change mod on the plane, and a snow covered runway, so wheels sliding was a concern.

In those conditions, my limited type skill told me not to apply lots of reverse, as that tends to blanket the rudder with turbulent air, which you really need to be working for you to as slow as possible!

Other types I have flown crosswind tests have given me to understand that by applying one's self, the "demonstrated" value should be manageable. I have certainly never thought to myself "wow, that would be hard to do!"

[pattern_is_full]

There was a lot of chirping of wheels during that testing!

An aside - I am generally a low-wing fan. But I have to tip my hat to Cessna's spring-steel struts for handling side loads. My sole serious experience of wind shear was a gusty day when, right in the flare, the 25-kt wind swung around from a 15° right headwind to a 100° tail-xwind in about 2 seconds. Power and rudder kept me out of the grass and runway lights, but I still touched down with quite a side drift. Heavy thump and screeching, but those angled C172 struts toughed it out.

Back to our regular scheduled programming...

[Genghis the Engineer]

Surely that is a more accurate way of deterring the crosswind limit and adding a safety buffer between that maximum ?

I still am not convinced that demonstrated has any meaningful relevance to what an aircraft and pilot can handle and it seems to be very un scientific and out of the hat

Pace


I think that you're right Pace to be honest - and I've flown several crosswind trials, and written or signed off several more POHs.

The way it's done has some value - a figure has been determined - through a combination of opportunity and requirement (basically it was the best the TPs could get in the time and locations available, but they were required to at least hit 0.2Vso - which for a part 23 single means 12 knots or greater - less for microlights and part VLA aeroplanes.

The requirement to evaluate against "typical" piloting ability is minimal - although tools to do so certainly exist: the Cooper-Harper Scale being the most immediately obvious, and the requirement to provide much meaningful handling advice in the POH is also minimal.

A few lines of informed narrative would be much better, viz...

"During flight trials, the aeroplane was tested on both take-off and landing up to 20kts crosswind from the right, and up to 15kts from the left. The preferred landing method was the wing-down method. The aircraft was fully controllable up to those values without requirements for advanced piloting skill, with up to half control deflection being used. It is likely that an experienced pilot on type will be able to handle greater crosswind values, but no guarantee of this is provided."

Or something like that.

Undercarriage strength *should* be a bit of a red herring incidentally, as any correctly flown technique should result in the aeroplane tracking straight down the runway at touchdown, not skidding sideways.

Unless it's one of those rare aeroplanes designed to be landed crabbed - I can only think of one of those on the UK GA fleet, and there aren't many HM1000s flying nowadays, so that's a pretty obscure case.

G

[ChickenHouse]

Just one last remark and example citation, go to official Cessna 172H POH (https://www.redskyventures.org/doc/cessna-poh/Cessna_172_C172H_1967_POH_scanned.pdf) , Section II, page 2-12, read "The maximum allowable crosswind velocity is dependent upon pilot capability rather than airplane limitations. With average pilot technique, direct crosswinds of 15 MPH can be handled with safety." I am sick and tired of idiots such as Genghis, so this is the last time I read or post here in pprune, have a nice life.

[foxmoth]

Toys being thrown out of the pram there! But then this is the guy who started a thread giving details of students behaviour then complained because we were commenting on it without enough info!

[tb10er]

If you bend your beloved aircraft and the cross wind is beyond that demonstrated in the PoH, do you think the insurance company will pay out without lots of questions?

[Pace]

TB10ER

As it is a fairly meaningless figure as a demonstrated number not a limiting number I would think that it would be hard to refuse a claim on demonstrated alone.

There are many factors which can lead to loss of control, how steady the wind is ? what the gust factor is, Windshear, pilot ability etc.

Even down to how slow the pilot gets? Rudder authority is relative to airflow as we know in VMC demonstration in twins.

More airflow more authority.

That brings in the consideration in very strong crosswind components of carrying higher speed and flying it on rather than stalling onto the runway. Obviously runway length and headwind component coming into the equation

Pace

[9 lives]

In the case of "demonstrated" it is a hint, in case of "max certified" it is a setting for allowed POH operational limits. In first case and an incident you underestimated your skills, a mistake, in second case you violated operational limits. And be asured, a 1955 C172 will be case 1, while an after1986 C172 may be case 2.

This statement (and kind of thinking) muddies the waters needlessly, and is not a good basis for pilot decision making. The phraseology of flight manuals was standardized in the mid '70's, and "demonstrated crosswind" was on of the elements captured in that. As can be plainly seen from the POH wording presented by Chicken House, the referenced POH specifically states that the crosswind value is "rather than airplane limitations." not limiting - it's not stated in the limitations section as a limitation. It's a value demonstrating the aircraft's capability.

I cannot speak as an insurer, but I would not accept denial of a claim for a crash when no limitation was exceeded, and the aircraft was being flown with good airmanship. I agree, that there comes a point where an attempt at a crosswind is too much, and that would be poor airmanship in attempting it. I think insurers sometime even pay out for poor airmanship, but I've never tried....

[Pace]

ChickenHouse

We all get it wrong sometimes and I for one would feel sorry if you went

I seriously listen to Genghis and Pilot Dar and others here. Many have a huge amount of knowledge far exceeding my own.

I know who they are and listen to what they have to say.

To throw your Dolly out of the pram is silly as if I had done the same where I have posted mistakes I would have long gone :E

Pace

[Jan Olieslagers]

I am sick and tired of idiots such as Genghis

I for one would miss GtE a thousand times worse than I would miss you. I you must go, bye bye! But a more positive plan B might be conceivable.

[Jonzarno]

I agree! Having shared a flight with GTE and spent a good bit of time talking about flying with him, I'd fly with him again any day :ok:

[Mach Jump]

Am I missing something here? Maybe a post has been deleted?

Why are you having a go at Genghis???

I've just scrolled back through the posts, and I cant find anything that Genghis has said that isn't perfectly logical and helpful.

Please help me understand what happened here. :confused:


MJ:ok:

[Pilot DAR]

No posts have been deleted from this thread.

[jjoe]

Post 1- OP?

Is there any practical value to a demonstrated X wind figure or is it only of value to novice pilots ?

Lots of good (and terrible) debate?/responses elicited IMO.

I'm no linguist or philosopher or gynaecologist.... but I'll have a go!
(Yes, it's THAT late ,Blue Nun late, and surely shaggy must be asleep by now!)

The two parts of the question are not mutually exclusive i.e. there is no need for the 'or'. The answer, arguably, is 'yes' to both parts by definition.

Why? Well, it tells you that it (demonstrated X wind figure) has been successfully and 'comfortably'* carried out before at that level- that's practical; fact not degree.
In this narrow definition, then, any pilot who has not exceeded it must be a novice; fact not degree.

Tin hat on.

I'm not sure whether English is Chickenhouse's first language.
English comprehension certainly isn't.

English is a language, first or otherwise. English comprehension (certainly) isn't!

for all CH's faults, and I have derided him previously for his inability to make his point in 'proper' English and other things, in this case I do think he has made a point and proved it- however cack-handedly and his 'throwing toys out the pram' and other similar responses are unwarranted as I think he genuinely is trying to help.

Genghis is definitely not an 'idiot' and I think CH just lacks the vocabulary to put his point across. I also don't feel CH is deliberately playing stupid games.

Chickenhouse, don't leave, make your point clearer!

However, good question.

Anyway , if the POH told you everything, why would you need an instructor?

[9 lives]

in this case I do think he has made a point and proved it- ...... as I think he genuinely is trying to help.

Opening my mind, what point has CH made? I don't follow? Perhaps wrongly, I understood the point which CH has tried to make as being that pilots are "bound" by a "limit" for the operation of the aircraft (a 172, of varied vintage, in this case) in a crosswind, by wording in the POH/Flight Manual. That wording has a literal, and regulatorily intended meaning, is other than what CH has advanced.

I think CH just lacks the vocabulary to put his point across. I also don't feel CH is deliberately playing stupid games.

English as a second language issues aside for the moment, it is the responsibility of those of us in aviation to understand the application of English in the intent of how the POH is to be interpreted, when using an English version. Agreed, pre mid '70's, the format of POHs was not harmonized - but it was not terribly different, just a little scattered by comparision. However, since then, the format and terminology is very consistent, and one of the roles of an instructor is to assure that the candidate understands how to use and interpret the information in a Flight Manual - at least a post '70's format edition.

If a poster here would like to be given a bit of grace with their use of English, that is fair. This is a great venue for practicing English, in an aviation environment. However, If a poster, who for whatever reason is not communicating entirely clearly, advances very specific thoughts which are dependent upon a precise use of English, they should not be surprised that other posters may see it differently, and challenge their assertion. I can assure the audience from my first hand knowledge that GtE has an outstanding command of English, and aviation. Challenge him only with a willingness to learn yourself!

Anyway , if the POH told you everything, why would you need an instructor?

I interpret this as humour. But for those who might doubt, be reminded that reading and understanding a Flight Manual is very important, but it is a fraction of what a pilot needs to know to fly a plane! It only presents information specific to that plane. I think Cessna is aware of this, when they write, as the second paragraph in in the introduction section:

"This handbook in not intended to be a guide for basic flight instruction or a training manual and should not be used as one. It is not a subsitute for adequate and competent flight instruction............."

But, I expect that everyone here has a command of English, and has read the flight manual to know that already! ;)

[Pace]

Everyone has a contribution to make and even the best make mistakes in something they say.

Not everything posted in these forums is fact some doesn't really matter other mistakes can be dangerous if taken as fact by other pilots especially the more novice.

That is the dilemma as if the more knowledgeable note that mistake and rectify it there is always the risk of hurt egos, retaliation and defensiveness which can quickly all become very personal.

On the internet we often do not know who we are talking to, who they are or what their credentials are.

I used to be involved in home flight simulators and some development of third party add ons.

Like in real world flying forums there were active forums which were also anonymous and you really did not know who you were talking too.

I remember only too well one poster who posted under the guise of being a 747 Captain and did so for some time . He wrote with authority and to be honest added a lot to the forums with the mass of technical detail he contributed until one day there was a glaring mistake which got us all thinking that no way was this guy even a pilot.

He turned out to be a 12 year old kid who adored the adoration his guise created and he was a master at googling and adapting information he googled to appear like his own writing.

Ok he was found out but did he contribute? Yes he did as he put so much work into keeping that guise going and actually added a lot of technical information to many in the process.

I am not for one minute putting CH in that category but pointing out that we all have a contribution whatever our real life backgrounds and its a shame if anyone leaves because of a damaged ego or many of us would have gone a long time ago me included ;) We all probably know who the real deals are the ones to listen too and they in turn have a duty to correct inaccurate information especially stuff which could be dangerous

Pace

[Pilot DAR]

Great post Pace, I heartily agree. It is an unfortunate element that "credentials" of posters can be very difficult to verify, but that is the entitlement of privacy. It is nice the people want to contribute, but sometimes what that person has to offer is more "I think I heard someone I did not know say this once", which may have very little authority. It's nice to see either direct quotes of authoritative information, which is traceable, should someone wish to, or links or references which can be verified.

In this thread, several posters did present a link to support what they are saying. This is very useful, as it informs us all of the fact or background of the topic, and from that we all learn. Further to that, the presentation of fact, which is independently authoritative, removes the need for the poster themselves to have credibility.

One of the more "in your face" aspects of this I have seen, are those stand around discussions which occur in a group of pilots, where expertise about certain aircraft types will begin to flow. Sometimes the topic will involve an aircraft type with which I have familiarity. When I hear mis-information, I like to engage eager speakers by engagingly asking them to tell me about their experiences in flying that type. Too often, I hear back "well... I've never actually flown one...". Okay, now I know the level of authority I should place in that person's opinion of that specific topic.

Here, we welcome pleasant, informative discussion. Learning, and disseminating wisdom are great, when we can do it. Participate at the level you fell comfortable with, but if you are not "authoritative" (and I'm not directing that at anyone, just a general thought), feel free to say "I've never flown one, but...", or, "I'm not an instructor, but...." Etc. And go on with your thought or question, I'm sure everyone here would like you to have the best responses.

It is a certainty that no pilot can have "all the experience", so it is entirely possible that an experienced pilot here, could still have a rather basic question, or mistaken thought on another area of piloting. For example, a poster in this thread I believe flies jets. I never have flown a jet. If that poster speaks jet, I will listen, and perhaps ask for clarification, before I make an error which would show everyone how little I now about flying a jet!

This forum is frequented by some aviators of awesome credential, who, if they were charging for the wisdom they offer here, would be charging by the hour many times what an instructor would charge. I know this, because I have personally met a number of these frequent, and much appreciated posters, and learned a lot from them myself.

Ultimately, it is up to you, the reader, to think about what you read here, and do your own research to verify it, and thus add it to your knowledge. If you feel that you cannot publicly verify it, then PM the person - politely please, and ask for clarification. If your motives of learning ore genuine, I'm sure their reply will be too....

[flybymike]

English is a language, first or otherwise. English comprehension (certainly) isn't!
Point of pedantry accepted.
Perhaps "Comprehensible English" might have been a better choice of words!

[S-Works]

I am sick and tired of idiots such as Genghis, so this is the last time I read or post here in PPRuNe, have a nice life.

Chickenhouse, whilst Ghengis can be an annoying tit at times and on occasion does post on Instructional matters with the same authority you seem to have taken up on aircraft engineering I can assure you that when it comes to a pissing contest on such matters you are not even qualified to get into the ring with him.

So perhaps relax a bit and learn from him?
;)

[flybymike]

Genghis.......

http://youtu.be/emm4um22aF4

[john_tullamarine]

I am sick and tired of idiots such as Genghis, so this is the last time I read or post here in PPRuNe, have a nice life.


I note that others have taken you to task over this comment .. surely you were being somewhat tongue-in-cheek ?


If not, it's not too difficult to divine who Genghis is and what his considerable background entails ... not a chap to whom one might apply your comment, methinks ..


There was a query re upgrading crosswind figures and I don't think I saw a response ? Certainly no reason why the OEM data can't be revisited if required .. we have done so on a number of occasions in Oz .. the only time we frightened ourselves was with the small Rockwell singles .. as I recall they have an aileron/rudder interconnect which does provide a real limit not very many knots above the OEM figure ..

[Pace]

I am sick and tired of idiots such as Genghis, so this is the last time I read or post here in PPRuNe, have a nice life.

There is no excuse for personal insults and as far is G is concerned that description is a joke

Pace

[S-Works]

the only time we frightened ourselves was with the small Rockwell singles .. as I recall they have an aileron/rudder interconnect which does provide a real limit not very many knots above the OEM figure ..

Ah, fond memories of the Seneca 1 with its dog like performance and interconnect!!!

[Small Rodent Driver]

" I am sick and tired of idiots such as Genghis, so this is the last time I read or post here in PPRuNe, have a nice life.

OUT of ORDER!!!!

Absolutely no need for that.

[mary meagher]

There are times when the male of the species feels challenged and rather than decking the challenger, throws his toys out of the pram and stalks off in a huff. As we were discussing crosswind limits in this thread, it reminds me of a very very strong wind day at the gliding club. The pilot who had actually introduced me to the art of airtowing gliders with my Supercub, was flying on this day. Watching from the sidelines with alarm, I saw him landing on the crosswind runway, with the towrope attached, scooting over to the next glider, and taking off. With great skill and experience, of course.

The crosswind limits for my PA18 Supercub in the pilot's operating handbook state the limits as 10 miles an hour.

So concerned for my precious Cub, after its next hairy arrival on the crosswind runway, I went over and tapped on his window. Could you possibly, I suggested, land on the intowind runway? you can always drop the towrope first...."

Said he "If you don't like the way I fly it, you can take over! ! ! ! !" so saying he yanked his headset out of the panel, climbed out and stalked off, never to be seen again that day. Ooops!

So I climbed into my beloved Cub, hooked up to the next glider, and took off. After he was away, I dropped the rope in a safe place, and landed on the intowind run. At an airspeed of 40 knots, we were STATIONAIRY OVER THE GROUND. Forget this for a mugs game, I know when to quit! So I didn't even TRY to turn and taxi back, just sat there in the way, until enough heavy manly bodies showed up to push the Supercub backwards into the hangar. If anybody wanted a launch after that, they had to go up the wire.

[Pace]

Mary I love reading all about your adventures and experiences.
The beauty of private flying is that it is for enjoyment and the guy/gal spending their hard earned money can close the curtains and go back to sleep to await a better day.

Slightly different for those who have to fly (within reason) Where you pull back the curtains to see a dark night, strong winds and driving rain and take off into that with your brain still wanting to be curled up in bed :{

Pace

[kghjfg]

** student alert **

As a student I'm seeing it as the "really think about it seriously number". In fact I scrubbed a lesson last week, the instructor said we could fly, but he might need to do the landing, and at the minute I am training my brain to say "no" sometimes, which isn't easy when you're a student.

My view, when it's slightly over the POH speed for a C152, its still flyable, just not for me with my level of skill right now.

[BoeingBoy]

To return to the subject of crosswind limits.

Having just retired after forty six years of flying my understanding is simply this.

The demonstrated cross wind component is only that supplied by the manufacturer given the actual conditions used to achieve what they thought a useful limit might be. They could have spent more time and effort achieving a higher one but chose not to do so. It is what it says, a demonstrated wind that may not be limiting.

The aircraft operator and/or owner may then set a limit based on this figure that any operating pilot would have to adhere to.

The reason that the figure becomes binding is simply that if you have an accident or incident the insurance company can (and in my experience will) have perfect reason not to pay out, to either the operator or third parties. Saying to them that there was no set limit will not work. In the absence of an operators limit the insurers will use the flight manual demonstrated component to get out of paying.

[9 lives]

The demonstrated cross wind component is only that supplied by the manufacturer given the actual conditions used to achieve what they thought a useful limit might be.

The manufacturer does not choose a minimum value, it is in the design standards, which were quoted on the first page of this thread. Agreed that they could certify a stronger crosswind capability if they choose, but what's in it for them to take on the added liability.

If an aircraft operator were to "set" a different value, that would be their choice, but probably arbitrary, and difficult to support with test data. But yes, I can see value in telling new solo students that a given crosswind was too strong. That would not be because of the aircraft, but rather that that new pilot had not yet achieved the standard of "average pilot skill" stated in the design requirement. Otherwise, the value in the flight manual would seem to be a great reference for the average pilot of the aircraft. I cannot see a reason why an operator would state a greater value, just be silent on that.

The design requirements to which the plane was certified overtly do not prohibit operations in stronger crosswinds. I opine that this would be because the regulator or manufacturer logically do not want to tell a pilot that they cannot land a plane legally - 'cause it's going to happen before or at the end of the fuel! As a regulator, I would much rather that the interpretation by the pilot results in them going off the side of a runway due to too strong a wind during a landing attempt, than a crash off airport because they thought that a landing attempt there would be prohibited. Obviously, a nearby airport with a different runway orientation would be preferable - if there is one. But I have certainly flown to one runway airports where the actual crosswind was stronger than forecast, and the next nearest runway was hundreds of miles away! You're landing on that runway or none at all!

[S-Works]

Saying to them that there was no set limit will not work. In the absence of an operators limit the insurers will use the flight manual demonstrated component to get out of paying.

Rubbish. Show me a single case where that has happened.......

[Pace]

BB

" There is always one " but looking at that cartoon of all those sheep which would you rather be )) ?

Pace

[BoeingBoy]

Bose. My own experience of seeing the insurance industry at work both on other peoples accidents and an incident of my own a few years ago forms the basis of my statement.

It is true that the insurance industry are not legally able to state that the demonstrated crosswind is limiting. But they do expect the owner/operator to operate inside the aircrafts flight manual which equates to much the same thing. It would be a brave operator who specified a higher limit than that demonstrated.

You would be perfectly entitled to challenge the insurance company in court on the matter but the cost would probably outweigh the value of the aircraft many times over.

The original question was whether the flight manual figure is limiting or not. No. It isn't but you'd be a brave man to stand up from the wreckage and say you were in the right. Stick to the figure or land uninsured, that may not be the legal position but it's the best advice.

[Pace]

BoeingBoy

But this is the problem and maybe why I posted this topic for discussion. The FM is full of limiting speeds which are accurately worked out with a margin of safety built in.

I am sure most of us have seen pilots who are not the best in the world drop the gear above its extension speed or put flaps in above their extension or retraction speeds?

Nothing happens because the manufacturers accept human error and allow a margin

Demonstrated is not a limiting number and very unscientific. You might as well pick it out of a hat.

I cannot remember off hand what the Seneca Five demonstrated was but probably around 15 KTS I know the reality is around 38 KTS direct steady crosswind a huge difference.

Why not like any other limiting speed work it out put in a safety margin and have that as a realistic limiting speed rather than letting pilots work out their own because some test pilot says he has demonstrated the aircraft in 5 KTS 10 KTS 15 KTS etc its meaningless.

I also cannot see how a demonstrated figure could be used in a court of law as a limiting figure because even in the manual its described as demonstrated and in no way limiting which most figures are?

No manufacturer is going to stand in court and claim this figure as a limiting figure which the pilot exceeded.

What are you going to do in a court of law? argue whether the pilot is below average, average or a top gun ? or divert because the given wind is 16 KTS instead of 15KTS ?

Pace

[9 lives]

The system is stupid and a 'limit' should be stipulated.

What would be the benefit of actually limiting the operation of aircraft in a specified crosswind intensity? What's the problem to be fixed by stipulating a limit?

It sure could create an awkward situation if a pilot, upon reaching their destination, found a crosswind exceeding the "limit". If there is no alternative runway, what is the pilot to do? Orbit until it abates? Consider flying a route along which the runways are several hundred miles apart from each other. You're going to fly an hour or two back because a reported wind value exceeds a limit? If there were only a wind sock at the aerodrome, and no speed information, how would the pilot know that a landing was permissible? You've flown a nervous hour over the mountains, or open water, and now you're going to take that risk all again, with much less fuel because a crosswind is reported above a limit?

I believe that the regulators have thought this through, and got it right.

[Danny42C]

If I remember rightly, there were experiments in WWII on the feasibility of castering mainwheels - I believe up to a C-47 (but have no refernces).

This seems (to a very old tail-dragger who has long and bitter memories of crosswinds) to be the obvious solution to an enduring problem.

Moonshine ? Not so, see:

VIDEO: This is How A B-52H Lands in a Crosswind And Stays Completely Sideways While Deploying A Parachute and Slowing Down On The Runway - Skilled Pilots - Aviation Blog and Community (http://www.skilledpilots.com/video-this-is-how-a-b-52h-lands-in-a-crosswind-and-stays-completely-sideways-while-deploying-a-parachute-and-slowing-down-on-the-runway)

Danny42C. :ok:

[Maoraigh1]

Didn't an early Cessna taildragger have this, at least as an option? Manhandling into the hangar was difficult. As a taildragger pilot frequently landing a Jodel DR1050 on a wide, long, tarmac runway in gusty crosswinds, the idea of having castoring main wheels after a crosswind touchdown is a worse nightmare than anything I've ever dreamt.

[Pace]

the idea of having castoring main wheels after a crosswind touchdown is a worse nightmare than anything I've ever dreamt.

Plus the fact that is not just the crosswind component which determines landing accidents its also wind shear, strong gusts and rising falling and curling air over buildings terrain trees etc!

A lack of consistency in the wind strength and direction horizontally and vertically not just how much is coming from the side which to a certain extent is governed by the amount of rudder authority which again is related to the speed the pilot lands at

There the pilot has to be able to adjust to those changing conditions or even make a decision to go around if he/she is not happy

It still all comes back to technique and decision making surely? Sometimes I wonder whether rather than demonstrated the test pilot asses the aircraft ability to handle crosswinds and instead uses a grading from Good to medium good to average to medium poor or poor and not fix an out of the hat number at all

[Genghis the Engineer]

That is actually what Test Pilots often do - the Cooper Harper pilot compensation scale uses scores from 1 (aeroplane does it on its own ) to 10 (totally uncontrollable ) for whatever aspect of handling is being assessed.

It's just that that information is never mapped into the manuals beyond that a 5 is about where you'd probably set the limits.

G

[Pace]

G

Is the limit actually known by the manufacturers?

As it would seem to be fairly easily worked out on a test bed in a wind tunnel increasing a direct crosswind till there was no more control authority on the controls and setting a figure back from there?

Pace

[Genghis the Engineer]

No, I don't think it is - it's rather subject to handling technique, and I'm not aware of there being any standard result for predicting crosswing limits on paper.

I think that what the manufacturers know is what their flight test department worked out.

G

[Pace]

G

But that is going to be relative to the day in question that the tests are carried out? How strong the winds that day, the direction, are they steady or gusting? If gusting to what factor? Shear conditions.

Do they take the aircraft up on a 40KT wind day decide what the limit is and then knock half of it off ? I am not clear how they arrive at those figures.
Others have talked about enough rudder authority to maintain the runway centreline yet when I think about it it is commonplace at FL360 in a small jet to track an airways with 100 KTS cross

Pace

[galaxy flyer]

PilotDAR answered the OP pretty conclusively three pages ago, why the argument?

GF

[Genghis the Engineer]

Tracking an airways doesn't use rudder at-all, regardless of crosswind component - that's just geometry.

Do conditions change things - a bit. But, you'll generally shoot for steady conditions, and I don't think that in the last 50 feet shear changes very much on a standard open grass + tarmac airfield.

The limit will either be the worst seen, or the point the test pilots decide it's become unviable (as I said, around CHR5.) And of course, anything based upon pilot opiinion is, to some extent, subjective - it can't not be.

G

[flybymike]

the idea of having castoring main wheels after a crosswind touchdown is a worse nightmare than anything I've ever dreamt.
I remember reading an article written by an engineer who was in the Tower in the 1950s, observing circuits and crosswind touchdowns on an airliner which had just been fitted with a new experimental castoring wheel system.

I can't remember the aircraft or any of the finer details, except that he said it had been one of the most hilariously entertaining interludes of his life.

[evansb]

Light aircraft such as the Beech 18, Stinson 108, Cessna 180 and this Piper Cub were fitted with experimental X-wind landing gear:

http://i1047.photobucket.com/albums/b477/gumpjr_bucket/PA18%20Xwind.jpg

[evansb]

..and of course, the Boeing B-52 left the factory with a landing gear capable of being dialed in with a 20-degree crab:
http://i1047.photobucket.com/albums/b477/gumpjr_bucket/B52%20landing%20xwind.jpg

[Pace]

Others have talked about enough rudder authority to maintain the runway centreline yet when I think about it it is commonplace at FL360 in a small jet to track an airways with 100 KTS cross

G
didnt actually say that rudder authority kept the aircraft tracking a fixed line airways but can see how you read that from the post ))

Pace

[Genghis the Engineer]

I did wonder if you'd just had a bit of a brainstorm!

G

[Pilot DAR]

Sometimes I wonder whether rather than demonstrated the test pilot asses the aircraft ability to handle crosswinds and instead uses a grading from Good to medium good to average to medium poor or poor and not fix an out of the hat number at all

Every time I have flown a flight test to demonstrate directional control, I have actually flown the aircraft in the 0.2Vso required crosswind, or greater. I could not state that the design requirement continues to be met, if I did not demonstrate that during a flight test. This has involved flights as long as an hour to fly to a runway with proper wind measuring equipment, and the required value for the day. I don't pick the wind speed to be tested to (and the resulting statement for the flight manual supplement, it will be 0.2Vso.

It is not a level of difficulty thing, either I could control the aircraft in that wind, and keep it on the runway with normal use of the flight controls, or I could not - it's pass or fail. If fail (which I have not personally experienced), a change in the rudder might be required. This has been done with Cessna 206, for example, with the installation of certain STOL kits or float kits.

I expect that a pilot who is of average skill on an aircraft, will at least do the aircraft the honour of using full control application if needed to maintain control. So if I can maintain control using full rudder on the runway, I will expect that an average skill pilot will be able to as well! When I was trained in the turbine DC-3, the training pilot specifically instructed me preflight, to roll the control wheel left and right its full travel, just so I was reminded that it goes nearly one whole turn around stop to stop. I expect that he expected me to use full aileron if needed, without being instructed to do so at the moment by him.

I recall only two occasions where I ran out of control during a crosswind landing. One was a Piper Arrow I, and the other the prototype Zenith 701. In both cases, I ran out of aileron on short final, and elected to not continue the landing. Neither was a formal flight test for crosswind capability.

As for test pilot super skill on a type during testing, perhaps some, but not me. Excepting only a C 172, I have never flown a crosswind test on an aircraft type in which I had more than 100 hours total flying experience at the time. Thus, I would rate my skills on that type as "average" for the purpose of that testing. In most cases, I was flying the test with only a couple of hours on type. I'm not offered the luxury of amassing hundreds of hours on a new type before testing it, rather I insist on an hour or two to get familiar (which is usually during more mundane testing anyway).

I do myself the favour of not attempting the crosswind test in very gusty conditions, that is not required for certification, why make it difficult for myself?

I have never flown a plane with "crosswind gear". Any I've known of have either been de-modified, or had the system locked out. I guess that there's a message in that! If it were a good idea, we'd be seeing them in service!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I have never flown a plane with "crosswind gear". Any I've known of have either been de-modified, or had the system locked out. I guess that there's a message in that! If it were a good idea, we'd be seeing them in service!

The only airplane I ever flew with x/wind gear was a DC3, it was really easy to land with a strong x/wind once you got used to approaching and landing with the airplane pointed at an angle to the runway.

It was sold to another operator ( Keir Air Transport in Edmonton. ) who changed it back to normal gear and gained 1600 or maybe 1800 pounds of payload....my memory is vague as to the exact weight saved.

Bottom line is the x/wind gear really did work, however the DC3 is so easy to fly if you needed x/wind gear you really should not fly period.

[foxmoth]

Others have talked about enough rudder authority to maintain the runway centreline yet when I think about it it is commonplace at FL360 in a small jet to track an airways with 100 KTS cross


Also not a lot of side loads on the undercarriage to worry about here! Seems a bit of a strange, irrelevant, comment to put in the discussion, especially for a pilot with your experience!

[Meikleour]

Others have talked about enough rudder authority to maintain the runway centreline yet when I think about it it is commonplace at FL360 in a small jet to track an airways with 100 KTS cross

Pace: Did you really mean to say this!!!!?

[Above The Clouds]

Pace
Others have talked about enough rudder authority to maintain the runway centreline yet when I think about it it is commonplace at FL360 in a small jet to track an airways with 100 KTS cross

I think you have just had a brain fart.

[flybymike]

Pace is a perfectionist. He likes to track the airways with the fuselage perfectly aligned with the centreline. ;)

[Pace]

I was purely pointing out not in a very clear way obviously that tracking a runway centre line from way out with the aircraft high on approach is no different to tracking say a VOR radial with a strong side wind so maybe a rubbish point to make )) got to do something to keep the thread alive ))

But if you want to beat me up over it ))

Pace

[flybymike]

I was only joking Pace. ;)

[jjoe]

At the risk of being a pedant (or thick or both) again!

I was purely pointing out not in a very clear way obviously......
After an immediate double-take I got that but , with all due respect, what then, DOES this mean, in the context of x-wind landings?

If you cannot hold the runway centerline during final approach, completing the landing may be difficult.

I am a newbie PPL.

JJOE

[flybymike]

If I may presume to reply in the absence of the original writer, I think that what was meant was that if it was not possible to maintain the extended centreline whilst making an unbalanced wing down approach (I.e. not a balanced crabbed approach) without being blown off to one side, then unless the crosswind component diminishes in the flare and hold off (as is often the case) then the final outcome is unlikely to be a success.

[Vilters]

"MAX demonstrated" says it all. => No point in discussing that.

But.... Flying does NOT STOP at landing.

With some taildraggers, I have been able to land well above the demonstrated MAX crosswind component just to find myself stuck on the runway. There was often no safe way to taxi back.

Landing is always somewhere "into" the wind with a crosswind component.

To taxi back, you have to turn around and taxi with a tailwind.
Some taildraggers, really, really do not like to taxi in strong tailwinds.

[The Ancient Geek]

To taxi back, you have to turn around and taxi with a tailwind.
Some taildraggers, really, really do not like to taxi in strong tailwinds.

Many pilots hold the stick back while taxing to keep the tail on the ground
Consider the position of the elevators and think what is going to happen in
a good tailwind. The instinctive reaction when the tail lifts is to haul back
harder. BAD MOVE.

[foxmoth]

Many pilots hold the stick back while taxing to keep the tail on the ground
Consider the position of the elevators and think what is going to happen in
a good tailwind. The instinctive reaction when the tail lifts is to haul back
harder. BAD MOVE.

If they have been properly taught they will know "CLIMB INTO a headwind, DIVE AWAY from a tailwind", so for a headwind, stick back, ailerons into the wind, tailwind is stick forward, ailerons away from the wind - but with the rider that stick back only applies in a tailwind over approx 15kts as the slipstream will be stronger than the wind, between 10 and 15kts I usually recommend stick neutral as you really do not know if you have wind blowing back due to slipstream or forward due to the tailwind.
The real problem comes when you taxi a taildragger that has no brakes, in a strong tailwind that overcomes the slipstream you put left rudder on, what happens?:eek: One solution is a burst of power, but remembering that you are being pushed along by the tailwind anyway this might not be such a great idea, this is why you will often find aircraft such as the Moths with wing walkers in strong winds.

[Vilters]

Stick back in a headwind, and stick forward in a tailwind is not the main problem.

On older aircraft, even with some of the tailwheel Jodels, it is directional control that becomes an issue.

Most have a flying rudder, and the mainwheels are rather close together, so you can not count all that much on the brakes either. (Certainly when they still have the old style drum brakes.)

[foxmoth]

it is directional control that becomes an issue.

I thought I said that!?:bored:

[9 lives]

I would agree that there are a few older "certified" taildraggers out there for which ground control in strong winds would be a challenge. I would think that none of these aircraft were manufactured recently enough to be provided with a flight manual stating a demonstrated crosswind value. Other non certified types are on their own, so to speak, as they would not have an approved flight manual at all.

Those aircraft are from an era which predated the design requirements that explicitly stated directional control.

My certified taildragger can be landed in a direct crosswind of 19 knots, which exceeds the approved flight manual value of 12 knots, but experience has shown me that taxiing in that strong a wind will be difficult, and on ice, impossible. During my crosswind experimentation on a frozen lake, I found that the rudder became ineffective at speeds slower than around 10 knots with power off, so if there was no tailwheel friction to the surface, I was going to be blown around.

[mary meagher]

No you don't.

If it is really hairy, just sit there, and ask the tower to send a couple of blokes to push you backwards to the apron or other safe place! Works for me.

[jjoe]

Thanks for that flybymike.

....if it was not possible to maintain the extended centreline whilst making an unbalanced wing down approach (I.e. not a balanced crabbed approach) without being blown off to one side, then unless the crosswind component diminishes in the flare and hold off (as is often the case) then the final outcome is unlikely to be a success.

Therefore, we have a visual/tactile indication of crosswind strength with both approaches. Are there any numerical rules-of-thumb that can be applied/derived w.r.t. amount of 'crab' and/or 'slip' required to hold the centreline? ie x deg drift = y kts crosswind.
(I realise as I'm writing this that this is simple wind-drift stuff or 'geometry' as Genghis pointed out! Apologies if i've learnt it for exams and forgotten it subsequently).
But couldn't the cross-controlling forces required to hold steady? at varying bank angles simulate a crosswind and therefore measure rudder authority or is that too simplistic?
Have I got this wrapped round my neck- could somebody unravel it for me please?
Thanks in advance

[Maoraigh1]

[
If it is really hairy, just sit there, and ask the tower to send a couple of blokes to push you backwards to the apron or other safe place! Works for me. ][/QUOTE]
If I did that after INVERNESS ATC had slotted me in between scheduled traffic, I'd create havoc.
My suspicion is that castoring main wheels would be like the situation described on ice. Did they have a locking mechanism after landing?

[mary meagher]

Don't worry, Maoraigh, I've only done it twice. The first time at the home gliding club...most landings are followed by pushing the aircraft out of the way!

The other time, Haverfordwest wasn't busy at all, the wind was so strong, we had just ridden it back from Ireland, this was just after I had made a prat of myself at Kerry, and didn't dare risk a repetition!

[flybymike]

Jjoe, just fly your body down the extended centreline using either wing down or crabbed dependent on your preference or however you are taught. Rules of thumb are not really possible since drift, bank angle and rudder authority will depend on wind, airspeed and individual aircraft design. If you are looking at the runway out of a side window on a crabbed approach, or looking straight ahead with one wing scraping the tree tops on final then you can have some idea of the crosswind component and also expect an interesting arrival. An actual wind check from the ground would also be more than helpful of course.

If you carefully check the weather before flight and gradually build experience you will eventually figure out what you can and can't deal with and what might even require a diversion to an into wind runway.

We all get nasty frights from time to time. E.g in my case, a completely uneventful landing when it's blowing a hooley which you were well prepared and psyched up for, and virtual carnage because of a 6 knot crosswind which you considered irrelevant;)

[Pilot DAR]

a completely uneventful landing when it's blowing a hooley which you were well prepared and psyched up for, and virtual carnage because of a 6 knot crosswind which you considered irrelevant;)

A very wise observation!

[Pace]

When we were discussing rudder authority and holding the centreline I was purely clarifying that aircraft are flying a centreline tracking say a VOR at altitude with much stronger winds
Often far worse than the actual crosswind is the gusts and shear hence the comments about more speed equalling more control authority!
Once on the ground taxiing we have no control authority and are now driving a land machine with wings which are still prone to lift from the wind!
Some pilots I have known from the past have flown machines where the wind speed has equalled the takeoff speed and a sudden drop change could have disastrous results
We also talk here about tail draggers which will by their nature be far more prone on the ground

Pace

[Radix]

.............