Drift and Decide
A gusty crosswind, a drifting approach, and the go-around that has to be flown right
The scenario
Field: Clearwater Air Park (KCLW), Clearwater, FL — Runway 34 in use, 4,108 ft of asphalt, field elevation 71 ft MSL. Non-towered, CTAF. Tampa Class B begins overhead at 3,000 ft MSL; you are well below it in the pattern.
Aircraft: Cessna 172S with G1000, Lycoming IO-360-L2A (fuel-injected), fixed gear, fixed-pitch prop. Two aboard, standard fuel load, within weight and balance. No squawks.
Weather: METAR shows winds 070° at 14 gusting 22 knots. Runway 34 heading is 335° — that puts the wind roughly 95° off the nose, a direct right crosswind gusting to 22 knots. The C172S demonstrated crosswind component is 15 knots; you are above it on the gusts.
Pilot: You — a Private pilot with about 180 hours, current, based at KCLW. You know this runway. You've landed in crosswinds before, but today is pushing the edge of your personal envelope and the airplane's demonstrated limit.
The off-field environment matters here: both ends of Runway 34/16 are surrounded by dense residential and commercial development. There is no good off-field option in any direction from this airport. That fact shapes every decision you make today — a go-around that goes wrong here has nowhere to go.
- {'label': 'Field', 'value': 'KCLW · Clearwater Air Park'}
- {'label': 'Runways', 'value': '16/34'}
- {'label': 'Elevation', 'value': '71 ft'}
- {'label': 'Aircraft', 'value': 'C172S'}
- {'label': 'Dominant phase', 'value': 'Landing / Approach'}
The decision
On downwind for Runway 34, before you turn base — which of these is actually in your head? (Pick all that apply — no wrong answers; this records what you thought about.)
What the record shows
What the NTSB files show
The accidents that built this scenario happened at other airports — not at KCLW. But the airplane, the conditions, and the decision chain are identical to what you'd face on Runway 34 at Clearwater Air Park.
ERA21LA202 (2021, Cessna 172S): On short final in gusting crosswind conditions, the pilot was high and slow. The go-around was initiated, but improper pitch control caused a tail strike and runway excursion to the left into the grass. NTSB probable cause: 'the pilot's improper pitch control during a go-around in gusting crosswind conditions.' The go-around itself was the right call — the execution was the problem.
CEN23LA159 (2023, Cessna 172S): A tailwind on final led to a long landing; the pilot attempted a go-around. The aircraft porpoised, the nose gear collapsed, and the aircraft departed the runway. NTSB probable cause: 'the pilot's failure to maintain airplane control during an attempted go-around.' Again — the go-around decision was correct; the pitch management was not.
ERA21LA119 (2021, Cessna 172R): A pilot continued a crosswind approach in gusting conditions, touched down in a drift, and veered left off the runway, striking the ground with the propeller and left wingtip. NTSB probable cause: 'the pilot's failure to maintain directional control during landing in a gusting crosswind.'
The pattern across all these events is consistent: pilots continued approaches in conditions at or above the demonstrated crosswind limit, then either lost directional control on rollout or mismanaged a go-around. At KCLW specifically, the dense development surrounding both ends of Runway 34/16 means a botched go-around or runway excursion has nowhere to go. The divert option — KPIE is 5.5 nm away — is always available and costs almost nothing.
Key lesson — The go-around is the correct answer to an unstabilized crosswind approach — but the go-around must be flown correctly: full power, pitch for Vy (74 KIAS), flaps retracted incrementally. Pulling the nose up to zoom-climb or retracting all flaps at once at low altitude in a gust is how a correct decision becomes a fatal one. And when crosswind conditions exceed the demonstrated limit at a field with no off-field options, the divert decision should be made on downwind — not on short final.
Debrief — teaching points
The demonstrated crosswind component is a real limit, not a suggestion.
The C172S demonstrated crosswind component is 15 knots. This is not a regulatory hard limit, but it represents the manufacturer's tested capability with an experienced test pilot on a smooth, dry runway. At 14 G 22 knots on Runway 34 at KCLW — a 4,108-ft strip surrounded by dense development — you are at or above that limit on the gusts. The correct pre-approach question is not 'can I land in this?' but 'what is my go-around plan, and is KPIE (5.5 nm) a better choice?' Make that decision on downwind, not on short final.
A go-around must be flown — not just initiated.
The ERA21LA202 and CEN23LA159 accidents share a common thread: the go-around decision was correct, but the execution was not. In the C172S, the go-around procedure is: full throttle smoothly, establish a positive pitch attitude for Vy (74 KIAS), retract flaps incrementally (20° → 10° → 0° as climb is confirmed), and track runway heading. The critical error in both accidents was improper pitch control — either pulling too steeply (airspeed decay, tail strike) or allowing the airplane to porpoise. The G1000 PFD gives you the airspeed tape in real time; use it.
Never retract all flaps at once in a go-around at low altitude.
Retracting from 20° to 0° in one motion at low altitude causes an immediate loss of lift and a sink that can be unrecoverable below 300 ft AGL. The C172S POH go-around procedure specifies incremental flap retraction after a positive rate of climb is established. In a gusty crosswind go-around, the temptation to 'clean up' the airplane quickly is exactly wrong — each flap increment should be confirmed with a stable airspeed and positive climb before the next retraction.
Airspeed decay in a go-around: lower the nose first.
If the airspeed bleeds below Vx (62 KIAS) in a go-around climb, the correct first action is to reduce the angle of attack — lower the nose. This is counterintuitive when you're 300 ft AGL over development, but it is the only action that un-stalls a wing. Holding or increasing back pressure to 'climb over the houses' is the exact input that drives the airspeed further into the stall regime. Accept a momentary altitude loss to regain flying speed; then establish Vy (74 KIAS) and climb.
KCLW's off-field environment shapes every decision.
Both ends of Runway 34/16 at KCLW are surrounded by dense residential and commercial development. There is no good forced-landing option in any direction from this airport. That fact is not a reason to avoid KCLW — it is a reason to fly every approach and go-around with precise technique and to set personal minimums that account for it. When conditions are marginal, the 5.5 nm to KPIE (Class D, longer runway, crosswind runway available) is not a defeat — it is the correct application of 14 CFR §91.3.
Built from the real accident record
Scenario built from NTSB cases CEN23LA159, ERA21LA202, ERA11LA421, GAA17CA105, ERA21LA119, GAA19CA170, and ERA10CA448. Real events occurred at other airports; none occurred at KCLW.
NTSB reports: CEN23LA159 · ERA21LA202 · ERA11LA421 · GAA17CA105 · ERA21LA119 · GAA19CA170 · ERA10CA448
ACS tasks: PA.IV.B — Normal and Crosswind Approach and Landing · PA.IV.F — Go-Around / Rejected Landing · PA.I.H — Human Factors · PA.VII.A — Stall Awareness, Prevention, and Recovery
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 KCLW