Circumstances
While on the downwind leg of the airport traffic pattern for runway 17, the pilot was advised over the airport traffic frequency that winds were favoring runway 35. The pilot elected to continue the approach to runway 17, stating he could "clearly see the wind sock," which was indicating a "direct crosswind." During the landing flare, the pilot encountered an "updraft" and landed approximately "half way" down the 3,500-foot long runway. Upon touchdown, he retracted the wing flaps, applied "very strong" pressure on the brakes, and made "shallow turns" in an attempt to stop the airplane. The airplane ran off the end of the runway and came to rest in a ditch approximately 10 to 20 feet beyond the runway edge.
Weather
The nearest weather reporting station, located 12 nautical miles northwest of the accident site, reported wind direction variable between 280 degrees and 350 degrees at 7 knots at the time of the accident. The pilot reported that he should have landed on runway 35, since there were "several hills" on the approach to runway 17, and "turbulence and updrafts made speed control and altitude control difficult." Additionally, runway 17 had a "downhill slope."
Damages
A Federal Aviation Administration inspector who examined the airplane after the accident reported that it sustained substantial damage to the engine firewall and exhibited extensive wrinkling and buckling of the fuselage, particularly at the wing roots.
Pilot Remarks
The pilot reported no mechanical anomalies. He stated that he should have landed on runway 35, citing hills on the approach to runway 17 that caused turbulence and updrafts, making speed and altitude control difficult. He also noted the downhill slope of runway 17.