What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

When Just "Exploring the Limits"

TomVal

Well Known Member
Just food for thought:

Perhaps the most often exceeded operating limit we read about on VAF is another successful landing at winds above the posted crosswind limitation on our aircraft. There is also a posted headwind limitation on our RV's. In other threads Scott has previously posted how Van's tests and derives these limitations.

In regards to a recently posted crosswind landing experience, kudos for skillful piloting. However, under the reported wind conditions, that landing was accomplished under winds exceeding both headwind and crosswind limitations for that aircraft. In addition, a passenger was on board.

In the event of an accident/injury scenario, you could be faced with some serious liability issues and no damage recovery for bent metal.

Regards,
 
Just food for thought:

In the event of an accident/injury scenario, you could be faced with some serious liability issues and no damage recovery for bent metal.

Regards,

The insurance company will pay to fix/replace the aircraft regardless of how you bend it. It is hard to crash an airplane without violating the FAR's and/or operating limits, so if violating the rules was the litmus test to deny payout, insurance would almost never pay. I've been through this discussion with a friend who's on the claims side of an aviation insurance company. You break the airplane, they pay.
 
I don't believe there is a published crosswind limitation for our planes.

Maybe for the RV-12 but that's a different story than the rest.
 
The insurance company will pay to fix/replace the aircraft regardless of how you bend it. (snip) if violating the rules was the litmus test to deny payout, insurance would almost never pay. I've been through this discussion with a friend who's on the claims side of an aviation insurance company. You break the airplane, they pay.

I'd direct your attention to Avemco, and their refusal to pay a claim related to a LongEZ a couple of decades ago. The owner had made an undocumented mod, and then returned the mod to the original configuration, prior to the accident. Avemco refused to pay. They used the pair of undocumented changes (a rules violation) as justification for refusing to pay. The mods were unrelated to the crash.

Not saying it happens often, but... read your policy. :)

Charlie
 
I'll tack on this question to the thread for those more knowledgeable than me to answer: Now that I'm in phase 1 :D, do any crosswind limitations have to be determined through actual experience?

I'm wondering since most other speeds, aerobatic maneuvers, etc. have to be demonstrated, do we also have to demonstrate a max crosswind too? I may find the answer by reading the ops limits more closely, but would love for someone to chime in who knows for sure.
 
I'd direct your attention to Avemco, and their refusal to pay a claim related to a LongEZ a couple of decades ago. The owner had made an undocumented mod, and then returned the mod to the original configuration, prior to the accident. Avemco refused to pay. They used the pair of undocumented changes (a rules violation) as justification for refusing to pay. The mods were unrelated to the crash.

Not saying it happens often, but... read your policy. :)

Charlie

That is a completely different thing. In this case, the guy modified the plane, didn't log or test the modification, returned it to its standard configuration and again didn't log the change or testing that the change back is safe.
 
Agree with above. Demonstrated Value does NOT equal a published aircraft limitation. Some may in fact place their own limitations well below the demonstrated values. There is nothing implicitly incorrect with that either, but it also presents it's own risks to that "self-limited" pilot. Namely, that pilot is not as skilled or experienced in a variety of circumstances that may present on any given day, in an unforcasted or unannounced manner. Is it careless or reckless to the level of 91.13 to not maintain skills to a certain level found common and possible on any given day? This is a slippery slope in both directions and reasonability is at the mercy of interpretation.

And, in so far and operations of an aircraft, flying in a crosswind that exceeds a published demonstrated value in another unrelated circumstance does not constitute a violation of FAR 91.13 either, based on NTSB court precedence and interpretation. Now, if you damage the aircraft to the point of an NTSB 830 reportable event, you'll be officially hosting an investigation of some sort; be it paper or physical inspection. You are now the topic of discussion at the local FSDO and in the legal counsel morning meetings. Not fun. This could happen at any crosswind or no crosswind (a mechanical failure of a brake line, a bunny hopping right under your wheel leading to a ground loop, you name it - welcome to the jungle, you are the game, inset coin). Any and all other lapses in judgment or protocol leading or relating to that isolated event may constitute a violation of FAR 91.13 or any other offended FAR number in question. But that is a completely different circumstance.

On the other hand. Any and all careful judgment, careful maintenance of records, careful maintenance of skills and experience, as well as documentation to complying with the expectations of safety in operations, will likely throw the dogs off the scent. Truly, they actually have bigger fish to fry. You might even receive an "Aviation Safety Award" that FSDO's pass out on occasion each year to airman that have gone above and beyond in spreading safety or managing an incident or accident as well as could be expected. It does happen. The best defense is a good offence at actively maintaining safety in the system and our operation, including maintaining aircraft handling skills in crosswinds, stalls, spins, etc. Mistakes happen, no one is perfect. If the balance is above reproach, I say the airman will survive to fly another day with minimal disruption and an experience to share.
 
Last edited:
Just food for thought:

Perhaps the most often exceeded operating limit we read about on VAF is another successful landing at winds above the posted crosswind limitation on our aircraft. There is also a posted headwind limitation on our RV's. In other threads Scott has previously posted how Van's tests and derives these limitations.

In regards to a recently posted crosswind landing experience, kudos for skillful piloting. However, under the reported wind conditions, that landing was accomplished under winds exceeding both headwind and crosswind limitations for that aircraft. In addition, a passenger was on board.

In the event of an accident/injury scenario, you could be faced with some serious liability issues and no damage recovery for bent metal.

Regards,

Crosswind operating limits relate to control authority limitations, for example a rudder that cannot align the aircraft with the runway beyond a particular crosswind component. With RV?s control authority is so good that limitations derrive from the pilot?s skill and comfort level with extreme maneuvering near the ground in most cases. I have to admit that my RV?s capabilities exceed my own in this regard(and I?m no ?fraidycat!)so it becomes a matter setting personal limits.

Just one reminder- being truely prepared mentally for a go-around becomes even more important during gusty approaches. ?Cleared to abort? is a mental mantra I try to use turning final, even though I have not excersized that priviledge once in several hundred RV landings except for practice or in response to a command. -Otis
 
I'd direct your attention to Avemco, and their refusal to pay a claim related to a LongEZ a couple of decades ago. The owner had made an undocumented mod, and then returned the mod to the original configuration, prior to the accident. Avemco refused to pay. They used the pair of undocumented changes (a rules violation) as justification for refusing to pay. The mods were unrelated to the crash.
Not saying it happens often, but... read your policy. :)
Charlie

Their refusal was primarily because the aircraft did not have a valid airworthiness certificate. When the original mod was done, it made the airworthiness certificate invalid. Back then, a mod required a new airworthiness inspection. The owner did not apply for a new A/W.
Reversal of the mod does NOT reinstate an invalid A/W certificate.
 
There is? Where?

Ref: RV-12 POH p.2.3

Maximum Wind Limitation. 30 its
Maximum Direct Crosswind Component 11 kts


Notice the above limitations are stated as Maximum, not as Demonstrated. Excellent guidance for those conducting EAB flight testing.

Regards,
 
There is? Where?

Ref: RV-12 POH p.2.3

Maximum Wind Limitation. 30 its
Maximum Direct Crosswind Component 11 kts


Notice the above limitations are stated as Maximum, not as Demonstrated. Excellent guidance for those conducting EAB flight testing.

Regards,
My oh my!

I am in dire straits then!

Living in Oklahoma I have had so many days when I have flown in winds that have greatly exceeded these "Limits" I cannot even begin to count them. Not so sure that just about every other day the winds will exceed these "Limits" around here.

Sssh! Please don't tell my insurance agent! ;)
 
My oh my!

I am in dire straits then!

Living in Oklahoma I have had so many days when I have flown in winds that have greatly exceeded these "Limits" I cannot even begin to count them. Not so sure that just about every other day the winds will exceed these "Limits" around here.

Sssh! Please don't tell my insurance agent! ;)

Adios guys!
 
There is? Where?

Ref: RV-12 POH p.2.3

Maximum Wind Limitation. 30 its
Maximum Direct Crosswind Component 11 kts


Notice the above limitations are stated as Maximum, not as Demonstrated. Excellent guidance for those conducting EAB flight testing.

Regards,

The 12 is LSA, and TBH I don't know a thing about LSA requirements. I do know that there's no "POH" from Van's on the 7, 8, etc., let alone any limitations published by Van's on headwinds for those models.
 
I know nothing about LSA. As far as most RV’s go, we are the manufacturer According to the FAA. My RV8 has a max demonstrated of 27knots, because I’m the manufacturer and I demonstrated it. If my plane was restricted to 11 knots....it would not be in my hangar.
 
Last edited:
There apparently is a distinction here between LSA and EAB or other certificated aircraft. It apparently is within the LSA certification process to placard "maximum" conditions, unlike EAB or other Experimental or Certificated aircraft that have maximum DEMONSTRATED conditions that are not at all binding, they simply state the harshest conditions that the manufacturer could find to do any demonstration.

One might wonder why in addition to Moses Lake, Boeing maintains a flight test facility in Havre, Montana. (or at least they used to, don't know if they still do). Its because they have really good cross winds there so they can demonstrate high "maximum demonstrated cross wind".
 
or...

Or, in the case of an LSA, the maximum wind...in this case 30 its from any direction.

I think has to do, as posted above, with the LSA and EAB distinction.

There will be a limit, on any aircraft though, due to control authority. This is a number that the designer should have a pretty good idea about...
 
Back
Top