Message-ID: <361047F8.4933@ibm.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 21:37:44 -0500
From: Snowbird <snbird@ibm.net>
Reply-To: snbird@ibm.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
CC: "Charles, Luz, Lito" <dokee@powerup.com.au>
Subject: Maximum Crosswind Component, safety (was: C172 slips and flaps, not prohibited
References: <6rl2li$fc3$1@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <6rom2f$odr@journal.concentric.net> <35E6BB3B.CFDDB410@fscvax.wvnet.edu> <6tsncl$t6k$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net> <3603205F.BDACC69E@goldcom.com> <3610f85e.5299915@news.powerup.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.100.136.22
X-Trace: 29 Sep 1998 03:26:23 GMT, 32.100.136.22
Organization: IBM.NET
Lines: 87
X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy
X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!digex!news1.radix.net!nac!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!165.87.194.242!newsm2.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!32.100.136.22
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.student:33721

Newsgroup line edited, courtesy copy emailed to author.  Xposting
still eevil (my view).

Charles, Luz, Lito wrote:

[snip debatable point about Mfg motivation for placards]

>  Reading the postings I am amazed at the lack of safety conciousness
> of many pilots. <snip.....>
>  Surely if the crosswind is so strong that the only way to track down
> final requires excessive slip and full flap then the aircraft is being
> operated well above the Maximum Crosswind Component.

Ah, Grasshopper.  Surely the first step on the Golden Road to Unlimited
Safety Karma is knowledge?

There is no such thing as a "maximum crosswind component".  There is
a "maximum demonstrated crosswind velocity", clearly labeled "not an
operating limitation".  This is simply the strongest crosswind in
which landing was demonstrated during testing.  It is not the maximum
crosswind in which the plane can be safely controlled.

How might the safety of a pilot who does not understand this, be
affected?  Might such a pilot, having never explored his own limits
and the limits of his plane from the relative safety of experienced
backup to hand (such as, with a good CFI) press on at some point into
deteriorating weather or when his own skill and alertness are
deteriorating, because the wind at his intended destination is above
the "maximum demonstrated crosswind" in the POH, and he takes that
to be an operating limitation akin to Vne, based on engineering fact?

I don't know.  Perhaps.

I am amazed at the apparent common perception that flight safety is 
something which can be distilled and encoded in a simple series
of rules.  Flight safety, in my opinion, is a process: a continuous
evaluation of current conditions in light of the capabilities of
both plane and pilot.

I didn't fly on Saturday.  Forcast was for winds 15g25.  I've
been out in conditions like that, and stronger, before--well
above the demonstrated crosswind component of the plane I was
flying then (a C172).  I like such conditions for training.

To be honest, I'm not sure what the max xwind number is for the 
plane I fly now.  That's not why I didn't fly.  For personal reasons,
I haven't flown much in the last few weeks.  I'd flown the night
before, and my landings weren't what I expect them to be.  My 
judgement told me that I, in my plane which I'm still learning, 
wasn't up to those winds at this time.  And I stuck to that, in 
the face of a CFI who told me those winds were nothing to her, 
let's go fly (she has thousands of hours, but none in my
make or model of plane).  On another day, I'll seek someone I
trust in my plane and go flying in strong winds 'til I learn my 
plane's limits.  To me, that is safety-conscious.  I'll know
what my plane can do, and what I can handle, and choose my margin
of safety accordingly.

> AVOID means DON'T........Except in the most dire of
> circumstances.

And in that dire circumstance?  What then? If descent is needed
more rapid than full flaps/power out will provide, is it more safety
conscious to never have slipped with flaps?  Or is it more safety
conscious to have explored, at altitude, the effects of slips with
various flap settings, so that on that dire day one will know how
the plane will react? 

I guess that's something each pilot will have to decide.  I saw a
quote from a pro pilot too.  It was to the effect, "when the plane
turns into an alligator, the pilot had better be trained at wrestling
'gators."

Oh, just one last thing.  You speak of:

> Some brag at the amazing (according to them)
> manouevers and approaches undertaken by operating the aircraft while
> ignoring the placarded warning, especially when operating near the
> ground and apparently with high crosswinds.

Are you sure that all of the pilots who've spoken of such maneuvers
are even flying planes where a placard "avoid slips with flaps"
applies?

Snowbird (no placard regarding slips in my plane)


