Pilot_DAR wrote:
600 meter runway length has been fine for me in a C310, C337, Islander, and Twin Otter.
but I defer, to Pilot Dar – but I suspect a very experienced pilot, I wonder if you feel Pilot Dar this is on the margin for most?
30 G 50 in most GA is definitely going to be interesting. I recall having a look at a little more than that in a 42 and actually turned it down. The eventual landing was into wind and the aircraft was being severally lfited just taxing onto the stand. I think the ulitmate problem with these very gusty cross winds is that it is possible to run out of authority in the flare and then things can get interesting real quickly – the rest of the journey down is ok, although there will be signs that you are probably exceeding either your won or the aircrafts limits. (I dont mean the published recommendations).
The runway length you accept in a twin is not necessarily the amount of tarmac you need before lift off, but depends on your attitude towards accelerate/stop, balanced field lengths etc.
To talk of how short a runway you have used is not necessarily big or clever. It’s like an SEP pilot saying he can take off in 50m RVR. He can, and it’s not that difficult, but it may not be wise.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
this is on the margin for most?
Yup, in the Cessna 310, 600 meters requires being on your game. The 337 and Twin Otter are easy do’s in that available runway.
Yes, you may be below your accelerate stop distance, you just need to treat it as a single engined plane, the second engine will not carry you into continued safe flight, in the case of failure of the first.
AfricanEagle wrote:
Didn’t fly the day this photo was taken.Wasn’t happy with 30G50 right across the 600×20m grass strip.
This must be the most idiotic placement of a windsock I’ve ever seen.
PS: don’t know how to ‘quote’ the image
you just need to treat it as a single engined plane, the second engine will not carry you into continued safe flight, in the case of failure of the first.
A single engined aircraft with more than double the chances of an engine failure, more momentum, longer stopping distance and less protection for the occupants.
Just sayin’
Fuji_Abound wrote:
30 G 50 in most GA is definitely going to be interesting.
You may have the chance try something similar (30G40/50) in a wave/mountain gliding sites in Scotland/Wales/Alps, finding a power tug pilot was tough so it has to be on winches and also much easier as you choose the runway rather than runway choose you 
(but not a lot of people will try this after a very experienced guy got killed in Dec16)
Pilot_DAR wrote:
If an authority wants to make it a limitation, they must find a regulatory way of communicating that to the pilot (different flight manual, placard by AD etc.).
Before EASA, Sweden had a national ops regulation simply stating that the demonstrated crosswind was not to be exceeded.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Sweden had a national ops regulation simply stating that the demonstrated crosswind was not to be exceeded.
Yes, I was vaguely aware of this. I seem to have gotten away with it in Malmo a few summers back though! (Runway 29 was just too far from the north end terminal, and fuel, to taxi in a crosswind, we would have burned a brake out trying!)
Timothy wrote:
The runway length you accept in a twin is not necessarily the amount of tarmac you need before lift off, but depends on your attitude towards accelerate/stop, balanced field lengths etc.
Couldnt agree more. Also tempting to think I did that before, but then the wind is different, the temperature is different, the loading is different, etc.
