Bounce and Drift at Tampa International
A misjudged flare in gusty crosswind conditions — recovery decisions at touchdown determine the outcome
The scenario
Arriving Tampa International Airport (KTPA), Tampa, FL — Runway 19L, 8,300 ft concrete. Elevation 26 ft MSL. You are on a VFR cross-country flight, solo, and have been cleared for a straight-in approach to Runway 19L by Tampa Approach.
It is late afternoon in early summer: OAT 31°C, dew point 24°C, altimeter 29.94. Scattered clouds at 3,500 ft, visibility 10 SM. Wind is reported by ATIS as 180° at 12 knots, gusting to 18 knots. Runway 19L's magnetic heading is 182°, so the wind is nearly aligned with the runway — but the gusts are significant and the wind is slightly from the left (a light crosswind component). KTPA is a towered, Class B airport; you are in constant communication with approach and tower.
Aircraft: Piper PA-28-181 Archer, solo, 1,950 lb (well within limits), fuel tanks balanced, full fuel. Fixed gear, fixed-pitch prop, carbureted Lycoming O-360, 180 hp. Steam gauges, vacuum-driven instruments. Nothing was written up; the airplane is airworthy.
Pilot: you — a Private pilot, current, roughly 180 hours total. You have 12 hours in the Archer; most of your time is in a Cessna 172. The Archer is faster and heavier than the 172 — it carries energy differently on approach. You have landed at KTPA once before, in calm winds. Today's gusts are new.
You are on a 3° glide slope, 500 ft AGL, configured for landing: flaps 40°, airspeed 66 KIAS (Vref), descent rate 300 fpm. The runway is in sight, straight ahead. Tower clears you to land.
- {'label': 'Field', 'value': 'KTPA · Tampa'}
- {'label': 'Runways', 'value': '10/28 · 19L/01R · 19R/01L'}
- {'label': 'Elevation', 'value': '26 ft'}
- {'label': 'Aircraft', 'value': 'PA-28-181'}
- {'label': 'Dominant phase', 'value': 'Landing / Takeoff'}
The decision
Before we get into the decision tree — what do you already know about landing the Piper Archer in gusty crosswind conditions? (Pick all that apply; this records your baseline.)
What the record shows
What the NTSB files show
NTSB ERA10CA473 (2010): A Piper PA-28-181 on approach to a destination airport encountered windshear and stalled during landing, resulting in a hard landing and runway excursion. The pilot's inadequate compensation for crosswind conditions and failure to maintain directional control during the landing rollout were the probable causes. The airplane sustained damage to the landing gear and firewall.
NTSB LAX08CA199 (2008): A Piper PA-28-181 student pilot on solo flight was vectored to Runway 19R and landed with excessive airspeed after delaying flap extension. The aircraft bounced on touchdown, veered left during recovery, departed the runway, and struck a ditch, collapsing the nose gear and damaging the firewall. The probable cause was the student pilot's inadequate recovery from the bounced landing and failure to maintain directional control.
NTSB LAX04CA289 (2004): A Piper PA-28-181 on a student instructional flight experienced a hard landing and runway excursion at Scottsdale Airport. The probable cause was the student pilot's misjudged flare, resulting in a stall and hard landing, and his failure to maintain directional control during the landing rollout. The airplane sustained damage to the landing gear.
All three real accidents involved the same failure chain: a misjudged flare (too early or too late), a hard or bounced landing, loss of directional control, and a runway excursion or gear damage. The Piper Archer's heavier weight and higher approach speed (compared to a Cessna 172) make it less forgiving of flare errors — it floats longer and carries more energy.
Tampa International Airport (KTPA) has its own accident history dominated by forced landings, loss-of-control events, and gear-up landings. The off-field environment off Runway 19L's departure end (heading 182°) is POOR: dense development, medium development, and pasture/hay. A runway excursion off that end puts the airplane into a built-up area with obstacles and structures. This scenario is localized to KTPA to make the off-field environment real and consequential.
The real accidents cited above occurred at other airports (Scottsdale, LAX area) — NOT at Tampa International. The scenario is localized to KTPA to make the landing environment and off-field consequences real for you as a student here.
The consistent thread across all these events: the Archer's energy and momentum on approach are greater than a 172's. A flare begun too early floats the airplane down the runway. A flare begun too late results in a hard landing or a stall. A bounced landing requires immediate go-around decision-making — attempting to land again after a bounce often results in a second, harder impact and loss of directional control. The correct response to a bounce is a go-around, not a recovery attempt.
Key lesson — In the Piper Archer, the flare must begin at 15 ft AGL — not higher, not lower. The Archer carries more energy than a 172 and floats longer in a misjudged flare. If the airplane bounces after touchdown, the correct response is an immediate go-around — power to full, flaps to 20°, climb away. Attempting to land again after a bounce often results in a second, harder impact and loss of directional control. Off Runway 19L at KTPA, the off-field environment is dense development — a runway excursion puts the airplane into obstacles and structures. Directional control during the landing rollout is non-negotiable.
Debrief — teaching points
The Archer's energy on approach is greater than a Cessna 172's.
The Piper Archer (PA-28-181) weighs 2,550 lb gross and cruises at 125 KIAS (Vno). The Cessna 172 weighs 2,450 lb gross and cruises at 120 KIAS. The Archer is faster and heavier — it carries more kinetic energy on approach. This means it floats longer in a misjudged flare and requires more runway to stop. If you are transitioning from a 172 to an Archer, expect the Archer to float farther. Plan for a longer landing distance. Vref for the Archer is 66 KIAS; best glide is 76 KIAS. Know these speeds and fly them precisely.
The flare must begin at 15 ft AGL — not earlier, not later.
A flare begun at 50 ft AGL is too early — the airplane will float down the runway, burning distance. A flare begun at 5 ft AGL is too late — the descent rate cannot be arrested in time, resulting in a hard landing or a stall. The correct flare height is 15 ft AGL. At this height, a smooth, coordinated back pressure on the yoke will arrest the descent and allow the airplane to touch down at a safe descent rate (100 fpm or less). Practice flare height awareness in calm conditions before attempting gusty-wind landings.
A bounced landing requires an immediate go-around decision.
If the airplane bounces after touchdown — main gear leaves the runway and the airplane is airborne again — the correct response is an immediate go-around: advance throttle to full power, retract flaps to 20°, and climb away. Do not attempt to land again. Attempting to land after a bounce often results in a second, harder impact and loss of directional control. The NTSB LAX08CA199 accident is a textbook example: the student bounced, tried to land again, veered left, and struck a ditch. The go-around is the safe option.
Gusty crosswind landings require active directional control.
In gusty conditions, the wind will push the airplane off the centerline. You must use the rudder to maintain alignment. Keep the nose wheel light (slight back pressure on the yoke) until the airplane is fully settled. Apply smooth, progressive brakes — not sudden braking, which can cause the nose wheel to drop hard and the airplane to veer. If you feel the airplane drifting off the centerline during the rollout, a go-around is still an option at speeds below 30 knots.
Hard landings require a post-flight inspection.
A hard landing (descent rate 150+ fpm) may cause damage that is not immediately obvious: firewall cracks, engine mount damage, landing gear damage, or structural cracks. After any hard landing, conduct a thorough post-flight inspection. If you are uncertain about the integrity of the airframe, do not fly the airplane again until maintenance has inspected it. A hard landing is not a failure — it is a learning opportunity. Debrief with your CFI on what went wrong and how to prevent it next time.
Built from the real accident record
Scenario built from NTSB ERA10CA473 (2010 PA-28-181 hard landing / crosswind stall), LAX08CA199 (2008 PA-28-181 bounced landing / runway excursion), and LAX04CA289 (2004 PA-28-181 misjudged flare / loss of directional control). Localized to Tampa International Airport (KTPA).
NTSB reports: ERA10CA473 · LAX08CA199 · LAX04CA289
ACS tasks: PA.I.H — Human Factors · PA.V.A — Preflight Inspection · PA.VII.A — Normal Approach and Landing · PA.VII.B — Forward Slip to a Landing · PA.VII.C — Go-Around / Rejected Landing
Relevant FARs: §91.3 · §91.13 · §91.117
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 Piper Archer scenarios · More scenarios at KTPA