The pilot reported that, while conducting touch-and-go landings in the local pattern at night, the wind increased and began to gust during the third approach.
He added that he applied full power and performed a go-around. During the next landing, the airplane touched down, and the wind “increased and shifted” to the right.
Subsequently, the Cessna 172 exited the left side of the runway and came to rest inverted.
The airplane sustained substantial damage to both wings, the windshield, and the fuselage.
The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The automated weather observation system at the airport in Vernon, Texas, reported that, about the time of the accident, the wind was from 230° at 19 knots, gusting to 23 knots. The pilot landed on Runway 20.
Probable cause: The pilot’s failure to maintain directional control while landing in gusty crosswind conditions.
NTSB Identification: GAA18CA170
This March 2018 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.
“Probable cause: The pilot’s failure to maintain directional control while landing….”
You can land a Cessna 172 in excess of 30 knots of crosswind when you have sufficient training. This guy had not sufficient training.
Read “Perfect Piloting made easy” chapter “crosswind landings”.
The max xwind component for a Cessna 172 is 15kts. This goof is out at night with 23 kt gusts. You reap what you sow.
The POH of the Cessna 172 states 15 knots as the maximum DEMONSTRATED x-wind component. This number can easily exceeded by a competent, well trained pilot.
Don’t blame the the poor pilot but blame the poor instruction he received.
BTW: Most x-wind accidents happen at wind speeds less than 8 knots X-wind component.
And ,although the article doesn’t mention it , I’d bet a dime to a dollar the pilot was using flaps ,probably full flaps ,on these landings .
The more surface area exposed to cross-winds , gusts , turbulence, etc. on relatively low speed roll-outs , the better the pilot’s technique has to be .
Safer to do it cleaner and faster if abilities are in doubt .
No, it’s best to always use full flaps, even in windy, crosswind conditions. And, carrying extra speed is never good advice. That extra, unneeded speed does not make things easier – it changes the handling characteristics in the flare to something unusual, and thus more difficult to manage. It’s poor technique.
Well, maybe my wording was bad. I wouldn’t recommend ‘extra ‘ speed on any landing, only the correct speed for the aircraft configuration. But there’s the rub.It was the latter where my criticism was.
The pilot had already made one go-around and likely might need another, possibly after touch-down on the runway. A clean ( higher ) A/S would have reduced crab or bank angles for the touch-down and given a better initial climb rate in the event of another abort—all to the pilot’s advantage.
It reminded me of a passage in ‘ Stick and Rudder ‘ where the author says IIRC something like ‘ aircraft designers,who usually aren’t pilots, believe that the slower they can make their design land , the easier it will be for the pilot ……… but this is mostly erroneous ‘