Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site terak.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!wjh12!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!noao!terak!doug From: doug@terak.UUCP Newsgroups: net.aviation Subject: Re: Practical advice from those more exp Message-ID: <232@terak.UUCP> Date: Tue, 18-Dec-84 10:21:03 EST Article-I.D.: terak.232 Posted: Tue Dec 18 10:21:03 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 22-Dec-84 01:18:52 EST References: <159@gcc-opus.UUCP> <59200009@trsvax.UUCP> Organization: Terak Corporation, Scottsdale, AZ, USA Lines: 14 > Well, I don't know 'bout the pros, but I'd have read my manual and noted that > the published crosswind component limitation on the 150 (and presumably the > 152) is around 16mph. Then I would have considered that Cessna published that > figure for an experienced pilot (to me, that's over 1500 hrs) and that their > figure didn't take into account gusting or turbulence. Actually, the Demonstrated Crosswind figure is supposed to be conservative. I don't remember the exact definition, but it is based on "average" pilot technique, and then some percentage (20% ?) is subtracted. Further, for some planes the figure is even lower simply because at the time of certification the test pilots were unable to find a high crosswind to "demonstrate" in. Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug