Float and Overshoot at Clearwater
A Cessna 182's excess approach energy, a bounced landing, and the decision to go around — or not
The scenario
Departing Clearwater Air Park (KCLW), Clearwater, FL — Runway 16, landing after a local flight. Elevation 71 ft MSL; the runway is 4,108 ft long, asphalt. True heading for Runway 16 is 155°.
It is a warm Florida afternoon in early summer: OAT 31°C, dew point 24°C, altimeter 29.91. Winds are light and variable, with a gentle crosswind from the northeast (roughly 080° at 5 kt). Visibility is 10 SM. The density altitude at KCLW is approximately 2,200 ft — the airplane will perform as if it is 2,200 ft above sea level, not 71 ft. Climb performance and landing distance are both degraded.
You are on a 2-mile final approach to Runway 16, descending through 800 ft AGL. The runway is clearly visible ahead. You have been flying the Cessna 182 for about 40 hours total in type — you have a high-performance endorsement and are comfortable with the constant-speed prop and cowl-flap management. However, you have not yet internalized the 182's heavier, faster energy and its tendency to float in a long, shallow approach.
Aircraft: Cessna 182 Skylane, solo, 2,400 lb (within limits). Continental O-470, 230 hp, constant-speed prop, cowl flaps open for cooling. Fuel is adequate. The airplane is airworthy.
Pilot: you — a Commercial pilot, current, roughly 200 hours total time, 40 hours in the C182. You are rated for high-performance aircraft. You did not brief the approach or the go-around procedure before descending. You are focused on landing the airplane.
- {'label': 'Field', 'value': 'KCLW · Clearwater Air Park'}
- {'label': 'Runways', 'value': '16/34'}
- {'label': 'Elevation', 'value': '71 ft'}
- {'label': 'Aircraft', 'value': 'C182'}
- {'label': 'Dominant phase', 'value': 'Landing / Approach'}
The decision
Before we get into the decision tree — what do you know about the Cessna 182's landing characteristics and the go-around decision? (Pick all that apply; this records your baseline.)
What the record shows
What the NTSB files show
NTSB ERA21LA113 (2021): A Cessna 182 on a personal flight experienced a hard landing and runway excursion when the pilot failed to properly recover from a bounced landing. The airplane bounced on touchdown, and the pilot attempted to salvage the landing by pitching down and landing again. The second impact was harder than the first, the nose wheel collapsed, and the airplane nosed over. The probable cause was the pilot's improper recovery from the bounced landing.
NTSB WPR20CA269 (2020): A Cessna 182 landed hard more than halfway down the runway, bounced, and the pilot delayed the go-around decision until insufficient runway remained. The airplane departed the runway and collided with trees. The probable cause was the pilot's decision to continue an unstable approach and delayed go-around.
NTSB CEN21LA055 (2020, FATAL): A Cessna 182R landed on the wrong runway despite radio calls from other pilots indicating the correct runway was in use. The aircraft overran the runway and struck power lines. The probable cause was the pilot's decision to continue an unstabilized approach and delayed go-around decision.
NTSB CEN26LA122 (2026): A Cessna 182 touched down with insufficient runway remaining due to an unstabilized approach and excessive speed. The pilot applied maximum braking but the aircraft went through a ditch and struck a fence. The probable cause was the pilot's failure to establish a stabilized approach and failure to execute a go-around.
NTSB ERA25LA358 (2025): A Cessna 182 overran the runway after landing more than halfway down a 3,100-foot surface in calm winds. The probable cause was the pilot's failure to achieve a proper touchdown point.
The common thread: the C182 is a high-performance airplane with significant energy on approach. A shallow flare, a late touchdown, and a delayed go-around decision are the ingredients for a runway excursion. The NTSB data show that pilots transitioning from lighter aircraft (like the 172) often underestimate the C182's energy and float. At KCLW, with a 4,108-foot runway and a density altitude of 2,200 ft, the landing distance available is marginal for a late touchdown. The decision to go around must be made early — by 500 ft AGL — before the runway becomes too short to execute the go-around safely.
These real accidents occurred at various airports — NOT at KCLW. KCLW has its own accident history (see field dominant patterns), but the specific events cited here happened elsewhere. The scenario is localized to KCLW to make the runway length, density altitude, and off-field environment real and consequential for you as a student here.
Key lesson — The Cessna 182 carries more energy into the approach than a 172 — it floats longer if the flare is shallow. A late touchdown at high density altitude (like KCLW on a warm day) leaves little runway for braking. The go-around decision must be made early: if the approach is unstable or the airplane bounces, go around immediately. Attempting to salvage a bounced landing by pitching down and landing again invites a second, harder bounce and structural damage. An aggressive flare and an early touchdown are the correct technique.
Debrief — teaching points
The C182 is a high-performance airplane — it carries more energy than a 172.
The C182 is 400+ pounds heavier than a 172, has a 230 hp Continental O-470 (vs. 160 hp in a 172), and a constant-speed prop. It is faster, heavier, and nose-heavy. On approach, this means more energy, a longer float if the flare is shallow, and a higher risk of a late touchdown. A pilot transitioning from a 172 to a 182 must recognize that the landing technique is different: the flare must be more aggressive, and the touchdown point must be earlier. A shallow flare that works in a 172 will result in a long float and a late touchdown in a 182.
Density altitude at KCLW on a warm day significantly increases landing distance.
At KCLW on a warm afternoon (OAT 31°C, dew point 24°C), the density altitude is approximately 2,200 ft. This means the C182 performs as if it is 2,200 ft above sea level, not 71 ft. Landing distance increases by 20–30% compared to sea-level performance. A landing distance of 2,000–2,200 ft at sea level becomes 2,400–2,600 ft at KCLW's density altitude. The runway is 4,108 ft long — adequate, but not generous. A late touchdown leaves little margin for braking.
A bounced landing in the C182 is a signal to go around immediately.
If the C182 bounces on landing, the correct response is to go around immediately: full throttle, prop to 2,500 RPM, flaps to 20°, climb at 70 KIAS best glide. Do NOT attempt to salvage the landing by pitching down and landing again. A second bounce will be harder than the first, and the nose wheel can collapse, leading to a nose-over. The go-around is not a failure — it is the correct response to an unstable landing. The NTSB data (ERA21LA113, WPR20CA269) show that pilots who attempt to salvage a bounced landing often end up with a nose-over or a runway excursion.
The go-around decision must be made early — by 500 ft AGL.
If the approach is unstable (too fast, too high, not on glide path) or if the airplane bounces, the go-around must be executed before 500 ft AGL. Below 500 ft, the runway may be too short to execute a safe go-around. At KCLW, with a 4,108-foot runway, a go-around initiated below 500 ft AGL leaves less than 2,000 ft of runway to climb out — marginal for a 182 at high density altitude. Brief the go-around procedure before descent, identify the decision point (500 ft AGL), and commit to the procedure if the approach becomes unstable.
An aggressive flare is the correct technique for the C182.
The C182 requires a deliberate pitch-up to slow the descent rate and achieve an early touchdown. A shallow flare — the kind that works in a 172 — will result in a long float and a late touchdown. Practice the aggressive flare: pitch up firmly to reduce descent rate from 400 fpm to 100 fpm, touch down in the first 1,000 ft of the runway, and use the remaining 3,000+ ft for braking. This is the correct technique and the one that prevents runway excursions.
Brief the go-around procedure before descent — do not wait until the approach is unstable.
Before descending on final approach, brief the go-around procedure aloud: 'Go-around: full throttle, prop to 2,500 RPM, flaps to 20°, climb at 70 KIAS. Decision point: 500 ft AGL.' This mental preparation ensures that if the approach becomes unstable, you will execute the go-around without hesitation. Pilots who do not brief the go-around often delay the decision because they are not mentally prepared for it. The brief takes 30 seconds and could save your life.
Built from the real accident record
Scenario built from NTSB ERA21LA113 (2021 C182 hard landing / runway excursion / nose-over), WPR20CA269 (2020 C182 bounced landing / delayed go-around / tree strike), CEN21LA055 (2020 C182R wrong-runway landing / power-line strike), CEN26LA122 (2026 C182 unstabilized approach / runway overrun), ERA25LA358 (2025 C182 late touchdown / overrun), and local-environment precedents. Anonymized and localized to KCLW.
NTSB reports: ERA21LA113 · WPR20CA269 · CEN21LA055 · CEN26LA122 · ERA25LA358 · ERA25LA325 · ERA25LA322 · ERA26LA116
ACS tasks: PA.VII.A — Approach and Landing · PA.VII.B — Go-Around / Rejected Landing · PA.I.H — Human Factors · PA.II.A — Preflight Assessment · PA.V.A — Performance and Limitations
Relevant FARs: §91.3 · §91.13 · §61.31
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 182 Skylane scenarios · More scenarios at KCLW