90 degree 25 to 30... i also had that one time, also in the mediterranean. And I agree, as long as it's stable it's really not such a big deal ... the only difference is you look out the side window on aproach ... :-)
We poor souls who have to make a living from flying do. In our operating manuals we have company and aircraft specific limitations that are based on the demonstrated values of the manufacturer and further reduced for wet/contaminated runways.
Fair enough, but for non-commercial operations I assume it is not illegal to exceed the demonstrated limit. In my POH it specifically says "not a limit"
In my POH it specifically says "not a limit"
If it was a limit, a Cirrus pilot would have to pull the chute to be in compliance
Fair enough, but for non-commercial operations I assume it is not illegal to exceed the demonstrated limit.
No, it isn't! But I assume that the amount by which you go beyond that limit will have an effect on the outcome of the litigation with your insurer should something go wrong. What I've learned during my time in aviation is that your big enemy is not the aviation authority, but your insurance company. They will use everything against you they can get hold of.
A) the demonstrated limit does NOT appear in the limitations section of the POH
B) the normal operations section recommends the use of 15deg flaps if the crosswind is 12 knots or greater
C) in the definitions section it says "The value shown is not considered to be Ilmiting." And in fact refers to the "demonstrated crosswind" and does not use the word "limit"
My observation is that there is too much speculation on what will the insurance company do. Read your policy. On mine, being stupid is not a reason for denial of coverage. Almost any accident where pilot error is involved would be denied coverage if it were a valid reason. My policy excludes coverage for any of the following while in flight:
a) pilot not listed or qualified in the declarations
b) pilot not properly certified, qualified and rated according to FAA regulations
c) A/W certificate not in force
d) not in annual or any appropriate A/W inspections required by FAA
There is not an exclusion for:
e) Stupid or negligent pilot.
There's enough storys where insurances tried everything possible to NOT pay for damage that was the result of negligence.
There is an obsession about insurance on this forum that I don't see to a similar extent on US forums. It is just an observation. Here in the US, we worry more about what will the FAA do, although insurance has a strong affect on which aircraft may be flown which exceeds the FAA limitations and privileges, but this has more to do with obtaining insurance rather than insurance companies not paying for negligence. I have never heard of an insurance company not paying for a landing accident including forgetting to lower the landing gear which probably represents one of the biggest insurance risks in a retractable gear aircraft.
If you have not heard about it that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, right? I know about 2 cases where the insurance tried to find a way out because of "negligence".
Firstly I think there may be legal differences across Europe.
We do hear a lot here about what occasionally astonishing stuff allegedly goes on in Germany, and maybe in Germany the insurers do deny all kinds of payouts?
In the UK, they do not; they will deny where the flight was obviously illegal before it got off the ground (e.g. no license, no medical, no CofA, etc - but even then only if the claim is big enough to draw ther attention) but the worst imaginable pilot stupidity is paid out on and there are countless examples of that.
Also denying a payout on W&B would be tricky because lots of people lie about their weight so how would the pilot know
And in any really serious crash it isn't going to be easy to weigh all the remains of the aircraft and occupants, especially if there was a fire.
Secondly, there is a culture of "fear" in Europe. I read the US forums too and the whole tone is so very different from the established English-language European ones I know about. The authorities here have managed to spread a lot of FUD, EASA loves spreading FUD (it's the cheapest form of regulation), the aviation media love printing it (probably because there is so little else to write about if you have to stuff X pages every month), the UK CAA has been printing all kinds of flyers full of FUD (they call them "Safety Sense Leaflets" but really they are the opinion of the writer who is sometimes right and sometimes not but it is almost always just a personal opinion) and pilots over here do fear the authorities.
Also pilots spread a lot of FUD themselves; assemble any big enough group and mention the word "GPS" and hear the disapproving comments about it being illegal, etc. The USA has moved on from that kind of crap 10-15 years ago.
I know about 2 cases where the insurance tried to find a way out because of "negligence".
They can't in the UK. They could try but they would lose it in a court.
If insurance doesn't cover stupidity, it's not worth having because ultimately almost anything other than very covert sabotage of the aircraft is going to be pilot error.
And probably not even then since under EASA Part M the operator is responsible for airworthiness