Just to clarify, the limitation applies to Private Pilots, and planning as it were. So, yes you can fly at higher winds, but you're not allowed to plan for it or depart into such conditions.
How many countries have a tailwind limitation? It's 5 knots for us...
Given that neither EASA Part FCL nor Part NCO contain similar restrictions, surely these limits must go when EASA licences and OPS are implemented in Sweden?
In the UK, a PPL was limited to 3,000m visibility (unless IMCR or IR holder), that went out with EASA.
So, yes you can fly at higher winds, but you're not allowed to plan for it or depart into such conditions.
[my bold]
A Swedish pilot could get criminally prosecuted for taking off into a crosswind exceeding his POH's max demo figure?
That doesn't sound right either because one can depart in much stronger crosswind than one can land in.
The crosswind limit is related to the rudder authority at Vs, but when departing one spends very little time around Vs and one is going at ~ 1.2Vs or so a couple of seconds later, and 20% more IAS means 40% more rudder authority.
it's enforced the same way as everything else in aviation, through accidents
If this rule is a rule then breaking it is a criminal offence, regardless of whether there was an accident.
surely these limits must go when EASA licences and OPS are implemented in Sweden?
Speaking of which, Denmark is going to have to do something similar with its €300 fine system for N-regs parked there for "too long". EASA has removed that also. Denmark was the only country in Europe to run a real anti N-reg long term parking ban.
You need to try, so essentially you become a test pilot.
Yes, but you're testing your own skills, not the aircraft capability. The test is a very safe one to conduct: If you cannot maintain alignment with the runway centerline on approach, you probably do not have the required combination of skill and aircraft capability. Just go around, and go to a different runway.
I did this in a modified Cessna Caravan, deliberate testing in 19G25, directly across the runway. During some gusts, I was holding full pedal to keep it straight. If I could not, I would go around, no problem...
By the way, the German meteorology people told me at lunch that the peak gust measured in Helgoland yesterday was 191 kmh.
The crosswind limit is related to the rudder authority at Vs, but when departing one spends very little time around Vs and one is going at ~ 1.2Vs or so a couple of seconds later, and 20% more IAS means 40% more rudder authority.
One of the more instructive lessons while I was getting my Private Certificate roughly a decade ago was to fly on a day with a stiff head wind on the active, and (naturally) an equally stiff crosswind on the 90 degree disposed crosswind runway. Basically we made clover leaves that day, not always landing, and the crosswind turned out to be right about the absolute limit of the aircraft. Tracking down the runway at low altitude in a slip needed full rudder, wing down as required, and some power. Then if we started to blow off center line it could by fixed by pushing the stick forward and adding more power to increase speed and rudder effectiveness. Having done that to the end of the runway, we'd transition into an almighty crab to initiate climb.
Good fun, but taxiing the tail wheel aircraft back to the hangar was a challenge.
Yes, but you're testing your own skills, not the aircraft capability.
So, you mean to say that from the POH statement "not limiting" you can determine that the aircraft can handle 30 knots (although it has been demonstrated to take 15) and therefor it's only your skill that matters? I think I disagree. I have no clue how much a Cherokee can take above the 17kts in the manual, but I know that I can fly it at that wind speed.
I get what you're saying PilotDAR, but what you're saying is exactly what this rule is meant to prevent - pilots finding themselves in situations they, or they and the aircraft, are not capable of handling. You sound an awful lot like a test pilot, in which case this rule is not applicable anyway...
A Swedish pilot could get criminally prosecuted for taking off into a crosswind exceeding his POH's max demo figure?
We're not prone to prosecuting each other over protocol in this country, but the limitation is exactly the same as any other in the POH, why is that so strange? The difference is that it's not in the limitations section, but deemed such by the auhorities. By your reasoning pilots would be prosecuted for taking off over MTOM all the time, especially in their 1999kg Senecas, Mirages, Aztrucks etc. How is that enforced in the UK? Or, do you mean to say that it's not illegal?
In the UK, a PPL was limited to 3,000m visibility (unless IMCR or IR holder), that went out with EASA.
So, what rules do you now follow? Part-?? Although I have yet to read each sentence of Part-FCL I don't recall seeing those particular limitations in there. I would expect to find them in Part-NCO which to my knowledge is as yet unpublished.
We have EASA licenses and OPS rules to the extent that they exist and before that had JAA licenses and EU-OPS, JAR-OPS etc etc. I wouldn't bet on national rules becoming obsolete just because EASA introduces Part-NCO, but if this particular rule (xwind limit) goes out the door I won't be losing any sleep over it.
but what you're saying is exactly what this rule is meant to prevent - pilots finding themselves in situations they, or they and the aircraft, are not capable of handling.
Yes, but then you just go around. If you cannot track the centerline on final, you will not down the runway, but no harm in trying. I agree that exceeding 15 knots in a 172 will really be pushing any pilot's skills, but it can be done, and practice helps. My Teal tail dragger really intimidated me in a crosswind, until I took it out to a frozen lake on a brisk day. 18 knots off the wingtip was not problem - until I slowed to less than rudder speed, an the tail wheel on he ice could not hold it, I just weather cocked into the the wind, with the wheels slipping on the ice. No harm done.
The POH phraseology tells you that certification compliance was demonstrated (nice to know). It is not telling you that you must go elsewhere, if the runway you arrive to has a cross wind. I expect that Cessna does not want to tell pilots not to land on the runway of their choice. Some liability in that!
I think that crosswind handling skills are one of the more easy and safe for a pilot to practice, provided they know when their capabilities are being exceeded, and go around - and have an alternative runway to fly to.
Yes, proficiency helps.
In this case however, regulations say no take-off or landing above "max allowed X-wind". If there is no "max allowed" in the POH then one should use 1.2xVso, but I prefer the Max demoed as it's usually less restrictive.
Sorry, but it's the rules.
The Swedish CAA has published two publications detailing take-off and landing procedures, including one that deals only with X-wind, based on accident statistics.
What can I say, we and our fellow aviators have some problems from time to time. I'm not surprised really, in my career I think at least 50% of the pilots I've flown with have had difficulties in a X-wind, and most of them due to lack of proper technique. I can only imagine that it's a lack of training really, as you say, proficiency.
I learned it by towing gliders in stiff winds.
Is there really a direct correlation between "demonstrated crosswind" (which only has to be >= 0.2xVso)and actual crosswind capability? My POH recommends the use of half flaps when x-wind is>12kts....however the demonstrated (for certification purposes) crosswind is 11kts....since the original certification flights gross weight has increased for the type and only when 0.2xVso became greater than 11kts did they bother to demonstrate a higher crosswind....I think the more relevant demonstration is what pilots actually achieve...and in the case of my plane it is comfortably 20-25kts
Yes, regulations must be obeyed, though were that one apply to me, I would have trouble respecting it! If you dug into it, it could be a bit of a can of worms to enforce. It is regulatorily inconsistent to regulate against landing, it's like regulating against gravity. I can't think of any regulation I have every heard which prohibits landing - it brings to mind an obedient pilot orbiting waiting for the crosswind component to decrease.
"Pilot, why did you run out of fuel, and crash?".
"Well Swedish CAA Enforcement person, regulations prohibited landing due to crosswind, and I no longer had the fuel required to fly to an alternative airport, so I orbited this airport, until I ran out of fuel."
So, you're at a much lighter weight, Vso is less, or you have installed a STOL kit, and the affect is to reduce the stall speed, but there is no POH amendment with changed information, so what do you do?
I know that you did not write the reg Krister, so don't take my razzing personally, but it's a silly regulation!
The problem is that back in 1953 when they certified the M20 all they were interestd in was meeting the requirement to demonstrate that the plane could handle a 0.2xVso crosswind. Presumably they did not envisage someone interpreting that figure as some kind of airframe limit...in fact my POH doesn't even mention the demonstrated crosswind figure....let alone specify a limit....so what would they say in Sweden about that?!
