Bounce and Recovery
A bounced landing, a go-around at low altitude, and the razor's edge between recovery and stall — the C172S demands precise airspeed control
The scenario
Departing Brooksville–Tampa Bay Regional Airport (KBKV), Brooksville, FL — Runway 09, 7,001 ft of concrete. Elevation 76 ft MSL. You are conducting a solo practice session: three touch-and-go landings to maintain proficiency. The tower is open (0700–2200 local); you are in Class D airspace.
Conditions: VFR, scattered clouds at 3,500 ft, visibility 10 SM. Wind is 090° at 8 knots, gusting to 14 knots — a direct headwind on Runway 09, which is good for landing, but the gusts are enough to make the approach a bit lively. Outside air temperature 22°C, dew point 16°C. Altimeter 29.98. No weather threats; this is a routine practice session.
You are on your third approach. The first two landings were smooth. This one is not. On short final, you are at 65 KIAS (Vref for the C172S), 200 ft AGL, lined up on Runway 09. The wind gusts. You correct with a forward stick input. The airplane drops and bounces — a firm touchdown, then a rebound. You are now 50 ft AGL, airspeed 58 KIAS, and the airplane is climbing away from the runway.
Aircraft: Cessna 172S, solo, 1,800 lb (well within limits). Fuel-injected Lycoming IO-360-L2A, fixed-pitch prop, G1000 glass panel, fixed gear. You have 180 hours total, 80 hours in type. Your last three landings (including the first two today) were all smooth. You are current and proficient — but this bounce has caught you off guard.
The runway is ahead. The off-field environment off Runway 09's departure end (heading 090°) is open developed land — parks, large lots, pasture — good forced-landing terrain. But you are at 50 ft AGL with a bounced airplane and a decision to make in the next 5 seconds.
- {'label': 'Field', 'value': 'KBKV · Brooksville–Tampa Bay'}
- {'label': 'Runways', 'value': '3/21 · 9/27'}
- {'label': 'Elevation', 'value': '76 ft'}
- {'label': 'Aircraft', 'value': 'C172S'}
- {'label': 'Dominant phase', 'value': 'Landing / Cruise'}
The decision
Before we get into the decision tree — what do you know about stall/spin risk during a go-around from a bounced landing in the C172S? (Pick all that apply; this records your baseline.)
What the record shows
What the NTSB files show
NTSB CEN25LA128 (2025): A Cessna 172S lost control during landing flare and the pilot initiated a go-around near a tree line at low altitude. The accident resulted from the pilot's failure to maintain adequate airspeed during the go-around, leading to an aerodynamic stall and terrain impact. The probable cause was the pilot's failure to maintain airplane control and adequate airspeed during the go-around.
NTSB CEN14CA322 (2014): A Cessna 172S being flown by a student pilot during landing practice stalled and impacted terrain off the left side of the runway when the student applied excessive back pressure on the control yoke during a go-around after a bounced landing. The accident was attributed to the student pilot's use of excessive back pressure on the flight controls during the attempted go-around.
NTSB CEN13LA348 (2013): A Cessna 172S flown by a solo student pilot stalled during a go-around after a bounced landing at Grand Forks International Airport. The accident resulted from inadequate recovery technique from the bounce, leading to an aerodynamic stall at insufficient altitude for recovery.
NTSB ERA14FA283 (2014, FATAL): A Cessna 172S on an instructional night flight experienced a partial loss of engine power during initial climb after a touch-and-go landing at Daytona Beach and impacted the ground. The accident resulted from a partial loss of engine power for undetermined reasons, with contributing factors including the pilots' decision to turn back to the airport, which led to the aircraft exceeding its critical angle of attack and experiencing an aerodynamic stall.
The consistent thread across all these events: a bounced landing or unstable approach at low altitude, followed by an aggressive pitch-up to climb away from the runway, resulting in an aerodynamic stall at insufficient altitude for recovery. The C172S stalls at 40 KIAS in landing configuration (flaps 30°) and 48 KIAS in clean configuration. At 50 ft AGL, there is no margin for error.
KBKV's own accident data shows that HARD_LANDING is the dominant pattern (26.9%), followed by FORCED_LANDING (11.5%) and RUNWAY_EXCURSION (11.5%). Bounced landings are common here, especially in gusty conditions. The lesson is not to avoid bounces — they happen — but to respond correctly: maintain airspeed, do not pitch up aggressively, and climb out at Vy (74 KIAS) or land on the remaining runway.
The real accidents cited above occurred at other airports and in other aircraft — NOT at KBKV. The scenario is localized to KBKV to make the off-field environment real and the decision window consequential for you as a student here.
Key lesson — A bounced landing in the C172S is not an emergency — it is a normal event in gusty conditions. The emergency is the response: pitching up aggressively to climb away from the runway. That aggressive pitch-up causes the airspeed to decay below stall speed (40 KIAS in landing configuration) at an altitude where recovery is impossible. The correct response is to maintain airspeed at or above Vy (74 KIAS) during the go-around, or to land on the remaining runway. At 50 ft AGL, the margin between recovery and impact is measured in seconds.
Debrief — teaching points
A bounced landing is not an emergency — it is a normal event in gusty conditions.
Bounces happen, especially in crosswind or gusty conditions. The C172S is a forgiving airplane; a bounce is not a reason to panic. The danger is the response: pitching up aggressively to climb away from the runway. That aggressive pitch-up causes the airspeed to decay below stall speed at an altitude where recovery is impossible. The correct response is to either land on the remaining runway (if there is enough runway left and the approach is stable) or to go around (if the bounce is severe or the runway is running out).
Stall speed in landing configuration (flaps 30°) is 40 KIAS — any airspeed below that risks an aerodynamic stall.
The C172S stalls at 40 KIAS (Vs0) in landing configuration with flaps at 30°. During a go-around, you are initially at or near landing configuration, so stall speed is 40 KIAS. If you pitch up aggressively after a bounce, the airspeed decays rapidly. At 50 ft AGL, there is no altitude for recovery if the stall breaks. The stall warning horn will sound at approximately 42–44 KIAS, giving you a few seconds to lower the nose and increase airspeed. If you ignore the warning and hold the pitch attitude, the stall will break and the airplane will impact terrain.
The correct go-around technique is to maintain or increase airspeed to at least Vy (74 KIAS) while reducing flaps and climbing.
A proper go-around in the C172S requires: (1) reduce flaps to 20° (or 10°, depending on altitude and airspeed), (2) add full power, (3) pitch to maintain or increase airspeed to at least Vy (74 KIAS), and (4) climb out over the runway. Do not pitch up aggressively. The airplane will climb naturally as you add power and reduce flaps. Pitch control should be used to maintain airspeed, not to maximize climb rate. At low altitude, maintaining airspeed is more important than maximizing climb rate.
The C172S trim system is electric; use trim to reduce control pressure, not to pitch up aggressively.
The C172S has an electric trim system. During a go-around, use trim to reduce control pressure and maintain a comfortable pitch attitude. Do not use trim to pitch up aggressively. Aggressive trim inputs can lead to an uncontrolled pitch-up and loss of airspeed. Trim is a tool for reducing workload, not for maneuvering.
At KBKV, hard landings are common — but they are a sign that the approach was not stable.
KBKV's dominant accident pattern is HARD_LANDING (26.9%). Hard landings are common here, often from bounces and recovery attempts. A hard landing is survivable, but it is a sign that the approach was not stable. The FAA recommends going around if the approach is not stable by 500 ft AGL. A go-around is not a failure — it is airmanship. It is better to go around and set up another approach than to land hard and risk damage to the airplane or injury to occupants.
Built from the real accident record
Scenario built from NTSB CEN25LA128 (2025 C172S go-around stall), CEN14CA322 (2014 C172S student stall on go-around after bounce), CEN13LA348 (2013 C172S bounce/stall at Grand Forks), ERA14FA283 (2014 C172S night stall during turn-back after touch-and-go), and WPR12FA230 (2012 C172S low-altitude stall after takeoff). Anonymized and localized to KBKV.
NTSB reports: CEN25LA128 · CEN14CA322 · CEN13LA348 · ERA14FA283 · WPR12FA230
ACS tasks: PA.II.D — Approach and Landing · PA.II.E — Go-Around / Rejected Landing · PA.IX.C — Emergency Approach and Landing · PA.I.H — Human Factors · PA.VIII.A — Stall / Spin Awareness
Relevant FARs: §91.3 · §91.13 · §91.119
Step through the full decision tree, make the calls, and see where each choice leads — then debrief it with your CFI.
Open the interactive scenario →All sample scenarios · More Cessna 172S scenarios · More scenarios at KBKV