The was an airport that Widerøe used on a small island at Lofoten callled Værøy, ENVY ? It is situated on the base of a steep mountain. This causes rather unpredictable winds when blowing from several direction. So unpredictable that it caused Widerøy to crash with a Twin Otter killing 5 persons.
There were lots of aftermath, both with the investigation of the accident and the airport itself, talk about restrictions for cross winds etc. Widerøe stop flying at the airport immediately after the accident though, and never flew there again. This caused the airport to close. Today it is officially closed, and sold also I think. The runway is still there however, AFAIK at least, and can be used for GA.
The airport does not have any restrictions AFAIK, it’s just closed due to winds, but can be used nonetheless 
LeSving wrote:
o unpredictable that it caused Widerøy to crash with a Twin Otter killing 5 persons.
Gosh! Structural failure because of mechanical turbulence! That’s very unusual.
Indeed unusual, but does happen every now and again.
https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-fokker-f28-fellowship-moerdijk-17-killed
This tragic event raised quite some eyebrows, especially because Fokker aircraft are known to be quite rugged, and the F27 and F28 were often sold to countries where the wx conditions could be brutal in many respects.
As to closing airports because of X-wind, I also find it patronizing. It should be left to the pilot who is supposed to know the limits of his aircraft and his own craftmanship. SOPs for commercial ops dictates limits which should be adhered to of course. Rather than closing, airport charts should warn of possible dangers, like Gibraltar does.
aart wrote:
Indeed unusual, but does happen every now and again.https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-fokker-f28-fellowship-moerdijk-17-killed
But that was cause by turbulence in convective clouds which, as you say, happens every now and then. I’ve never heard of structural failure due to mechanical turbulence before the Widerøe case.
As to closing airports because of X-wind, I also find it patronizing. It should be left to the pilot who is supposed to know the limits of his aircraft and his own craftmanship. SOPs for commercial ops dictates limits which should be adhered to of course. Rather than closing, airport charts should warn of possible dangers, like Gibraltar does.
Exactly my view.
But that was cause by turbulence in convective clouds which, as you say, happens every now and then. I’ve never heard of structural failure due to mechanical turbulence before the Widerøe case.
Most likely pilot rudder & power inputs? on takeoff speeds aircraft are usually deep inside flight enveloppe (unlike in convective clouds cruise where one is flirting near VNE on high power), however, there is an extra tendency to stress and twist the tail with PIO while trying to stay on departure flight path using a huge Thrist vector on wrong rudder & pitch inputs, this has happened on bigger aircraft as well (“bigger” means “very fragile” when 100% power is used against wrong pilot inputs),
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587
On landing config, in theory, nothing bad can happen as long as power is near idle & speed is in stable domain while the pilot (or autopilot) is ok to be carried by winds
Rather than closing, airport charts should warn of possible dangers, like Gibraltar does.
They still send that Mil AIP to sign “rock & wind” section before getting permission to land 
20 kts on tarmac in a tailwheel Jodel DR1050 is no problem IF you’ve been recently doing landings in 15 kt or higher crosswinds. If current at 20, I’d accept 25 to get home.
On grass, hit a bump and you could be airborne without control. I’ve gone around after getting one wheel on grass.
(Haven’t flown a tailwheel since 22/12/2021.)
Ibra wrote:
(I wonder how one DC3 managed it, also wonder how they flew in IMC as we both were in FL80 from Paris but it did decay later on the day)
Ask Buffalo Joe. He might know something about DC3’s in crosswinds. As for IFR, why not? Many DC3’s are IFR since they were built. Most are also FIKI.
I doubt there is a vintage DC3 in Europe on “IFR AOC”? I think they hold “VFR AOC” only
It was a nasty day for IMC unless they are radar equipped
I don’t know how the DC3’s operate here, but I do recall e.g. Classic Air who were IFR at all times of their ops and also had radar. I’ve also seen privately operated DC3’s who were indeed flying IFR in IMC. I would not really understand why not, these planes have been built for this kind of thing. If you operate a plane like this, Avionic upgrades should really not be the issue.
As for crosswind however, taildraggers are usually quite sensitive. And there I suppose the people at Buffalo and similar outfits who fly this plane every day are those who have the most experience. DC3 I don’t really know much about it, other than they were flying quite reliably during the time we had them at ZRH, on the AN2 which I have flown myself, the crosswind limits are somewhere around 10-15 kts depending on the operator. It depends if the tailwheel is lockable or not, which on quite a few AN2’s it’s not.
