Unstable on Short Final at Tampa International
A bounced landing, a go-around decision, and the margin between recovery and stall — all at low altitude over dense development
The scenario
Departing Tampa International Airport (KTPA), Tampa, FL — Runway 19L, on a VFR personal flight. Elevation 26 ft MSL. You are a Private pilot with roughly 250 hours total, current, and about 80 hours in the C172S.
Conditions: VFR, scattered clouds 3,500 ft, visibility 8 SM. Wind is from 210° at 12 knots gusting to 18 knots — a crosswind from the left on Runway 19L (magnetic heading 182°). The wind is not severe, but it is gusty. Temperature 24°C, dew point 18°C. ATIS reports light to moderate turbulence below 2,000 ft.
You have been flying for 2.5 hours. The approach to Runway 19L is stable until about 500 ft AGL. At 300 ft AGL, a gust pushes the airplane right; you correct with left aileron and left rudder. The airplane drifts left of centerline. You correct right. At 100 ft AGL, the airplane is drifting again — you are chasing the wind, not flying a stable approach. The runway is ahead, but the approach is deteriorating.
At 50 ft AGL, you decide to land. You reduce power, add full flaps (30°), and begin the flare. The airplane is slightly high and slightly fast — 72 KIAS instead of the target 65 KIAS (Vref). A gust lifts the left wing. You apply right aileron to level. The nose pitches up. You pull back on the yoke to arrest the descent. The airplane bounces — a firm contact with the runway, then a rebound into the air.
You are now 15 ft AGL, drifting left, with the nose high and airspeed decaying. The runway is ahead. The tree line that marks the end of the airport property is 200 ft ahead on the left. Off Runway 19L's departure end (heading 182°), the off-field environment is dense development, medium development, and pasture — not a suitable forced-landing surface.
Aircraft: Cessna 172S, solo, 45 gallons usable fuel, within limits. Lycoming IO-360-L2A (fuel-injected), fixed-pitch prop, G1000 glass panel. The airplane is airworthy; nothing was written up.
Pilot: you — Private, current, 250 hours total, 80 hours C172S. You have done go-arounds in training, but this is the first one in actual gusting crosswind conditions at low altitude.
- {'label': 'Field', 'value': 'KTPA · Tampa'}
- {'label': 'Runways', 'value': '10/28 · 19L/01R · 19R/01L'}
- {'label': 'Elevation', 'value': '26 ft'}
- {'label': 'Aircraft', 'value': 'C172S'}
- {'label': 'Dominant phase', 'value': 'Landing / Takeoff'}
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 pilot failed 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 final approach experienced a tailwind and 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 the go-around in gusty conditions.
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 improper pitch control during the 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 the go-around.
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 the bounced landing, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall during the go-around.
The consistent thread: go-around accidents in the C172S are caused by improper pitch control, excessive back pressure, and failure to maintain adequate airspeed at low altitude. The stall speed in landing configuration (Vs0 = 40 KIAS) is close to the approach speed (Vref = 65 KIAS). A go-around that allows airspeed to decay below 60 KIAS with flaps extended is a stall waiting to happen. The margin is thin.
At KTPA, the off-field environment off Runway 19L's departure end (heading 182°) is dense development, medium development, and pasture — not a suitable forced-landing surface. A stall at 15 ft AGL over this terrain is catastrophic. The real accidents cited above occurred at other airports — NOT at KTPA. But the failure mode is the same: improper pitch control during a go-around in marginal conditions leads to a stall at insufficient altitude for recovery.
Key lesson — A go-around in the C172S requires discipline: full throttle immediately, level or slightly forward pitch attitude, flaps retracted in stages, and airspeed allowed to build to Vy (74 KIAS) before climbing aggressively. Excessive back pressure on the yoke is the most common error. At 15 ft AGL over dense development, there is no altitude for stall recovery. The decision to go around must be made early (before the bounce), and the execution must be smooth and deliberate. Airspeed is more important than altitude gain in the first 500 ft of a go-around.
Debrief — teaching points
A go-around is not a failure — it is a tool to reset an unstable approach.
The FAA and every accident investigation emphasize: if the approach is unstable, go around. An unstable approach at 500 ft AGL is a problem; an unstable approach at 50 ft AGL is a crisis. The cost of a go-around is a few minutes of flight time and fuel. The cost of pressing an unstable approach is a crash. At KTPA, with dense development off the runway ends, an unstable approach is particularly dangerous. Recognize the instability early (before the bounce) and go around before you are committed to landing.
Pitch control during a go-around is critical — excessive back pressure induces a stall at low altitude.
The C172S stall speed in landing configuration (Vs0 = 40 KIAS) is only 25 knots below the approach speed (Vref = 65 KIAS). During a go-around, the airspeed is initially low (50–60 KIAS) and the flaps are extended. Pulling back on the yoke to 'climb' is the instinctive error — and it is fatal at 15 ft AGL. The correct technique is to level the pitch attitude (or even push forward slightly), apply full throttle, and let the airspeed build to Vy (74 KIAS) before climbing aggressively. Pitch control is more important than pitch attitude in the first 500 ft of a go-around.
Flaps must be retracted in stages during a go-around, not all at once.
A sudden flap retraction from 30° to 0° causes a pitch-up moment and a loss of lift. In a go-around at low altitude, this can induce a stall or a loss of control. The correct technique is to retract flaps in stages: from 30° to 15° as the airspeed builds to 60 KIAS, then from 15° to 0° as the airspeed reaches 70 KIAS and altitude increases. This staged approach maintains control and allows the airspeed to build smoothly.
Vy (best rate of climb, 74 KIAS in the C172S) is the target airspeed for a go-around climb.
Many pilots try to climb as steeply as possible during a go-around, pulling back on the yoke to increase the pitch angle. This is wrong. The correct technique is to establish Vy (74 KIAS) and maintain that airspeed. Vy gives the maximum altitude gain per unit time — the best climb rate. Trying to climb faster (at a higher pitch angle) actually reduces the climb rate and increases the stall risk. Maintain Vy during the go-around climb until you reach a safe altitude (typically 500–1,000 ft AGL), then you can adjust the pitch for a shallower climb if desired.
In crosswind conditions, a go-around is riskier because the airplane is already in a corrected attitude.
On the approach to Runway 19L in a left crosswind, you are holding right aileron and right rudder to track the centerline. During a go-around, you must be aware of this wind correction and not over-correct. A gust from the left can push the airplane left; your instinct is to apply more right aileron. But in a go-around at low altitude, over-correcting can induce a roll or a pitch change that leads to a stall. Smooth, coordinated control inputs are essential. If the approach is unstable in crosswind conditions, go around early and set up for another approach with better wind awareness.
A bounced landing is not an automatic go-around — context matters.
A small bounce at 20 ft AGL with plenty of runway remaining may be safer to land through than a go-around at 15 ft AGL. A large bounce at 50 ft AGL with the airplane unstable is a clear go-around. The decision depends on the altitude, the airspeed, the runway length, and the off-field environment. At KTPA Runway 19L, with dense development off the left side, a bounce that results in a left drift is a go-around. A bounce that is controllable and allows a landing through is acceptable. Know the difference before you are in the situation.
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 improper pitch control during go-around), CEN14CA322 (2014 C172S excessive back pressure go-around stall), and CEN13LA348 (2013 C172S bounced landing stall). Localized to KTPA.
NTSB reports: CEN25LA128 · CEN23LA159 · ERA21LA202 · CEN14CA322 · CEN13LA348
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.A — Preflight Assessment
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 KTPA