On January 28, 2024, about 1623 eastern standard time, a Honda HA-420, N103JT, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident at Orlando International Airport (MCO), Orlando, Florida. The airline transport pilot, commercial co-pilot, and two passengers were not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 on-demand passenger flight.

The left seat pilot, who was the pilot flying (PF), reported that when the flight was about 1 hour 15 minutes from MCO, the pilot monitoring (PM) checked the automated terminal information service which advised that the wind was from 270° at 14 knots, gusting to 24 knots. After reviewing the runway configuration at MCO they determined the gust value was beyond limits of the airplane, but they then reviewed the operator’s crosswind performance limits (CPL) and determined it was acceptable to continue to the planned destination. The PF planned to obtain a wind check on final approach at MCO, and if the wind was out of limits the flight would proceed to Executive Airport (ORL), Orlando, Florida, which had a more favorable runway configuration. The PF and PM briefed the arrival and while approaching MCO they checked the automated weather observing system (AWOS) several times. They noted only one instance of wind gusts reported, and that the AWOS was mostly reporting wind from 270° to 280° at 13 or 14 knots. The flight continued and was cleared for a visual approach. The PM requested a wind check and the local controller replied 290° at 21 knots. The PF recalled their previous review of the CPL and noted the wind was at the 19 to 20 knots crosswind component, but then referenced the wind vector on the primary flight display (PFD) and noted an 18-knot crosswind component. The PF elected to continue the approach to runway 36L as the wind was “within limits.” He referenced the wind vector on the PFD a final time as the flight crossed the threshold and noted the crosswind was 17 knots. The flight landed on the runway centerline in the touchdown zone and the PF applied left aileron control input to counter the crosswind and deployed the speedbrake. The airplane began drifting left, which the PF attempted to correct with right rudder input but with no effect. The airplane departed the left side of the runway surface, rolled onto grass, and impacted a runway distance remaining sign. The PF was then able to correct to the right, travel back onto the runway, then taxi off the runway at taxiway E and stop where the airplane was secured and then evacuated.

According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) audio communications from the MCO air traffic control tower local west position, at the initial contact with the local controller about 1620, the flight crew were advised the wind was from 290° at 21 knots. At 1622:06, a voice from an unidentified aircraft asked for a wind check on the same frequency, and the controller responded 290° at 19 knots “now gusting two four” knots. At 1622:06, the accident airplane was about 1.24 nautical miles from the runway 36L threshold. After the accident the flight crew was asked by the controller if they experienced a flat tire, a flight crew member responded, “negative, we’re not sure, it could have been a gust, but ah we’re not sure.”

The operator reported there was no airplane or airplane system’s warnings or malfunctions before touchdown. Examination of the airplane by an FAA inspector and a representative of the airplane manufacturer revealed no evidence of any failures or malfunctions of the primary or secondary flight controls. The rudder and aileron trims had been set at the neutral position. According to the airplane manufacturer, the left wing forward spar exhibited cracks and deformation. The airplane was equipped with a cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder which were retained for read-out.

The airplane flight manual specified the crosswind limitation as 20 knots.