CEN19LA125

Factual narrative

***This report was modified on 12/11/2019. Please see the docket for this accident to view the original report.*** On April 20, 2019, about 0946 central daylight time, a Piper PA-28R-200 airplane, veered off the left side of runway 13 during landing at the St. Cloud Regional Airport (STC), St. Cloud, Minnesota. The pilot and passenger were not injured; the airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing. The airplane was owned and operated by the Blue Sky Benefit Solutions, Inc. under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed during the flight, which was not operating under a flight plan. The flight departed the Sauk Centre Municipal Airport (D39), Sauk Centre, Minnesota, about 0914 with STC as the destination. The pilot reported that the accident flight was the first flight after the airplane had undergone an annual maintenance inspection. The pilot reported that the airplane operated normally during the flight and he planned to land on runway 13 (7,500 ft by 150, asphalt) at STC. The approach and descent rate were stable as he "crabbed" the airplane into the wind to compensate for the right crosswind. He selected 25° of flaps when the indicated airspeed was 80 kts. He stated that before touchdown, he applied left rudder and had the right wing down into the wind to counter the crosswinds and to maintain the center line of the runway. At touchdown, he had the control yoke to the right and was applying the brakes; however, the airplane veered to the left and exited the runway. The airplane traveled about 50 ft into the grass when the right main landing gear collapsed. The right wing struck the ground resulting in substantial damage to the wing. The examination of the flight controls confirmed flight control continuity from the flight controls to the control surfaces. The airplane was equipped with an engine monitoring system. The data was downloaded, and the data indicated that the engine and propeller operated normally during the flight. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot stated, "Looking back, I should have never gone up with crosswinds that high, with little to no practice in crosswinds logged in the last 30, 60, [or] 90 days." At 0853, the surface weather observation at STC, was wind 180° at 13 knots gusting to 20 knots; visibility 10 miles; sky clear; temperature 12° C; dew point -1° C; and altimeter 29.78 inches of mercury. The pilot reported that before departing D39, the weather briefing at D39 was sky clear, wind 180° at 9 knots. About 30 nautical miles out from STC, the pilot received the automated weather from STC, which was sky clear, wind 180° at 12 to 20 knots. According to the airplane manufacturer's pilot operating handbook, the maximum demonstrated crosswind component for this make/model airplane is 17 knots. The private pilot reported that the airplane operated normally during the personal flight. He stated that before touchdown at the destination airport, he applied left rudder and had the right wing down into the wind to counter the crosswinds and maintain the center line of the runway. At touchdown, he held the control yoke to the right and was applying the brakes; however, the airplane veered left and exited the runway. The airplane traveled about 50 ft into the grass, and the right main landing gear collapsed; the right wing struck the ground and sustained substantial damage. Postaccident examination confirmed flight control continuity. The airplane was equipped with an engine monitoring system, and data indicated that the engine and propeller operated normally during the flight. The pilot reported no preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. Weather at the destination airport about 1 hour before the accident was wind from 180° at 13 knots gusting to 20 knots; the automated weather report that the pilot received en route was similar. The crosswind component was within the maximum demonstrated crosswind component for this airplane; however, the pilot stated, "Looking back, I should have never gone up with crosswinds that high, with little to no practice in crosswinds logged in the last 30, 60, [or] 90 days." Thus, it is likely that the pilot failed to maintain directional control during landing in crosswind conditions. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12

NTSB Findings

FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.

• C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Directional control-Not attained/maintained - C
• C Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot - C
• C Environmental issues-Conditions/weather/phenomena-Wind-Crosswind-Effect on operation - C
• C Environmental issues-Conditions/weather/phenomena-Wind-Crosswind-Response/compensation - C
• F Personnel issues-Action/decision-Info processing/decision-Decision making/judgment-Pilot - F