The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB CEN19LA125 · Final report

Piper PA-28R-200 accident near St. Cloud, Minnesota, April 20, 2019

On April 20, 2019 at about 2:46 pm local time, a 1973 Piper PA-28R-200, registered N40956, was substantially damaged in an accident during landing (landing roll) near St. Cloud, Minnesota (St. Cloud Regional Airport). It was a personal flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

The pilot's failure to maintain directional control during a crosswind landing. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s decision to land in crosswind conditions given his lack of recent experience in those conditions.

Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.

What the record shows

Date
April 20, 2019 · about 2:46 pm local time
Place
St. Cloud, Minnesota · St. Cloud Regional Airport · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Piper PA-28R-200, built 1973 · all PA-28R-200s on the register
Registration
N40956 · no longer on the register · serial 28R-7435144
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record

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.

The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.

The factual record from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English

What happened, in order

  1. Other weather encounter during landing (landing roll)
  2. Runway excursion during landing (landing roll) defining event
  3. Landing gear collapse during landing (landing roll)

The NTSB's findings

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

Pilot

  • Certificate: private
  • Ratings: single-engine land
  • Flight time: 368 hours in all; 317 in this make and model; 3 in the last 90 days; 3 in the last 30 days; 340 as pilot in command
  • Last flight review: March 31, 2017
  • Medical certificate: Class 3 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 4,195.5 hours
  • Last inspection: annual inspection, April 19, 2019; 0 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 2,325 lb
  • Seats: 4
  • Landing gear: retractable
  • Engine: Lycoming IO-380-C1C (piston); 1,404 hours total

The flight

  • Departed from: D39 Sauk Centre MN at 2:14 pm
  • Destination: STC St. Cloud MN
  • Flight plan: none
  • Runway 13, 7,500 ft by 150 ft

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 180° at 13 knots, gusting 20
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: clear
  • Temperature: 54°F (12°C), dew point 30°F (-1°C)
  • Altimeter: 29.78 inHg
  • Observation at 1:53 pm from STC

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1
Passengers1

Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report

6 documents, released by the NTSB on September 4, 2019. View them here, or download them; the NTSB redacts some personal details before release, and this site shows the NTSB's own titles rather than its file names.

#DocumentWhat it is
1 Pilot/operator Aircraft Accident Report, NTSB Form 6120.1 PDF, 10 pages View Download
2 Accident Diagram PDF, 1 page View Download
3 Jpi Flight Data data file Download
4 Pilot's Flight Time Summary PDF, 2 pages View Download
5 Photo Log PDF, 2 pages View Download
6 Revised NTSB Factual Report PDF, 1 page View Download

The same docket at the NTSB · documents without a copy here are fetched from the NTSB when you open them.

Everything on this page comes from the NTSB's public records. The narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words; the coded tables behind the report are written out in plain English, with pilots' ages, home towns and medical details left out. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, shown as the NTSB released them. This site's own text never names anyone involved. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.