Handful of crosswind

[racaldwell]

Darn, somebody said I made the papers and sure enough, I checked the FAA AIN page and there I am. But it seems that from all the people present, and the amount of time spent, that they would have got it right. They didn't.

I fought a direct crosswind that was very gusty on final and went ahead with the landing thinking the wind would subside some low to the ground. It didn't. ATIS reported 12 kts but that was an hour old and were increasing all morning. I could not hold centerline on final with full sideslip so I crabbed and slipped to stay aligned. As I got over the runway, I held it off to bleed off the excess speed I had carried on final. But that didn't go as planned.

I was riding a bucking bronco. I couldn't stay lined up with the runway and was hoping for a lull where I could line up and set down. Going around should have been the choice but I made the wrong choice to continue. The plane unexpectedly plopped down on all three wheels and I was angled into the wind, not straight with the centerline. Opposite rudder and brake (differiential) was only enough control to keep me from the classic groundloop swerve. I went in a straight line angled about 20 deg. toward the side of the runway into the grass. I shut the engine off with throttle as I got to the grass and then steered away from a sign that was a couple 100 feet in front of me. I came to a stop in the grass near the taxiway.

I didn't hit anything (pure luck) and the grass didn't phase my very tight fitting wheelpants (Vans.) The tower told me not to move and rolled the crash trucks. The two trucks came and blocked the taxiway. I filled out their report, no injuries, no aircraft damage, no airport property damage, and they told me we were finished and I could start up and taxi back to my hangar. So I swung the tail around by hand and positioned it on the short grass adjacent the taxiway.

Then a car pulled up and told me I had to put the airplane back in the position it had stopped and he said the FAA have to come see it before I could leave. For the next 45 minutes, the airport police, airport grounds maintenance, airport administration, and the two crash trucks did their picture and report taking, enough to have made Arlo Guthrie proud. Finally, the guy on the phone with the FAA said they are not coming since there were no injuries or damage. I then saw a helicopter fly over so that must have been the news team.

I started up and taxied back to my hangar. I didn't make my day but I sure made theirs.

Rick Caldwell
Xenos 0057 26 hrs.

[WaiexN143NM]

Hi all, Rick,
Yes you made kathryns report also dated 12 feb. it listed damage unknown. good to hear your update, that there was none.
yes, officialdom. paperwork. turf. airport ops, fire rescue, faa, ntsb.

Glad all was good.
Sorry to hear the update on chris’s wing.

WaiexN143NM
Michael

[Area 51%]

Then a car pulled up and told me I had to put the airplane back in the position it had stopped and he said the FAA have to come see it before I could leave. For the next 45 minutes, the airport police, airport grounds maintenance, airport administration, and the two crash trucks did their picture and report taking, enough to have made Arlo Guthrie proud. Finally, the guy on the phone with the FAA said they are not coming since there were no injuries or damage. I then saw a helicopter fly over so that must have been the news team.

So.........did you get a "selfie" with Officer Obie?

[tx_swordguy]

This is a question I have often wondered. Maybe being a towered airport it makes a huge difference. I have always been told if you have to put it down crossways or on a taxi way due to wind issues do so. If you intentionally angled from the right side of the runway towards the left side to give yourself a slightly better cross wind component and still went into the grass, would you still get the reception party? Perhaps alerting the tower of that intent would have avoided the welcome wagon? Or since you went into the grass and off the dedicated runway is the reason for all the comotion? I am curious because there was no damage or injury of any kind. There is a youtube video of a Fokker Triplane at Osh trying 5-6 landings in a severe cross wind and almost crashing several of those. He finally lands in the grass more into the straight wind without issue. Sounds like your mole hill got turned into something bigger.

Mark

[Skippydiesel]

I have always had the understanding that THE RUNWAY includes any mown grassed area (could also be gravel/graded dirt )on either side (this may be an Australian understanding) between the markers. I have seen many take-offs/landing on the grass rather than the sealed runway. Saves tyre ware, shortens ground role and aids in depth perception.

[GraemeSmith]

I have always had the understanding that THE RUNWAY includes any mown grassed area (could also be gravel/graded dirt )on either side (this may be an Australian understanding) between the markers. I have seen many take-offs/landing on the grass rather than the sealed runway. Saves tyre ware, shortens ground role and aids in depth perception.

Depends on Class of airport (US). Simplisticly - TOWERED US airports - you use the paved or declared grass runways. If you ask for a head to wind taxiway "for operational reasons" - like a need to be head to wind - you will probably get the clearance but it will be qualified with "at your own risk" - which you are required to read back. You will hear helicopters do this all the time as they land and depart ramps.

Even at non-towered airports you need to be cautious. Many local "on the grass" parallel landings are not surveyed or approved by the airport owner. Even uf local pilots use them all the time.

EAA has been beating on the FAA about this and the FAA just issued new guidance about proper construction and placement of grass runways. In the last month funnily enough.

[mike.smith]

I had a prop strike years ago on Nantucket Island, a towered airport, while taxiing to parking. Even though it's not a reportable incident, I had to talk to the people in the tower and fill out paperwork. I got a letter from the FAA that they were investigating and wanted to talk to me. I had to go to their office and talk them. They made copies of my logbook, and wanted to see my maintenance logs. They said they listened to the tower tapes and looked at the gusty conditions with changing wind directions, and agreed it was just bad luck. "Thank you very much, and have a nice day." They had to call me in for that!? And all that for what the FAA calls a non-reportable incident. When there's a tower, I think they just automatically assume they have to do something.

[GraemeSmith]

Mike,

I have a buddy runs KPSM - Pease and he explained that there IS a disconnect between what we know of as reportable incidents and what happens with towered airports and ATC.

Essentially - Tower or ATC reporting "triggers" are much tougher or more likely to be invoked than the pilot/plane ones. So tower will have reported that a plane on their surface had a prop strike because it potentially affects airport operations. As you point out - not reportable for you. But it is for them. The disconnect arrives in the FAA office and they have to "investigate". But the reality is - they were probably not really investigating YOU. Though with all the paperwork - I'm sure it felt like it. They were more likely investigating the airport and its procedures/surfaces.

Interestingly (and this is what brought it to light with my buddy and we started comparing notes). The airports are required to call the FAA. If we have a pilot/plane reportable - we are required to call the NTSB. And the NTSB nearly always hands it off to the FAA to investigate. Though not always - think the B17 909 at Bradley three years back where the NTSB kept firm control of the whole thing.