Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight Crew Commercial
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 2.7; Flight Crew Total 479; Flight Crew Type 3.7
Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Human Factors; Aircraft; Weather
After departure from home airport wind change to 8 KTS gusting to 14 KTS with direction varying from 210-230 (via nearby ATIS) final approach to Runway 20; approach was stable with crab into wind. Upon touch-down with upwind main wheel; wind gusted and weather-vaned aircraft to the left; causing aircraft to depart the runway into adjacent grass at approximately 50 KTS; damaging a runway edge light. Full power was applied; carb heat turned off; flaps reduced to 10 degrees to facilitate an aborted landing/take-off. Departure was successful and aircraft returned to home airport. Inspection of the aircraft revealed no damage as a result of the collision with the runway edge light. Pilot reported the incident to the owner of the airport who inspected the runway edge light and confirmed damage. Pilot is paying for the cost of edge light replacement.Pilot received check ride in incident aircraft in October 2011 and a re familiarization check ride in March 2012. Primary cause of the incident was the unexpected wind gust while the aircraft was decelerating upon initial contact with runway combined with the aircraft being on one wheel (upwind main only). Rapid change in aircraft directional momentum prevented return to the runway environment without risk of side-loading main landing gear. Contributing factors were light weight of aircraft making it unusually susceptible to wind gusts and pilot's lack of experience flying this aircraft in gusty wind environments. Regarding the Cessna 162; while cross-wind training is important instruction; it presumes a steady cross-wind versus a gusting cross-wind. Pilot's dual instruction in March 2012 included cross-wind landings. However; due to the light weight of the C-162 proving susceptible to strong cross-wind gusts; a safety notice should be included in the AFM (Airplane Flight Manual) to warn pilots on the impact on operational control of the aircraft in a gusty wind environment due to its light weight. A standard C-172 with a weight of 2;400 LBS would have much easier to handle in this gusty wind environment. Second recommendation pertains to the C-162 'stoke' (control yoke). To pilots experienced with either a standard control yoke or stick; the use of the C-162's stoke may not be intuitively obvious. This should be emphasized in dual instruction with simulated airport environment emergency maneuvers.
C162 pilot reports a runway excursion during a gusty crosswind landing that ends in a go around after contacting a runway light. Incident is attributed to lack of recent experience in this aircraft at very light weight with gusty crosswinds. Also cited was the strange motion of the C162 'stoke.'