Long and High on Final
Approach energy management and the go-around decision in gusty conditions — a runway excursion scenario at a short-field airport
The scenario
Departing Albert Whitted Airport (KSPG), St. Petersburg, FL — Runway 07, a 3,676 ft asphalt runway. Elevation 7 ft MSL. You are on a personal VFR flight; you have logged 180 hours total, 45 hours in the C172S. The airplane is within limits, full fuel, and airworthy.
Conditions: 1400 local, scattered clouds at 2,500 ft, visibility 10 SM. Wind is from 120° at 12 kt gusting to 18 kt — a crosswind on Runway 07 (true heading 062°). The tower is open and active (part-time ATCT, 0700–2100). You are in Class D airspace, ceiling 1,500 ft MSL.
You have been flying for 90 minutes. You are not fatigued, but you are focused on the approach. The runway is short by modern standards — 3,676 ft — and the wind is gusty. You have made three approaches to KSPG in the past; this is your fourth.
Aircraft: Cessna 172S, fixed gear, fixed-pitch prop, fuel-injected Lycoming IO-360-L2A, G1000 glass panel. Flaps are available (0°, 10°, 20°, 30°). Best glide is 68 KIAS. Approach speed (Vref) is 65 KIAS. Stall speed clean is 48 KIAS; stall speed landing (Vs0) is 40 KIAS.
You are on a 3° glide slope for Runway 07. At 500 ft AGL, you are high and fast — 78 KIAS, 200 ft above the glide slope. The wind is gusty; you are fighting the controls. The runway is ahead. You have roughly 90 seconds to decide: continue the approach and manage the energy, or go around and try again.
- {'label': 'Field', 'value': 'KSPG · Albert Whitted'}
- {'label': 'Runways', 'value': '7/25 · 18/36'}
- {'label': 'Elevation', 'value': '7 ft'}
- {'label': 'Aircraft', 'value': 'C172S'}
- {'label': 'Dominant phase', 'value': 'Landing / Takeoff'}
The decision
Before we get into the decision tree — what do you already know about approach energy management and go-around decisions 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 was high and fast. The pilot attempted a go-around when landing appeared long. During the go-around, the aircraft porpoised — a pitch oscillation — and the nose landing gear collapsed. The aircraft departed the runway. The probable cause was the pilot's failure to maintain airplane control during the attempted go-around, resulting in abnormal contact with the runway pavement and a runway excursion.
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 probable cause was the pilot's improper pitch control during a go-around in gusting crosswind conditions.
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.
The common thread: all three accidents involved loss of control during landing or go-around in marginal conditions. Two involved improper pitch control (porpoise and tail strike); one involved a long landing with high airspeed. In each case, the pilot either failed to recognize an unstable approach or failed to execute a clean go-around.
At KSPG, the runway is 3,676 ft — short by modern standards. Off Runway 07's departure end (heading 062°), the off-field environment is open water — Tampa Bay. A runway excursion off that end is a ditching, not a field landing. This is not hypothetical; it is the USGS NLCD ground cover off that runway end. The real accidents cited above occurred at other airports — NOT at Albert Whitted Airport — but the geographic reality at KSPG makes the consequences of a runway excursion severe.
The consistent lesson: approach stability is paramount. If the approach is high, fast, unstable, or in gusty crosswind conditions, a go-around is the correct decision. A go-around is not a failure; it is airmanship. The pilots in CEN23LA159 and ERA21LA202 attempted to salvage unstable approaches and paid the price. You have the same choice on every approach: commit to a stable landing, or go around and try again.
Key lesson — At KSPG Runway 07, a short-field airport with gusty crosswinds and open water off the departure end, approach stability is non-negotiable. If you are high and fast at 500 ft AGL, a go-around is the correct decision. Attempting to salvage an unstable approach by slipping, aggressive flaring, or improper pitch control invites a porpoise, tail strike, or runway excursion. The C172S is forgiving, but it is not infinitely forgiving. Know your personal minimums, and go around when the approach is unstable.
Debrief — teaching points
Approach stability is the primary measure of landing safety.
A stable approach is one in which the airplane is on the correct glide slope, at the correct airspeed, with a descent rate of 300 ft/min or less, and the pilot is making only small control inputs. If you are high, fast, in a steep descent, or making large control inputs, the approach is unstable. An unstable approach at 500 ft AGL is a signal to go around, not to attempt a salvage. The NTSB CEN23LA159 and ERA21LA202 pilots both attempted to salvage unstable approaches and both resulted in loss of control. A go-around is the correct response.
Excess approach energy must be managed early — not at 50 ft AGL.
If you are high and fast at 500 ft AGL, you have options: slip, S-turn, reduce power, extend flaps gradually, or go around. If you are high and fast at 50 ft AGL, your options are limited. Manage energy early. A descent rate greater than 300 ft/min is excessive; it indicates you are sinking too fast and will float down the runway. Adjust pitch and power to establish a 300 ft/min descent by 500 ft AGL.
Go-around pitch control is critical — abrupt pitch changes invite a porpoise or tail strike.
During a go-around, advance the throttle to full power, establish a climb at Vy (74 KIAS in the C172S), and retract flaps gradually (not all at once). Abrupt pitch changes — either nose-up or nose-down — can result in a porpoise (pitch oscillation) or a tail strike. The ERA21LA202 pilot's improper pitch control during a go-around in gusting crosswind conditions resulted in a tail strike. Smooth, coordinated pitch control is essential.
Flap retraction during a go-around must be gradual.
In the C172S, flaps are retracted in stages: 30° → 20° → 10° → 0°. Retracting all flaps at once (from 30° to 0°) causes a sudden loss of lift and can result in a tail strike or a descent below the glide slope. Retract flaps gradually as you climb, maintaining Vy (74 KIAS) and a positive rate of climb. This is especially critical in gusty crosswind conditions where control authority is marginal.
KSPG Runway 07 is short and has open water off the departure end.
KSPG Runway 07 is 3,676 ft long — short by modern standards. Off the departure end (heading 062°), the off-field environment is open water — Tampa Bay. A runway excursion off that end is a ditching. This is not a worst-case scenario; it is the geographic reality. A long landing, a porpoise, or a tail strike that results in a runway excursion off Runway 07 is a water landing. Know this before you line up on Runway 07, and manage your approach energy accordingly.
Crosswind gusts require a go-around decision threshold.
In gusting crosswind conditions (like the 120° at 12 kt gusting to 18 kt in this scenario), the airplane is harder to control and the margin for error is smaller. If the approach is unstable in gusting conditions, the threshold for a go-around should be lower than in calm conditions. The ERA21LA202 pilot was high and slow in gusting crosswind conditions and initiated a go-around but improper pitch control resulted in a tail strike. In gusty conditions, a go-around is not a luxury — it is a necessity if the approach is unstable.
Built from the real accident record
Scenario built from NTSB CEN23LA159 (2023 C172S go-around porpoise / gear collapse), ERA21LA202 (2021 C172S improper pitch control / tail strike during go-around), and ERA11LA421 (2011 C172S electrical failure / long landing / runway overrun). Localized to KSPG.
NTSB reports: CEN23LA159 · ERA21LA202 · ERA11LA421
ACS tasks: PA.II.E — Approach and Landing · PA.II.F — Go-Around / Rejected Landing · PA.I.F — Weather Information · 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 KSPG