Long and High on Runway 34
Excess approach energy, a go-around decision, and the margin between a safe landing and a runway excursion at a short-field airport
The scenario
Departing Clearwater Air Park (KCLW), Clearwater, FL — Runway 34, a 4,108-foot asphalt runway. Elevation 71 ft MSL. You are on a personal flight, solo, full fuel, within weight and balance limits. Aircraft: Cessna 172S with the G1000 glass panel, fuel-injected Lycoming IO-360-L2A, fixed gear, fixed-pitch prop. Everything was airworthy at departure.
It is a clear afternoon in late spring: OAT 26°C, wind 180° at 12 gusting to 18 knots. Runway 34 is oriented 335° magnetic (true heading 335°). The wind is roughly a 35° crosswind gust — within limits for the C172S (demonstrated crosswind 15 knots, but gusts to 18 are manageable with technique). Visibility 10 SM, scattered clouds at 3,500 ft. You are approaching from the south, descending on a left base for Runway 34.
You are on short final, 1.5 nm from the runway, at 800 ft AGL. The G1000 shows you are 300 ft high for a normal 3° glide slope and slightly fast — 75 KIAS instead of the planned 65 KIAS approach speed (Vref). The wind is gusting; the airplane is drifting left of centerline. You have 4,108 feet of runway ahead. The runway looks long from here, but you know from the briefing that KCLW is a short-field airport — 4,100 feet is not generous for a C172S with excess energy.
Pilot: you — a Private pilot, current, roughly 250 hours total. You have 15 hours in the C172S. This is your second visit to KCLW; the first was a calm-wind day with a perfect landing. You did not brief the go-around procedure before this approach. You did not compute a landing distance required (LDR) or compare it to the available runway. You are planning to 'see how it looks' on short final and decide then.
- {'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
Before we get into the decision tree — what do you already know about short-field landings and go-arounds in the C172S? (Pick all that apply; this records your baseline.)
What the record shows
What the NTSB files show
NTSB CEN23LA159 (2023): A Cessna 172S on a personal flight experienced a tailwind on final approach and the pilot attempted a go-around when landing appeared long. The aircraft porpoised, the nose landing gear collapsed, and the aircraft departed the runway. The probable cause was the pilot's failure to maintain airplane control during an attempted go-around resulting in abnormal contact with the runway pavement and a runway excursion. The pilot did not brief the go-around procedure before the approach and did not plan for the possibility of a go-around in gusting wind conditions.
NTSB ERA21LA202 (2021): A Cessna 172S on short final in gusting crosswind conditions was high and slow; the pilot initiated a go-around but improper pitch control resulted in a tail strike and runway excursion to the left into grass. The accident was attributed to improper pitch control during a go-around in gusting crosswind conditions. The pilot's abrupt pitch-up during the go-around caused the tail to strike the runway, and the airplane departed the runway into grass.
NTSB ERA11LA421 (2011): A Cessna 172S experienced total electrical failure shortly after takeoff from Lincoln Park Airport, rendering the flaps inoperable. The pilot landed long on the runway with high airspeed and inadequate braking performance, resulting in a runway overrun and collision with a guardrail. The probable cause was the pilot's improper touchdown point, resulting in a runway overrun and collision with a guardrail. The electrical failure was a contributing factor, but the pilot's decision to land with inoperable flaps and high airspeed on a short runway was the primary cause.
The real accidents cited above occurred at other airports and in other aircraft — NOT at Clearwater Air Park. KCLW has its own accident history (see field dominant patterns: FORCED_LANDING 22.2%, LOSS_OF_CONTROL_INFLIGHT 18.5%, GEAR_UP_LANDING 18.5%, HARD_LANDING 11.1%, FUEL_STARVATION 11.1%), but these specific events happened elsewhere. The scenario is localized to KCLW to make the runway length and off-field environment real and consequential for you as a student here.
The consistent thread across all these events: excess approach energy (high and/or fast) combined with improper pitch control during a go-around or landing flare results in porpoising, tail strikes, gear collapse, and runway excursions. The C172S is a stable, forgiving airplane — but only if the pilot maintains smooth, coordinated control. Abrupt pitch changes at low altitude, especially with flaps extended, are the killer.
At KCLW, Runway 34 is 4,108 feet — not generous for a C172S with excess energy. Off Runway 34's departure end (heading 335°), the off-field environment is low-density and medium development — not a safe forced-landing option. The runway is your only option. A go-around is always better than a landing attempt that goes wrong.
Key lesson — In the C172S, a stabilized approach at Vref (65 KIAS) and stabilized by 500 ft AGL is the goal. If you are high, fast, or unstable on short final, a go-around is the correct decision — not a failure. A go-around requires smooth, coordinated pitch control: pitch up smoothly to climb attitude, retract flaps in stages (not all at once), and maintain control authority. Abrupt pitch changes cause porpoising, tail strikes, and gear collapse. At KCLW, with only 4,108 feet of runway and gusting crosswind, a stabilized approach is non-negotiable.
Debrief — teaching points
A stabilized approach is non-negotiable in the C172S, especially at short-field airports.
The C172S POH defines a stabilized approach as: on glide slope, on speed (Vref = 65 KIAS), on centerline, in a stable configuration (flaps set, power set, trim set), and with a descent rate of 300–500 fpm. At KCLW, with only 4,108 feet of runway, a stabilized approach is the only acceptable approach. If you are high, fast, or unstable by 500 ft AGL, a go-around is the correct decision. A go-around is not a failure; it is airmanship. The C172S is forgiving of a well-executed go-around, but only if the pitch control is smooth and the flap retraction is staged.
Landing distance required (LDR) must be computed before the approach and compared to available runway.
The C172S POH provides landing distance charts for various weights, altitudes, temperatures, and headwind/tailwind conditions. Before you depart for a short-field airport like KCLW, compute the LDR and compare it to the available runway length. At KCLW, Runway 34 is 4,108 feet. The C172S landing distance at gross weight (2,550 lb), sea level, standard temperature, with no wind is approximately 1,500 feet. With a 12-knot headwind, it is approximately 1,200 feet. With a 12-knot tailwind, it is approximately 2,000 feet. If the wind is a tailwind, the LDR exceeds 2,000 feet — you are marginal on a 4,108-foot runway. A tailwind on final approach is a red flag for a go-around.
A go-around requires smooth, coordinated pitch control — abrupt pitch changes cause porpoising and tail strikes.
When you initiate a go-around, advance the throttle to full power smoothly, then pitch up smoothly to climb attitude (approximately 10–15° nose-up). Do not pitch up abruptly. The C172S has a relatively short fuselage; an abrupt pitch-up at low altitude with flaps extended can cause a tail strike. Once you are established in a climb, retract the flaps in stages: first reduce flaps from 30° to 20°, then from 20° to 10°, then from 10° to 0°. Do not retract all flaps at once — this causes a sudden loss of lift and a sink. Retract flaps in stages as you climb and gain airspeed.
Excess approach energy (high and/or fast) is the root cause of runway excursions in the C172S.
The NTSB CEN23LA159 and ERA21LA202 accidents both involved excess approach energy: the pilot was high and/or fast on short final, attempted a go-around or landing flare, and lost control. In the C172S, excess approach energy is managed by: (1) planning a stabilized approach at Vref (65 KIAS) by 500 ft AGL, (2) using a slip if needed to lose altitude without gaining airspeed, (3) going around if you are not stable by 500 ft AGL, and (4) executing a smooth, coordinated landing flare. Excess energy is not managed by landing long and hoping to stop — that is how runway excursions happen.
Gusting crosswind conditions require extra care and may exceed personal minimums.
The C172S has a demonstrated crosswind limit of 15 knots. At KCLW, with wind 180° at 12 gusting to 18 knots, the gusts exceed the demonstrated limit. This is a yellow flag. Gusting crosswind conditions require extra care: plan a stabilized approach, be prepared to go around if the wind gusts during the flare, and consider diverting to a runway with a more favorable wind if available. A landing in gusting crosswind conditions that exceeds your personal minimums is not worth the risk.
The C172S is forgiving of a well-executed go-around, but unforgiving of abrupt pitch control.
The C172S is a stable, docile airplane. It is forgiving of a well-executed go-around — smooth pitch control, staged flap retraction, and a clean climb-out. But it is unforgiving of abrupt pitch control: a sharp pitch-up can cause a porpoise or tail strike; a sharp pitch-down can cause a loss of control. In the C172S, smooth is always better than aggressive. Smooth pitch control, smooth power changes, and smooth flap retraction are the keys to a safe go-around.
Built from the real accident record
Scenario built from NTSB CEN23LA159 (2023 C172S go-around porpoise / nose gear collapse), ERA21LA202 (2021 C172S improper pitch control go-around / tail strike), and ERA11LA421 (2011 C172S electrical failure / long landing / runway overrun). Anonymized and localized to KCLW.
NTSB reports: CEN23LA159 · ERA21LA202 · ERA11LA421
ACS tasks: PA.II.C — Takeoff and Departure · PA.II.E — Approach and Landing · PA.II.F — Go-Around / Rejected Landing · PA.I.H — Human Factors · PA.IX.C — Emergency Approach and Landing
Relevant FARs: §91.3 · §91.13 · §91.103
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