Colonel Sanders wrote:Idea: when the wind is howling, instead of running
away from it, take your instructors and fresh CPL's
up and teach them to handle it.

One of the regs we're required to comply with is 406.61. Standard 426.61(2)(i)(ii) requires a finite limit on cross-wind. As soon as that's a requirement, you're in the position of having to place a limit on a capability that doesn't come with a limitation from the manufacturer. There's no truly good way to do this, but allowing people to use the aircraft within it's known capabilities seems like a logical start, and while airplanes don't come with a crosswind limitation, they do come with a value that you know they can handle. So, while nobody is going to argue that the number in the book represents a physical limitation of the aircraft, the number in the book is our limit. Some schools are more restrictive; I don't believe any are less so.

Yes, it's legalistic, but we're talking about flight training in Canada, so you already knew that.

I think you're trying to blame TC for accepting
a number that you gave them, correct?

EDIT -- I just took a quick look at the OCS for
the little two C172 FTU here. What it says
(and TC accepted):

Winds

Forecast or reported surface wind not over 35
knots and max cross wind component - in
accordance with POH limitations

Now, if I look at the corresponding 1975
C172M POH ... THERE ARE NO CROSSWIND
LIMITATIONS.

Pretty clearly, YOU are the problem here.
Don't blame TC for your dumbing-down of
aviation.

I say again: when the wind is howling, and
students can't fly, take your young instructors
and new CPLs up and teach them how to fly
in a crosswind landing.

Volume becomes a challenge. If a school has lots of students, they will have different levels of cross wind capabilities. One might be the best pilot in the country. A few will probably think they are. When a student or renter has more ego than skill, the big places have to make a tighter cut off. Then if a plane is bent they signed the contract, they have to get out their wallet.

I think it's bad to have a dual cutoff. Like has been said there's still only one way to improve crosswind landings, practice doing them. Even though that RedBird x-wind thing I played on once must be helpful. Ever see one?

Colonel Sanders wrote:I think you're trying to blame TC for accepting
a number that you gave them, correct?

EDIT -- I just took a quick look at the OCS for
the little two C172 FTU here. What it says
(and TC accepted):

Unless you're talking about an approved FTOM, we're still not talking about the same requirements. If I'm operating a two airplane school, I'm not wasting my time complying with 426.61.

ReserveTank wrote:This sounds exactly like what is happening at YOW. It's all about paying off an expensive toy that was bought without the consultation of people who actually understand flight training. It's also about selling useless "products" that ensure mom and dad's credit cards are always paying. It does not make sense to use a King Air cockpit for 15 hours before stepping in an actual Diamond Katana. It's harmful to the training process.

I think i know which school this is!! I think i experienced it.

Colonel Sanders wrote:

Winds

Forecast or reported surface wind not over 35
knots and max cross wind component - in
accordance with POH limitations

Now, if I look at the corresponding 1975
C172M POH ... THERE ARE NO CROSSWIND
LIMITATIONS.

You just can't read the signs.
http://themetapicture.com/from-the-ankles-down/

Are not most (or all? I don't know) demonstrated crosswinds now considered not limiting? Anyway, from a 1978 Skyhawk POH, the following from the section on "Crosswind Landing":
"The maximum allowable crosswind velocity is dependent upon pilot capability as well as aircraft limitations. With average pilot technique, direct crosswinds of 15 knots can be handled with safety".

To me, this implies that those of us whom God has smiled upon can handle velocities above 15 knots, while those to whom a frown has been directed should maybe consider 15 knots as a limitation. I would think that in a training organization, going above what an "average pilot" could be expected to handle would be a matter between the owner, his God, and his insurance company. (;>0)

John