Unstable on Final — The Go-Around Decision
A destabilized approach, a go-around at low altitude, and the aerodynamic trap that kills pilots in the C172S
The scenario
Departing Sarasota Bradenton International Airport (KSRQ), Sarasota, FL — Runway 14, on a VFR local flight. Elevation 30 ft MSL. You are a Private pilot with 180 hours total time, current, and you have 12 hours in the C172S — a newer glass-panel airplane than your primary trainer.
It is a Saturday afternoon in early spring: OAT 24°C, wind from 180° at 12 knots gusting to 18 knots. Runway 14 is oriented 134° true; the wind is roughly a 45° crosswind gust. ATIS reports scattered clouds at 3,500 ft, visibility 10 SM. KSRQ tower is active (0600–0000 local). You are in Class C airspace, ceiling 4,000 MSL.
You have completed three touch-and-goes on Runway 14. This is your fourth approach. On short final, you are high and slow — the approach is unstable. You are at 200 ft AGL, 300 ft from the runway threshold, and your airspeed is 58 KIAS. The descent rate is shallow; you are drifting right in the crosswind. The airplane is not where it should be.
Aircraft: Cessna 172S, solo, within limits. Fuel-injected Lycoming IO-360, fixed-pitch prop, glass panel (G1000). Flaps are at 20°. You have not yet committed to landing or going around.
Pilot: you — a Private pilot, 180 hours total, 12 hours in the C172S. You have done touch-and-goes before, but not in crosswind gusts. You are focused on the runway; you have not briefed a go-around procedure or reviewed the go-around airspeed and pitch technique for this airplane.
- {'label': 'Field', 'value': 'KSRQ · Sarasota Bradenton'}
- {'label': 'Runways', 'value': '4/22 · 14/32'}
- {'label': 'Elevation', 'value': '30 ft'}
- {'label': 'Aircraft', 'value': 'C172S'}
- {'label': 'Dominant phase', 'value': 'Takeoff / Landing'}
The decision
Before we get into the decision tree — what do you know about go-around technique in the C172S? (Pick all that apply; this records your baseline.)
What the record shows
What the NTSB files show
NTSB CEN25LA128 (2025): A Cessna 172S lost control during landing flare and the pilot initiated a go-around near a tree line at low altitude. The accident resulted from the pilot's failure to maintain adequate airspeed during the go-around, leading to an aerodynamic stall and terrain impact. The probable cause was the pilot's failure to maintain airplane control and adequate airspeed during the go-around.
NTSB CEN23LA159 (2023): A Cessna 172S on a personal flight experienced a tailwind on final approach. 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.
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 CEN14CA322 (2014): A Cessna 172S being flown by a student pilot during landing practice stalled and impacted terrain off the left side of the runway when the student applied excessive back pressure on the control yoke during a go-around after a bounced landing. The probable cause was the student pilot's use of excessive back pressure on the flight controls during an attempted go-around that induced a stall and loss of control.
NTSB CEN13LA348 (2013): A Cessna 172S flown by a solo student pilot stalled during a go-around after a bounced landing at Grand Forks International Airport. The probable cause was the student pilot's inadequate recovery from a bounced landing, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall during the go-around.
The common thread: all five accidents involved a go-around at low altitude in the C172S, and all were caused by improper pitch control — either excessive back pressure (pulling too hard on the yoke) or failure to lower the nose when airspeed was marginal. The C172S stalls at 40 KIAS (landing configuration) and 48 KIAS (clean). During a go-around at 100–200 ft AGL, airspeed is marginal and pitch control is unforgiving. A stall at that altitude is fatal.
KSRQ's dominant accident pattern includes LOSS_OF_CONTROL_INFLIGHT (11.5%), LOSS_OF_CONTROL_GROUND (19.2%), and RUNWAY_EXCURSION (11.5%). This scenario reflects that pattern. The off-field environment off Runway 14 (heading 134°) is dense development — not a field landing option. An unstable approach that becomes a loss-of-control event on or near the runway is the trap.
The real accidents cited above occurred at various airports — NOT at KSRQ. The scenario is localized to KSRQ to make the runway environment and off-field reality consequential for you as a student here. The lesson is universal: an unstable approach is a go-around candidate, and a go-around at low altitude requires smooth, moderate pitch control and a focus on airspeed — not aggressive back pressure.
Key lesson — In the C172S, an unstable approach — high, slow, or drifting — is a go-around candidate at any altitude. Once committed to a go-around, the critical error is excessive back pressure on the yoke. The C172S stalls at 40 KIAS (landing) and 48 KIAS (clean). During a go-around at 100–200 ft AGL, airspeed is marginal and a stall is fatal. Pitch control must be smooth and moderate: establish a shallow climb attitude (nose slightly above the horizon), focus on airspeed (Vy = 74 KIAS or higher), and retract flaps in stages. The aggressive pull that feels like it will save the landing is the pull that kills.
Debrief — teaching points
An unstable approach is a go-around candidate — recognize it early.
An approach that is high, slow, or drifting is unstable. In the C172S, Vref (approach speed) is 65 KIAS. If you are below 65 KIAS on short final, the approach is slow. If you are above the glide slope, the approach is high. If you are drifting off the runway centerline in a crosswind, the approach is drifting. Any of these conditions warrants a go-around. The decision to go around at 300 ft AGL is far safer than trying to salvage a bad approach from 100 ft AGL. Recognize the unstable condition early and commit to the go-around before altitude becomes critical.
Pitch control during a go-around must be smooth and moderate — not aggressive.
The C172S stalls at 40 KIAS (landing configuration) and 48 KIAS (clean). During a go-around at 100–200 ft AGL, airspeed is marginal. Excessive back pressure on the yoke will pitch the nose up too steeply, bleed airspeed rapidly, and induce a stall at an altitude where recovery is impossible. The correct technique is to establish a shallow climb pitch — nose slightly above the horizon — and focus on maintaining airspeed. Vy (best rate of climb) is 74 KIAS; aim for 74 KIAS or higher during the go-around climb. The aggressive pull that feels like it will save the landing is the pull that kills.
Flaps must be retracted in stages during a go-around — not all at once.
Full flaps (30°) at low altitude during a climb is a stall trap. When you retract flaps, drag decreases and the airplane's pitch attitude will increase slightly. If you retract all flaps at once at low airspeed, the sudden pitch change can induce a stall. The correct technique is to retract flaps in stages: from 20° to 10° as airspeed increases, then to 0° as you climb through 200–300 ft AGL. This gradual flap retraction prevents a sudden pitch change and maintains airspeed control.
Trim should be adjusted for the go-around speed to reduce control pressure.
During a go-around, the airplane is transitioning from a descent (nose down, slow) to a climb (nose up, faster). The trim setting for the descent is no longer appropriate for the climb. Adjust trim to reduce control pressure and improve pitch stability. In the C172S with the G1000, you can use the electric trim or the trim wheel. Reducing control pressure during a go-around improves your ability to make smooth, moderate pitch adjustments and reduces the risk of excessive back pressure.
In a crosswind go-around, maintain wing-low correction to prevent a runway excursion.
If you initiate a go-around in a crosswind, the wind is still pushing you off the runway centerline. During the climb, you must maintain a wing-low correction into the wind to stay over the runway. If you lose the correction and drift off the runway, you may find yourself in a position where you cannot return to the runway — you are committed to a landing in the grass or a go-around from an even lower altitude. Maintain the wing-low correction throughout the go-around climb.
A bounced landing is a go-around opportunity — not a second-chance landing.
If you bounce on landing, the airplane is airborne again at a low altitude with marginal airspeed. This is a critical moment. You have two options: go around immediately (full power, climb, and try again) or land again (reduce power and touch down). The NTSB data shows that pilots who try to land again after a bounce often stall or lose control. The safer option is to go around immediately, even from a very low altitude. A go-around from 100 ft AGL is uncomfortable, but it is safer than a second landing attempt that may result in another bounce or a stall.
Built from the real accident record
Scenario built from NTSB CEN25LA128 (2025 C172S go-around stall), CEN23LA159 (2023 C172S go-around loss of control), ERA21LA202 (2021 C172S go-around tail strike), CEN14CA322 (2014 C172S excessive back pressure go-around stall), and CEN13LA348 (2013 C172S bounced landing stall). Localized to KSRQ.
NTSB reports: CEN25LA128 · CEN23LA159 · ERA21LA202 · CEN14CA322 · CEN13LA348
ACS tasks: PA.II.J — Go-Around / Rejected Landing · PA.II.I — Landing · PA.II.H — Approach and Landing · PA.I.H — Human Factors · PA.IX.C — Emergency Approach and Landing
Relevant FARs: §91.3 · §91.13 · §91.185
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 KSRQ