Float and Overshoot at Sarasota Bradenton
Excess approach energy in a high-performance Cessna 182 — the decision to go around comes late, and runway remaining evaporates fast
The scenario
Departing Sarasota Bradenton International Airport (KSRQ), Sarasota/Bradenton, FL — Runway 14, landing after a local flight. Elevation 30 ft MSL. It is late afternoon in July: OAT 32°C, dew point 24°C, altimeter 29.88. Density altitude approximately 2,100 ft — the field is performing as if it were 2,100 ft higher than its actual 30 ft elevation. Winds are calm to light, visibility 10 SM, scattered clouds at 3,500 ft.
You are on a 5-mile final approach to Runway 14 (heading 134°) in the Cessna 182 Skylane, solo, full fuel, within limits. The airplane is fast and nose-heavy — it carries energy. You are configured for landing: flaps 20°, prop full forward (2,700 RPM), mixture leaned for the field elevation, cowl flaps open for cooling. You are at 1,200 ft AGL and 95 KIAS — slightly fast for a normal approach but within the Vfe (max flap extended) of 95 KIAS.
The approach is stable on altitude and heading. The runway is made. You are cleared to land by KSRQ tower. Runway 14 is 9,500 ft long — plenty of runway. But as you descend through 500 ft AGL, you notice the descent rate is shallow and the airspeed is not decreasing as expected. You are still at 90 KIAS at 300 ft AGL. The flare is going to be long.
Pilot: you — a Commercial pilot with a high-performance endorsement, roughly 800 hours total, 150 hours in the C182. You are current and proficient. You have landed the 182 many times. You know it is a fast airplane that floats if you do not manage energy properly. Today, you did not.
Aircraft: Cessna 182 Skylane, Continental O-470 (230 hp), constant-speed prop, cowl flaps, fixed gear, carbureted, steam panel. The 182 is not a 172 — it is heavier, faster, nose-heavy, and requires active prop and cowl-flap management. It also requires discipline on approach energy management. You are about to learn why.
- {'label': 'Field', 'value': 'KSRQ · Sarasota Bradenton'}
- {'label': 'Runways', 'value': '4/22 · 14/32'}
- {'label': 'Elevation', 'value': '30 ft'}
- {'label': 'Aircraft', 'value': 'C182'}
- {'label': 'Dominant phase', 'value': 'Takeoff / Landing'}
The decision
Before we get into the decision tree — what do you know about the Cessna 182's approach and landing characteristics? (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 experienced a bounced landing and runway excursion when the pilot failed to properly recover from the bounce. The pilot applied forward pressure to force the nose down, resulting in a hard landing. The nose gear collapsed and the airplane nosed over. The probable cause was the pilot's improper recovery from the bounced landing. The pilot survived; the airplane was destroyed.
NTSB WPR20CA269 (2020): A Cessna 182 landed hard more than halfway down the runway, bounced, and 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 an unstable approach and delayed go-around.
NTSB CEN21LA055 (2020, fatal): A Cessna 182R landed on the wrong runway despite radio calls from other pilots indicating the correct runway was in use. The aircraft overran the runway and struck power lines. The probable cause was the pilot's decision to continue an unstabilized approach and delayed go-around decision. Contributing factors included inaccurate wind direction reporting from a misaligned weather station. The pilot and passenger were killed.
NTSB CEN26LA122 (2026): A Cessna 182 on a personal touch-and-go landing touched down with insufficient runway remaining due to an unstabilized approach and excessive speed. The pilot applied maximum braking but the aircraft went through a ditch and struck a fence. The probable cause was the pilot's failure to establish a stabilized approach and failure to execute a go-around.
NTSB ERA25LA358 (2025): A Cessna 182 overran the runway after landing more than halfway down a 3,100-foot surface in calm winds. The probable cause was the pilot's failure to achieve the proper touchdown point. The airplane struck obstacles beyond the runway end.
The consistent thread across all these accidents: the Cessna 182 is a fast, energy-rich airplane. It floats if the approach is not properly managed. The pilot's decision to continue an unstable approach and delay the go-around is the common factor in every accident. At KSRQ, Runway 14's departure end (heading 134°) is dense development — a runway excursion there means impact with buildings or obstacles. The off-field environment is unforgiving.
These real accidents occurred at various airports and in various conditions — NOT all at KSRQ. The scenario is localized to KSRQ to make the runway length (9,500 ft — plenty of runway) and the off-field environment (dense development off Runway 14) real and consequential for you as a student here.
Key lesson — The Cessna 182 is a high-performance airplane that carries energy. A stable approach is not optional — it is the foundation of a safe landing. If the approach is unstable at 500 ft AGL, go around. If the airplane floats past the touchdown zone, go around. If the landing bounces, go around. The decision to go around is not a failure — it is airmanship. The decision to continue an unstable approach and delay the go-around is the path to a runway excursion, a hard landing, and structural damage or loss of the airplane.
Debrief — teaching points
The Cessna 182 is not a Cessna 172 — it is faster, heavier, and more nose-heavy.
The C182 has a Continental O-470 (230 hp) and a constant-speed prop. It cruises at 140+ KIAS and carries significant energy. On approach, if you do not actively manage that energy, the airplane will float. The 172 is forgiving; the 182 is not. A stable approach in the 182 requires discipline: reduce power early, establish Vy (80 KIAS) on base, and target 60 KIAS (Vref) on short final. If you are still at 80+ KIAS at 300 ft AGL, the approach is unstable and a go-around is the correct decision.
Vfe (max flap extended) is 95 KIAS — exceeding this speed with flaps extended risks structural damage.
The C182's Vfe is 95 KIAS. If you are still at 95 KIAS or faster with flaps extended, you are at the limit of the airplane's structural envelope. Reduce speed below Vfe before extending flaps beyond 10°. On approach, plan to be at 70 KIAS or less before extending flaps to 20° or more.
Vref (approach speed) is 60 KIAS — this is the target speed on short final for a stabilized approach.
Vref for the C182 is 60 KIAS. This is the speed at which the airplane will land smoothly and stop within a reasonable distance. If you are faster than Vref on short final, the airplane will float. If you are slower, you risk a stall. Establish 60 KIAS on short final and hold it until touchdown.
A stable approach is defined by altitude, heading, and airspeed — all three must be stable by 500 ft AGL.
A stable approach means: (1) on the glideslope or descending at a normal rate, (2) on heading, and (3) at the target airspeed (Vref). If any of these three is not stable at 500 ft AGL, the approach is unstable and a go-around is required. Do not wait until 300 ft AGL or 100 ft AGL to make the decision — make it at 500 ft AGL when you have plenty of altitude to climb out safely.
A bounced landing is a sign the approach was unstable — go around, do not try to salvage it.
If the airplane bounces on landing, the approach was unstable or the landing was hard. Do not apply forward pressure to force the nose down and land hard — that is how nose gears collapse. Instead, execute a go-around immediately. You have altitude and airspeed to climb out. The second approach will be better.
High density altitude increases landing distance — the airplane needs more runway.
At KSRQ today, the density altitude is approximately 2,100 ft. This means the airplane performs as if it were 2,100 ft higher than its actual 30 ft elevation. Landing distance increases by roughly 20–30% in high density altitude conditions. Plan for a longer landing distance and ensure the approach is stabilized early so you can land in the first third of the runway.
Off Runway 14 at KSRQ, the off-field environment is dense development — a runway excursion means impact with buildings or obstacles.
The USGS NLCD ground cover off Runway 14's departure end (heading 134°) is dense development. A runway excursion there is not a slide into an open field — it is a collision with buildings, trees, or obstacles. The runway is 9,500 ft long, which is plenty, but only if you land in the first third. If you float past the touchdown zone and run out of runway, the off-field environment is unforgiving.
Built from the real accident record
Scenario built from NTSB ERA21LA113 (2021 C182 bounced landing / runway excursion / nose-over), WPR20CA269 (2020 C182 hard landing / delayed go-around / trees), CEN21LA055 (2020 C182R wrong runway / unstabilized approach / power lines, fatal), CEN26LA122 (2026 C182 insufficient runway / unstabilized approach), ERA25LA358 (2025 C182 overrun after late touchdown), and ERA25LA325, ERA25LA322 (2025 C182 takeoff/landing excursions). Localized to KSRQ.
NTSB reports: ERA21LA113 · WPR20CA269 · CEN21LA055 · CEN26LA122 · ERA26LA116 · ERA25LA358 · ERA25LA325 · ERA25LA322
ACS tasks: 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 · PA.II.D — Descent, Approach, and Landing
Relevant FARs: §91.3 · §91.13 · §61.31
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 KSRQ