Accident Overview
On January 28, 2024, at about 1623 eastern standard time, a Honda Aircraft Company LLC HA-420 airplane, registration N103JT, was substantially damaged during landing at Orlando International Airport (MCO) in Orlando, Florida. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 on-demand passenger flight. The airline transport pilot (pilot flying), commercial co-pilot (pilot monitoring), and two passengers were not injured.
Flight Crew Actions
According to the cockpit voice recorder (CVR), about 1 hour 22 minutes before landing, the crew reviewed the MCO ATIS, which reported wind from 270° at 14 knots, gusting to 24 knots. The crew discussed crosswind components, aircraft operating limitations, and company procedures. They noted that a runway at Orlando Executive Airport (ORL) was more aligned with the wind direction. The pilot monitoring asked passengers about transportation and discussed arranging transport from ORL to MCO.
About 1556, the crew obtained updated ATIS information (Victor) for MCO, reporting wind from 260° at 16 knots, gusting to 23 knots. The airplane continued toward MCO. At about 1607, when the airplane was 39 nautical miles northwest of MCO, the crew discussed wind information from the ASOS. The pilot flying stated he checked the ASOS four times in the prior 20 minutes and only one report mentioned gusts, adding that wind speed was reported at 13–14 knots from 270°. He also said they would request a wind check on final approach.
Approach and Landing
The airplane entered the traffic pattern for runway 36L. At 1619:57, a crew member contacted MCO tower, advising they were 2 miles from the final approach fix. The controller reported wind from 290° at 21 knots and cleared the airplane to land. The CVR recorded the crew calculating a crosswind component of 19 knots. At 1622:06, when 1.2 nautical miles from the runway threshold, another aircraft requested a wind check; the controller reported wind from 290° at 19 knots, gusting to 24 knots. The crew again calculated a 19-knot crosswind component.
The pilot flying continued the approach. Touchdown occurred at 1622:54. After touchdown, the pilot flying applied left aileron to counter the crosswind and deployed the speedbrake. The airplane began drifting left; right rudder input had no effect. The airplane departed the left side of the runway, rolled onto grass, and impacted a runway distance remaining sign. The pilot then corrected right, returned to the runway, and taxied off at taxiway E, where the airplane was secured and evacuated.
Post-Impact Examination
Postaccident examination by an FAA inspector and a manufacturer representative found no failures or malfunctions of primary or secondary flight controls. Rudder and aileron trims were neutral. The left wing forward spar exhibited cracks and deformation, which constituted substantial damage. All tires showed scuffing but none were deflated. The impacted sign had frangible aluminum posts; the center and west mounts fractured at mounts, while the east post fractured at the reduced circumference area.
The operator reported no mechanical irregularities during the flight. The airplane flight manual specified a crosswind limitation of 20 knots. The operator’s flight operations training guidance stated that gust limits were not discussed in the AFM and were assumed to be 20 knots. Using the operator’s wind component chart, the steady-state crosswind was 19 knots, and the gust crosswind component was about 23 knots. The chart, based on a 100-foot runway width, specified maximum acceptable crosswind and gust components of 20 knots each. The guidance advised that if a wind check showed wind beyond limits, the crew must wait for the next wind check.
Postaccident, the operator developed "Go/No-Go winds criteria" stating that if any authorized weather report showed the crosswind component would be out of limits within the estimated time of arrival, the flight should not proceed to that destination.
Review of ASOS observations between 1500 and 1605 showed that wind gusts were reported in all but 2 of 14 observations. The pilot flying’s comments about checking ASOS referenced an observation at 1600 that included gusts of 24 knots, which he did not mention.