Drifting Right
A gusty crosswind, a late correction, and the runway edge that doesn't forgive
The scenario
Field: Lakeland Linder International Airport (KLAL), Lakeland, FL — elevation 142 ft MSL. You are returning from a local training flight and KLAL Tower has assigned Runway 05 (5,000 ft, heading 045°). Class D airspace, ATCT in operation.
Aircraft: Cessna 172S, N-number your school's, two aboard (you and a safety pilot), within weight and balance limits. G1000 panel. Fuel-injected IO-360-L2A, 180 hp. Fixed gear, fixed-pitch prop.
Weather: METAR KLAL 1455Z — winds 130° at 14 knots gusting 24. That puts the crosswind component on Runway 05 at roughly 10–17 knots, depending on the gust. The C172S demonstrated crosswind capability is 15 knots. You are at the edge — and the gusts push you over it.
Pilot: you — a Private pilot with about 120 hours, comfortable in the pattern at KLAL, but limited crosswind experience above 12 knots. Your safety pilot is a student pilot and cannot take the controls.
Off-field reality: Off the departure end of Runway 05 (045°) the environment is low-density development, wooded wetland, and open developed land — a survivable forced-landing environment if needed. That is not your problem today. Your problem is keeping the airplane on 5,000 feet of pavement in a gusting crosswind.
- {'label': 'Field', 'value': 'KLAL · Lakeland Linder'}
- {'label': 'Runways', 'value': '5/23 · 10/28'}
- {'label': 'Elevation', 'value': '142 ft'}
- {'label': 'Aircraft', 'value': 'C172S'}
- {'label': 'Dominant phase', 'value': 'Landing / Takeoff'}
The decision
On final for Runway 05, before you cross the threshold — which of these is in your head right now? (Pick all that apply; this records your thinking before the scenario unfolds.)
What the record shows
What the NTSB files show
Crosswind loss of directional control is one of the most consistent accident patterns in the C172 fleet — and at KLAL specifically, loss of control on the ground accounts for nearly 20% of the airport's accident corpus. The mechanism is repeatable: a gusty crosswind pushes the airplane off centerline on final; the pilot continues rather than going around; touchdown occurs with residual drift; the airplane yaws toward the downwind edge; and braking without simultaneous rudder and aileron completes the excursion.
NTSB ERA21LA119 (Cessna 172R, 2021) is a near-identical event: gusting crosswind, left veer off the runway, propeller and left wingtip strike. The NTSB found the pilot failed to maintain directional control. NTSB CEN23LA159 (Cessna 172S, 2023) adds a second layer: a go-around attempted after a long, fast landing resulted in porpoising, nose gear collapse, and runway excursion — demonstrating that a late or improperly executed go-around can be as dangerous as continuing the bad approach.
The regional precedent (NTSB GAA17CA105, Piper PA-46 at a Florida field) makes the same point for larger aircraft: when crosswind conditions exceed demonstrated capability, the decision to go around must be made early — before the airplane is committed to a drifting touchdown.
NOTE: These accidents occurred at other airports and in other aircraft. No fatal crosswind excursion is implied at KLAL. The scenario is built from the accident record to teach the decision chain before you face it.
Key lesson — The go-around decision belongs at 100 ft AGL — or higher — when the approach is not stabilized and the drift is not corrected. Every foot lower makes the go-around more demanding. On the rollout, directional control requires simultaneous full upwind aileron and active rudder, not brakes alone. When the crosswind gust component approaches or exceeds the demonstrated crosswind value, that is a personal-minimums decision, not a technique problem.
Debrief — teaching points
The stabilized-approach gate is your go-around trigger — set it before you cross the threshold.
A drifting, uncorrected approach at 100 ft AGL is not a technique problem to solve at 30 ft — it is a go-around. Define your gate before the approach: if drift is not corrected and the airplane is not aligned by 100 ft AGL, the go-around is automatic. Continuation bias — 'I can fix it' — is the human factor that converts a manageable approach into a runway excursion. The NTSB files for C172 crosswind events are full of pilots who believed they could fix it at 50 ft.
Add half the gust factor to Vref in gusty conditions — and consider reducing flaps.
In gusty crosswind conditions, the C172S POH supports adding half the gust increment to the approach speed. With winds 14 gusting 24, the gust factor is 10 knots; add 5 knots to Vref (65 KIAS), giving 70 KIAS on short final. Additionally, reducing flaps from 30° to 20° (or 10°) raises touchdown speed slightly but meaningfully improves aileron authority and reduces the tendency for the upwind wing to rise. Know the tradeoff before you need it.
Crosswind technique does not end at touchdown — it intensifies.
The moment the wheels touch in a crosswind, weathervaning forces try to yaw the nose into the wind. The correct response is immediate and continuous: full upwind aileron (into the wind) to keep weight on the upwind main and prevent the upwind wing from rising, and active rudder to track the runway centerline. As airspeed decays, aileron and rudder inputs must increase to maintain the same effect. Braking without simultaneous directional control is how runway excursions happen.
The demonstrated crosswind value is a capability limit, not a target.
The C172S demonstrated crosswind component is 15 knots. With winds 14 gusting 24, the crosswind component on Runway 05 reaches 17 knots on the gusts — above the demonstrated value. 'Demonstrated' means a test pilot showed the airplane could be controlled in that condition; it does not mean every pilot can. Your personal crosswind limit should be set conservatively relative to your experience and currency. Recognizing when conditions exceed your personal minimums — and diverting or waiting — is a decision, not a defeat.
A go-around from the rollout is possible but demands precise technique — and is not a substitute for going around on final.
A go-around initiated during the landing rollout in a C172S is survivable if executed correctly: full power, establish climb attitude, and — critically — simultaneous full left rudder to stop the yaw before the airplane tracks off the pavement. Without the rudder correction, full power accelerates the airplane toward the runway edge faster. NTSB CEN23LA159 documents a C172S nose gear collapse during a go-around attempt after a long landing; ERA21LA202 documents a tail strike during a go-around in gusting crosswind conditions. The go-around from the rollout is a last resort, not a plan.
Built from the real accident record
Scenario built from NTSB CEN23LA159, ERA21LA202, ERA21LA119, and regional crosswind loss-of-control precedents. Anonymized and localized to KLAL.
NTSB reports: CEN23LA159 · ERA21LA202 · ERA11LA421 · GAA17CA105 · ERA21LA119 · GAA19CA170 · ERA10CA448
ACS tasks: PA.IV.B — Normal and Crosswind Approach and Landing · PA.IV.N — Go-Around / Rejected Landing · PA.I.H — Human Factors · PA.VII.A — Stalls — Power-Off
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 KLAL