Message-ID: <36119B33.2778@ibm.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 21:45:07 -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
Subject: Re: 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$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net> <3603205F.BDACC69E@goldcom.com>
	    <3610f85e.5299915@news.powerup.com.au> <361047F8.4933@ibm.net> <6ur19p$kid$1@hirame.wwa.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.37.111.252
X-Trace: 30 Sep 1998 03:08:11 GMT, 129.37.111.252
Organization: IBM.NET
Lines: 45
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!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsm2.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!129.37.111.252
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.student:33864

Jean Liddle wrote:
 
> In article <361047F8.4933@ibm.net>,
>         Snowbird <snbird@ibm.net> writes:
> > 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.  

> This is true.  However, I was going through the accident reports
> at the NTSB for my particular model of aircraft, trying to familiarize
> myself with what most commonly gets people into trouble flying it,
> and more than once "the pilot exceeded maximum demonstrated crosswind
> on landing" was cited as a contributing factor and/or part of the
> cause.  It is troubling to me that something which is clearly
> placarded as a *demonstrated* velocity which is "not an operating
> limitation" is then cited as a reason to blame the pilot when things
> go amiss.  Comments?

I guess I have two comments.

One is, before I started flying, I took comfort in the notion
that all those nasty accidents were caused by pilot error, and
if I was a careful pilot they wouldn't happen to me.  Well, there
are accident reports which read like the pilot was trying to win
a Darwin award, but a lot of times it seems like the definition
of pilot error is "had an accident, couldn't find blatent mechanical
problem, therefore must pilot error".  I feel if investigators can
by some stretch assign blame to the pilot or find violations, they
will.  Perhaps it's a cynical view.

Second is, the real cause of the accident is the same in both
cases (above and below max demonstrated xwind); in both cases,
it's not the wind exceeding the number in the POH, it's the 
pilot who caused the accident.

If the recorded wind happens to be below the demonstrated xwind
for the plane, the pilot will still be blamed.  The cause will
read "failed to maintain directional control of plane during
landing and rollout-pilot in command".  It's still called pilot
error. 

Snowbird


