Narrative:

The flight plan was revised to reflect a 2 hour departure delay due to the WX at morristown. Another briefing (abbreviated) was obtained (with no substantial change in the destination WX) and a clearance on request was made at AB29 am, an hour later we were given a takeoff clearance and proceeded with an uneventful but wetter and rougher than expected flight. Syr approach gave the terminal WX before ATIS was in range, visibility was excellent and winds were given as 020 at 10, runway 10 in use. When nearer the airport we listened to ATIS and confirmed this information. Although this direction was 80 degree across the runway, a wind of 10 KTS and no gusts should have been no problem in my own airplane (I've been flying this C-180 for over 10 yrs) in any case it was off 60 degree from the other runway of choice (runway 34) and I proceeded to use the 'in use runway.' I did note to my passenger that I was surprised by the amount of right rudder I needed to line up with the runway, but I did not run out of rudder and decided to keep up on my crosswind landing skills. The wind close to the runway did not diminish as it often does and a small bounce on touchdown caused by shifting wind speed resulted in the upwind wing getting caught by the wind and the airplane required full lock on the ailerons to avoid rolling over. This maneuvering led to further deterioration of control and perhaps some panic braking with the result that the plane nosed over. The apparent damage includes the propeller (bent back, not forward), spinner and upper cowl. Initial inspection showed no engine mount, firewall, landing gear, or other airframe damage. There was no real 'impact' and neither the passenger or the pilot was scratched or bruised in any way. The plane came to rest, tail in the sky, on the centerline, aimed perhaps 10 degree to the left of straight down the runway. While waiting to get the plane removed from the runway I observed that now (10 min after the occurrence) the wind sock was straight out and the wind was what I would guess at least 20 KTS. I listened to ATIS again, and although revised to reflect the now closed runway 10 they were still calling out winds of 020 at 10 KTS. While filing my incident report the FSDO questioned my choice of runway 10 and I was told that an ASOS WX observation (initials may be wrong) immediately after my landing showed winds of 350 at runway 13. This comment by the FSDO questioning my runway selection , and using after the fact wind data differing from both forecast and ATIS information (ATIS before and immediately after ) strike me as very much an effort to cover the FAA's butt and blame the pilot. Three was no indication before landing that a current pilot, in a familiar aircraft, with a light crosswind would have any problem landing. The ATIS WX was wrong, but the most detailed information available. I do not believe that most prudent pilots given the same inputs would have made a different selection. I believe that winds substantially stronger than reported were a major contribution. As a side note an article in a local paper reported a major unforecast storm with 60 KT winds and 20 ft seas that sank several fishing vessels off the new jersey shore that same day, an 'offshore low'???

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT DAMAGED IN LNDG PROC XWIND LNDG.

Narrative: THE FLT PLAN WAS REVISED TO REFLECT A 2 HR DEP DELAY DUE TO THE WX AT MORRISTOWN. ANOTHER BRIEFING (ABBREVIATED) WAS OBTAINED (WITH NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE DEST WX) AND A CLRNC ON REQUEST WAS MADE AT AB29 AM, AN HR LATER WE WERE GIVEN A TKOF CLRNC AND PROCEEDED WITH AN UNEVENTFUL BUT WETTER AND ROUGHER THAN EXPECTED FLT. SYR APCH GAVE THE TERMINAL WX BEFORE ATIS WAS IN RANGE, VISIBILITY WAS EXCELLENT AND WINDS WERE GIVEN AS 020 AT 10, RWY 10 IN USE. WHEN NEARER THE ARPT WE LISTENED TO ATIS AND CONFIRMED THIS INFO. ALTHOUGH THIS DIRECTION WAS 80 DEG ACROSS THE RWY, A WIND OF 10 KTS AND NO GUSTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN NO PROB IN MY OWN AIRPLANE (I'VE BEEN FLYING THIS C-180 FOR OVER 10 YRS) IN ANY CASE IT WAS OFF 60 DEG FROM THE OTHER RWY OF CHOICE (RWY 34) AND I PROCEEDED TO USE THE 'IN USE RWY.' I DID NOTE TO MY PAX THAT I WAS SURPRISED BY THE AMOUNT OF R RUDDER I NEEDED TO LINE UP WITH THE RWY, BUT I DID NOT RUN OUT OF RUDDER AND DECIDED TO KEEP UP ON MY XWIND LNDG SKILLS. THE WIND CLOSE TO THE RWY DID NOT DIMINISH AS IT OFTEN DOES AND A SMALL BOUNCE ON TOUCHDOWN CAUSED BY SHIFTING WIND SPD RESULTED IN THE UPWIND WING GETTING CAUGHT BY THE WIND AND THE AIRPLANE REQUIRED FULL LOCK ON THE AILERONS TO AVOID ROLLING OVER. THIS MANEUVERING LED TO FURTHER DETERIORATION OF CTL AND PERHAPS SOME PANIC BRAKING WITH THE RESULT THAT THE PLANE NOSED OVER. THE APPARENT DAMAGE INCLUDES THE PROP (BENT BACK, NOT FORWARD), SPINNER AND UPPER COWL. INITIAL INSPECTION SHOWED NO ENG MOUNT, FIREWALL, LNDG GEAR, OR OTHER AIRFRAME DAMAGE. THERE WAS NO REAL 'IMPACT' AND NEITHER THE PAX OR THE PLT WAS SCRATCHED OR BRUISED IN ANY WAY. THE PLANE CAME TO REST, TAIL IN THE SKY, ON THE CTRLINE, AIMED PERHAPS 10 DEG TO THE L OF STRAIGHT DOWN THE RWY. WHILE WAITING TO GET THE PLANE REMOVED FROM THE RWY I OBSERVED THAT NOW (10 MIN AFTER THE OCCURRENCE) THE WIND SOCK WAS STRAIGHT OUT AND THE WIND WAS WHAT I WOULD GUESS AT LEAST 20 KTS. I LISTENED TO ATIS AGAIN, AND ALTHOUGH REVISED TO REFLECT THE NOW CLOSED RWY 10 THEY WERE STILL CALLING OUT WINDS OF 020 AT 10 KTS. WHILE FILING MY INCIDENT RPT THE FSDO QUESTIONED MY CHOICE OF RWY 10 AND I WAS TOLD THAT AN ASOS WX OBSERVATION (INITIALS MAY BE WRONG) IMMEDIATELY AFTER MY LNDG SHOWED WINDS OF 350 AT RWY 13. THIS COMMENT BY THE FSDO QUESTIONING MY RWY SELECTION , AND USING AFTER THE FACT WIND DATA DIFFERING FROM BOTH FORECAST AND ATIS INFO (ATIS BEFORE AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER ) STRIKE ME AS VERY MUCH AN EFFORT TO COVER THE FAA'S BUTT AND BLAME THE PLT. THREE WAS NO INDICATION BEFORE LNDG THAT A CURRENT PLT, IN A FAMILIAR ACFT, WITH A LIGHT XWIND WOULD HAVE ANY PROB LNDG. THE ATIS WX WAS WRONG, BUT THE MOST DETAILED INFO AVAILABLE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT MOST PRUDENT PLTS GIVEN THE SAME INPUTS WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENT SELECTION. I BELIEVE THAT WINDS SUBSTANTIALLY STRONGER THAN RPTED WERE A MAJOR CONTRIBUTION. AS A SIDE NOTE AN ARTICLE IN A LCL PAPER RPTED A MAJOR UNFORECAST STORM WITH 60 KT WINDS AND 20 FT SEAS THAT SANK SEVERAL FISHING VESSELS OFF THE NEW JERSEY SHORE THAT SAME DAY, AN 'OFFSHORE LOW'???

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.