Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Windy!

I was first in and told there were two other aircraft inbound that day. Both of you had left by rye time I left next morning. Certainly was a turbulent crosswind which made the landing interesting.

EGTK Oxford

> No, white and blue Meridian.

I saw it, and I actually remarked to my wife what a nice aeroplane the Meridian is; yours looked particularly shiny!

Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

No, white and blue Meridian.

EGTK Oxford

> Neil, my plane must have been there when you arrived. I agree it was rough. Essentially descended through about 4000ft then bang, lots of turbulence.

Yours was the red one then?

We arrived and a PC12 was a few minutes behind us. We left about 3.30, shame we didn’t meet.

Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

> European Commission has explicitly stated that Service Bulletins, Service Letters, Service Instructions and other similar documents are not mandatory and member states cannot force aircraft owners and pilots to comply with them.

Yes, but….

The afore mentioned documents have a lower standing in the document hierarchy. The approved sections of a flight manual, and in particular it’s limitations (though I’m still asserting that a “demonstrated crosswind value” is not a limitation) are usually referred to in the context of the limitations by which the aircraft must, by law, be operated. There is no “option” for the pilot to choose to follow the mandatory sections of the flight manual – that information is mandatory, as [usually] stated in the TCDS for the aircraft.

If a “service” document is to be mandatory, it is usually raised by the authority to be so by an AD. That then makes it mandatory, as the flight manual is already.

Home runway, in central Ontario, Canada, Canada

Hey, I just told you what the rules were.
I also said I never had a problem with them…

As a FI, I can’t go around telling my students to break rules now can I ? :)

ESSB, Stockholm Bromma

Neil, my plane must have been there when you arrived. I agree it was rough. Essentially descended through about 4000ft then bang, lots of turbulence.

EGTK Oxford

> AOPA Sweden wins on mandatory SBs

After a long campaign by AOPA Sweden, the European Commission has explicitly stated that Service Bulletins, Service Letters, Service Instructions and other similar documents are not mandatory and member states cannot force aircraft owners and pilots to comply with them.
The news is particularly important in Sweden, where aviation authorities had decreed that all SBs and other manufacturers’ notices had to be complied with. This led to a situation where, for example, aircraft had to be flown to qualified engineers every 30 days to have the door seals lubricated, leading to a dangerous swelling of the seals. Other countries imposed similar requirements.
Dan Akerman of AOPA Sweden reports that the EC has confirmed that Swedish authorities have no right to do this. Bizarrely, the Swedish national aviation authority has responded by removing the mandate from its website and claiming it never mandated compliance in the first place. Dan Akerman reports:

Seems not all Swedes are so accepting of the rules….even the EC agrees the Swedish regulator was being ridiculous….

YPJT, United Arab Emirates

Back to the original topic, it was rough as anything today when we went to Dublin Weston today, the front was right over the east coast of Ireland when we landed and there was a strong southerly blowing. This caused Dublin to change to runway 16 which then mens there is a horrible arrival to Weston.

Enjoyable in hindsight.

Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

Sorry, but it's the rules.

If there's no limit in the POH then you use 0.2xVso

A great demonstration of a regulator who does not understand the certification basis for aircraft that were certified in the US.

Socata was aware that in Europe, the demonstrated crosswind is often treated as a limit. Hence they went for a sensible certification.

The huge majority of light aircraft we fly were designed and certified in the US, and the manufacturers did not see it as a limit (because it isn't) so they went for the minimum required by the regulations.

So making it a limit has no basis in any fact established during testing; it is just a (in most cases much too low) number that is clearly within the capability of the aircraft.

And the "use Vso x 0.2" rule is just plain silly, as the J3 example clearly demonstrates.

Biggin Hill
45 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top