If max crosswind in POH is exceeded is insurance void

[facthunter]

Well, they are playing it safe aren't they?. I suggest that is not a lot of help. I don't want to offend but it doesn't have the worlds strongest nosewheel steering mechanism. It's OK if used with consideration of that. Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

All limitations must be in the Limitations section of the AFM.

 

The text is a statement of what the manufacturer has demonstrated.

 

Given due consideration of the translation into English which could be improved, but words have specific meanings. There is not a maximum limit specified by the manufacturer nor is there a recommendation not to go beyond any of those speeds.

 

Talk to some-one who knows the aeroplane and your ability as to advice on operating in those winds or beyond.

 

Why not put this question to your insurance company.

 

Interesting that Moorabbin Airport's measured crosswind may vary drastically from what you might experience at touchdown depending on direction of the wind and the runway used. Sometimes the crosswind totally disappears on R35. Other nearby fields there always seems to be a diabolical crosswind when I visit but no ATIS.

 

 

[ozbear]

U

 

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

Usually everything is covered until there's an accident

[Garfly]

There is an interesting thread related to this topic on the BMAA Skyranger forum.

 

http://forums.bmaa.org/default.aspx?f=32&m=70043

 

 

[facthunter]

Dewhurst's comments are worth reading as general technique. Nev

 

 

[68volksy]

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

I wouldn't think that insurance is necessarily voided by breaking a law? I'd be checking the policy wording very carefully. There would however be some sort of disclosure agreement whereby you would certify to the insurer that the aircraft was airworthy prior to taking out insurance. This might be where things could get hung up and the whole policy could be null and void - especially in the RA-Aus world where everything really comes down to self-assessment. If you have a LAME signing off then you're good to sue if something's not right.

 

I think you'd be mad to step into any aircraft that's exceeded the max crosswind at any time though. Evektor may have a good checklist of items that he may be able to go through every time the crosswind max is exceeded but failing this you'd be stepping into a one-off experimental each time you get into it.

 

For some reason I often get the impression that many "pilots" see the max crosswind figure as more of a guide rather than a hard and fast rule? If you run an engine at 9000 rpm when redline is 8000 rpm everyone would all expect it to fail catastrophically but for some reason not many seem to feel the same way about the max crosswind figure? It's funny because engine failures we'd all have some chance to deal with but structural failures really don't leave you with many choices...

 

 

[kaz3g]

[quote="68volksy, post: 396159, member: 543"]I wouldn't think that insurance is necessarily voided by breaking a law? I'd be checking the policy wording very carefully.

 

 

I think you are very likely to find your policy is voidable in the event the pilot is offending against a relevant rule at the time of the claimable event. It will be up to the insurer to decide if they will pay out or not.

 

I think you'd be mad to step into any aircraft that's exceeded the max crosswind at any time though.

 

Very difficult to ascertain, though, because a competent pilot will be able to land it in significantly higher cross-wind conditions and do no damage at all. Conversely, a novice who lands with no correction for the 10 knots permitted at all risks damaging the undercarriage, especially that rather fragile NW.

 

For some reason I often get the impression that many "pilots" see the max crosswind figure as more of a guide rather than a hard and fast rule?

 

I read the "demonstrated" figure as a guide rather than an imperative, but I take particular notice of it!

 

Kaz

 

 

[facthunter]

HOW you land during the crosswind event is what counts. If you do any landing that would be such as to impose high loads on the structure you should have an inspection done. . Many landings are done over the stated limit. (Cross winds) , depending how the published crosswind was achieved. and sometimes you don't have much of a choice. In some cases the absolute limit was never demonstrated, so unless it is frequently limiting in service it is never revisited by the maker.

 

The pilot has to assess the skill required and if he/she is practiced and competent to do it, and like most things ,if nothing happens it's all right. IF something goes wrong they look for reasons. IF it is known you exceeded the stated limit, and you mucked it up, why would they pay out on it? . I would BET they wouldn't unless you have a good relationship with them and do a lot of business to make it worth their while

 

The aircraft manual will also give reduced figures for measurable depth of water and make references to gusts and other factors. It's both a guide and in most cases a stated limit that a fairly competent pilot can do safely. There's a message in there somewhere.

 

If you are trained well, when you are doing your approach you know how to assess the aircraft's capability to cope well before the actual landing . If you are not happy, go around, BEFORE any wheels touch the ground. Nev

 

 

[poteroo]

The exact crosswind at the point of touchdown or liftoff is going to vary considerably, because both the direction and speed of the prevailing wind will be different at different locations on the airport. The wind recording is rarely made close to the runway and so there's a lot of scope to argue the point over numbers. The higher the speed of the prevailing wind - the greater is the swing in both direction and speed. Different locations on any one airport will experience different wind speeds and directions due to obstructions and vegetation, and a windsock may, or may not, give you a usable guide. If there is local AWIS - then it's certainly going to be taken as factual in any investigation - so it needs to be listened to both before takeoff and before landing. If you cannot 'fit' under your calculation of crosswind from the quoted windspeed and direction - then legally you need to look for another runway.

 

happy days,

 

 

[DrZoos]

I got caught in a southerly change recently at 90 degree to the runway. Touchdown was a piece of cake, but the approach was out of a freddy cruger movie. So i reckon you need to sus out the ground effect before going around. The weather got a lot worse soon after so i was very happy that i didnt go round. Glad to have done a lot of very windy landings while training.

 

Im pretty sure it was a ......... Over max crosswimd. Might not have been insured, but flying elsewhere in that was not an option.

 

 

[nomadpete]

So, if the POH has listed 'demonstrated' numbers which leave the choice up to skill level of the PIC, is it still possible to have a problem claiming on insurance if you break the aero at or below those numbers -

 

If you come to grief then you have proven that you, the PIC are clearly 'Not yet Competent' to land under the prevailing conditions (regardless of what the xwind number is).

 

Note that our pilots certificate is not a certification of competence to land in a crosswind of 'X' knots in 'Y' aircraft type.

 

Is it possible that the insurer could deny payout due to the claimant not being competent?

 

Pete

 

 

[facthunter]

Demonstrated (with explanation, like highest crosswind available for testing) infers that the plane could have achieved more, especially when similar designs handle higher figures.

 

No one can land a "smallish" plane in a willy willy which can be invisible to the pilot if there are no dust or leaves to show its presence.

 

Anytime conditions prove beyond the capacity of the pilot to manage, the question of competence could be raised, and debated. If the pilot has exceeded a limitation without good reason, and that is a causal factor (alleged) He/she will get it in the neck.

 

The concept of pilot fault (pilot error) being responsible for all accidents where the wing doesn't fall off while it is sitting there, is old fashioned and should be relegated to the dustbins of history. Mostly investigations done properly will identify factors that were causal or contributory . The three hand altimeter is one of the most dangerous of all cockpit instruments that hasn't changed for 50 years and very prone to being misread, misused (Kollsman scale) as an example. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Your insurance company would need some sort of evidence to deny you coverage, like a witness report. Its expected that you will be more likely to crash in bad weather, that's why you have insurance.

 

 

[metalman]

I work in an industry that deals with insurers all day ,everyday , they will cover stuff that is marginal rather than go legal, over to top stupid claims ,forget it, something as vague and subjective as "demonstrated" and' Pilots capabilities" ,I'd take that bet ! and do,will and have in the past, along with the total variables with the wind direction and strength near the ground an insurer would be mad to get legal over what is a pittance in the company bottom line.

 

matty