The solo student pilot in the high-performance airplane reported that, during approach, the Cessna 182 descended through turbulence.
He added that the automated weather observation system reported wind “variable between 110 and 160” and that he was landing on Runway 8 at the airport in Black River Falls, Wisconsin, so he “crabbed to the right.”
During the landing flare, he aligned the airplane with the runway centerline and “was quickly pushed left.”
He added full power to go around, and about 30′ to 50′ above the ground, “a gust of wind caused [him] to bank/turn left,” and the airplane hit the ground.
The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and right wing.
The FAA inspector reported that the student pilot did not possess a high-performance endorsement.
A review of recorded data from the automated weather observation station located on the airport revealed that, about five minutes before the accident, the wind was from 140° at 8 knots and variable from 110° to 170°.
Probable cause: The student pilot’s failure to maintain lateral control of the high-performance airplane during the go-around in crosswind conditions.
NTSB Identification: GAA18CA058
This November 2017 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
He was returning from another airport after his lesson with his instructor and encountered unexpected winds. Per the pilot’s report he encountered turbulence during descent and then variable winds on the ATIS which he said he “had never heard before”. After the crash he noted the wind sock, as also noted on other days, was fully level while the AWOS was reporting less than 10 knots – he recommended that the AWOS be examined; he also noted several significant gusts. The nearest TAF was 28 miles to the southwest and forecast winds 16011kt for the time of the accident. However 6 hours later the forecast winds were 17015G23KT and windshear at 2000ft of 19045KT. Sometimes with winds that strong in the forecast, bad things start to happen sooner rather than later. The main takeaway I think is not to rely too much on the numbers (ATIS). Less than 10 knot winds can easily result in any pilot just dismissing the winds as any factor. However the workload to fly the approach tells the truth. If the pilot is struggling close to the flare, that overrides any ATIS or ATC windcheck. Go-around before it becomes critical.
As far as the missing high-performance endorsement, I appears to be something inadvertently not entered into the student’s logbook. This student pilot had 70 hours total time including in this make and model and had already flown four solo cross-county flights per the pilot’s report.
When was the C-182 classified as a High Performance aircraft? I soloed in a C-182 back in 1976. I sure don’t remember anything high performance in my log book…
A high performance aircraft is one with 200 HP or more. The C182 has 230 HP…so…
This guy had 19 hrs in the a/c and made a non-normal straight in to rwy 8 and an unfamiliar crosswind.
He also crabbed into the wind, which was only 6-10 kts, vs using a wing-low approach, and then touching down on the upwind main.
When he kicked out the crab he did not compensate for the crosswind.
Per the form 6120, he approached with 75kts…..a bit fast.
14 CFR 61.31 states that the training and endorsements for a complex aircraft are not required if the person has logged flight time as PIC of a complex airplane prior to August 4, 1997. The same is also true for the high-performance endorsement if the person has logged flight time as PIC of a high-performance airplane prior to August 4, 1997. And I just verified this in my 2018 FAR/AIM (14CFR 61.31(e)(2) and (f)(2).
Not directly related to this incident,but, the “tailwheel endorsement” is the same. A separate endorsement is not needed if time was logged before April 1991.
He had a 7kt crosswind. A student should be able to handle that in a plane with a 3000 lb gross weight and a 50kt stall speed. The bigger problem is how he managed to get into a high performace plane without the endorsement.
If this person was signed off for solo in a C182, they also had to have the endorsement…
In any case, knowing the C182 (or well, kinda remembering it from days gone by), prop forward with throttle forward and that sucker is going to want to climb (assuming it was trimmed properly for the landing).
But if the prop was back at 1800RPM and you firewall the throttle — you get what he described — pull to the left and no real acceleration.