Narrative:

The first officer flew the leg to atw. On initial contact with approach control, we were given the WX and told to expect the ILS to runway 29. Upon checking the winds, we discovered the winds exceeded our tailwind limitation. We therefore asked for and obtained the back course runway 11. Tower reported the wind 04/25, braking action fair (reported by a vehicle) and cleared us to land. We broke out and saw the runway approximately 1 mi prior to the missed approach. The runway and centerline marks were covered by snow. However, runway edge lights were clearly visible. The aircraft was fully configured, aligned with the runway and stabilized. We had a firm touchdown approximately 900 ft down the runway slightly right of centerline. The aircraft bounced and landed in a slight crab approximately the same distance right of centerline. At this time, I deployed the speed brake and made sure the yoke was into the wind. The first officer had the proper crosswind controls applied, however, we were sliding toward the right edge of the runway. I took control of the aircraft and attempted to use nosewheel steering. The tail of the aircraft continued to slide to the right and the aircraft main gear departed the runway surface. Factors contributing to this incident were: 1) with winds 04/25 the preferred runway was 3, however, the ILS and NDB approachs to this runway were OTS. 2) the crosswind limit for the large transport is 29 KTS. However, there are no additional crosswind limitations as runway surface conditions degrade. 3) although gusty winds were given on the ATIS which could have exceeded our crosswind limitations, tower did not report gusty winds. 4) after bouncing, the aircraft landed in a slight crab causing side forces. 5) use of reverse thrust in high xwinds can cause 'blanking of the rudder,' reducing its effectiveness in stopping the drift. 6) with the combination of strong xwinds, snow on the runway, and low visibility, I should have made the landing. To prevent this or a similar incident in the future: 1) I have increased my personal minimum conditions and combination of conditions for allowing the first officer to make the landing. 2) I advised the company of the need to possibly lower our crosswind limitation as runway conditions degrade. 3) our flight safety department is recommending training to increase our awareness concerning rudder blanking and its effect on directional control. Supplemental information from acn 239269: touchdown occurred about 1300 ft down the runway, in a wing low position, on centerline, with the fuselage aligned with the runway. Tower was informed of our runway departure by the captain and the crash crews arrived shortly thereafter. Immediate inspection of the aircraft revealed a damaged right outboard slat which struck a runway remaining marker. One note: shortly after we departed the runway we heard tower report braking action was now poor on all runways and txwys. As events unfolded, it became obvious the only 'legal' approach was the localizer back course 11. 'Legal' and 'smart' are not the same thing, of course. I, as the first officer, did not verbalize to the captain the degree of difficulty I was having maintaining directional control of the aircraft. Supplemental information from acn 239258: the back course approach was flown with an average of 20 degrees correction to the left. Captain called 'I have the aircraft' and took the controls. At this time I called out 'come out of reverse' as this would reduce the side vector of reverse thrust. He reduced reverse thrust but aircraft continued to drift right off runway. Aircraft came to a stop with nosewheel on runway and both mains in dirt off right side of runway. All 3 of us were surprised by the amount of snow on the runway and how slick the runway actually was.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN LGT FREIGHTER CREW WENT OFF THE SIDE OF THE RWY IN A XWIND.

Narrative: THE FO FLEW THE LEG TO ATW. ON INITIAL CONTACT WITH APCH CTL, WE WERE GIVEN THE WX AND TOLD TO EXPECT THE ILS TO RWY 29. UPON CHKING THE WINDS, WE DISCOVERED THE WINDS EXCEEDED OUR TAILWIND LIMITATION. WE THEREFORE ASKED FOR AND OBTAINED THE BACK COURSE RWY 11. TWR RPTED THE WIND 04/25, BRAKING ACTION FAIR (RPTED BY A VEHICLE) AND CLRED US TO LAND. WE BROKE OUT AND SAW THE RWY APPROX 1 MI PRIOR TO THE MISSED APCH. THE RWY AND CTRLINE MARKS WERE COVERED BY SNOW. HOWEVER, RWY EDGE LIGHTS WERE CLRLY VISIBLE. THE ACFT WAS FULLY CONFIGURED, ALIGNED WITH THE RWY AND STABILIZED. WE HAD A FIRM TOUCHDOWN APPROX 900 FT DOWN THE RWY SLIGHTLY R OF CTRLINE. THE ACFT BOUNCED AND LANDED IN A SLIGHT CRAB APPROX THE SAME DISTANCE R OF CTRLINE. AT THIS TIME, I DEPLOYED THE SPD BRAKE AND MADE SURE THE YOKE WAS INTO THE WIND. THE FO HAD THE PROPER XWIND CTLS APPLIED, HOWEVER, WE WERE SLIDING TOWARD THE R EDGE OF THE RWY. I TOOK CTL OF THE ACFT AND ATTEMPTED TO USE NOSEWHEEL STEERING. THE TAIL OF THE ACFT CONTINUED TO SLIDE TO THE R AND THE ACFT MAIN GEAR DEPARTED THE RWY SURFACE. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THIS INCIDENT WERE: 1) WITH WINDS 04/25 THE PREFERRED RWY WAS 3, HOWEVER, THE ILS AND NDB APCHS TO THIS RWY WERE OTS. 2) THE XWIND LIMIT FOR THE LGT IS 29 KTS. HOWEVER, THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL XWIND LIMITATIONS AS RWY SURFACE CONDITIONS DEGRADE. 3) ALTHOUGH GUSTY WINDS WERE GIVEN ON THE ATIS WHICH COULD HAVE EXCEEDED OUR XWIND LIMITATIONS, TWR DID NOT RPT GUSTY WINDS. 4) AFTER BOUNCING, THE ACFT LANDED IN A SLIGHT CRAB CAUSING SIDE FORCES. 5) USE OF REVERSE THRUST IN HIGH XWINDS CAN CAUSE 'BLANKING OF THE RUDDER,' REDUCING ITS EFFECTIVENESS IN STOPPING THE DRIFT. 6) WITH THE COMBINATION OF STRONG XWINDS, SNOW ON THE RWY, AND LOW VISIBILITY, I SHOULD HAVE MADE THE LNDG. TO PREVENT THIS OR A SIMILAR INCIDENT IN THE FUTURE: 1) I HAVE INCREASED MY PERSONAL MINIMUM CONDITIONS AND COMBINATION OF CONDITIONS FOR ALLOWING THE FO TO MAKE THE LNDG. 2) I ADVISED THE COMPANY OF THE NEED TO POSSIBLY LOWER OUR XWIND LIMITATION AS RWY CONDITIONS DEGRADE. 3) OUR FLT SAFETY DEPT IS RECOMMENDING TRAINING TO INCREASE OUR AWARENESS CONCERNING RUDDER BLANKING AND ITS EFFECT ON DIRECTIONAL CTL. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM ACN 239269: TOUCHDOWN OCCURRED ABOUT 1300 FT DOWN THE RWY, IN A WING LOW POS, ON CTRLINE, WITH THE FUSELAGE ALIGNED WITH THE RWY. TWR WAS INFORMED OF OUR RWY DEP BY THE CAPT AND THE CRASH CREWS ARRIVED SHORTLY THEREAFTER. IMMEDIATE INSPECTION OF THE ACFT REVEALED A DAMAGED R OUTBOARD SLAT WHICH STRUCK A RWY REMAINING MARKER. ONE NOTE: SHORTLY AFTER WE DEPARTED THE RWY WE HEARD TWR RPT BRAKING ACTION WAS NOW POOR ON ALL RWYS AND TXWYS. AS EVENTS UNFOLDED, IT BECAME OBVIOUS THE ONLY 'LEGAL' APCH WAS THE LOC BACK COURSE 11. 'LEGAL' AND 'SMART' ARE NOT THE SAME THING, OF COURSE. I, AS THE FO, DID NOT VERBALIZE TO THE CAPT THE DEG OF DIFFICULTY I WAS HAVING MAINTAINING DIRECTIONAL CTL OF THE ACFT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM ACN 239258: THE BACK COURSE APCH WAS FLOWN WITH AN AVERAGE OF 20 DEGS CORRECTION TO THE L. CAPT CALLED 'I HAVE THE ACFT' AND TOOK THE CTLS. AT THIS TIME I CALLED OUT 'COME OUT OF REVERSE' AS THIS WOULD REDUCE THE SIDE VECTOR OF REVERSE THRUST. HE REDUCED REVERSE THRUST BUT ACFT CONTINUED TO DRIFT R OFF RWY. ACFT CAME TO A STOP WITH NOSEWHEEL ON RWY AND BOTH MAINS IN DIRT OFF R SIDE OF RWY. ALL 3 OF US WERE SURPRISED BY THE AMOUNT OF SNOW ON THE RWY AND HOW SLICK THE RWY ACTUALLY WAS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.