Narrative:

Aircraft went off downwind side of runway during landing roll-out at ZZZ. A wx briefing was received via csc duats with the flight departing on an IFR flight plan. In addition the hourly weather for nearby lou was checked via the national weather service web-site. Expected winds at the time of arrival were to have peak gust at or below 30 kts and within 40 degrees of the runway heading. The aircraft has a G1000 avionics suite which provides in-flight weather. Metar were monitored during the flight and the reported winds were consistent with forecast. Within 20 NM of ZZZ the AWOS-3 was checked and winds were approximately 220@16g24. Aircraft was provided vectors to GPS xx approach and was established on lpv approach. IFR clearance was canceled at approximately 3000 MSL (2500 AGL) with the aircraft in VMC and runway visible. The aircraft position was announced multiple times on CTAF and was acknowledged by a departing helicopter. Moderate turbulence was encountered between approximately 1500 and 200 AGL but the aircraft was able to maintain runway centerline in a right wind down slip; without exceptional effort. Only 20 deg flap setting was used due to relatively high power setting (23 to 24 inches manifold) required to maintain flight path.during the flare the aircraft ballooned slightly but remained under control and on centerline and the pitch attitude was held while slight power was used to control the descent. After touchdown the aircraft experienced significant buffeting and significant effort was required to maintain a proper landing attitude and to keep the nose pointed approximately down the runway heading. When the nose was lowered the aircraft was approx. 10 feet from the left (downwind) side of the runway and the ground path was angled toward the runway edge. Right rudder was applied to point the aircraft back to center but the pilot avoided aggressive rudder usage due to concerns about tipping the aircraft in the winds. The pilot was able to mostly straighten the aircraft but it continued to pull to the left. It was later noted that the left main had gone onto the grass and the ground was soft. The pilot noted that the aircraft would not steer back to the runway and in order to avoid a runway light; the aircraft was steered to the left into the open grass area. The aircraft became stuck in the soft ground approx. 20 feet lateral from the edge of the runway. FBO staff assisted in extricating the aircraft and there was no damage. No runway lights were damaged.while the aircraft was being extricated; several witnesses noted periodic strong wind gusts that were angled more across the runway (i.e. Cross wind component) than the wind reported on AWOS. Only one of the two FBO (the 'transmitting FBO') at ZZZ has the ability to transmit via CTAF. An observation was made that the desk attendant at the transmitting FBO was inexperienced. The more experienced desk attendant at the non-transmitting FBO noted to the pilot that she would have warned him of the high; lateral wind gusts; if able. The front seat passenger; who was a student pilot; noted that they believed the pilot did not maintain a significant right roll input while he was keeping the aircraft pitch steady. It is likely that a full aileron input; into the wind; would have allowed the aircraft directional control to have been maintained before it departed the side of the runway.advance warning of the wind conditions would have likely allowed the pilot to divert. The pilot was very cautious of winds and had departed from the home base a day later than planned due to wind gusts exceeding the pilot's personal 30 kts planning limit. The pilot had a vague plan that if the winds didn't allow him to maintain runway centerline during the approach or if a balked approach was required due to surface winds he would exit the airspace to the north under VFR and contact flight services to find a suitable alternate. The pilot had planned to arrive at the destination (ZZZ) with at least 2 hrs of fuel reserves to allow for a possible alternate. However the pilot did not have a definite alternate selected which potentially could have affected his taking decisive action if he had been informed of potentially high crosswind gusts. The pilot had been involved in a pio (pilot induced oscillation) several years previous and was particularly conscious of proper pitch control.significant factors were:1) lack of accurate and timely weather information; specifically strength and direction of wind gusts;2) pilot's focus on pitch control may have contributed to insufficient roll input to maintain lateral position on the runway;3) lack of a definite alternate plan which may have resulted in the pilot persisting to continue the approach under marginal conditionsfactors which help prevent damage and/or injury:1) the pilot's careful attention to pitch and airspeed control prevented a pio or prop strike.2) the pilot's directional control with the rudder minimized the chance of ground looping.3) the pilot's decision to steer into the grass prevented damage to runway lights and the aircraft4) the pilot's use of 20 degrees of flaps and higher approach speed allowed for better stability and control during landing.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Small aircraft pilot reported a runway excursion while landing with gusty crosswinds.

Narrative: Aircraft went off downwind side of runway during landing roll-out at ZZZ. A Wx briefing was received via CSC DUATS with the flight departing on an IFR flight plan. In addition the hourly weather for nearby LOU was checked via the National Weather Service web-site. Expected winds at the time of arrival were to have peak gust at or below 30 kts and within 40 degrees of the runway heading. The aircraft has a G1000 avionics suite which provides in-flight weather. METAR were monitored during the flight and the reported winds were consistent with forecast. Within 20 NM of ZZZ the AWOS-3 was checked and winds were approximately 220@16G24. Aircraft was provided vectors to GPS XX approach and was established on LPV approach. IFR clearance was canceled at approximately 3000 MSL (2500 AGL) with the aircraft in VMC and runway visible. The aircraft position was announced multiple times on CTAF and was acknowledged by a departing helicopter. Moderate turbulence was encountered between approximately 1500 and 200 AGL but the aircraft was able to maintain runway centerline in a right wind down slip; without exceptional effort. Only 20 deg flap setting was used due to relatively high power setting (23 to 24 inches manifold) required to maintain flight path.During the flare the aircraft ballooned slightly but remained under control and on centerline and the pitch attitude was held while slight power was used to control the descent. After touchdown the aircraft experienced significant buffeting and significant effort was required to maintain a proper landing attitude and to keep the nose pointed approximately down the runway heading. When the nose was lowered the aircraft was approx. 10 feet from the left (downwind) side of the runway and the ground path was angled toward the runway edge. Right rudder was applied to point the aircraft back to center but the pilot avoided aggressive rudder usage due to concerns about tipping the aircraft in the winds. The pilot was able to mostly straighten the aircraft but it continued to pull to the left. It was later noted that the left main had gone onto the grass and the ground was soft. The pilot noted that the aircraft would not steer back to the runway and in order to avoid a runway light; the aircraft was steered to the left into the open grass area. The aircraft became stuck in the soft ground approx. 20 feet lateral from the edge of the runway. FBO staff assisted in extricating the aircraft and there was no damage. No runway lights were damaged.While the aircraft was being extricated; several witnesses noted periodic strong wind gusts that were angled more across the runway (i.e. cross wind component) than the wind reported on AWOS. Only one of the two FBO (the 'transmitting FBO') at ZZZ has the ability to transmit via CTAF. An observation was made that the desk attendant at the transmitting FBO was inexperienced. The more experienced desk attendant at the non-transmitting FBO noted to the pilot that she would have warned him of the high; lateral wind gusts; if able. The front seat passenger; who was a student pilot; noted that they believed the pilot did not maintain a significant right roll input while he was keeping the aircraft pitch steady. It is likely that a full aileron input; into the wind; would have allowed the aircraft directional control to have been maintained before it departed the side of the runway.Advance warning of the wind conditions would have likely allowed the pilot to divert. The pilot was very cautious of winds and had departed from the home base a day later than planned due to wind gusts exceeding the pilot's personal 30 kts planning limit. The pilot had a vague plan that if the winds didn't allow him to maintain runway centerline during the approach or if a balked approach was required due to surface winds he would exit the airspace to the north under VFR and contact flight services to find a suitable alternate. The pilot had planned to arrive at the destination (ZZZ) with at least 2 hrs of fuel reserves to allow for a possible alternate. However the pilot did not have a definite alternate selected which potentially could have affected his taking decisive action if he had been informed of potentially high crosswind gusts. The pilot had been involved in a PIO (pilot induced oscillation) several years previous and was particularly conscious of proper pitch control.Significant factors were:1) Lack of accurate and timely weather information; specifically strength and direction of wind gusts;2) Pilot's focus on pitch control may have contributed to insufficient roll input to maintain lateral position on the runway;3) Lack of a definite alternate plan which may have resulted in the pilot persisting to continue the approach under marginal conditionsFactors which help prevent damage and/or injury:1) The pilot's careful attention to pitch and airspeed control prevented a PIO or prop strike.2) The pilot's directional control with the rudder minimized the chance of ground looping.3) The pilot's decision to steer into the grass prevented damage to runway lights and the aircraft4) The pilot's use of 20 degrees of flaps and higher approach speed allowed for better stability and control during landing.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.