...follow up, today the PA18-95 had a short trip from A'field to Spanhoe. Quite sporting winds, but as per above both take off and landing were made into wind with minimal ground runs. Runways were 27 in both cases, and prevailing wind 320/20. Taxying speed around 1 mph.
The PA-18 POH has no mention of a demonstrated crosswind performance, and with a Vs of 42 mph the minimum for airworthiness would be 8mph. However, if there were a crosswind of 25-30 knots, as per above, the landing groundspeed would be around 15 mph into wind. In practice the real limitation is taxiing in a strong wind.
what next, of course i was talking about a xwind landing within the limits. But the: flying privately you do not have to follow the manufacturer's xwind limit, and therefore it would be hard to prove gross negligence.
Does your aircraft actually mention a "limit" (presumably in the Limitations section) or does it just list a demonstrated crosswind? I think the latter....
After all what do think how high the rates would be if every reckless, unlawful and stupid behaviour was insured?
Well, probably no different. There is a strong disincentive to recklessness in aircraft - even if you are insured, insurance is cold comfort if you're dead or smashed up in hospital. So routine and deliberate recklessness is pretty rare.
Talking about the fear of consequences thing - one thing I've noted that is strongly different between the US and UK is that in the US you're probably orders of magnitude more likely to get sued as an aviation business, but the fear of getting sued is pretty low. Here, though the fear of being sued is much higher despite its lower apparent probability. I've never had to wear a yellow jacket on any US airfield, but probably a good half of UK airfields insist on it. And if you want to use a UK airfield outside of normal opening hours you have to sign a huge disclaimer form, which you never do in the US.
what next, of course i was talking about a xwind landing within the limits. But the: flying privately you do not have to follow the manufacturer's xwind limit, and therefore it would be hard to prove gross negligence.
Peter, same in Germany-they have to pay 3rd party claims! But they might come back to you later!
The law only says that you have to get a weather briefing. I doubt that listening to the BBC would be enough though. ( If he can't read metars/tafs - he can learn it. do we want to be helpless children, or pilots? i mean can you expect that much from a pilot who us responsible for the lives of others?)
Yes, unless the pilot is named on the policy.
Not many renters here know this. They think they are insured!
My guess is they paid out on the total hull loss to the FTO...
They will do that here too, but they will then go after the pilot and/or his estate and try to get it back from him if their legal department sees a chance.
The CAA and the insurance companies are two completely different things here. The CAA and the insurance companies are two completely different things here.
They are completely separate here too, and I have no idea what the insurers did in the case of G-OMAR. My guess is they paid out on the total hull loss to the FTO from which the plane was rented, but the pilot got nothing because he ran out of fuel which is a fairly "basic problem" despite the fact that that FTO was teaching and practicing that sort of fuel management. The pilot is not insured anyway for anything he does while PIC.
Not getting any weather briefing before is against the law, and comparable to drunk driving
How about getting wx from the BBC? I know a pilot, several k hours, who cannot read tafs/metars. He flies on nice days (a homebuilt) and gets wx from the TV. Would he not get a payout?
My point is that unless you have a law stating what sources you should brief from, or (in case of mandatory charts) what brand of charts you should carry, it is difficult... and then most wx sources do not record that you briefed from them. So the pilot has only printouts as evidence and they can be knocked up post-event (Word, Photoshop, etc).
No insurance, uk or germany, will pay for your car if you crash it drunk
True, but the UK one will still pay out on 3rd party claims.
An accident in a crosswind landing will never be seen as gross negligence.
Not "never": In my case (commercial operation with clearly stated limitations) it will most certainly be considered as gross negligence!
Oh, and one more thing: the gross negligence has to be the reason for the accident. The insurance cannot refuse paying for a gear up landing just because you have not obtained a weather briefing.
That's correct. But if you have a crosswind landing accident in conditions that you would have known about if you had obtained your weather briefing then you have already lost your case against the insurer.
