MAX winds in C150?
Carlton Whitmore
stressful)
What is the recommend max on wind speed when doing touch and goes in a
Cessna 150?
Carlton.
BDWood
If you were landing safely and under control...sounds like you were
ok.
BDWood
J. C. Kamienski
comfortable with.
The only documented information you will find is "demonstrated" cross-
wind. That doesn't mean a whole lot.
If the wing isn't scraping the ground, the plane can do it.
What a pilot can handle is a completely different story, and comes from
experience. If you aren't comfortable with the wind stay on the ground,
or better yet, make sure you have an instructor who IS comfortable with
the wind up with you (best way to safely push your own limits is to have
someone alongside to fix your mistakes)
Jill
Bob Romanko
holding center line, that's max.
Bob "Been There, Done That in a 172" Romanko
Builder Bearhawk #399
High-Time "Stick and Rudder" Reader
PP-ASEL, A&P, AOPA, EAA
Based at Charlottesville, VA (CHO)
Carlton Whitmore wrote in message <3847F1FE...@advocacyinc.org>...
VRB300
David Burton
of the plane you fly. That said,
the information is usually not very helpful since the demonstrated
crosswind capability for a 150 (13
mph, if memory serves) is not the maximum, just what was demonstrated
by the factory pilot. The
effect of the wind on the plane will very with the component of the
crosswind. 20 knots on the nose
is much different then 20 knots from 90 degrees to your direction of
flight. You are doing the right
thing by practicing at increasingly higher wind speeds. The time to
learn is at an airport that you are
familiar with. I find the terrestrial disruptions to the wind to be
worse then the wind speed. Flying
into an unfamiliar airport with high winds can hold some real
surprises on final. Interestingly enough,
the turbulent winds on final at my home airport will beat you up until
you get just about ready to touch
down. Then they calm down. A lot of the airports around this part of
the country are cut out of the
forest. The winds on take off may seem calm and benign until you
reach the height of the trees.
On Fri, 03 Dec 1999 10:38:23 -0600, Carlton Whitmore
<cwhi...@advocacyinc.org> wrote:
snowb...@my-deja.com
Carlton Whitmore <cwhi...@advocacyinc.org> wrote:
> I was practicing touch and goes in a 17knot cross wind on Tuesday.
> (very stressful)
> What is the recommend max on wind speed when doing touch and goes
> in a Cessna 150?
1) the limits your CFI imposed in your solo endorsement, if
you are a student. If none:
2) the limits your CFI suggests, when you discuss this matter
with him, if you are a student
If you aren't a student, I would go for a few knots (maybe
5?) over the windspeed at which you are comfortable landing,
and gradually push up your limits without pax as you gain
skill. Also have an "out" (a runway more aligned with the
wind, where you'll land if the xwind gets beyond you and
call someone to pick you up).
It's really a pilot proficiency issue (which only you and
those who've flown with you can judge), not an issue of
what the plane can handle -- right up to the point where
the plane runs out of rudder. Also, there are winds and
winds. A strong steady wind is a lot easier to handle than
a gusty wind, or a wind swirling over terrain features.
So it's pointless to give someone a nice prescriptive maximum.
The "maximum demonstrated xwind" in the C150 POH is, as the
POH also says, "not an operating limitation". It's merely
the strongest xwind they could find during certification
tests.
Snowbird
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jim Sokoloff
> I was practicing touch and goes in a 17knot cross
> wind on Tuesday. (very stressful)
If it was "very stressful", I suspect you might have
been slightly over your personal limits. If it was
just "lots of exhausting hard work", then you were
expanding your personal limits for next time.
> What is the recommend max on wind speed when doing
> touch and goes in a Cessna 150?
For touch and goes, I would consider 30 kts of wind
to be MY PERSONAL limit in my Skylane. Cross wind
component limit would be about 20 knots for me to do
a T&G.
Since I have less than 1 hour in C150/152, my personal
limit in that plane would be FAR LESS than what you
did on Tuesday!
For full stop landings, I've landed in winds over 40
knots OR with crosswind components of 25-30 and
not felt unsafe/uncomfortable.
The real problem on a day like that is that you need
a hand on the ground to safely manuever and tie the
airplane down. (Try getting your airplane into a safe
tied-down state when the wind is 35G50 and you're
alone and you'll see what I mean. :-))
---Jim
BDWood
Burton) wrote:
> You should consult the POH for the specific cross wind capability
>of the plane you fly.
Why?
As you said later in the same post...it is a meaningless number in
many ways...and certainly isn't a limitation of any kind.
BDWood
Dale
Roger that....now throw in an ice covered parking area. <G>
>
> The real problem on a day like that is that you need
> a hand on the ground to safely manuever and tie the
> airplane down. (Try getting your airplane into a safe
> tied-down state when the wind is 35G50 and you're
> alone and you'll see what I mean. :-))
>
> ---Jim
--
Dale L. Falk
Cessna 182A
N5912B
Andrew M. Sarangan
>
>
> For full stop landings, I've landed in winds over 40
> knots OR with crosswind components of 25-30 and
> not felt unsafe/uncomfortable.
Which airplane did you do that in ? That is an extremely high cross-wind
for the average training aircaft. In a 172, 30 knots is about 90% Vso,
or 68% Vsl. Most people recommend 20% of stall speed as the max
cross-wind limit.
--
Andrew Sarangan
CP-ASEL-IA
http://lights.chtm.unm.edu/~sarangan/aviation
George R. Patterson III
>
> You should consult the POH for the specific cross wind capability
> of the plane you fly.
The POH for my Cessna 150 did not have this information. Strictly
speaking, I've never heard of a POH that did - the only thing close to
that in my Maule POH is the maximum *demonstrated* capability. This is
followed by a statement that this is "not to be considered limiting."
George Patterson, N3162Q.
George R. Patterson III
>
> Max is easy. If your at the stops on the rudder and the roll is in tight, still
> holding center line, that's max.
Nope. I brought my 150 down in a 25 knot direct crosswind once. I had
some control left (nothing was at the stops) and hit the runway just
fine. Then she started fishtailing. We completed most of the rollout
with the aircraft alternately weathervaning and being kicked straight
by the tires (which complained bitterly about the abuse). It's possible
that she could have stayed on the runway is a 30 knot wind, but I doubt
it. There's enough control authority to handle that, though.
George Patterson, N3162Q
highflyer
>
> Max is easy. If your at the stops on the rudder and the roll is in tight, still
> holding center line, that's max.
>
Actually, a maximum crosswind component IS relatively "easy." I know
that
is not what you meant, Bob, but when there is a real obvious crosswind
you
are far more likely to get serious about crosswind technique. You WILL
lower that upwind wing, and you will probably remember to keep you
crosswind correction in even AFTER you land.
Where I see most pilots haveing problems in crosswinds, and I don't mean
just STUDENT pilots, is with a light and variable crosswind component.
When you only have a little crosswind it is easy to kind of ignore it
all the way down final. You don't really become aware of it until about
halfway through the flare when you suddenly realize that the runway is
moving SIDEWAYS! Then it is a little late to correct and you will
likely
touchdown with some lateral inertia. This can literally tear tires off
the rims. With a taildragger it will guarantee in initial swerve, and
if you don't get your act back together REAL fast, that initial swerve
will turn into an pilot induced lateral oscillation that promptly ends
in a ground loop or an "off runway" excursion! :-)
Remember also, that whatever crosswind correction you needed on final,
you need EVEN MORE when you flare and actually slow down enough to land.
You really need that full crosswind correction even in a slow taxi!
You really notice how much the crosswind correction helps in a taxi when
you are trying to taxi in one of the many GA airplanes that steers with
brakes instead of a steerable wheel.
--
HighFlyer
Highflight Aviation Services
highflyer
>
> I was practicing touch and goes in a 17knot cross wind on Tuesday. (very
> stressful)
> Cessna 150?
The max crosswind component for any airplane pretty much depends on the
PILOT. The crosswind given in the POH is the "demonstrated" crosswind
component, which may or may not be any where near what the airplane can
handle.
When the pilot begins to sweat on final, you have probably reached the
maximum recommended crosswind component! If you have an exceptionally
"cool" pilot who absolutely refuses to sweat, then you could say the
maximum crosswind component is reached when full rudder cannot keep the
nose aligned with the centerline when there is enough aileron given to
keep the airplane on the runway centerline. However, some aircraft will
get a wing low enough to scrape something on the runway before you run
out of rudder. Then you could say the maximum crosswind component is
reached when the upwind wingtip no longer has ground clearance.
Some aircraft are severely limited in forward slips. These airplanes
must use a different crosswind technique that only really works with a
"nosedragger." In this technique you crab into the wind enough to stay
over the centerline of the runway and land slowly enough to keep the
nosewheel WELL clear of the pavement. Since you are going one way and
pointing another, and, in a nosedragger, the contact point of the wheels
is BEHIND the CG, when the wheels first hit the nose will slew violently
around to point in the direction you are actually moving. Then lower
the
nose and drive to a stop! This is the way you HAVE to do crosswind
landings in Ercoupes and Boeing 747's! :-) In this case the maximum
crosswind component is primarily determined by the "cool" factor of the
pilot. I have a photo of a 747 landing in a crosswind at Kai Tak
Airport
in Hongkong that is just touching down with the aircraft at a 45 degree
angle to the runway centerline. They did land safely!
highflyer
>
> Jim Sokoloff wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > For full stop landings, I've landed in winds over 40
> > knots OR with crosswind components of 25-30 and
> > not felt unsafe/uncomfortable.
>
> Which airplane did you do that in ? That is an extremely high cross-wind
> for the average training aircaft. In a 172, 30 knots is about 90% Vso,
> or 68% Vsl. Most people recommend 20% of stall speed as the max
> cross-wind limit.
>
>
It has been over a decade since I have flown a Cessna 150/152 class
airplane.
As I recall the stall speed of that airplane was something like 38
Knots.
I know I was flying without the stall warner sounding at an indicated
speed of 30 knots. My flight instructor panicked and reached for the
yoke.
As soon as he broke, I ducked down and landed it! :-) The reason I was
flying a C152 was because of the instructor. I needed a "biennial
flight
review" and he was the only instructor available. He was not qualified
to fly in my airplane, so he insisted that we fly the "review" in an
airplane he was familiar with! Never mind that I had not flown ANY
variety
of Cessna at the time, for over fifteen years! And then, the last
Cessna
that I had flown was the Cessna UC-78, fondly known as the "Bamboo
Bomber"
which had two 300 HP Radial engines and looked like a scaled down DC-3!
Anyway, with a stall speed of 38 knots, that would give a maximum
crosswind
compenent for a C-150/152 of slightly over 7 knots. Since the factory
demonstrated 12 knots, they went well over that recommendation!
As for strong crosswinds, I have landed taildraggers in winds that were
in excess of the stall speed and with crosswind components of over
thirty
knots. It was not uncomfortable, but it was near the maximum limit for
the Taylorcraft that I was flying. That is not a problem though,
because
and crosswind of MORE than thirty knots with a thirtyfive knot stall
speed,
would strongly suggest that I merely land ACROSS the runway, rather than
along it. The extra width of runway gained in that fashion will allow a
great lattitude in alignment! :-) With any wind in that range, your
ground roll will likely be less than an airplane length!
As was mentioned, your greatest difficulty in such strong winds is
getting
out of the airplane. I have landed many times, in the great plains
region
of our beautiful country, in winds so strong that I had to sit in front
of
the airport office with my tail off the ground, holding position with
power until someone came out to hold my airplane so I could lower the
tail and shut down the power. That is a far more serious constraint
than
the "crosswind component" of the airplane.
The most dangerous crosswinds are those between 10 knots and 30 knots.
In
that range, you have to do something, and you are still constrained to
use
the runway. The lighter crosswinds are more likely to get you in
trouble
than the strong ones. In the strong ones you are seriously thinking
about
proper crosswind technique. The lighter crosswinds can catch you
unaware
or you can get careless or sloppy about holding in the correction until
you stop rolling.
jga...@hotmail.com
high...@alt.net wrote:
>
> Some aircraft are severely limited in forward slips. These airplanes
> must use a different crosswind technique that only really works with a
> "nosedragger." In this technique you crab into the wind enough to
stay
> over the centerline of the runway and land slowly enough to keep the
> nosewheel WELL clear of the pavement. Since you are going one way and
> pointing another, and, in a nosedragger, the contact point of the
wheels
> is BEHIND the CG, when the wheels first hit the nose will slew
violently
> around to point in the direction you are actually moving. Then lower
> the
> nose and drive to a stop! This is the way you HAVE to do crosswind
> landings in Ercoupes and Boeing 747's! :-)
And it should only be used on airplanes designed to land that way. On
one of my first flights, my CFI and I were on final behind a T-hawk with
a 15 kt crosswind. The T-hawk was crabbing and my instructor told me to
watch as it shifted from the crab into a slip during the flare. It
never did. I recall seeing an unusual amount of smoke from the tires,
then the right main gear (strut, wheel and all) came flying out of the
smoke, just barely missing the T-tail. Needless to say, I learned a
great lesson (at someone else's expense!)about what side loads can do to
landing gear that's not built to handle them.
Fly Safe,
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
luc...@metrowerks.com
high...@alt.net wrote:
Not to brag (because I'm really not that hot at crosswind landings),
but I've done routine crosswind landings in the 150 in conditions with
a crosswind component close to 15mph, or possibly more. That little
plane can actually handle a pretty durn stiff wind.
As usual, though, highflyer speaks the truth, especially about mild
crosswinds as opposed to stiff ones.
I can think of only two times I flew Capt. America IV in crosswinds
strong enough to require full to-the-stop aileron deflection all the
way down short final, both times the wingtip was close to the ground,
but not all the way down. I brought it down at 50mph (cruise speed) and
flared at about 45mph. I basically had to fly it all the way back to
the hangar (on the ground), since I still had considerable control
pressures on the stick.
Now, that was no fun, but I've had far more uncomfortable experiences
on _calm_ hot days (often bad for ultralights). I came in once (this
fall when breaking in the rebuilt plane. Not bragging, this was scary
as $&*^) with a completely limp windsock, I was at a full stop _and had
to go around_ because a dust devil picked the plane up and sent it off
the side of the runway towards the trees. I firewalled it and made it
back into the air (love that new dual CDI 503), just barely escaping
smashing up my brand new bird and god knows what all else if I'd wound
up in those trees...
Nowadays, I'd rather have a small steady wind when it's really hot
rather than none at all.....
Lucien S.
PP-ASEL.
Captain America IV.
Effie Andree Wiltens
since. We had a discussion about the wing down vs. crab method in a PFA
meeting, and it wasn't conclusive, but strong points were raised about CG
and the type of aircraft playing its part in choosing your technique.
I always griped about the 12kt crosswind limit in the handbook of the
Grumman AA5 - that test pilot must have been a very careful man! The max
component was set so low because of the nosewheel strut not being designed
to take high traversing loads (you might get them when you're crabbing, but
not when you do a proper wing down wheelie) and if you have a spat on the
nosewheel, it tends to point in the direction of the wind (in case of a wing
down landing, not in the direction of the runway).
Both characteristics prove my point of landing any aircraft initially as if
the wheel is at the tail, even if it is at the other end.
I once flew with a friend to Belgium in a Helio Courier (a very unusual STOL
aircraft you don't see many examples of in Europe). His plane was equipped
with CROSSWIND LANDING GEAR. There was quite a strong crosswind (about 30kt
component) at Ostend and the tower allowed us to land on the Apron.
To which the owner of the Helio replied, "negative, I'll take the runway, I
have crosswind landing gear."
The Tower didn't underfstand what he meant. He continued his crabbing
approach despite protests from ATC, and landed the plane whilst crabbing...
and continued to crab on the ground!
ATC must have had the binoculars out, they had dispatched the fire brigade
because the landing looked so odd that they were sure the aircraft was going
to crash.
But all that happened was that he had set the wheels 20 degrees to the left
(into wind) and so the aircraft rolled alond the runway pointing the
centerline 20 degrees to the right of the roll path on the runway.
Sitting in the right hand seat as a guest, I was quite nervous about this
whole procedure. I've never experienced such a crosswind landing before or
since!
The fire truck drove alongside the plane, two guys jumped out and tried to
grab the wings - this was impossible because the Helio is a high wing
aircraft without struts. Having these men run along with us like the
Keystone Cops was very comic. My friend flipped open the window and gave
them a big grin and continued to taxi sideways to his parking spot on the
apron. With the unusual attitude and the crosswind that took considerable
skill, which he demonstrated with a florish.
It was clear that nobody at the airfield had ever heard about this feature
on the Helio.
There was one big advantage to the crosswind gear. You set the wheels at an
angle when you're in the air (the indicator is an arc painted on a disc on
the gear itself), but once the weight of the aircraft is on the wheels, you
cannot realign it. You have to lift the weight off the wheels first, and the
Helio is a heavy aeroplane.
That was the craziest xrosswind landing I've ever experienced. Anyone in the
group ever fly with X-wind landing gear?
FE.
highflyer <high...@alt.net> wrote in message
news:384FB863...@alt.net...
> Carlton Whitmore wrote:
> >
> > I was practicing touch and goes in a 17knot cross wind on Tuesday. (very
> > stressful)
> > What is the recommend max on wind speed when doing touch and goes in a
> > Cessna 150?
> > Carlton.
>
> The max crosswind component for any airplane pretty much depends on the
> PILOT. The crosswind given in the POH is the "demonstrated" crosswind
> component, which may or may not be any where near what the airplane can
> handle.
>
> When the pilot begins to sweat on final, you have probably reached the
> maximum recommended crosswind component! If you have an exceptionally
> "cool" pilot who absolutely refuses to sweat, then you could say the
> maximum crosswind component is reached when full rudder cannot keep the
> nose aligned with the centerline when there is enough aileron given to
> keep the airplane on the runway centerline. However, some aircraft will
> get a wing low enough to scrape something on the runway before you run
> out of rudder. Then you could say the maximum crosswind component is
> reached when the upwind wingtip no longer has ground clearance.
>
> Some aircraft are severely limited in forward slips. These airplanes
> must use a different crosswind technique that only really works with a
> "nosedragger." In this technique you crab into the wind enough to stay
> over the centerline of the runway and land slowly enough to keep the
> nosewheel WELL clear of the pavement. Since you are going one way and
> pointing another, and, in a nosedragger, the contact point of the wheels
> is BEHIND the CG, when the wheels first hit the nose will slew violently
> around to point in the direction you are actually moving. Then lower
> the
> nose and drive to a stop! This is the way you HAVE to do crosswind
> landings in Ercoupes and Boeing 747's! :-) In this case the maximum
> crosswind component is primarily determined by the "cool" factor of the
> pilot. I have a photo of a 747 landing in a crosswind at Kai Tak
> Airport
> in Hongkong that is just touching down with the aircraft at a 45 degree
> angle to the runway centerline. They did land safely!
>
snowb...@my-deja.com
"Andrew M. Sarangan" <sara...@unm.edu> wrote:
> Most people recommend 20% of stall speed as the max
> cross-wind limit.
Hmmmm, who are these people, and from whence does this
recommendation come?
That seems like an awfully low limit. My plane stalls
at ~60 kts clean (and flaps don't lower it much). That
recommendation would be 12 kt xwind, but as I recall the
"max demonstrated xwind" is 15 or 17 kts and one actually
has plenty of rudder left at those speeds.
I don't recall ever having heard this recommendation before,
so I'm very interested.
Snowbird
Roger Halstead
On one cross country I watched the runway coming up through the window in
the passenger side door.<G>
Then again I didn't have any wind (or cross wind) limitations on my solo
endorsement.
Then again, on that same trip I landed on 18 at TVC which was entirely
covered with black ice and with the x-wind from 45 degrees to the right.
I learned how to taxi a 150 with the nose wheel up right then because every
time I put it down the airplane would weathervane into the wind which would
head me for those great big snow drifts.
And...yes that was a few years back.,sigh>
--
Roger (K8RI)
N833R CD-2 (World's Oldest Debonair?)
http://users.tm.net/rdhalste
<snowb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:82rf2e$8a8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
jack
> ...I landed on 18 at TVC which was entirely
> covered with black ice and with the x-wind from 45 degrees to the right.
>
> I learned how to taxi a 150 with the nose wheel up right then because every
> time I put it down the airplane would weathervane into the wind which would
> head me for those great big snow drifts.
Who cares which way it's pointed? Just keep it moving in the right direction.
I bet you wished they hadn't done away with rwy 23.
Jack
--
___________|___________
\_[ ]_/
\(O)/
{}/^\{}
===|=====|=====|=====|=====|===
©1998 nAsgrp.com
-----------------------------------------------
<http://home.earthlink.net/~baron58/index.html>
Colin Rasmussen
snowb...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <384AD19D...@unm.edu>,
> "Andrew M. Sarangan" <sara...@unm.edu> wrote:
> > Most people recommend 20% of stall speed as the max
> > cross-wind limit.
>
> Hmmmm, who are these people, and from whence does this
> recommendation come?
Actually in the Canada Flight Supplement it says...
"Aircraft of US manufacture are designed to withstand groundlooping
tendencies on landing in 90-degree cross-winds up to a velocity equal to
0.2 (20 percent) of their stalling speed."
I have no idea where they get their info from but...
They contend this is a general rule. Having just had a flight last
weekend where the wind upon landing was a 90 degree crosswind at 28
knots in a C172, and nothing got wrinkled, I'd have to say this is one
of those "whatever you are capable of is whatever the maximum is" rules.
>
> That seems like an awfully low limit. My plane stalls
> at ~60 kts clean (and flaps don't lower it much). That
> recommendation would be 12 kt xwind, but as I recall the
> "max demonstrated xwind" is 15 or 17 kts and one actually
> has plenty of rudder left at those speeds.
I think it is too. 15 knots of crosswind is not uncommon where I am,
and if didn't fly every time it got windy, well...
Colin
Roger Halstead
news:3851869E...@earthlink.net...
Roger Halstead wrote:
> ...I landed on 18 at TVC which was entirely
> covered with black ice and with the x-wind from 45 degrees to the right.
>
> I learned how to taxi a 150 with the nose wheel up right then because
every
> time I put it down the airplane would weathervane into the wind which
would
> head me for those great big snow drifts.
Who cares which way it's pointed? Just keep it moving in the right
direction.
As long as the nese gear was off the runway it didn't make any difference,
but as soon as the nose gear would touch the darn thing would head in the
direction the nose was pointed and there lay a snow bank higher than the
tail of the 150.<G>
I bet you wished they hadn't done away with rwy 23.
It would have been more convenient, but in a 150 doing a taxi with the nose
gear up in the air is not difficult.
Roger
Rick Cremer
The "Demonstrated Crosswind" capability of all airplanes including the
Cessna 150/152 is determined by the manufacturer in accordance with Federal
Aviation Regulation part 23 (formerly CAR 3b) which is the regulation
pertaining to the certification of Normal, Utility, and Acrobatic category
airplanes. The specific regulation is FAR 23.233(a) ( Directional stability
and control), which states that:
"(a) A 90 degree cross-component of wind velocity, demonstrated to be safe
for taxiing, takeoff, and landing must be established and must be not less
than 0.2 VSO."
Vso, as defined in FAR 1.1 means the stalling speed or the minimum steady
flight speed in the landing configuration. So, if the Vso of the Cessna 150
is 60 Kts, then the Demonstrated Crosswind capability would be is 12 Kts.
Note that FAR 23.141 states: "The airplane must meet the requirements of
Secs. 23.143 through 23.253 (which includes 23.233) at all practical loading
conditions and operating altitudes for which certification has been
requested, not exceeding the maximum operating altitude established under
Sec. 23.1527, and without requiring exceptional piloting skill, alertness,
or strength."
The Demonstrated Crosswind capability determined under 23.233 is a minimum
speed (and a function of the rudder's capability to control direction) and
is *not* a limitation. With experience and honed skills a pilot may be quite
comfortable landing with a crosswind component higher the demonstrated
number.
As a point of interest, you should know that the same regulation (FAR
23.233(b)) requires that:
(b) The airplane must be satisfactorily controllable in power-off landings
at normal landing speed, without using brakes or engine power to maintain a
straight path until the speed has decreased to at least 50 percent of the
speed at touchdown"
For example, If you touch down, power off, at a VSO of 60 then the airplane
has to be directionally controllable down to a speed of 30 without the use
of brakes or power and without exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or
strength.
Airplane type certificated in the mid-1970's on should have the Demonstrated
Crosswind information published in the POH or AFM as required by FAR
23.1585. Older airplanes may have that number in its manual.
Although there is no requirement that you read FAR part 23 I recommend that
you take the time to do so. You'll find some interesting certification
criteria in that regulation which, once you read it, will help you better
understand why and how the airplane you're flying got certified and how some
of the limitations, airspeeds, and performance data came to be. If you take
lessons in a twin, you'll find the Vmc information in part 23 (23.149).
I hope this has helped you better understand an airplane's Demonstrated
Crosswind capability.
--
Best Regards
Rick Cremer
FAA Safety Inspector, HQ
ATP DC-9/MD-80
Flight Instructor
Ground Instructor
Aircraft Dispatcher
A&P Mechanic
Air Traffic Controller
Carlton Whitmore <cwhi...@advocacyinc.org> wrote in message
news:3847F1FE...@advocacyinc.org...
Rick Cremer
--
Best Regards
--
Best Regards
Rick Cremer
<snowb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:82rf2e$8a8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <384AD19D...@unm.edu>,
> "Andrew M. Sarangan" <sara...@unm.edu> wrote:
> > Most people recommend 20% of stall speed as the max
> > cross-wind limit.
>
> Hmmmm, who are these people, and from whence does this
> recommendation come?
>
> That seems like an awfully low limit. My plane stalls
> at ~60 kts clean (and flaps don't lower it much). That
> recommendation would be 12 kt xwind, but as I recall the
> "max demonstrated xwind" is 15 or 17 kts and one actually
> has plenty of rudder left at those speeds.
>
Rick Cremer
My opinions and advice expressed here on the rec.aviation newsgroups may or
may not reflect the current thinking and/or opinions of my employer (the
FAA). While I generally try to espouse the party line and provide all of you
with the most recent and absolutely correct information there may be
instances when my opinions differ from those of my employer. We've been
known not to see eye-to-eye on certain (albeit rare) occasions. <g>
>>> Will either one or both of these cases cause a violation to be initiated
without question.<<
Not necessarily a violation. Although that's a possibility. Both accidents
(or incidents, you don't indicate which they were but could have been
either) would be investigated by both the NTSB and FAA since it's a 14 CFR
part 135 operation. Depending on results of the investigations some sort of
enforcement action might be taken against the PIC regardless of whether the
incident/accident happened in a crosswind condition that was less or more
than the "maximum demonstrated" crosswind capability of the airplane. Most
likely, if the PIC could not control the airplane during a crosswind landing
in which the winds were near, at, or slightly above the published "maximum
demonstrated" crosswind capability of the airplane (including any gusts),
then the pilot's judgement and pilot skills would be questioned and probably
some sort of remedial training, followed by a reexamination under 49 USC
44709, would be required. Legal enforcement action (such as certificate
suspension or revocation) may not be necessary. Again that depends on many
factors such as the pilot's previous record, attitude, etc.
The foregoing would also be true even if the incidents/accidents happened in
a 91 operation and under similar circumstances.
At least that's my opinion.
--
Best Regards
Rick Cremer
<wg...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:83rqtq$g4d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8324kv$4hv$1...@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
> "Rick Cremer" <rcr...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> > Carlton,
> >
> > The "Demonstrated Crosswind" capability of all airplanes including the
> > Cessna 150/152 is determined by the manufacturer ............
> >
> > The Demonstrated Crosswind capability determined under 23.233 is a
> minimum
> > speed (and a function of the rudder's capability to control direction)
> and
> > is *not* a limitation. With experience and honed skills a pilot may be
> quite
> > comfortable landing with a crosswind component higher the
> demonstrated
> > number.
>
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Rick Cremer
> > FAA Safety Inspector, HQ
>
> Mr. Cremer:
> Is your opinion (or the FAA's??) of "Demonstrated Crosswind" numbers NOT
> being a limitation any different in regard to commercial operations.
> For example, certain "manufacturer recommendations" (like engine
> TBO)become firm limitations when the aircraft is operated under FAR135.
>
> Let me re-phrase this as another example - two different landing
> incidents (FAR 135 with pax)with a plane having a demonstrated x-wind
> speed of 15kts:
> Case "A": Landing with 14 kt x-wind, some skidding and tire blows.
> Case "B": Landing wiht 16 kt x-wind, some skidding and tire blows.
> All other aspects of the two landings are identical - injuries, damage,
> (or lack of --),etc.
> Will either one or both of these cases cause a violation to be initiated
> without question.
>
> If there is, (in a commercial operation) a crosswind limitation to be
> found in the rambling prose above, would it be keyed to the prevailing
> wind or the "gusting to.." number?
>
> William Bendokas
> Westerly, RI
>
> replies here and/or: fl...@biri.com
wg...@my-deja.com
Unknown
<rcr...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>. Again that depends on many
>factors such as the pilot's previous record, attitude, etc.
>
>At least that's my opinion.
>
>--
>Best Regards
>
>Rick Cremer
>
The above statement was referring to possible enforcement action by
the FAA.
The implication here is that if I refuse to kiss an inspector's ass, I
am more likely to be on the receiving end of an enforcment action than
otherwise.
I would like very much to know what regulation the FAA uses in order
to consider "attitude" in determining the extent of FAA enforcement
action.
Is it any wonder the FSDO gets so little respect from the aviation
community??
And those of you who continually question the use of pseudonyms on
these newgroups might have part of your answer here.
Jim Sokoloff
> The implication here is that if I refuse to kiss an inspector's ass, I
> am more likely to be on the receiving end of an enforcment action than
> otherwise.
When you are pulled over by the state highway patrol or
auditted by the IRS, or court martialed, or..., would
you expect the enforcement outcome to be the same whether
you were polite and exhibitted a "compliant attitude" or if
you exclaimed, "What the f(*&# are you hassling me about
you fat sweaty pig ba*&^$d?! Aren't you overdue at the local
Dunkin'?!" Unless you already murdered someone and the cops
know it, I would expect your outcome in the latter case to
be less favorable. :-)
> I would like very much to know what regulation the FAA uses in order
> to consider "attitude" in determining the extent of FAA enforcement
> action.
Same one the highway patrol, IRS, etc use: human
interpretation.
> Is it any wonder the FSDO gets so little respect from the aviation
> community??
I think this has more to do with the variation amongst
the various FSDOs (at least it does for me). Humans are
in the enforcement chain in all sorts of things in your
life. And they won't always make the same decisions on
each "gray area" case. I would be happy enough with that
so long as the different FSDOs made the same decisions on
the black/white cases, and so long as precedent set at
one FSDO was referenced by another. I really dislike the
idea that to get some certain approval on my airplane, I
can get better/worse likelihood of approval if I fly it
halfway across the country to a "more 337 friendly" FSDO.
> And those of you who continually question the use of pseudonyms on
> these newgroups might have part of your answer here.
Never bothered me a bit that other people did that; lots
of reasons beyond FAA enforcement. :-)
---Jim
Unknown
wrote:
>machogrande wrote:
>> The implication here is that if I refuse to kiss an inspector's ass, I
>> am more likely to be on the receiving end of an enforcment action than
>> otherwise.
>
>When you are pulled over by the state highway patrol or
>auditted by the IRS, or court martialed, or..., would
>you expect the enforcement outcome to be the same whether
>you were polite and exhibitted a "compliant attitude" or if
>you exclaimed, "What the f(*&# are you hassling me about
>you fat sweaty pig ba*&^$d?! Aren't you overdue at the local
>Dunkin'?!" Unless you already murdered someone and the cops
>know it, I would expect your outcome in the latter case to
>be less favorable. :-)
>
This is bullshit.
As a matter of fact, law enforcement officers are required, in any
civilized force, to make the decision on the infraction, ticket, fine,
etc., BEFORE he gets out of his car.
This is to prevent the very thing you seem to think is acceptable,
i.e., deciding what the fine should be after he gets a look at the
violator (attitude, color of skin, etc).
Enforcement action should be taken against the infraction, not the
personality of the violator.
You no doubt would have been very comfortable living in Germany, say
around 1937-1939.
Paul Baechler
> This is bullshit.
>
> As a matter of fact, law enforcement officers are required, in any
> civilized force, to make the decision on the infraction, ticket, fine,
> etc., BEFORE he gets out of his car.
No, this is bullshit. A law enforcement officer is not required to make
any of those decisions before getting out of the car, some of them he is
not allowed to make at all. In any civilized force an officer makes his
decisions based on the facts, which are not all available until AFTER he
gets out of his car.
> This is to prevent the very thing you seem to think is acceptable,
> i.e., deciding what the fine should be after he gets a look at the
> violator (attitude, color of skin, etc).
In the U.S. a fine is assessed after guilt is determined, which is done in
a court by (at a minimum) a judge. Law enforcement officers neither
determine guilt nor assess fines. Maybe you live somewhere else.
Unknown
Baechler) wrote:
>In article <386246e7...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, (machogrande) wrote:
>
>> This is bullshit.
>>
>> As a matter of fact, law enforcement officers are required, in any
>> civilized force, to make the decision on the infraction, ticket, fine,
>> etc., BEFORE he gets out of his car.
>
>No, this is bullshit. A law enforcement officer is not required to make
>any of those decisions before getting out of the car, some of them he is
>not allowed to make at all. In any civilized force an officer makes his
>decisions based on the facts, which are not all available until AFTER he
>gets out of his car.
>
Additional facts, maybe. Like if someone needs a breathalyzer test.
He doesn't get to issue tickets based on whether or not he likes or
dislikes the offender.
Whether someone deserves a ticket for speeding does not depend on
whether or not he treats the officer with the officer's definition of
the proper respect and deference.
>> This is to prevent the very thing you seem to think is acceptable,
>> i.e., deciding what the fine should be after he gets a look at the
>> violator (attitude, color of skin, etc).
>
>In the U.S. a fine is assessed after guilt is determined, which is done in
>a court by (at a minimum) a judge. Law enforcement officers neither
>determine guilt nor assess fines. Maybe you live somewhere else.
Exactly my point.
Charges are not brought by enforcement officers, local, state or
federal, based on the accused's attitude.
The FAA is not exempt from the fact that we live in a country of laws,
not men.
When those sworn to uphold the law start passing out enforcement
actions based on whether they approve of someone's attitude, we are
all in a shitload of trouble, you conservatives included.
Jay Todd
Having been a law enforcement officer for a number of years, I can state
emphatically that I know of no law enforcement that REQUIRES a decision on
enforcement action to be made prior to the officer exiting his/her vehicle.
I always tried to make that decision prior to exiting in an effort to
eliminate "violator attitude" from unduly influencing me however it was not
required nor was I always successful in eliminating that influence. In a
perfect world you are absolutely correct that "enforcement action should be
taken against the infraction not the personality of the violator". However,
if an infraction has taken place and the violator is civil it is far more
likely that the enforcement officer will feel that the violator has learned
something if only from the contact. If the violator is antagonistic and
hostile, denies that a violation took place etc., etc. most enforcement
officers will likely feel that some form of reinforcement to the contact may
need to be applied i.e.: ticket, warning notice etc.
I did not read Mr. Sololoff's comment to imply that he thought this type of
action was "acceptable", only that it was realistic. I would suggest that it
not only is realistic, it is also desirable. I for one do not want an
automation unable to think for himself making decisions of this type. You'll
have policemen stopping violators for speeding and issuing citations when
you are trying to get your seriously injured child to a hospital. I want
people in authority to act humanely and if I want that, I can't very well
castigate them for being human.
machogrande wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Dec 1999 10:32:16 -0500, Jim Sokoloff <soko...@tiac.net>
> wrote:
>
> >machogrande wrote:
> >> The implication here is that if I refuse to kiss an inspector's ass, I
> >> am more likely to be on the receiving end of an enforcment action than
> >> otherwise.
> >
> >When you are pulled over by the state highway patrol or
> >auditted by the IRS, or court martialed, or..., would
> >you expect the enforcement outcome to be the same whether
> >you were polite and exhibitted a "compliant attitude" or if
> >you exclaimed, "What the f(*&# are you hassling me about
> >you fat sweaty pig ba*&^$d?! Aren't you overdue at the local
> >Dunkin'?!" Unless you already murdered someone and the cops
> >know it, I would expect your outcome in the latter case to
> >be less favorable. :-)
> >
>
> This is bullshit.
>
> As a matter of fact, law enforcement officers are required, in any
> civilized force, to make the decision on the infraction, ticket, fine,
> etc., BEFORE he gets out of his car.
>
> This is to prevent the very thing you seem to think is acceptable,
> i.e., deciding what the fine should be after he gets a look at the
> violator (attitude, color of skin, etc).
>
> Enforcement action should be taken against the infraction, not the
> personality of the violator.
>
> You no doubt would have been very comfortable living in Germany, say
> around 1937-1939.
>
Steve Litke
<machogrande> wrote in message
news:3862774b...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net...
> On Thu, 23 Dec 1999 13:06:11 -0600, pbae...@bellsouth.net (Paul
> Baechler) wrote:
>
> >In article <386246e7...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, (machogrande)
wrote:
>
<SNIP>
>
> Exactly my point.
>
> Charges are not brought by enforcement officers, local, state or
> federal, based on the accused's attitude.
>
> The FAA is not exempt from the fact that we live in a country of laws,
> not men.
>
> When those sworn to uphold the law start passing out enforcement
> actions based on whether they approve of someone's attitude, we are
> all in a shitload of trouble, you conservatives included.
>
I think you are missing the point. This is really different than a speeding
ticket. FSDO can offer remedial training, or check flights instead of civil
penalties if they feel it is appropriate. If you chose to have a bad
attitude, they simply won't offer it to you. If they do offer you training,
you can always refuse and talk to the judge. After all, this is a country
of laws.
In other words, FSDO can offer relief from an enforcement action based on
circumstances, including pilot attitude. They do not determine if there was
a violation based on pilot attitude.
Steve
Dale
<pbaechle-231...@host-216-76-232-115.hsv.bellsouth.net>,
pbae...@bellsouth.net (Paul Baechler) wrote:
> No, this is bullshit. A law enforcement officer is not required to make
> any of those decisions before getting out of the car, some of them he is
> not allowed to make at all. In any civilized force an officer makes his
> decisions based on the facts, which are not all available until AFTER he
> gets out of his car.
Correct, it is not a "requirement" that the officer decide before the
contact what action he will take. But it is considered good practice.
It's a way to keep your "feelings" from having an influence on your
reasoning. In twenty years of law enforcement it was rare for me to
change my mind after stopping someone. But occasionally a violator had a
good "excuse"....and occasionally when intending to just verbally warn
someone it would become obvious that a warning would have no effect so in
those cases I would take firmer action.
--
Dale L. Falk
Cessna 182A
N5912B
St Stephen Ames
> He doesn't get to issue tickets based on whether or not he likes or
> dislikes the offender.
No but when he has the choice to issue or not, attitude is everything...
> Whether someone deserves a ticket for speeding does not depend on
> whether or not he treats the officer with the officer's definition of
> the proper respect and deference.
>
> >> This is to prevent the very thing you seem to think is acceptable,
> >> i.e., deciding what the fine should be after he gets a look at the
> >> violator (attitude, color of skin, etc).
> >
> >In the U.S. a fine is assessed after guilt is determined, which is done in
> >a court by (at a minimum) a judge. Law enforcement officers neither
> >determine guilt nor assess fines. Maybe you live somewhere else.
>
> Exactly my point.
>
> Charges are not brought by enforcement officers, local, state or
> federal, based on the accused's attitude.
BS!...Again when giving the choice, attitude is everything...You may
deserve to be charged, but you don't have to be...
>
> The FAA is not exempt from the fact that we live in a country of laws,
> not men.
>
> When those sworn to uphold the law start passing out enforcement
> actions based on whether they approve of someone's attitude, we are
> all in a shitload of trouble...
If a cop ever pulls you over, have a bad attitude and see whether you
get a warning or a ticket(s)...
Blue skies,
St Stephen Ames
PP-ASEL
N16402
PA-28-180
My flying site: http://www.stephenames.com/flying/flying.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
- Another part of my pre-flight passenger briefing -
'Smoking is not permitted inside the cabin; however smoking outside
the cabin should be reported to the captain immediately!'
Unknown
understand it.
In my neighborhood recently, cops were stopping cars passing through
only because the occupants looked like Puerto Ricans.
If you think there's a big difference between cops busting you for
attitude and cops busting you for other outward appearances, you need
to read a couple of history books.
Recent American history will do nicely.
Jim Sokoloff
>
> On Thu, 23 Dec 1999 10:32:16 -0500, Jim Sokoloff <soko...@tiac.net>
> wrote:
> >When you are pulled over by the state highway patrol or
> >auditted by the IRS, or court martialed, or..., would
> >you expect the enforcement outcome to be the same whether
> >you were polite and exhibitted a "compliant attitude" or if
> >you exclaimed, "What the f(*&# are you hassling me about
> >you fat sweaty pig ba*&^$d?! Aren't you overdue at the local
> >Dunkin'?!" Unless you already murdered someone and the cops
> >know it, I would expect your outcome in the latter case to
> >be less favorable. :-)
> This is bullshit.
Maybe, maybe not. It's at least factual, if not the
ideal situation.
> As a matter of fact, law enforcement officers are required, in any
> civilized force, to make the decision on the infraction, ticket, fine,
> etc., BEFORE he gets out of his car.
This is evidently not the case in the vast majority of
jurisdictions in which I've been stopped by police
for minor traffic violations. I display a good compliant
attitude, acknowledge that the officer is correct in his
accusation that I was speeding (or, in one case, that I
ran a stop sign that I honestly didn't see and treated as
a yield sign), and ask if the officer believes that a
written warning would suffice in this case. Generally, it
does. (It didn't in the stop sign case.)
> This is to prevent the very thing you seem to think is acceptable,
> i.e., deciding what the fine should be after he gets a look at the
> violator (attitude, color of skin, etc).
You're talking about two different things. Attitude is
relevant, color of skin isn't.
> Enforcement action should be taken against the infraction, not the
> personality of the violator.
What's the purpose of enforcement in your opinion? In mine,
"enforcement" for minor violation is to educate and prevent
further minor or major violations. In this case, the attitude
of the alleged violator IS very important. If someone acts
like a hard-headed "I didn't do anything wrong, stop hassling
me" asshole, they probably need a more forceful enforcement
action to get the point across.
If your opinion is that enforcement action is solely meant as
punishment and a stick with which to ensure compliance, then,
indeed, the violator's attitude should be irrelevant and the
officer could make the majority of decisions prior to leaving
the cruiser.
> You no doubt would have been very comfortable living in Germany, say
> around 1937-1939.
Hmm, a bit early in the thread to invoke Godwin's law isn't it?
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/
---Jim
buck...@gmail.com
> I was practicing touch and goes in a 17knot cross wind on Tuesday. (very
> stressful)
> What is the recommend max on wind speed when doing touch and goes in a
> Cessna 150?
> Carlton.