The Bounce That Wouldn't Stop
A hard landing, a bounced recovery, and the decision to go around — or press on — in a high-performance Cessna 182
The scenario
Departing Lakeland Linder International Airport (KLAL), Lakeland, FL — Runway 10, landing after a 1.5-hour cross-country flight. Elevation 142 ft MSL. The runway is 8,500 ft long, plenty of room. Winds are calm to light, visibility unlimited, clear skies. A routine arrival.
You are a Commercial pilot with roughly 800 hours total, about 120 hours in the Cessna 182 Skylane. This is your first landing at KLAL; you have not been here before. The 182 is a high-performance airplane — 230 hp Continental O-470, constant-speed prop, cowl flaps, and a nose-heavy airframe that carries energy into the landing. It is faster and more demanding than the Cessna 172 you trained in. You are current and proficient, but the 182's landing characteristics — especially the tendency to float and the nose-drop porpoise if the flare is too shallow — are still fresh in your mind.
You are on a 3° glide slope to Runway 10, established on short final at 60 KIAS (Vref, power-off approach speed). The runway is ahead, clear, and long. You are planning a normal landing. The airplane is configured: flaps 40°, prop full forward (high RPM), cowl flaps open for cooling, trim set for approach. You have not touched the elevator trim since the descent began — it was set in cruise and you have been flying the elevator with the yoke.
Aircraft: Cessna 182, solo, within weight and balance limits. The airplane was last serviced by the maintenance shop two weeks ago for an annual inspection and elevator trim system rigging (a routine maintenance item). You performed a preflight inspection this morning and found nothing amiss. The elevator trim wheel moved freely and the trim tab responded normally during the control-check.
Pilot: You — a Commercial pilot, current, 800 hours total, 120 hours in type. You are proficient in the 182 but still building experience in its landing characteristics. You have not landed at KLAL before. The approach is stable and you are confident.
- {'label': 'Field', 'value': 'KLAL · Lakeland Linder'}
- {'label': 'Runways', 'value': '5/23 · 10/28'}
- {'label': 'Elevation', 'value': '142 ft'}
- {'label': 'Aircraft', 'value': 'C182'}
- {'label': 'Dominant phase', 'value': 'Landing / Takeoff'}
The decision
Before we get into the decision tree — what do you already know about the Cessna 182's landing characteristics and the risks of a hard landing in this airplane? (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 made a hard landing and bounced. The pilot attempted to salvage the landing instead of going around. The airplane bounced multiple times, the nose gear separated, and the airplane nosed over. The probable cause was the pilot's improper recovery from the bounced landing — the pilot did not initiate a go-around when the bounce occurred.
NTSB WPR20CA269 (2020): A Cessna 182 landed hard more than halfway down the runway and bounced. 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 the unstable approach and delayed go-around decision.
NTSB ERA26LA009 (2025): A Cessna 182H made a hard landing on the nose gear after the pilot attempted to add elevator trim for the landing flare. The elevator trim system had been improperly rigged by maintenance personnel during an annual inspection. The trim cable tension was incorrect, and the trim tab was not moving through its full range. The pilot's preflight inspection did not detect the defect because the trim wheel moved freely — but the trim tab response was sluggish. The probable cause was improper rigging by maintenance personnel and failure to perform adequate post-maintenance and preflight inspections.
The real accidents cited above occurred at other airports and in other aircraft — NOT at Lakeland Linder International Airport. KLAL has its own accident history (see field dominant patterns: LOSS_OF_CONTROL_INFLIGHT 23.7%, LOSS_OF_CONTROL_GROUND 19.4%, FORCED_LANDING 17.2%), but these specific NTSB events happened elsewhere. The scenario is localized to KLAL to make the runway environment and the high-performance landing characteristics of the 182 real and consequential for you as a pilot here.
The consistent thread across all these events: the Cessna 182 is a high-performance, nose-heavy airplane that carries energy into the landing. A shallow flare or a hard touchdown will cause a bounce. The correct response to a bounce is an immediate go-around — not an attempt to salvage the landing. Delaying the go-around decision costs runway and altitude and can result in a nose gear separation or a runway excursion. Additionally, elevator trim rigging defects can go undetected in a standard preflight if the trim wheel moves freely but the trim tab is rigged incorrectly — post-maintenance inspection and reporting of any sluggish trim response is critical.
Key lesson — In the Cessna 182, a hard landing or a bounce is a critical moment. The correct response is an immediate go-around — full power, flaps 0°, establish Vy (80 KIAS), and climb out. Do not attempt to salvage the landing by reducing power and trying again. The 182's nose-heavy airframe and high energy make a second bounce likely, and delaying the go-around decision costs runway and altitude. Additionally, any sluggish or delayed response from the elevator trim system after maintenance must be reported immediately — it may indicate a rigging defect that contributed to the hard landing.
Debrief — teaching points
The Cessna 182 is nose-heavy and carries energy into the landing.
The 182 is a high-performance airplane — 230 hp, constant-speed prop, and a heavier airframe than the 172. It carries more energy into the landing and is prone to floating if the flare is too shallow. A shallow flare will result in the airplane descending hard on the nose gear, followed by a bounce. The correct flare is a smooth, gradual raise of the nose to slow the descent and touch down on the main gear first at 50 KIAS. A firm landing is acceptable; a hard landing on the nose gear is not.
A bounced landing in the 182 is a critical moment — go around immediately.
If the airplane bounces, the correct response is an immediate go-around. Do not attempt to salvage the landing by reducing power and trying again. The 182's nose-heavy characteristics make a second bounce likely, and each bounce increases the risk of nose gear damage or separation. Go around: full power, flaps 0°, establish Vy (80 KIAS), and climb out. Delaying the go-around decision costs runway and altitude and can result in a runway excursion or structural damage.
Elevator trim rigging defects can go undetected in preflight if the trim wheel moves freely.
A properly rigged elevator trim system should have the trim wheel move smoothly and the trim tab respond immediately to trim input. If the trim cable tension is incorrect (as in ERA26LA009), the trim wheel will move freely but the trim tab response will be sluggish or delayed. This defect can go undetected in a standard preflight because the trim wheel moves. However, during landing, the sluggish trim response will make the flare awkward and contribute to a hard landing. Any sluggish or delayed response from the elevator trim system must be reported to maintenance immediately — it may indicate a rigging defect.
Post-maintenance inspection is critical — do not rely on the maintenance shop alone.
After any maintenance work on the elevator trim system (or any flight control system), a post-maintenance inspection by maintenance personnel is required. However, the pilot should also be aware of the work performed and should test the system during the preflight and during the first flight after maintenance. If the system does not respond as expected, report it immediately. The pilot is the final check on maintenance work — do not assume the maintenance shop caught every detail.
Vref for the C182 is 60 KIAS — this is the correct approach speed for a normal landing.
Vref (approach speed, power-off) for the Cessna 182 is 60 KIAS in the landing configuration (flaps 40°). This is the speed at which the airplane should cross the runway threshold on a normal approach. Approaching faster than Vref will result in a longer landing distance and a harder touchdown. Approaching slower than Vref risks a stall. Maintain 60 KIAS on short final and do not deviate from this speed unless you are executing a short-field landing (which uses a different technique).
Built from the real accident record
Scenario built from NTSB ERA21LA113 (2021 C182 hard landing / bounce / nose-wheel separation), WPR20CA269 (2020 C182 hard landing / delayed go-around / runway excursion), and ERA26LA009 (2025 C182H elevator trim rigging defect / hard landing). Anonymized and localized to KLAL.
NTSB reports: ERA21LA113 · WPR20CA269 · ERA26LA009
ACS tasks: PA.II.F — Approach and Landing · PA.II.G — Go-Around / Rejected Landing · PA.IX.C — Emergency Approach and Landing · PA.I.H — Human Factors · PA.II.A — Preflight Inspection
Relevant FARs: §91.3 · §91.13 · §91.407
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 KLAL