What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
(.19) On February 15, 2002, at 1220 Pacific standard time, a Cessna 180, N2434C, nosed over during the landing roll at Pacific City State Airport, Pacific City, Oregon. The private pilot and his passenger were not injured, but the aircraft, which is owned and operated by the pilot, sustained substantial damage. The 14 CFR part 91 pleasure flight, which departed mcminnville, Oregon, about 30 minutes earlier, was being operated in visual meteorological conditions. No flight plan had been filed. There was no report f of an ELT activation. According to the pilot, who was landing in gusty crosswinds, after being hit by a particularly strong gust, the aircraft veered to the right, departed the runway, and nosed over after coming in contact with soft swampy terrain. He said that there did not appear to be any problems with the aircraft's structure or flight control systems. (-23) the pilot of the aircraft stated that during landing rollout he encountered strong crosswinds from the right, which caused the aircraft to weathervane. He said he was unable to keep the aircraft from leaving the runway. The aircraft exited the runway to the right on a heading of approximately 45 degrees to the runway heading. The area immediately adjacent to the runway was covered with water and the ground was soft. The aircraft flipped upside down almost immediately as soon as it entered the water covered area. Neither the pilot nor the passenger were injured but the aircraft sustained substantial damage.
As the FAA filed it
(.19) ON FEBRUARY 15, 2002, AT 1220 PACIFIC STANDARD TIME, A CESSNA 180, N2434C, NOSED OVER DURING THE LANDING ROLL AT PACIFIC CITY STATE AIRPORT, PACIFIC CITY, OREGON. THE PRIVATE PILOT AND HIS PASSENGER WERE NOT INJURED, BUT THE AIRCRAFT, WHICH IS OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE PILOT, SUSTAINED SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE. THE 14 CFR PART 91 PLEASURE FLIGHT, WHICH DEPARTED MCMINNVILLE, OREGON, ABOUT 30 MINUTES EARLIER, WAS BEING OPERATED IN VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS. NO FLIGHT PLAN HAD BEEN FILED. THERE WAS NO REPORT F OF AN ELT ACTIVATION. ACCORDING TO THE PILOT, WHO WAS LANDING IN GUSTY CROSSWINDS, AFTER BEING HIT BY A PARTICULARLY STRONG GUST, THE AIRCRAFT VEERED TO THE RIGHT, DEPARTED THE RUNWAY, AND NOSED OVER AFTER COMING IN CONTACT WITH SOFT SWAMPY TERRAIN. HE SAID THAT THERE DID NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE AIRCRAFT'S STRUCTURE OR FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEMS. (-23) THE PILOT OF THE AIRCRAFT STATED THAT DURING LANDING ROLLOUT HE ENCOUNTERED STRONG CROSSWINDS FROM THE RIGHT, WHICH CAUSED THE AIRCRAFT TO WEATHERVANE. HE SAID HE WAS UNABLE TO KEEP THE AIRCRAFT FROM LEAVING THE RUNWAY. THE AIRCRAFT EXITED THE RUNWAY TO THE RIGHT ON A HEADING OF APPROXIMATELY 45 DEGREES TO THE RUNWAY HEADING. THE AREA IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE RUNWAY WAS COVERED WITH WATER AND THE GROUND WAS SOFT. THE AIRCRAFT FLIPPED UPSIDE DOWN ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AS SOON AS IT ENTERED THE WATER COVERED AREA. NEITHER THE PILOT NOR THE PASSENGER WERE INJURED BUT THE AIRCRAFT SUSTAINED SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.