PilotDAR, no need to be silly. If you FIND yourself in that situation where you need to land in a gale you do so. The point is that you shouldn't take off if it's evident you can't land, or take off within the limits.
I suppose that just confirms the Swedish regulator's infamously ridiculous application of regulations....eg "mandatory" where elsewhere "recommended"....bad luck!
May seem ridiculous, but I don't know that it's a huge problem really.
If there's no limit in the POH then you use 0.2xVso
Nothing I fly has a max demonstrated crosswind, so that concept gets me thinking... You'd be limited to 6.6 kts crosswind component in a J3 Cub.
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.
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.
> 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….
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.
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 ? :)
