well, this is turning into a who flys who dreams type of thread.

Mine is not as big as yours I guess, in a 108-3 I can not hold the center line in a 15 honest direct cross wind, not enough authority, but it can be landed with the upwind wheel.

Not many folk that I know want to do much more. I think the oldies and grey hairs on this forum have my vote of confidence.

I try and avoid x winds, some times you can, others, well they make you squirm in your seat.

Gump. MTV and n6ea have provided very good information in the past.

I tend on the side of oh crap this will be fun, we may set a new personal best.

mtv wrote:Those numbers are all over the place. I know of one tri gear airplane that has an 11 knot x wind component.

Note that the operative term here is "Demonstrated Crosswind component". Not limiting.

My Musketeer demonstrated crosswind component is 13 knots. I have personally doubled this figure with a real 90deg crosswind. And truth be known it is relatively easy in a Musketeer. Stand on the rudder, and use a lot of bank to keep from drifting; all the way down to flare and touchdown. The very wide gear helps a lot.

The sad truth is cross wind ability is probably going to keep me in a nosedragger until I get a floatplane. I need to be able to fly in 20+ knot winds. The Musketeer has met my needs and has had 100% dispatchablity over the 170hrs I have flown it in the last 13 months.

But I think I have decided on my next plane... Drumroll please Zane ...

Stinson 108-3 Station Wagon with a O-470 engine, straight floats and wheel skis.

I know Zane wants to know why this is the plane for me. Right Zane?

It's because it's legal to put 600lb in the back!

I don't NEED the float plane until 2016 when we move up north on the lake. So I have some time to find a nice project to fix up into my dream plane.

-Todd Giencke

Beautiful Downtown Spanish Springs International Continental Regional has a pretty sporty crosswind almost always. Out of the west unless it's it's out of the east. Runway 34/16 of coarse. Fortunately, it's dirt so there's a lot of give. If the wind is doing it's thing, I fly a 3 or 4 mile final to 34 and on the way down I can tell if it is too much. If I'm out of rudder at 10 feet agl and I'm still drifting I will usually go around and give it another shot or two. If it still too dicey I go to Stead or RNO and call MLB for a ride. Demonstrated crosswind numbers mean nothing other than a test pilot flew an airplane similar to your's in a (pick a number) crosswind. Not a limitation at all. I've had more trouble with light and variable than the with stiff and constant.

On Sunday I flew to Cutbank, Montana for fuel after a fantastic loop through Glacier NP. Wind was gusting into the low 30's but pretty much right down runway 23. Well, surprise! When we got to the airport, most of rwy 23 was dug up and construction equipment was parked on the rest of it. The other paved rwy is 90 deg to 23 and it didn't look inviting. I made an approach to see if it was possible. At 20 feet, the crab angle was ridiculous and when I tried to line everything up, I soon ran out of rudder. I just cleaned up and started to fly away when the unicom operator came on and said "Hey, Maule. We just mowed a patch of grass between the runways and it's pretty much into the wind if you want to try it." Well, sure enough, there was a patch of mowed grass in the triangle between the runways, so I made an approach and landed just beyond the taxiway. 30 knots on the nose and a grass runway will stop a Maule in about 3 plane lengths. The biggest challenge then was not cooking the downwind brake while taxiing to the pumps. We filled up and took off via a paved taxiway that was more or less into the wind. I should mention that if you make one of these improvised approaches, you should really keep your eyes open. You might be landing on an airport, but your approach is full of undocumented hazards, so you might as well be landing on a sand bar.

BTW, if you ever get fuel there at Cutbank, ask them about the bowling ball. If you want to give it a try, they will give you a bowling ball with a strap on it and after you leave, you try to drop it onto a junk car parked in the infield. If you are on the ground when somebody is trying this stunt, it might be best if you get inside the car because nobody has hit it yet.

soaringhiggy wrote:Mine is not as big as yours ...........

Slightly off topic............

I doubt that, I'm the senior vice president and founding member of the local branch of IMHSA (International Mens Half Size Association). This is an association formed for the networking and fellowship of men with undersize genitals.

Double post, came up with debug mode, maybe didn't like the content?

LOL ok you got me on that one, I think I am 5/8ths

[quote="ravi"]. I'm dubious of anyone's claim that they are landing in an actual 20 knot direct x-wind [quote]

I'm with you RAVI in the dubious department. IMO and in about all tailwheeled airplanes I've flown your upwind wing would be scraping the ground and you'd be using full rudder to compensate and you would still not be tracking straight in a 90 degree 20 knot crosswind. One would be taking a fair risk unless it's an emergency or something (I'm talking real world here not landing on a greased metal runway).
Most wind socks are 20 knot, that is they are made so that at 20 knots they are full and straight out. Some are 15 but the norm is 20 if they are a professionally crafted sock. I'd like to see a guy land a C170 or Stinson-3 GRACEFULLY in something much more than a 90 degree full sock at my airport on 30 foot wide dry pavement. 45 degrees...no biggie, 60 degrees... gettin hairy. 90 degrees and you'd better pucker. My RV can handle a 90 degree 20 knotter but with consternation and it being an outstanding crosswind performer.
Now tricycle geared airplanes are another matter all together and typically have THE advantage in crosswinds.....DUH.
You know there is a reason why in the early years of aviation, airports were called "fields" not "strips". There were no designated runways you simply landed in a "field" into the wind. Personally, I vote we return to that. I have a fantasy airport in my mind that is one square mile in size with housing, hangers and businesses placed at the perimeters and or corners in particular with a perfectly round grass landing field in the middle. If only I could hit that big lottery.

I'm with MTV on the "demonstrated crosswind component" in the POH. All it means is at time of certification "X" knots was the max that was demonstrated and not what was safely possible.

Hey best I ever did in my 180 was 12 knots and that was enough excitment for me. Anything more than that and I take the taxi way or the infield grass. However I've usally landed at podunk airports with no tower and little traffic. I have no desire to go out and test on how much I could handle and risk bending a 70K dollar airplane. Insurance was aready too high.

I said in a thread before. I'm sure there are those who can, that fly tailwheel everyday, but it ain't me.

With the price of fuel I'm lucky to get 2 hours a month now with the 182, and seriuosly thinking of down sizing to some 4 to 5 gallon per hour fuel mizer instead of feeding the O-470.

Be Safe, Bub

flyby wrote:

ravi wrote:. I'm dubious of anyone's claim that they are landing in an actual 20 knot direct x-wind

I'm with you RAVI in the dubious department. IMO and in about all tailwheeled airplanes I've flown

My oh my, oh most "Dubious" ones...

Gotta make a comment here that might step on a few toes.

If you're parked in a bar in Anchorage, Fairbanks, or Nome, and happen to be sitting next to a table full of old Alaskan working pilots, listening to them talk about their day's flying and how shitty conditions were. And you were to then walk up to them and say, "Sirs, I am "dubious" about the validity of the stories that you are telling." They might take offense to your comment, and think that you're calling them liars. Not the best way to win friends and influence people.

Well, somehow Father Time has tricked me into a position of being an Old Man who has survived a lot of years, and a lot of thousands of hours of bush flying. I am very proud of my skills, I am very proud of my abilities, and I am also fully aware of the guys and gals who are much, much better pilots than me. I, we, honed our skills with years of hard work, training, practice, and learning how to push the edge of our airplanes and ourselves to get our comfort levels to where they are today. Weather and loads that would have had me certain that I was going to die in the next minute during my first couple of years, now, wouldn't even register on the squirm scale. I earned that comfort level, and so did some of the other guys on this site.

I guarantee you, that if you were a new air taxi pilot, and told a C185 load of Eskimo passengers that you couldn't fly them into their village strip at Kivalina because there was a 25 KT direct crosswind, they'd never want to fly with you again, would probably laugh at you, and you'd have a hard time shaking the "rep" of being a bad pilot. Next, you'd be standing tall in front of the Chief Pilot, and scheduled for some flight training so someone could try and teach you how to fly an airplane for real, not what some kid CFI showed you in a C150 a couple years before.

And it's not just Alaska flying. I use AK because that's where my experience is. Same goes for the Ag guys, the Idaho mountain guys, or the night cargo flyers who do night IFR in Lances or the old DC-6's. Just because you can quote FAR's and have the POH memorized, doesn't mean that there aren't a whole lotta folks out there who have taken things to a level you're not aware of, and that isn't found in any book.

Gump

Yellowbelly,

I was wondering why you didn't land on that center taxiway at Cutbank. It almost always points pretty much right into the wind.

I've landed on it a few times, and departed from it several times, mostly out of convenience.

As to limits, I can tell you that most airplanes can handle waaaayyyy more crosswind than most pilots. As Gump says, there are some folks out there who've landed in some pretty amazing places, enough times that it became daily routine.

My personal record was actually on floats. A 185 with a direct, 90 degree 35 knot steady crosswind. I still had plenty of wingtip clearance, plenty of control authority (because I was carrying speed to keep it). This was a narrow landing channel. The key there was settling off the step immediately adjacent to my parking spot, cause taxiing was simply out of the question, except into that wind. I've had people tell me that this is not possible or safe. All I can say is that it was actually pretty easy. The Tower guys were pretty amused, too, with their "Report clear of the channel--oh wait, never mind, you're the only one out there today".

MTV

GumpAir wrote: Not the best way to win friends and influence people.

You got me! I give up. Your gracious influence has won me over. When you're right... you're right.
The integrity of an Alaskan bush pilot is above reproach and must never be questioned. Non dare exaggerate.....ever. I betcha they don't drink either. Wait, strike that. Betcha they never crash them airplanes up there either. Wait strike that one too. Betcha the laws of physics don't apply at those more northern latitudes.
I tell ya, the next time an Alaskan bush pilot tells me he can land his cub in a 40 knot crosswind, I'll believe it. I was the last to know that the laws of physics aren't applied equally at all latitudes.

Thanks again for setting me straight. I intend to demote myself to Ercoupe status. Cessna 150 training would be too challenging at this juncture. LOL

The above is all sarcasm as you might have guessed. Trust me I held back and deleted most of it but your reply caused me to do some investigation. According to one report I read. Seems those older grizzled pilots who sit in those bars telling tales are in a "greater proportion of fatal accidents". Not only that but the "fatal accidents increase as the total flight hours of experience increased". Maybe you shouldn't take such "comfort" in your experience as it is a detriment to your survival statistically speaking. More over another accident data report I read states how "Alaska aviation needs to get away from the bush pilot syndrome, insisting on professionalism and high safety standards." and in another place how that "passengers need to communicate, be respectful of Alaska's dicey and intense weather, and not pressure pilots."

At first I was offended by your condescension but now I see how it kills. Some pilot bragging about his skills, egging others to take unnecessary risks. Suggesting they need to be "scheduled for some flight training so someone could try and teach you how to fly an airplane for real".
Enough said.

Flyby, you brag of handling 20 crosswind with the RV, what is the stated max crosswind component with your RV? If it's less than 20 knots you've blown your own argument out.

Have you ever overloaded an Aircraft? You could answer that with have you ever been paid to fly.

The book world and the real world are different, don't know about the old grizzley guys egging each other to do more stupid things. I haven't been to Alaska, with comments like that I doubt youv'e been there either.

flyby wrote: At first I was offended by your condescension but now I see how it kills. Some pilot bragging about his skills, egging others to take unnecessary risks. Suggesting they need to be "scheduled for some flight training so someone could try and teach you how to fly an airplane for real".
Enough said.

Hate to burst your bubble, but the vast, vast majority of old pilots I know, fly, and work with, sit around and talk about techniques, and how to get in and out of those hard places, passing on the knowledge gained from experience. Pride in pushing the envelope, sure there is, but not bragging about being stupid. In fact, stupid is not tolerated, and weak pilots don't stay long in that crowd. The guys I work with are very technically skilled, and have developed a feel for what they do. No different than a journeyman crane operator or a surgeon.

There's a reason most basic Part 135 outfits won't hire anyone with under 1,500 hours. Kid might have all the skills needed, but he's lacking the experience to make quick judgements based on that experience. And back in my Chief Pilot days, if I had a new pilot who was weak in crosswind skills, damn right he'd be back in training, until I felt, or the check airman felt he had the basics down. If he couldn't do it, sorry, but he'd be looking to fly elsewhere.

The safety record in Alaska does suck. But, it's not the high time commercial guys doing the crashing. It's the weekend warriors whacking the ground in CFIT incidents, pushing into weather they have no business being out in. Or, it's the low time Part 135 kids lacking the proper discipline, who taxi into a pallet of pop or a 55 gallon drum and eat up a prop. The oldtimers who do get in trouble, are usually victim to a snowballing of circumstances, where any one thing wrong, could, and has been dealt with many times before, but now combined with other bad circumstances, overwhelms the airplane/pilot or both.

But back to your original point. Old Pro pilots DO NOT sit around and brag to youngsters, trying to get them in over their heads and hurt. You're a whole lot more likely to hear, "Yes, it can be done. And this is how you might want to do it."

Gump

flyby wrote:

GumpAir wrote: Not the best way to win friends and influence people.

You got me! I give up. Your gracious influence has won me over. When you're right... you're right.
The integrity of an Alaskan bush pilot is above reproach and must never be questioned. Non dare exaggerate.....ever. I betcha they don't drink either. Wait, strike that. Betcha they never crash them airplanes up there either. Wait strike that one too. Betcha the laws of physics don't apply at those more northern latitudes.
I tell ya, the next time an Alaskan bush pilot tells me he can land his cub in a 40 knot crosswind, I'll believe it. I was the last to know that the laws of physics aren't applied equally at all latitudes.

Thanks again for setting me straight. I intend to demote myself to Ercoupe status. Cessna 150 training would be too challenging at this juncture. LOL

The above is all sarcasm as you might have guessed. Trust me I held back and deleted most of it but your reply caused me to do some investigation. According to one report I read. Seems those older grizzled pilots who sit in those bars telling tales are in a "greater proportion of fatal accidents". Not only that but the "fatal accidents increase as the total flight hours of experience increased". Maybe you shouldn't take such "comfort" in your experience as it is a detriment to your survival statistically speaking. More over another accident data report I read states how "Alaska aviation needs to get away from the bush pilot syndrome, insisting on professionalism and high safety standards." and in another place how that "passengers need to communicate, be respectful of Alaska's dicey and intense weather, and not pressure pilots."

At first I was offended by your condescension but now I see how it kills. Some pilot bragging about his skills, egging others to take unnecessary risks. Suggesting they need to be "scheduled for some flight training so someone could try and teach you how to fly an airplane for real".
Enough said.

None of this has anything to do with your previous post, in which you doubted the veracity of those who stated they had landed in those conditions. If you weren't there, you don't know. Furthermore safety is mostly in the eye of the beholder, though it can certainly be borne out by statistics, as you pointed out. What a Super Stinson vs. what a RV ( or a C-206 or a C-130 ) can do in a crosswind have nothing to do with one another.

It is perfectly safe for some people to land some taildraggers in a 20 knot crosswind. I wouldn't land a cub in one unless my life depended on it. My 170? Haven't yet.

I was out at our little airport listening to a coupe of pilots. One had about 200 hrs and the other about 13k hrs. I was on my way to practice x-wind landings in my 170. The x-wind component was about 13-15 knts when I arrived at the airport. I already had my tail wheel endorsement but my instructor called and said “Lets practice some x-winds, you cam always use the experience.” I asked, is that a little too much wind???? He said no.

The low time pilot, who only flies a plane with training wheels, piped up and said I would not fly in that much wind, there is no way that is safe. The older pilot said, it would not be safe for you to fly but maybe another pilot it is safe.

After we got in the air I checked the winds again. They were blowing 25 gusting to 30 at 350. We were landing on 31. Now as I figured it out on the little calculator, that is 17-20 knt x-wind component. We made about 8-10 landings in that wind.

Now, the only thing is I think the amount of x-wind you can handle is somewhat dependent on you abilities. Yes, of course I understand there is a limit the plane can handle. Before that day I would not have landed in that much wind. My instructor and the older pilot were both comfortable in those winds.

I believe a few people on this forum think just because a book says it can not be done then that is the way it is. I can tell you I would rather not land in those conditions but after that day and few other days of practice I could land in that type of wind.

To those of you who do not practice except on nice calm days or you only fly from point A-B. Some times you need to just go out and never leave the pattern and practice landings in all types of winds. What would happen if you lost your engine, and the only place you had to land was a road that had a strong x-wind????????? I can tell you, you would stress even more because you did not practice this type of landings. Now not only are you stressed about a no engine landing, but now you have to add in the major x-wind. Just something to think about.

I guess what I am saying is just because you can not do it does not mean it can not be done.

I was wondering why you didn't land on that center taxiway at Cutbank.

Mike
Yeah, the center taxiway splits the difference between rwy 31 and 23. The wind on Sunday was aomething like 220@24G31. In other words, perfect for rwy 23 and various degrees of crosswind for everything else. We were able to parallel rwy 23 on the mowed patch and my nerves of mush elected the zero crosswind option. As you say, my airplane has a vast resivoir of things it can do that I am not quite ready for yet. I'm doing this for recreation and I'm supposed to enjoy it. You can always bungee jump if all you want is thrills. Did you notice the little set of bleachers set up at the edge of the ramp facing the runway? We suspected they were there just to watch folks as their crosswind approaches turned to chocolate.

We did use that center taxiway for departure though. I'm further along with my crosswind takeoffs than my crosswind landings.

The guy at CTB classified 30 knots at Cutbank as "calm". 50 miles south at Choteau, the wind was about 7 kt at the same time. It's nice to have enough fuel onboard that you can pick your fight.

YB

Well, now that we've got this crosswind stuff all sorted out, let's get back to that drinking part .

Guys, I spent 30 years jamming throttles in Alaska. I lost some friends there, working airplanes. I wrecked one myself there, after a crankshaft failed, and there really wasn't a pretty place to park it. I was lucky, it wasn't dark IMC with a big wind when it happened. As I said, it wasn't the prettiest of places to have an engine failure.

Few days later, I stopped by one of Fairbanks best 135 operators. These guys are real pros, and do things right. I was chatting with the owner, and he asked me about the accident. I told him the story. He asked where it happened. I told him. He responded, "Hmmm, that's pretty good, it could have happened in a lot worse place."

My response was "Where might that be?" His response, "Oh, I don't know, over the Aghalleen Pinnacles, I guess" and smiled. I had to agree.

That is called "Perspective", folks. It's always good to see things from another person's perspective.

Yes, the accident rate is high in commercial aviation in Alaska. On the other hand, how many 135 operators are there in the lower 48 operating to remote areas, with NO weather reporting, with some of the lousiest weather forecasting, some of the biggest load factors, and, oh yeah, by the way, your ride for the day is a clapped out 207 with 15,000 hours on it. Cause you can't make money with a 50 million dollar jet in those kinds of places.

The operator I spoke of earlier has six Caravans, all bought new. He is redefining how to operate in Alaska, but he's still had accidents.

My average stage length on a day to day basis was at least 100 miles. I'd be gone for six to eight hours from start to finish, sometimes 12. How good do you think the area forecast I got at 6 AM is going to be at 6 PM tonight? Oh, and where I worked, there were no phones to call in for an update. I'd make ten to twelve landings on a typical day, in my case, mostly off airport. Oh, and by the way, they don't publish an A/FD for those places, so you sort of have to figure stuff out for yourself.

And sometimes shit just doesn't line up quite right for you.

As noted, I lost some good friends flying in Alaska. It seemed like a few of them were just on their way to an early grave. Those, we all knew in our hearts that we'd lose sooner or later. But there were some others who were true professionals, and as Gump says, just got into a place, not because of arrogance, that things went south on them.

It happens, and I think if you take a look at the closest thing to Alaska aviation in the lower 48--flying in the Idaho backcountry, you'll find similar accident statistics. And, most of those folks aren't flying every day, in all kinds of weather and temperatures.

Oh, yeah, and I dont' know of many of them that are doing it almost all off airport.

Now, back to the drinking.

Happy Fourth of July, folks. And hoist one to the demise of a great old airplane, who 11 years ago today left me parked on a mountainside. She carried me faithfully for 3400 hours without a misstep. I just didn't listen carefully enough when she started sending subtle signals regarding her health.

MTV

mtv wrote: Happy Fourth of July, folks. And hoist one to the demise of a great old airplane, who 11 years ago today left me parked on a mountainside. She carried me faithfully for 3400 hours without a misstep. I just didn't listen carefully enough when she started sending subtle signals regarding her health.

MTV

Happy 4th Mike...

And here's hoisting one to your faithful steed who gave her all to keep you safe until the end.

Gump

I knew there are guys out there that can do some amazing things with an airplane. I have enjoyed this thread greatly.

However I too have thousands of hours, however all but 700 of it is in heavy construction equipment. Let see, about 10K in Motor graders, 5k in dozers, and serveral hundred in wheel loaders and back hoes, and more than I like behind the wheel of a truck.

And I'll hoist a cool glass of iced tea, to the 4th and MTV's faithfull mistress. "God Bless America"

Fly smart, Bub