Demonstrated Crosswind Component

colomtnflyer said:
IBut as liability has been mentioned- should the aircraft get pranged while landing when the MDCC is exceeded, don't expect the insurance companies to pay up,
Click to expand...
On what grounds could they deny coverage? You've neither violated a reg nor exceeded a limitation.
and if someone were to be injured or worse, it would be likely the FAA/ NTSB would have a finding of pilot error.
Click to expand...
If you lose control on landing in a crosswind, they'll find that whether you exceeded the MDCC or not.
No claim could be made against the manufacturer with that finding.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine any claim against the mfr in a loss-of-control accident ever being sustained, anyway, even if the MDCC was not exceeded -- the pilot's own involvement makes skill/proficiency the real issue.
But I would fully expect the CFI who trained that pilot to be put on the carpet by the FAA/NTSB, about whether exceeding MDCC was included in the course of training.
Click to expand...
I've never seen that happen. In fact, the issue of MDCC not being a limitation is a popular question on PP practical tests.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
In the airline side of things, the FAA mandated in our training program X-wind training in excess of the Demonstrated Cross Wind Component.
Click to expand...

What part 121 aircraft are you flying that has a demonstrated crosswind component? Throughout my airline career (includes ATR's, Embraers, 737's, MD80s, and currently 767/757), all the aircraft either have a crosswind limitation or no limitation at all. None of them have had a demonstrated crosswind component.
 
Correction said:
What part 121 aircraft are you flying that has a demonstrated crosswind component? Throughout my airline career (includes ATR's, Embraers, 737's, MD80s, and currently 767/757), all the aircraft either have a crosswind limitation or no limitation at all. None of them have had a demonstrated crosswind component.
Click to expand...

As per my AOM on the B727 "Max Demonstrated Crosswind T.O./Landing (not limiting) 29Kts"
 
Airlines may put crosswind limits in their company ops manual, and those become regulatory since obedience to the manual is a regulation, but I don't think Part 25 aircraft necessarily have crosswind limits in the aircraft flight manual published by the mfr.
 
Ron Levy said:
I don't think Part 25 aircraft necessarily have crosswind limits in the aircraft flight manual published by the mfr.
Click to expand...
All the ones that I have flown have had published maximum demonstrated crosswind component limits.
 
Ron Levy said:
Airlines may put crosswind limits in their company ops manual, and those become regulatory since obedience to the manual is a regulation, but I don't think Part 25 aircraft necessarily have crosswind limits in the aircraft flight manual published by the mfr.
Click to expand...

I think you're correct. At my airline the 757/767 does not have a published x-wind limit. IT has recommendations based on dry, wet, snow covered runway, but no limitations. The ATR had a limit, and the Embraer 145 only had a company imposed limitation.
 
Everskyward said:
All the ones that I have flown have had published maximum demonstrated crosswind component limits.
Click to expand...
I kinda doubt that. I think it would have either a "maximum demonstrated crosswind component" or a "maximum crosswind component limit." Demonstration <> limit. Limits are in Section 2 of the AFM, demonstrated values are elsewhere.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Uhh, is it a limit? The word "demonstrated" is kind of a hangup for me. :wink2:
Click to expand...
You're right, it's not a limit. I guess I phrased it wrong and misinterpreted Ron's statement. What I meant was all the Part 25 airplanes I have flown have had a maximum demonstrated crosswind component published.

"Maximum demonstrated crosswind component (Not limiting, with or without thrust reversers) -- 25 knots
 
Last edited:
barney said:
As for the General Operations Manual (GOM) being regulatory, I ask this question. Is the GOM "Accepted" or "Approved" by the POI? There is a difference in regard to the "Regulatory" nature you stated above.
Click to expand...

The FAA inspector's checklist for certifying an air carrier has a box marked "Approve Operations Specifications." So I think it's "Approved."
 
Whether they're "accepted" or "approved," compliance with the company FOM is mandated by the regulations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top