The all new Landings Workshop is coming live via Zoom on Saturday, February 21, 2026! This most-of-the-day event provides recurrent training for pilots of all certification and experience levels. The event is produced by Bright Spot Schools and presented by Gene Benson. Click here for complete details and an early registration discount.
New Series for 2026!
January 2026 will see the takeoff roll for a new series, "Squawking Human." Final details are still being refined, but our mission statement is "To enhance aviation safety and performance by translating complex human factors research into actionable insights for the general aviation pilot." Click here to subscribe to "Squawking Human." You can unsubscribe at any time.
Cold Weather Engine Starts
Check out our article in our "Safety Concepts" section. Click here to see the article.
New Edition of "Old Pilot Tips
Episode #37 titled "Now is Not the Time" is now available. This 50-second video reminds us that non-critical problems can be delayed until it is safe to troubleshoot.. Our "Old Pilot Tips" series is sponsored by Avemco Insurance and is narrated by Gene Benson. Click here to watch Episode #37 on YouTube.
Recommended Viewing
Winter flying can mean gusty crosswinds. In this six-minute episode of our Essential Vectors Series, we look at crosswind landings. We discuss checking present and forecast wind to know what to expect during the flight. We review the concept of the demonstrated crosswind component and some rules-of-thumb for determining it. We discuss the mechanics involved in the crosswind landing and how ground loops and dynamic rollovers occur. Finally, we provide some practical tips on handling wind gusts. The series is sponsored by Avemco Insurance. Click here to see the video on YouTube.
Free Virtual Safety Presentations Available
As you plan your late fall and winter meetings for your pilot group, consider including a virtual guest speaker. We can provide a safety presentation, valid for Wings credits if you choose, free of charge, courtesy of Avemco. For more information or to schedule, contact gene@genebenson.com. Click here to download a copy of our current presentation catalog.
Procedural Memory
Procedural memory is a critical element of our cognitive toolkit, quietly guiding us through countless daily tasks that require skill, coordination, and practice. From tying shoelaces to riding a bicycle, procedural memory allows us to perform complex actions without conscious thought. For pilots, procedural memory tells us to apply right rudder during takeoff and climb, apply back pressure when the nose dips too low, flare at the right time during landing, and make those quick control inputs while managing a gusty crosswind.
Procedural memory is a form of long-term memory responsible for the acquisition, retention, and execution of motor and cognitive skills. Unlike declarative memory—which involves remembering facts and events—procedural memory underpins “how” we do things. It enables us to perform tasks automatically, often without conscious awareness of the underlying steps.
Procedural memory is rooted in several interconnected regions of the brain. The key structures involved include the basal ganglia, the cerebellum, and the motor cortex. Each plays a distinct role in the formation and execution of procedural tasks:
- Basal Ganglia: This group of nuclei deep within the brain is crucial for initiating and regulating movement. It helps in the formation of habits and routines, allowing practiced actions to become automatic.
- Cerebellum: Located at the back of the brain, the cerebellum coordinates fine motor movements and timing. It is vital for adjusting and refining skills as they are learned and practiced.
- Motor Cortex: Situated in the frontal lobe, the motor cortex is responsible for planning, controlling, and executing voluntary movements.
When learning a new skill, such as operating an aircraft, the brain initially relies heavily on the motor cortex and conscious effort. With repetition, the basal ganglia and cerebellum gradually take over, enabling the task to be performed more smoothly and automatically. This transition from conscious to unconscious control is the hallmark of procedural memory.
Skill learning through procedural memory typically unfolds in three stages:
- Cognitive Stage: The learner consciously thinks through each step, often making errors and corrections.
- Associative Stage: With practice, movements become smoother and more coordinated. The pilot begins to anticipate actions, link procedures together, and reduce reliance on external prompts.
- Autonomous Stage: Actions become automatic, requiring minimal conscious attention. Experienced pilots can perform complex maneuvers, such as performing coordinated turns or establishing level flight after a climb or descent, almost reflexively.
Developing strong procedural memory is a key focus of pilot training. Instructors use repetition, simulation, and scenario-based exercises to help students internalize procedures. Flight simulators are particularly effective, allowing pilots to practice emergency responses and complex maneuvers in a safe, controlled environment.
While procedural memory is powerful, it is not infallible. “Skill Decay” can occur when procedures are not practiced regularly, leading to errors or slower responses. Additionally, changes in equipment or procedures can cause confusion if old habits persist. Pilots must remain vigilant, remain updated on training, and consciously review procedures regularly.
Procedural Learning and the Crosswind Landing
The crosswind landing is one of the most challenging motor skills in aviation because it requires counter-intuitive inputs. Early in our training, we are taught to "coordinate" our turns (turn yoke left, push left rudder). A crosswind landing (specifically the Wing-Low/Sideslip method) requires us to cross-control (turn yoke into the wind, push opposite rudder to keep the nose straight). Our procedural memory will fight us because we are trying to uncouple our hands from our feet. But, by consciously understanding the correct crosswind procedures relative to the aerodynamics involved, we can, through practice, develop correct procedural memory for landing in a crosswind. Yes, even a gusty crosswind.
Every year, far too many prop strikes, landing gear damage, ground loops, and runway excursions resulting in substantial damage occur. Reducing the number of these incidents provides some unique challenges.
Like so many other aspects of aviation safety, avoiding the crosswind landing incident involves planning, discipline, and proficiency.
For planning, we must carefully check reliable aviation information sources for forecast wind conditions and expected runways in use. Then we must calculate the crosswind component and realistically assess whether the crosswind is manageable considering the airplane and our own capabilities. It is important to evaluate trees, buildings, and other obstructions in the vicinity of the runway. Wind moving over and around obstacles can present a greater challenge than a steady wind across a wide-open runway.
The discipline needed is to realistically plan for a manageable wind upon arrival, to have a viable option, considering fuel requirements, if wind conditions are not favorable, and to divert to that option even if it creates inconvenience. We must have the discipline to avoid the “It will be fine just this once” scenario.
The proficiency aspect is perhaps the most critical, but also the most difficult part. Gaining or maintaining proficiency becomes a risk versus reward exercise. Practicing landings in conditions that include substantial, variable, and gusty winds is an effective method for developing procedural memory. But it could be argued that the risk level is perhaps elevated more than the reward level. One way to mitigate the risk is to minimize the number of touchdowns. Practice flying down the runway at about twenty feet of altitude while keeping the longitudinal axis of the airplane directly above and precisely parallel with the runway centerline. Do that four or five times then make a landing to a full-stop. If this exercise has gone well, you can taxi back and make one or two more full-stop landings. This will provide practice and procedural memory for safely bringing the airplane to a stop and correctly positioning the controls for taxiing in wind. Each pass down the runway is equivalent to about four actual landings so you have effectively developed the same amount of procedural memory that would have required more than an hour of pattern work with full-stop landings. You have also greatly reduced the risk involved in the actual touchdowns.
I am a big proponent of simulator training but, in my opinion, very few GA simulation devices are of value when it comes to crosswind landings. The exception is the Redbird Xwind, but they are not widely available and even they cannot perfectly replicate the feel of ground friction, tire side-loading, or subtle cues from the real aircraft.
Before launching off on a flight that will likely require landing in a crosswind, try to honestly appraise your crosswind proficiency and if necessary, revise your personal minimums checklist of flight risk assessment tool.
Crosswind landings can be challenging, but with planning, discipline, and proficiency their risks can be managed and mitigated. Of course, we must maintain proficiency in executing a go-around and be ready to execute if the approach becomes unstabilized.
Accidents discussed in this section are presented in the hope that pilots can learn from the misfortune of others and perhaps avoid an accident. It is easy to read an accident report and dismiss the cause as carelessness or as a dumb mistake. But let's remember that the accident pilot did not get up in the morning and say, "Gee, I think I'll go have an accident today." Nearly all pilots believe that they are safe. Honest introspection frequently reveals that on some occasion, we might have traveled down that same accident path.
This crash happened in Georgia in October of 2024. The airplane involved was a Cessna 182P and fortunately none of the four occupants received serious injuries. The 210 hour private pilot, age 62, was current regarding medical certification and flight review requirements.
Actual Accident Airplane
The NTSB report includes the following: "The pilot/owner stated that he checked the winds when he was more than 15 miles from the destination airport and again while established on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern. He said the Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS) reported the winds were from 020°at 9 knots “with no gusts” and that he was landing on Runway 03. When over the runway threshold, the nose dropped “due to a decrease in headwind” so the pilot initiated a go-around. After applying “full” engine power and while configuring the airplane for the go-around, an “extreme perpendicular crosswind from the west blew the airplane into the path of trees lining the runway.” The pilot said he pulled back on the yoke to clear the trees, the right wing stalled, and the airplane landed hard in a flat attitude resulting in substantial damage and igniting a fire in the engine compartment. Three of the four occupants egressed the airplane with minor injuries while one occupant emerged uninjured."
Google Earth with annotations by GB
The NTSB report continues: "Examination of the AWOS information reported at the airport 15 minutes before arrival revealed winds from 020° at 11 knots gusting to 19 knots. At the time of the accident, winds were reported to be from 040° at 12 knots gusting to 19 knots."
NTSB Photo
The NTSB probable cause states: "The pilot’s inadequate compensation for winds during landing., which resulted in a loss of control and an aerodynamic stall."
NTSB Photo
So let's look a bit deeper. The pilot was relatively inexperienced with only 210 total flight hours including 110 in this make and model. There is no way to know how much training or experience he had in dealing with gusty winds, but there may not have been much opportunity to develop procedural memory for gusty winds, especially crosswinds. (See our cognitive science article above.) He stated that after the nose dropped due to the decrease in headwind, he initiated a go-around and was "configuring the airplane for the go-around." In the Pilot-Operator report submitted to the NTSB, he stated that he "reduced flaps to the second notch." Perhaps he would have been better off if he had waited until established in the climb and above the tree line before adjusting the flaps. But the C182 is quite heavy on the controls during a go-around with 30 degrees of flaps extended so I will not second guess his procedure.
Graphic created from the Pilot-Operator report submitted to the NTSB
My criticism would involve the restraints. I have long advocated for installing and using 4-point restraints on all seats for general aviation airplanes. I practice what I say be declining to fly in any GA airplane in which I will not have at least a 3-point restraint for my seat. If only a lap belt is available, I am not going. I maintain that in the larger view of airplane ownership costs, adding 4-point restraints is reasonable.
Regarding this specific crash, the pilot and front seat passenger were only using the lap belts even though 3-point restraints were available. They both received facial injuries which might very well have been avoided had they used the cross-body straps as well.
Click here to download the accident report from the NTSB website.
Accidents discussed in this section are presented in the hope that pilots can learn from the misfortune of others and perhaps avoid an accident. It is easy to read an accident report and dismiss the cause as carelessness or as a dumb mistake. But let's remember that the accident pilot did not get up in the morning and say, "Gee, I think I'll go have an accident today." Nearly all pilots believe that they are safe. Honest introspection frequently reveals that on some occasion, we might have traveled down that same accident path.
The 83-year-old pilot and sole occupant of the Cirrus SR22 was not injured in this crash that happened in June of 2021. The airplane was substantially damaged. The NTSB report begins as follows: "The pilot completed a short cross-country flight and checked the wind conditions at the destination airport. He reported the automated weather station was out of service but received weather and runway information from an air traffic controller and airport personnel. The on-board weather information reported the wind was 10 to 12 kts at a 60°crosswind angle, so he set up for a normal landing. The pilot added that when he was about 30 to 50 ft agl, the airplane was hit with a gust of wind. He pulled back on the controls and stalled the airplane. The airplane bounced onto the runway, so the pilot elected to do a go-around. He applied throttle; however, the airplane veered left and impacted a drainage ditch. During the accident, the nose landing gear collapsed, and the right wing sustained substantial damage. About the time of the accident, the automated weather reporting station located 23 miles northwest of the accident site reported, wind from 290° at 10 kts gusting to 21 kts."
NTSB Photo
The pilot reported having 418 hours total flight time with 210 hours in this make and model. He was in compliance with regulations regarding medical certification and flight review requirements.
We know that any crosswind coming from more than 45 degrees off the nose should be regarded as a direct crosswind. For his landing on Runway 21, the weather reported 10 to 12 kts. at a 60 degree angle. But a weather station 23 miles away reported wind from 290 degrees at 10 kts. gusting to 21 knots. The maximum demonstrated crosswind component for the SR22 is 21 knots, so it is possible that a significantly greater crosswind presented itself during the landing sequence.
NTSB Photo
In the Pilot-Operator report submitted to the NTSB by the pilot, he indicated that he should have been more diligent in obtaining wind information and should have set up for a crosswind landing. It seems that he was aware of Cirrus POH recommendations. The Cirrus SR22 POH recommends full flaps for both crosswind and normal landings except "when more positive control is needed, such as in very strong or gusty crosswinds at the pilot’s discretion." Whether being at Flaps 1 (50%) with a few extra knots of airspeed would have made a difference cannot be known for sure, but it would have been more in line with the manufacturer's guidance.
Excerpt from NTSB Pilot-Operator Report
The NTSB probable cause states "The pilot's failure to maintain directional control during landing with gusting wind."
Sawyer County Airport (Google Earth)
Click here to download the accident report from the NTSB website.
Accidents discussed in this section are presented in the hope that pilots can learn from the misfortune of others and perhaps avoid an accident. It is easy to read an accident report and dismiss the cause as carelessness or as a dumb mistake. But let's remember that the accident pilot did not get up in the morning and say, "Gee, I think I'll go have an accident today." Nearly all pilots believe that they are safe. Honest introspection frequently reveals that on some occasion, we might have traveled down that same accident path.
Do CEN21LA228 for Jan. link updated
This crash involved a Piper PA28-151. It happened in Minnesota in May of 2021. Neither the 22-year-old, 167 hour private pilot nor his 21-year-old passenger were injured. The airplane was substantially damaged.
NTSB Photo
The NTSB accident report includes the following: "The pilot reported he was performing a touch-and-go landing with a gusting crosswind when during the landing flare, the wind gust increased, and the left wing raised up. The pilot added more crosswind control inputs, but overcorrected. The airplane yawed left and the pilot lost control of the airplane. The airplane departed the side of the runway and impacted the terrain coming to rest in the grass. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the left wing. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. At the time of the accident, the pilot was landing the airplane on runway 33 with wind from 270o at 9 knots with gusts to 19 knots. The pilot reported that the accident could have been prevented if he would have performed a go-around."
NTSB Photo
The NTSB probable cause states: "The pilot’s failure to maintain control of the airplane in gusting crosswind conditions."
Piney Creek Border Airport (Google Earth)
This crash is representative of a scenario that occurs several times each year. The pilot was inexperienced and did not deal correctly with a gusty crosswind. In the pilot's report submitted to the NTSB he stated, "I should have gone around when I felt strong wind. Or, I could just go back to KCKN because the cross wind was nearly my personal limitation. I was macho."
Pilots need to build their procedural memory (See cognitive science article above) for dealing with gusty crosswinds, but practicing touch and goes in those conditions perhaps increases risk more than reward. In Gene's blog this month, I made a recommendation. Practice flying down the runway at about twenty feet of altitude while keeping the longitudinal axis of the airplane directly above and precisely parallel with the runway centerline. This will build procedural memory for the core skill while minimizing the risk of the actual touchdown. See the blog for more details.
Click here to download the accident report from the NTSB website.
Not subscribed to Vectors for Safety yet? Click here to subscribe for free!