Gusts on Short Final at Peter O Knight
Crosswind landing in gusty conditions — directional control, go-around decision, and the cost of hesitation
The scenario
Departing Peter O Knight Airport (KTPF), Tampa, FL — Runway 22, a 3,583 ft asphalt runway aligned 217° magnetic. Elevation 8 ft MSL. You are returning from a 2-hour cross-country flight to a nearby airport and are now on short final to Runway 22 in gusty afternoon conditions.
Weather: scattered clouds 3,500 ft, visibility 10 SM, wind reported by CTAF as 240° at 18 gusting to 28 knots. Runway 22 is aligned 217°; the wind is a left crosswind of roughly 12–15 knots steady, with gusts to 25 knots. The demonstrated crosswind capability of the SR22 is approximately 17 knots in calm conditions; in gusts, your margin is thin. The runway is dry. Temperature 31°C, dew point 24°C.
Aircraft: Cirrus SR22, gross weight 3,400 lb, fuel 45 gallons (full), within limits. Constant-speed prop, glass Perspective panel, fixed gear. You have 850 hours total time, 180 hours in type. You are current and proficient. This is a familiar airport — you have landed here 12 times in the past year.
Approach: You are on a stable 3° glide slope, 500 ft AGL, 88 KIAS best glide speed, descending toward Runway 22. The runway is in sight. You have applied 50% flaps (Vfe 119 KIAS; you are well within limits). The constant-speed prop is set to high RPM. You are configured for landing.
Off-field environment: Runway 22's climb-out (217° heading) is over open water — Tampa Bay and the Hillsborough Bay area. The runway's approach end (runway 04 heading) is over dense development, medium development, and low-density residential. A loss of control on landing rollout could mean a veer into the bay or into the built-up area depending on where the loss occurs.
- {'label': 'Field', 'value': 'KTPF · Peter O Knight'}
- {'label': 'Runways', 'value': '4/22 · 18/36'}
- {'label': 'Elevation', 'value': '8 ft'}
- {'label': 'Aircraft', 'value': 'SR22'}
- {'label': 'Dominant phase', 'value': 'Landing / Approach'}
The decision
Before the decision tree — what do you know about crosswind landing technique and go-around decision-making in the SR22? (Pick all that apply.)
What the record shows
What the NTSB files show
NTSB CEN21LA051 (2020): A Cirrus SR22 on an instructional flight experienced loss of directional control during landing when the student pilot and instructor fought over the flight controls in a gusting crosswind. The student pilot failed to maintain control and failed to relinquish control when directed to go around. The probable cause was the student's failure to maintain control during a crosswind landing and his failure to relinquish control when directed by the instructor to execute a go-around. The accident resulted in a runway excursion and damage to the aircraft.
NTSB ANC20CA012 (2020): A Cirrus SR22 flown by a student pilot on a private checkride experienced loss of control during a soft-field takeoff in gusting crosswind conditions. The right wingtip struck the runway. The probable cause was the student's loss of airplane control during a short-field takeoff in gusting crosswind conditions, and the designated pilot examiner's delayed remedial action. The accident demonstrates that crosswind control is critical from the moment of rotation.
NTSB GAA19CA142 (2019): A Cirrus SR22 on a business flight lost yaw control during landing flare, stalled, and yawed violently left during a go-around attempt, impacting the ground. The probable cause was the pilot's failure to maintain a stabilized approach with a tailwind and his subsequent failure to maintain yaw control during an attempted go-around. The accident demonstrates that a go-around from the flare in an unstable condition is itself a high-risk maneuver.
NTSB ERA18LA253 (2018): A Cirrus SR22 on a personal cross-country flight experienced loss of directional control during takeoff when the pilot seat slid backward during rotation. The pilot's failure to properly secure the seat before flight resulted in the seat sliding back as the airplane accelerated, making it impossible to reach the rudder pedals. The accident demonstrates that even a properly-functioning airplane can become uncontrollable if the pilot is not properly positioned.
Regional precedent NTSB GAA17CA105 (2016): A Piper PA-46 experienced loss of directional control during landing rollout in gusting crosswind conditions that exceeded the aircraft's demonstrated crosswind capability. The pilot's loss of directional control during the aborted landing in gusting crosswind conditions resulted in a runway excursion. The teaching angle: recognize when crosswind conditions exceed aircraft capability and commit to go-around early rather than attempting recovery during rollout.
Regional precedent NTSB ERA11CA212 (2011): A Mooney M20J on a personal flight landed on runway 18 in a crosswind, veered 90 degrees left, departed the runway, struck a seawall, and came to rest nose-down in salt water. The accident resulted from the pilot's failure to maintain directional control during a crosswind landing. The teaching angle: maintain directional control through nose-wheel touchdown and recognize the point of no return for go-around vs. accepting a veer.
The real accidents cited above occurred at other airports and in other aircraft — NOT at Peter O Knight Airport (KTPF). KTPF has its own accident history dominated by forced landings, loss-of-control events, ditchings, and stall/spin accidents. The scenario is localized to KTPF to make the off-field environment real and consequential: Runway 22's departure end is open water; a loss of directional control during rollout in that direction is a ditching. Runway 04's approach end is dense development; a loss of control there is a collision with structures.
The consistent thread across all these events: crosswind control is most vulnerable during landing flare and rollout, when airspeed is low and control authority is marginal. A sudden gust can overwhelm the rudder authority. The decision to go around must be made early — by the time you are in the flare and realize the approach is unstable, it may be too late. The SR22's high performance and glass panel can mask the marginal nature of a crosswind approach until it is too late to recover.
Key lesson — In gusting crosswind conditions at or near the SR22's demonstrated crosswind capability, the decision to go around must be made early — by 300 ft AGL at the latest. A go-around from 100 ft AGL in a bank with low airspeed is a stall/spin scenario. Proactive crosswind correction applied early in the approach is the key to maintaining directional control. If the approach becomes unstable, commit to the go-around immediately. If directional control is lost below 150 ft AGL, CAPS is the primary recovery tool. Off Runway 22 at KTPF, the off-field environment is open water — a loss of directional control during rollout is a ditching.
Debrief — teaching points
The SR22's demonstrated crosswind capability is approximately 17 knots in calm conditions; gusts reduce that margin significantly.
The SR22 POH lists a demonstrated crosswind capability of roughly 17 knots. This is in calm conditions with a stable, well-executed crosswind approach. When the wind is gusting 25 knots on a 17-knot demonstrated capability, the margin is gone. The point of no return for a go-around may have already passed by the time you realize the approach is unstable. At KTPF, with a 240° wind at 18G28 knots on a 217° runway, you are at the edge of the envelope. Recognize this early and make the go-around decision before you are committed to landing.
Directional control is most vulnerable during flare and rollout — a sudden gust can overwhelm rudder authority at low airspeed.
The SR22 has excellent control authority at cruise and approach speeds. But in the flare and rollout, airspeed is low (75–85 KIAS), and the rudder's effectiveness is reduced. A sudden gust from the side can lift a wing and push the nose in a direction the rudder cannot correct. This is the classic loss-of-control-on-landing scenario. The only defense is proactive crosswind correction applied early in the approach, before the flare, so that you are ahead of the gusts rather than reacting to them.
The decision to go around must be made early — by 300 ft AGL at the latest.
A go-around from 500 ft AGL is straightforward: throttle to full power, flaps to 0°, pitch up, climb. A go-around from 200 ft AGL is workable. A go-around from 100 ft AGL in a bank with low airspeed is a stall/spin scenario. The SR22 is a high-performance airplane, but it has limits. If the approach is unstable by 300 ft AGL, commit to the go-around immediately. Do not attempt to salvage the approach from low altitude.
Proactive crosswind correction applied early in the approach is the key to maintaining directional control.
Rather than reacting to gusts as they hit, apply the crosswind correction early and hold it throughout the descent. This means more left aileron and left rudder from the start of the approach, not waiting for the gust to hit and then correcting. The SR22's control authority is sufficient to absorb gusts if you are ahead of them. If you are reacting to gusts, you are behind the airplane.
CAPS (Cirrus Airframe Parachute System) is the primary recovery tool for loss of control in flight, unrecoverable spin, and engine failure without a safe landing option.
The SR22 POH lists CAPS as the primary recovery tool for loss of control in flight and unrecoverable spin. CAPS is NOT a landing-rollout recovery device — it is for in-flight emergencies. If you have lost directional control below 150 ft AGL and cannot recover by flying out, CAPS is the right tool. The landing under the parachute will be hard, but it is survivable. Know when CAPS is the right tool, and do not hesitate to use it.
The constant-speed prop must be set to high RPM for landing to ensure immediate power response if a go-around is needed.
The SR22's constant-speed prop should be set to high RPM (2,000+ RPM) for landing. This ensures that if you need to execute a go-around, the prop is already in the high-RPM position and will respond immediately to throttle input. If the prop is in a low-RPM position, there will be a delay as the prop adjusts to high RPM, and that delay could be critical in a go-around scenario.
Off Runway 22 at KTPF, the off-field environment is open water — a loss of directional control during rollout is a ditching.
The off-field environment off Runway 22's departure end (217° heading) is open water — Tampa Bay and the Hillsborough Bay area. There is no alternate landing surface. If you lose directional control during rollout and veer off the runway in that direction, the outcome is a ditching. This is not a worst-case scenario; it is the geographic reality. Know this before you line up on Runway 22. If the crosswind conditions are marginal, consider using Runway 04 or diverting to an airport with a runway more aligned to the wind.
Built from the real accident record
Scenario built from NTSB CEN21LA051 (2020 SR22 loss of directional control during crosswind landing, dual control conflict), ANC20CA012 (2020 SR22 loss of control during soft-field takeoff in crosswind, wing strike), GAA19CA142 (2019 SR22 yaw control loss during landing flare and go-around), ERA18LA253 (2018 SR22 seat-slide loss of control on takeoff), and regional precedents GAA17CA105 (PA-46 crosswind landing loss of control), CHI02TA149 (Cessna A185F crosswind rollout veer), GAA17CA021 (Luscombe 8B crosswind landing nose-over), ERA11CA212 (Mooney M20J crosswind landing veer into seawall). Real events occurred at other airports — NOT at KTPF.
NTSB reports: CEN21LA051 · ANC20CA012 · GAA19CA142 · ERA18LA253 · GAA17CA105 · CHI02TA149 · GAA17CA021 · ERA11CA212
ACS tasks: PA.II.D — Takeoff and Departure · PA.II.E — Approach and Landing · PA.II.F — Go-Around / Rejected Landing · PA.I.H — Human Factors · PA.V.A — Aeromedical Factors
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 Cirrus SR22 scenarios · More scenarios at KTPF