Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Accident report stating demonstrated crosswind limit as general limit

Browsing trough the reports I found this.
https://en.havarikommissionen.dk/aviation-archive/2019/2019-191/
I believe demonstrated crosswind is used as a part of the certification and is not a legal limit.
It’s found in the report that the POH did not contain any crosswind limits.
The report then states that the FAA Type certificate requires a placard with information including the demonstrated crosswind limit to be installed in the aircraft and the EASA regulation requires that installation of this placard is checked at each airworthiness review.

Part of the analyzes is:
The type certificate for the aircraft indicated a crosswind limit of 18 miles per hour equal to 16 knots

The conclusion is:
Strong and powerful crosswind conditions significantly above the aircraft’s crosswind limit led to loss of
control, immediately after the aircraft took off and the plane crashed.

I don’t doubt the fact that the crash was due to excessive crosswind, but I think there is a potential legal problem, as well as a potential insurance problem (apart from the pilot not having a valid medical)

pmh
www.ekbr.dk, Denmark

It it an EASA aircraft or Annex I? National regulations could make the demonstrated crosswind a legal limit. (They did in Sweden before part-NCO.)

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

The demonstrated crosswind component was the maximum wind that could be found when the test pilot was doing the runs, in front of witnesses. He was not supposed to use any crosswind compensating techniques but use ‘average pilot techniques’, merely testing the strength of the landing gear for side loads. Unless the crosswind component is listed in the ‘Limitations Section’ in the POH, it is not limiting, on the other hand once more than 50% over the demonstrated component, it gets quite ‘sporty’ and proper piloting techniques must be used.

EBKT

It it an EASA aircraft or Annex I? National regulations could make the demonstrated crosswind a legal limit. (They did in Sweden before part-NCO.)

It’s found in the EASA product list and the accident report states:

Typecertifikat
a. EASA Product list Small Aeroplanes 23-04-2019 (uddrag).
TC Holder State of Design Type Model TCDS/SAS
Number
TRUE FLIGHT
HOLDINGS LLC
USA AA-1 AA-1B US A11EA

pmh
www.ekbr.dk, Denmark

AC 23-8C

2. § 23.233 Directional Stability and Control.
a. Explanation.
(1) Crosswind. This regulation establishes the minimum value of crosswind that
must be demonstrated. Since the minimum required value may be far less than the actual
capability of the airplane, higher values may be tested at the option of the applicant. The highest
90-degree crosswind component tested satisfactorily should be put in the AFM as performance
information. If a demonstrated crosswind is found limiting, it has to be introduced in Section 2
of the AFM.

dirkdj wrote:

The demonstrated crosswind component was the maximum wind that could be found when the test pilot was doing the runs, in front of witnesses. He was not supposed to use any crosswind compensating techniques but use ‘average pilot techniques’, merely testing the strength of the landing gear for side loads

“Average pilot techniques” certainly does not mean that you should not use “crosswind compensating techniques”! Every PPL knows them, otherwise they wouldn’t have passed their checkrides. It is not the strength of the landing gear which is limiting, but the rudder authority.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

pmh wrote:

It’s found in the EASA product list and the accident report states:

Typecertifikat
a. EASA Product list Small Aeroplanes 23-04-2019 (uddrag).

It is possible then that Denmark used (pre part-NCO) to make the demonstrated crosswind limiting, just like Sweden did, and the investigators were not aware of the change. They are not regulation experts. But still, it is bad to claim in the report that the demonstrated crosswind is a limitation.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Denmark has not in the past regarded demonstrated crosswind component as limiting.

The accident report states that the EASA TC refers directly to the FAA type certificate. local copy

That TC has no mention of a limiting crosswind, but states “Demonstrated Crosswind Velocity 18 mph (AA-1B)”
I do not understand the statement in the analysis (that @pmh quotes) about this being limiting.

Last Edited by huv at 13 Aug 17:55
huv
EKRK, Denmark

Airborne_Again wrote:

Every PPL knows them, otherwise they wouldn’t have passed their checkrides

Really? There was certainly no crosswind work in my PPL checkride. I did my PPL at White Waltham, which always has a runway into wind. I recall one lesson where for 2-3 circuits we used a crosswind runway just to give me a feel for it.

Other than that, my crosswind technique is self-taught. Crab with tricycle gear and wing-down with taildraggers.

EGLM & EGTN

Graham wrote:

Really? There was certainly no crosswind work in my PPL checkride. I did my PPL at White Waltham, which always has a runway into wind. I recall one lesson where for 2-3 circuits we used a crosswind runway just to give me a feel for it.

Crosswind landings are in the PPL syllabus and although of course it may not always be practical to do them on a checkride, I would say that your training was lacking if you only did 2-3 crosswind landings.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden
25 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top