Crash button consequences
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In alot of countries you will recieve a bill and the plane will be grounded until you pay it.
In any case, I would expect your insurance to cover that bill. Provided it's a genuine emergency of course.
Just as with calling the fire department as a prank from your home phone, I would expect a fake emergency declaration will result in a bill/fine and possible prosecution.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And crash one not all countries are like the UK where declaring an emergency doesn't result in a huge bill.
In alot of countries you will recieve a bill and the plane will be grounded until you pay it.
In alot of countries you will recieve a bill and the plane will be grounded until you pay it.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“the crosswind exceeding the published limits for a particular aircraft type”
What aircraft type? Very very few have crosswind limits. A demonstrated crosswind component is not a limit, it is advisory.
Rod1
What aircraft type? Very very few have crosswind limits. A demonstrated crosswind component is not a limit, it is advisory.
Rod1
I've been responsible for defining the "demonstrated crosswind limits" for a number of types. In all but one, it was the maximum we ever saw in flight test, and not limited by any aircraft characteristic. Essentially it was a declaration that the aeroplane is safely controllable at-least this far.
In one only we decided we'd passed safe and sensible limits due to controllability and pilot workload, and put clear wording in the POH recommending that a specific value was not exceeded. That's out of maybe a dozen types.
G
In one only we decided we'd passed safe and sensible limits due to controllability and pilot workload, and put clear wording in the POH recommending that a specific value was not exceeded. That's out of maybe a dozen types.
G
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's interesting to read the splitting of hairs over the crosswind limits, on my own aircraft it claims a maximum demonstrated limit of 17kts, which I respect. The undercarriage is far to expensive to repair should it go wrong. Equally an aircraft I owned many years ago claimed 25kts as the demonstrated limit - again I would not want to place the aircraft at risk. Whats the point? The chances are that the demonstrated limit was reached by an extremely able and competent test pilot who was at the point of not feeling happy going further.
In my book the cost of a diversion against the cost (and downtime) of a repair does not make the risk worthwhile.
In my book the cost of a diversion against the cost (and downtime) of a repair does not make the risk worthwhile.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The frozen north....
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I seem to remember the C172 'demonstrated' limit is about 15kts which is miles off its actual capabilities in the real world. I've landed one with a 30kts x-wind up in the windy Islands and it actually didnt feel that bad though the wind was pretty steady, I've heard stories from some of the old flying farmers in my last group of much higher figures being 'do-able'.....
Saying that the ability to land with significant wing down and plant the upwind wheel first really does help... the Tri Pacer is an odd beast in this respect with the interlinked rudder and ailerons, really needs to be manhandled with crossed controls and I'm not so sure I'd try it in 30kts....
Saying that the ability to land with significant wing down and plant the upwind wheel first really does help... the Tri Pacer is an odd beast in this respect with the interlinked rudder and ailerons, really needs to be manhandled with crossed controls and I'm not so sure I'd try it in 30kts....
Last edited by Unusual Attitude; 4th Jun 2012 at 14:31.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The chances are that the demonstrated limit was reached by an extremely able and competent test pilot who was at the point of not feeling happy going further.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It just that that was the max amount of cross wind they could find during testing.
Once that demonstration has been done, that certification point has passed and the test pilots can move on to other things. There is no need or incentive for them to prove that the aircraft can be landed safely at higher crosswinds.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does crap maintanence coming in to landing outside the demostrated crosswind limits?
I might add this is exactly why Cessan has just brought out all the SID's for there aircraft.
I might add this is exactly why Cessan has just brought out all the SID's for there aircraft.
One of the feet showed evidence of cracking, and the surface of the
crack was corroded, suggesting that it was old damage. The remaining fracture surfaces were clean
and bright.
crack was corroded, suggesting that it was old damage. The remaining fracture surfaces were clean
and bright.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Retractables are obviously far more fragile when it comes to side loads......
MJ - I agree, they missed that on inspection. NDT test should have found that as per the Piper AD
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_027249.pdf
An interesting article on how crosswind limits are decided in larger aircraft
http://reports.nlr.nl:8080/xmlui/bit...pdf?sequence=1
An interesting article on how crosswind limits are decided in larger aircraft
http://reports.nlr.nl:8080/xmlui/bit...pdf?sequence=1
Last edited by goldeneaglepilot; 4th Jun 2012 at 15:49.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Niort
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the same airport I metioned earlier during my ppl training we cam back to the single runway with a crosswind in excess of 30kt - in a C150.
My instructor simply said follow me through and we landed on the centreline with no drama - an object lesson in how 'demonstrated crosswinds' are just that and why there is usually no mention of the word 'limit'.
IIRC some of the C172 manuals even add 'without using crosswind technique' so the old Landomatic approach.
It was this background, that lead me to use the wing down, crossed controls approach for crosswinds - working on the basis that if I can stay on the centreline when just flying a taildragger I should manage to stay there until I need the brakes - and one good application should be enough. And so it has proved to date.
Mind you taxiing can be a real pain .......
FWIW a Tripacer without the interconnect can actually take a huge crosswind - well over 30 kts - and it's really straight forward.
My instructor simply said follow me through and we landed on the centreline with no drama - an object lesson in how 'demonstrated crosswinds' are just that and why there is usually no mention of the word 'limit'.
IIRC some of the C172 manuals even add 'without using crosswind technique' so the old Landomatic approach.
It was this background, that lead me to use the wing down, crossed controls approach for crosswinds - working on the basis that if I can stay on the centreline when just flying a taildragger I should manage to stay there until I need the brakes - and one good application should be enough. And so it has proved to date.
Mind you taxiing can be a real pain .......
FWIW a Tripacer without the interconnect can actually take a huge crosswind - well over 30 kts - and it's really straight forward.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the saab 2k has got a huge cross wind limit because its got a whore of a big rudder to allow for a engine failure of one of those massive donks.
Coupled with the fact its got quite a high wing clearance and its low wing.
We generally try not to land big things going sideways unless they are designed for it like the 747.
And that accident they busted the limit which is different to what we are talking about which is the max demo. If they hit a max limt during testing thats what it gets defined as in the manual.
Coupled with the fact its got quite a high wing clearance and its low wing.
We generally try not to land big things going sideways unless they are designed for it like the 747.
And that accident they busted the limit which is different to what we are talking about which is the max demo. If they hit a max limt during testing thats what it gets defined as in the manual.
Last edited by mad_jock; 4th Jun 2012 at 15:51.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The frozen north....
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
GEP,
Kitfox 2
Maximum Total weight Authorised: 950 Lbs
Same reason I didnt fly my Tipsy Nipper in much more than 15kts as they are prone to being tipped over onto a wingtip in strong winds being light weight with diehedral wings...
Thanks for the heads up on the Tri Pacer Gasax, alas ours still has the bungees in place though I'd be much happier if they were removed.....that and the stupid Johnson bar! Have landed it fine with 20kts crosswind but it does need to be muscled around a bit more with the bungees in place....
Kitfox 2
Maximum Total weight Authorised: 950 Lbs
Same reason I didnt fly my Tipsy Nipper in much more than 15kts as they are prone to being tipped over onto a wingtip in strong winds being light weight with diehedral wings...
Thanks for the heads up on the Tri Pacer Gasax, alas ours still has the bungees in place though I'd be much happier if they were removed.....that and the stupid Johnson bar! Have landed it fine with 20kts crosswind but it does need to be muscled around a bit more with the bungees in place....
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UA - Kitfox, Yes, I agree, not a brilliant aircraft on ground handling.
What has suprised my though is how some of the flex wing microlights seem to cope with wind.
What has suprised my though is how some of the flex wing microlights seem to cope with wind.
Kitfox, Yes, I agree, not a brilliant aircraft on ground handling.