Accident report stating demonstrated crosswind limit as general limit

Yep, it’s gone, as of about a month ago. The owner died, and it was immediately put up for sale and bought by a property developer.

Its closure was expected – we all talked about it 20 years before Cecil Weiser died (he was pretty old even back then) that once he was gone, the airfield would die with him.

The airfield where I learned to fly is also now houses (Houston Gulf airport). That was also privately owned, with no taxpayer funding whatsoever, and was profitable. However, it was owned by a distant relative of Osama Bin Laden and all the negative publicity they got for owning an airfield after 9/11, they decided to immediately sell it. Despite it being profitable, and despite the fact it would also attract FAA funding if they applied, the city of League City was not interested at all in taking it over – they would rather have the tax income of a bunch of McMansions instead, so the airfield went.

alioth wrote:

I flew the club’s Cessna 170 to Weiser Airpark (closed this year to have houses built on it :-(

What, the small aerodrome NW Houston?? Such a shame, I remember flying a Citabria out of there a few times when working in Houston.

Regards, SD..

alioth wrote:

When I had only ~6 hrs of tailwheel time, I flew the club’s Cessna 170 to Weiser Airpark (closed this year to have houses built on it :-( ) and Weiser was oriented such it always had a crosswind, and also had T-hangars quite close to one end of the runway which tended to alternately block and funnel the wind – so no crosswind/strong crosswind/no crosswind/strong crosswind as you passed them.

My landing was sufficiently exciting that the people who were sitting on the benches watching the landings actually got up and ran away. I did manage to (just) keep it on the runway, and nothing but my pride was hurt, but it was an instructive experience.

BTDT on my own plane, when not current, and it was embarrassing. Happily nobody actually had to run away. Re C170s, my experience with an early fabric wing (1948 only) C170 convinced me that I would never fly one in a significant crosswind. The original C170 design uses C140 ailerons and they are in no way big enough. That was fixed on the 170A but on the original plane when flying at low speeds you’d run out of aileron authority before rudder authority. A wheel landing at higher speed would then be necessary.

dirkdj wrote:

it is not a limit unless it is in chapter 2 Limitations of the POH.

…or the authorities make it a limit.

My post was about how the test pilot determines demonstrated crosswind components in front of FAA witnesses, not how a normal pilot should attempt to land the aircraft.
It was related to me by the engineer that was present during the certification of the BE35 in 1947, long since deceased.
Anyway, a pilot applying normal crosswind techniques should have no problem up to the demonstrated crosswind component, it is not a limit unless it is in chapter 2 Limitations of the POH.

Peter wrote:

so what you see at touchdown is going to be less

… but in many ways, likely worse.

A steady crosswind, given enough rudder authority, is easy to land with. A gusting one may be more challenging.

When I had only ~6 hrs of tailwheel time, I flew the club’s Cessna 170 to Weiser Airpark (closed this year to have houses built on it :-( ) and Weiser was oriented such it always had a crosswind, and also had T-hangars quite close to one end of the runway which tended to alternately block and funnel the wind – so no crosswind/strong crosswind/no crosswind/strong crosswind as you passed them.

My landing was sufficiently exciting that the people who were sitting on the benches watching the landings actually got up and ran away. I did manage to (just) keep it on the runway, and nothing but my pride was hurt, but it was an instructive experience.

JasonC wrote:

That is just absurd. Where on earth did you do your lessons?

Per my post, White Waltham.

Also per my post, we did 2-3 circuits on a crosswind runway. Perhaps I got the hang of it quickly? I certainly don’t remember it being difficult. The principles were obvious to me, and it was just a case of feeling how the aeroplane handled.

I don’t really apply a great deal of conscious thought to the approach. It’s just doing what it is necessary to keep the aeroplane on the approach path. Entering the flare there is a bit of thought about which way the controls will go, and then it happens.

The demonstrated crosswind component was the maximum wind that could be found when the test pilot was doing the runs, in front of witnesses.

Usually we fly a contant heading side slip to determine max authority. The rest is geometry.

First we kick straight,

I never teach that, it’s sloppy and results in random landings in high winds. A destinct transition from crab to slip is the way to go. Or touch down crabbing in a tricycle (most fix gear)

Slipping is not in the syllabus (as airliners normally don’t do it) but the aircraft is capable of slipping thus they need to know.

For the LAPL and PPL it is (Excercises 8 for constant track slips, excercise 9 for slipping turns)

It is fairly widespread in schools/clubs (anywhere where there is a dominant individual “in charge”) to treat the max demo number as a hard limit.

Another factor is that the wind is usually reported from the top of a 30ft pole, so what you see at touchdown is going to be less. However this thread suggests otherwise.

As usual a search for

crosswind

digs out lots of good reading