Narrative:

I took off from my home base on a local flight to ZZZ. Winds at a nearby field were 260 degrees at 19 KTS gusting to 24 KTS -- there is no AWOS/ASOS at ZZZ. When 4 NM out from ZZZ; I called unicom for a landing advisory. Runway 18 was reported as the active with winds 270 degrees at 20 KTS. My initial approach was high; so I went around. On the second approach; I applied 10 degrees of flap on base; and being slightly high on final applied additional flaps until was descending toward the numbers; crabbing into the wind. At about 20 ft above the runway; I transitioned to a slip and was aligned with the runway centerline. Upon initiating the flare; a strong wind gust caused significant pitching and rolling movements of the aircraft; requiring large control inputs to settle the plane onto the runway; about 1/2 way down its 2300 ft length. Brakes were applied; but the aircraft's deceleration seemed to take much longer than usual. I applied the brakes more aggressively; intermittently experiencing brake lockup. As the aircraft slowed toward the end of the runway; the rudder lost effectiveness and the strong crosswind caused the plane to weathervane to the right of runway centerline. The plane; veering to the right off the runway end; then struck a REIL. There was no immediate indication that the propeller had struck anything -- there was no abnormal vibration or unusual noises. After taxiing back to parking and shutting down; inspection revealed a dent on the right gear leg fairing; and a deep nick on the propeller; which we later learned sliced off a piece of the REIL's lens flange. 1 factor in the overrun was the increased ground roll likely due to an unexpected quartering tailwind. After parking; it was noted by several pilots present that over a 5 min period; the windsock would show the wind varying from a westerly direction to a northwest direction; back to a westerly direction; then to a southwesterly direction; and so on. This would indicate that upon my flare; the wind probably shifted so I had a quartering tailwind from the northwest. This indication is strengthened by the fact that the braking distance was much longer than expected. Based on my calculations; landing on a heading of 180 degrees with a 20 KT wind at 290 degrees would have given me a tailwind component of about 5 KTS (8 mph) which; by my estimate from the poh data; would have increased the ground roll by about 15%. As it happened; the plane came to a stop with the nose 50 ft from the end of the runway. The second factor was that I didn't fully appreciate the combination of factors that; taken together; made for a very difficult landing: 1) short runway. 2) strong 90 degree crosswind with no stable headwind component. 3) potential for a wind shift to a quartering tailwind. 4) lack of recent experience landing at ZZZ. 5) carrying too much flap for the strength of the crosswind. A third factor was my continuing the landing after the flare on a short runway when the plane did not behave as expected. Prevention: increase awareness by using a formal checklist for each flight that requires writing down all the factors that affect the landing at any destination airport: 1) runway length. 2) crosswind direction/strength; and assessment for a potential tailwind component. 3) headwind component for expected conditions. 4) ground roll for expected conditions. 5) identify of touchdown point for a go around decision. 6) maximum flap setting for given crosswind. 7) personal limits for crosswind lndgs based on above factors.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN UNSTABILIZED APCH IN GUSTY CROSSWINDS TO A SHORT RWY CONTRIBUTE TO C172 PLT'S INABILITY TO STOP ON THE REMAINING RWY. STRIKES REIL LIGHT WITH PROP DURING THE EXCURSION.

Narrative: I TOOK OFF FROM MY HOME BASE ON A LCL FLT TO ZZZ. WINDS AT A NEARBY FIELD WERE 260 DEGS AT 19 KTS GUSTING TO 24 KTS -- THERE IS NO AWOS/ASOS AT ZZZ. WHEN 4 NM OUT FROM ZZZ; I CALLED UNICOM FOR A LNDG ADVISORY. RWY 18 WAS RPTED AS THE ACTIVE WITH WINDS 270 DEGS AT 20 KTS. MY INITIAL APCH WAS HIGH; SO I WENT AROUND. ON THE SECOND APCH; I APPLIED 10 DEGS OF FLAP ON BASE; AND BEING SLIGHTLY HIGH ON FINAL APPLIED ADDITIONAL FLAPS UNTIL WAS DSNDING TOWARD THE NUMBERS; CRABBING INTO THE WIND. AT ABOUT 20 FT ABOVE THE RWY; I TRANSITIONED TO A SLIP AND WAS ALIGNED WITH THE RWY CTRLINE. UPON INITIATING THE FLARE; A STRONG WIND GUST CAUSED SIGNIFICANT PITCHING AND ROLLING MOVEMENTS OF THE ACFT; REQUIRING LARGE CTL INPUTS TO SETTLE THE PLANE ONTO THE RWY; ABOUT 1/2 WAY DOWN ITS 2300 FT LENGTH. BRAKES WERE APPLIED; BUT THE ACFT'S DECELERATION SEEMED TO TAKE MUCH LONGER THAN USUAL. I APPLIED THE BRAKES MORE AGGRESSIVELY; INTERMITTENTLY EXPERIENCING BRAKE LOCKUP. AS THE ACFT SLOWED TOWARD THE END OF THE RWY; THE RUDDER LOST EFFECTIVENESS AND THE STRONG XWIND CAUSED THE PLANE TO WEATHERVANE TO THE R OF RWY CTRLINE. THE PLANE; VEERING TO THE R OFF THE RWY END; THEN STRUCK A REIL. THERE WAS NO IMMEDIATE INDICATION THAT THE PROP HAD STRUCK ANYTHING -- THERE WAS NO ABNORMAL VIBRATION OR UNUSUAL NOISES. AFTER TAXIING BACK TO PARKING AND SHUTTING DOWN; INSPECTION REVEALED A DENT ON THE R GEAR LEG FAIRING; AND A DEEP NICK ON THE PROP; WHICH WE LATER LEARNED SLICED OFF A PIECE OF THE REIL'S LENS FLANGE. 1 FACTOR IN THE OVERRUN WAS THE INCREASED GND ROLL LIKELY DUE TO AN UNEXPECTED QUARTERING TAILWIND. AFTER PARKING; IT WAS NOTED BY SEVERAL PLTS PRESENT THAT OVER A 5 MIN PERIOD; THE WINDSOCK WOULD SHOW THE WIND VARYING FROM A WESTERLY DIRECTION TO A NW DIRECTION; BACK TO A WESTERLY DIRECTION; THEN TO A SOUTHWESTERLY DIRECTION; AND SO ON. THIS WOULD INDICATE THAT UPON MY FLARE; THE WIND PROBABLY SHIFTED SO I HAD A QUARTERING TAILWIND FROM THE NW. THIS INDICATION IS STRENGTHENED BY THE FACT THAT THE BRAKING DISTANCE WAS MUCH LONGER THAN EXPECTED. BASED ON MY CALCULATIONS; LNDG ON A HDG OF 180 DEGS WITH A 20 KT WIND AT 290 DEGS WOULD HAVE GIVEN ME A TAILWIND COMPONENT OF ABOUT 5 KTS (8 MPH) WHICH; BY MY ESTIMATE FROM THE POH DATA; WOULD HAVE INCREASED THE GND ROLL BY ABOUT 15%. AS IT HAPPENED; THE PLANE CAME TO A STOP WITH THE NOSE 50 FT FROM THE END OF THE RWY. THE SECOND FACTOR WAS THAT I DIDN'T FULLY APPRECIATE THE COMBINATION OF FACTORS THAT; TAKEN TOGETHER; MADE FOR A VERY DIFFICULT LNDG: 1) SHORT RWY. 2) STRONG 90 DEG XWIND WITH NO STABLE HEADWIND COMPONENT. 3) POTENTIAL FOR A WIND SHIFT TO A QUARTERING TAILWIND. 4) LACK OF RECENT EXPERIENCE LNDG AT ZZZ. 5) CARRYING TOO MUCH FLAP FOR THE STRENGTH OF THE XWIND. A THIRD FACTOR WAS MY CONTINUING THE LNDG AFTER THE FLARE ON A SHORT RWY WHEN THE PLANE DID NOT BEHAVE AS EXPECTED. PREVENTION: INCREASE AWARENESS BY USING A FORMAL CHKLIST FOR EACH FLT THAT REQUIRES WRITING DOWN ALL THE FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE LNDG AT ANY DEST ARPT: 1) RWY LENGTH. 2) XWIND DIRECTION/STRENGTH; AND ASSESSMENT FOR A POTENTIAL TAILWIND COMPONENT. 3) HEADWIND COMPONENT FOR EXPECTED CONDITIONS. 4) GND ROLL FOR EXPECTED CONDITIONS. 5) IDENT OF TOUCHDOWN POINT FOR A GAR DECISION. 6) MAX FLAP SETTING FOR GIVEN XWIND. 7) PERSONAL LIMITS FOR XWIND LNDGS BASED ON ABOVE FACTORS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.