If max crosswind in POH is exceeded is insurance void

[DrZoos]

Whats your thoughts on published max figures in POH being exceeded and thus voiding

 

The reason i ask is a freind is contemplating purchasing a sportstar. But the POH says 10kt max crosswind. He lives on the coast where basically 5 momths the sea breezes exceed 10kts and thus many many days he may be flying uninsured if thats the case.

 

Anyone know the deal?? Because there must be many times people take off below max crosswimd and land with max exceeded. Yep i know the component calculations ...

 

 

[kaz3g]

Might need to look at your insurance policy. Might also need to see if the max is a recommended or demonstrated...latter could be a problem.

 

Kaz

 

 

[mothra]

How would the insurer know max xwind was exceeded at exactly the time you botched the landing?

 

 

[dazza 38]

I agree with mothra, they wouldn't or couldn't be able to prove what the x wind component was at the time of the accident. IMO

 

 

[metalman]

Very hard to to prove, even as the wind can change direction quite a bit in gusty conditions, and it's also not often the sock it 90deg to the strip, so the amount of crosswind isn't always as much as we think. Beside 10 knots isn't much for a tricycle gear ,I would've thought a sportstar would do better than that,

 

 

[Ultralights]

The Max Demonstrated crosswind component is the max crosswind the aircraft was flown in during times of certification.

 

 

[djpacro]

Please quote the full text from the POH. My recollection is that there is much more there for us to discuss.

 

 

[facthunter]

It can be derived several ways. At some stage it is usually demonstrated, but not always up to where it is limiting. If the wind available at the time of the testing, is limited it will be stated"demonstrated" .The inference is that the plane may be capable of more, and you could possibly argue that fact. However the notes usually state the crosswind capability will be reduced for water on runway gusts etc Left to the pilot's judgement. basically if you muck it up and the component is above the book figure you are in the gun. IF it is stated in the POH, I would not exceed it in a commercial operation. Further if the xwind at your aerodrome of intended destination is forecast to be above that PERMITTED for the aircraft type an alternate should be carried. I think the message is clear, that some significant importance is placed on it, and that if you prang in such conditions you will be NOT covered. Nev

 

 

[rgmwa]

Insurers (and their lawyers) will go strictly by the written word, and I suspect the onus will be on you to prove otherwise in the face of whatever published wind data they can find for the area for the date and time in question.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[dazza 38]

From a outsider ( I have not flown a Sportstar) the max x wind seems to be a conservative figure.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

On one policy I had in the past, I questioned what landing areas I would be covered on, they came back with approved landing areas. I said that wouldn't work as my aircraft is quite capable of landing on unimproved landing sites, and was designed to do so. We finally settled on " (their suggestion)..." As long as the selected landing area meets the takeoff /landing distance figures in the factory operating handbook"......they sent me an appendium to attach to the policy with that written on it....I was happy with that !...........what they'll do for a buck !!!.........Maj......

 

 

[Mick]

This has been discussed here before and specifically in relation to the Sportstar. That figure is given ( as is required by American LSA regs ) for landing with full flap. In reality you would not use full flap in a strong crosswind.

 

The Sportstar is capable of handling much more than 10 kts.

 

 

[rgmwa]

This has been discussed here before and specifically in relation to the Sportstar. That figure is given ( as is required by American LSA regs ) for landing with full flap. In reality you would not use full flap in a strong crosswind. The Sportstar is capable of handling much more than 10 kts.

Same with the RV-12 which is also an LSA. It's rated at 11 kts demonstrated, but can be landed in close to 20 kts according to those that have done it (not me).

 

rgmwa

 

 

[Camel]

Please quote the full text from the POH. My recollection is that there is much more there for us to discuss.

You are correct, I don't have the manual with me but from memory there are three figure, it give a figure recommended for any average pilot, demonstrated and another figure that was done at by a test pilot.

When I read the manual I thought it left it fairly open to let the PIC decide as to their ability.

 

I read it a long while ago so my memory is a little vague, from personal experience it handles x wind very well and as others have said it will handle well above 10 knts,

 

Just googled this.

 

1. Cross winds.The demonstrated cross wind limit of the SportStar is 21 knots – by an experienced Evektor factory pilot on a FLAPLESS landing. The factory recommended maximum crosswind for a pilot of ‘average’ skill, using FULL FLAP is 11 knots. Whenever possible, land directly into wind. If you can’t, adopt the technique your instructor taught you and/or whichever you are most comfortable with. Make sure the nose wheel is pointing in the direction of travel when you lower it on to the runway.
    
    
    
   

 

 

 

 

[metalman]

From a legal point if the TAF for your destination showed the xwind to be above the POH limit you might have an issue , but it really is a very open ended figure really dependant on the pilots skill,if listed as "recommended" or "dependant on skill", also landing across the runway reduces the crosswind component quite a lot , there's a lot of open endedness with these figures, it would be hard to go to court against a claim I reckon. And as anyone with more than a couple of hours would've experianced sliding down final and watching that nice headwind turn into a freckle puckering crosswind, it would be a pretty game insurance co to deny a claim on something so vague . And as a side note I've got some hours in a sport star and reckon its one of the more squirrelly tricycle geared jiggers around, which would account for a lower demonstrated xwind , maybe.

 

Matty

 

 

[Mick]

Here is a link to where this was previously discussed in the Sportstar section of this forum -

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com.au/threads/sportstar-crosswind-capability.8231/

 

 

[turboplanner]

How would the insurer know max xwind was exceeded at exactly the time you botched the landing?

The insurer would just deny liability after seeing the obvious damage; you would have to prove you didn't exceed the component, which would be pretty hard with the track of the aircraft, the scrape marks etc.

 

I was stunned when researching rain during flood conditions to see that all historic weather is databased. For example on November 30, 1034, it's possible to see what the winds were at each station during the day, when the rain started, how much fell, and where in quite a large catchment which in those days would have been out in a sparsely populated area.

 

Virtually every small town has a weather station, so the odds are that this town will be reporting wind strength and direction each day.

 

Aside from the issue being discussed here, what would be good, is if the BOM provided digital access to those reports. You wouldn't need windsocks then, particularly the cheap windsocks that seem to have infested fields these days and could be indicating anything in the way of wind strength and still appear to be fairly limp.

 

 

[facthunter]

You BOM winds won't show twisters. They are one of the most likely causes of coming to grief. As far as windsocks go. I believe they are indispensable. Often rising dust is the only indication of damaging winds. They affect aircraft of all sizes. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

If you are landing at an aerodrome that has a tower, the crosswind component will be being recorded. Some aerodromes have no tower but are BOM reporting points; there's usually a record of wind strength and direction. So don't bet that the insurer cannot prove you were exceeding some crosswind value.

 

 

[ahlocks]

Don't insure the aircraft and it is then just up to you as PIC as to whether you and the aircraft can handle the conditions.

Pretty hard to argue against decimalDave's logic.

[facthunter]

'locks mine's much the same . I don't insure the plane in the air. On the ground she's covered. That's where the damage is most likely.

 

At major airports there is a recording of the wind direction and strength. I don't know how long it is kept. The ATIS is not reliable They only change it when the change is significant. If you come in with one stopped you should request actual conditions if you need them. Pilot is supposed to do the most safe action. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

At major airports there is a recording of the wind direction and strength. I don't know how long it is kept.

At least 70 years that I know of; BOM still have to catch up - with the hundreds of years of the UK. I guess someone somewhere is reading off this date to produce trends since the first settlement.

 

 

[DrZoos]

From manual

 

Demonstrated crosswind performance

 

Maximum demonstrated speed of wind at airplane operation 24 kts (28 mph)

 

Maximum demonstrated speed of cross wind for take-off and landing 10 kts (12 mph)

 

Maximum demonstrated speed of tail wind 6 kts (7 mph)

 

Page 72

 

http://www.evektor.com.au/public/editor_images/SportStar FM 2009.pdf

 

 

[facthunter]

Well, we now have another factor. Wind Speed. IF it's above 28 mph NO flying. I find that somewhat strange. IF the wind was steady, you could land easily up to the approach (airspeed) used equalling the windspeed. After that you would be landing while rolling backwards,. That would be difficult to control in most aircraft, as planes are not designed and pilots are not trained to taxi backwards. (One exception being using reverse thrust for short distances with Jet or Prop aircraft.) NOT a normal operation.

 

Dr Zoos, They are making some kind of recommendation, and covering their @r$e, but otherwise , not very helpful Nev

 

 

[metalman]

max wind speed of 24 knots makes it a pretty useless aircraft really, and the xwind is pretty low for a tricycle geared plane, maybe the testing was done with the pilots feet on the floor instead of the pedals!

 

matty