Low Approach and Power Lines
A go-around decision at Peter O Knight Airport — wires, low altitude, and the margin between recovery and impact
The scenario
Departing Peter O Knight Airport (KTPF), Tampa, FL — Runway 22, a local VFR flight in a Cessna 172R. Elevation 8 ft MSL. You are approaching to land after a 45-minute local flight.
It is late afternoon, 1645 local. The sun is low on the western horizon; visibility is 6 SM in haze. The field is non-towered (CTAF); you are self-announcing on 122.8. Runway 22 is the active runway — heading 217° magnetic. The approach is from the north, descending over a mix of low-density development, medium development, and open water to the south and west.
You are on a 3-mile final for Runway 22, descending through 400 ft AGL, airspeed 70 KIAS, flaps 10°. The runway is in sight, but the lighting is poor — the sun is low and the runway is not yet lit. You are squinting into the haze. The approach feels slightly off-center, but you are committed to landing.
At 200 ft AGL, 0.5 nm from the runway threshold, you realize the alignment is not quite right. The runway is drifting left of your windscreen. You have a choice: continue the approach and correct on short final, or execute a go-around now.
Aircraft: Cessna 172R, solo, 2,200 lb (within limits). Fuel-injected Lycoming IO-360-L2A, 160 hp. Fixed-pitch prop, fixed gear, steam/vacuum panel. Full fuel. Nothing was written up; the airplane is airworthy.
Pilot: you — a Private pilot, current, roughly 250 hours total. You have 12 hours in the C172R. This is your second approach to KTPF; the first was in daylight. You did not brief the field's hazards — power lines, towers, and the water environment off Runway 22's departure end. You are focused on landing.
- {'label': 'Field', 'value': 'KTPF · Peter O Knight'}
- {'label': 'Runways', 'value': '4/22 · 18/36'}
- {'label': 'Elevation', 'value': '8 ft'}
- {'label': 'Aircraft', 'value': 'C172R'}
- {'label': 'Dominant phase', 'value': 'Landing / Approach'}
The decision
Before the scenario — what do you know about go-around procedures and wire-strike hazards at low-altitude airports? (Pick all that apply.)
What the record shows
What the NTSB files show
NTSB ERA14WA437 (2014, FATAL): A Cessna 172R impacted power lines while performing a go-around maneuver near Comandante Gastao Airport in Brazil. The investigation is under the jurisdiction of Brazil's CENIPA and probable cause has not been determined. However, the sequence is clear: the pilot initiated a go-around, and during the climb-out, the aircraft struck power lines that crossed the departure path. The impact was fatal.
NTSB WPR21LA193 (2021): A Cessna 172 on an owner-work flight struck power lines during a go-around after the pilot misaligned with a road instead of the runway during approach in low light conditions. The probable cause was the pilot's failure to locate the airport, with contributing factors including low light conditions and inoperative runway lighting. The pilot mistook a road for the runway, realized the error during approach, and initiated a go-around. During the go-around climb, the aircraft struck power lines that were not visible in the low light until too late.
The common thread: low light, misalignment, and a go-around that encounters obstacles (power lines) during the climb. In WPR21LA193, the pilot's failure to recognize misalignment early meant the go-around was initiated at low altitude (roughly 100 ft AGL), where the margin for error is minimal. The power lines were not visible until the aircraft was committed to the go-around climb.
At Peter O Knight Airport (KTPF), the environment is similar: non-towered, small runway, haze and low light in late afternoon, and power lines in the vicinity of the airport. The off-field environment off Runway 22's departure end is open water — if an engine failure occurs during a go-around climb, a controlled ditching is the only option. The ditching accidents (ATL97LA099, NYC03LA109, BFO91LA069) show that pilots who commit early to a ditching and fly best glide (65 KIAS) have better outcomes than those who attempt marginal turn-backs or uncontrolled descents.
The real accidents cited above occurred at other airports and in other aircraft types — NOT at Peter O Knight Airport. KTPF has its own accident history (see field dominant patterns: forced landing 19.4%, loss of control in-flight 16.7%, ditching 11.1%), but these specific wire-strike and ditching events happened elsewhere. The scenario is localized to KTPF to make the off-field environment (water off Runway 22) and the low-light hazards real and consequential for you as a student here.
The consistent thread: go-around decisions must be made early — at 500 ft AGL or higher — when the margin for error is largest. A go-around initiated at 200 ft AGL or lower, in low light, with obstacles (power lines, towers) in the vicinity, is a high-risk maneuver. The prevention is a stable, aligned approach from 500 ft AGL onward. If the approach is not stable and aligned by 500 ft AGL, go around. If you realize misalignment at 200 ft AGL, a go-around is still the right call — but the margin is thin.
Key lesson — At KTPF, a non-towered airport with power lines in the vicinity and water off three runway ends, the go-around decision is critical. Recognize misalignment early — by 500 ft AGL — and go around before the margin disappears. If you must go around at 200 ft AGL or lower, do so decisively: full power, Vy (79 KIAS), shallow turn away from obstacles. If the engine fails during the go-around climb, best glide at 65 KIAS and a controlled ditching is the correct outcome. The wire strike is preventable: early recognition, early go-around, and awareness of the obstacles in the departure path.
Debrief — teaching points
Go-around decisions must be made early — by 500 ft AGL.
A stable, aligned approach from 500 ft AGL onward is the standard. If the approach is not stable and aligned by 500 ft AGL, go around. The margin for error at 500 ft AGL is large: you have altitude, time, and options. At 200 ft AGL, the margin is gone. A go-around at 200 ft AGL is still the right call if the approach is unstable, but it is a high-risk maneuver. The prevention is early recognition and early decision-making.
Low light and haze reduce visibility of obstacles — power lines, towers, and terrain.
At KTPF, power lines are in the vicinity of the airport. In daylight, they are visible. In low light and haze, they are not visible until the aircraft is close. A late-afternoon approach in haze, with the sun low on the horizon, is a high-risk scenario. If you are not confident in the approach visibility, divert to a nearby airport with better lighting and longer runways. A diversion is not a failure; it is sound airmanship.
The C172R has a steam/vacuum panel — a vacuum failure during a go-around is a partial-panel emergency.
The C172R's attitude indicator and heading indicator are vacuum-driven. A vacuum failure during a go-around climb at low altitude means you lose the attitude reference. The turn coordinator (electric) is your primary reference for wings-level flight. The airspeed indicator, altimeter, and VSI are your other references. Know how to fly partial panel: level wings on the turn coordinator, establish a climb on the VSI and airspeed, and descend to a safe landing. Panic and spatial disorientation are the killers in partial-panel emergencies at low altitude.
Off Runway 22 at KTPF, the off-field environment is open water — an engine failure during go-around climb is a ditching.
The off-field environment off Runway 22's departure end (heading 217°) is mostly open water. If the engine fails during a go-around climb and altitude is insufficient to return to the airport, best glide at 65 KIAS and a controlled ditching is the correct outcome. Doors unlatched before water contact, master off just before impact, flaps for slowest possible touchdown speed. Survival rates in controlled ditchings are significantly higher than in uncontrolled ones or in attempted turn-backs at low altitude.
The C172R is fuel-injected — there is no carburetor heat, but mixture and boost pump are your engine-management tools.
The C172R's Lycoming IO-360-L2A is fuel-injected, not carbureted. There is no carburetor heat. Engine roughness or power loss in the C172R is addressed through mixture (lean/rich), boost pump (on/off), and the fuel system (selector BOTH, fuel quantity). Understand the fuel system: the selector is BOTH, and fuel starvation is not a risk if the selector is on BOTH and fuel quantity is adequate. Engine failure in the C172R is typically fuel contamination, fuel exhaustion, or a mechanical failure — not carburetor ice.
Built from the real accident record
Scenario inspired by NTSB ERA14WA437 (2014, C172R wire strike during go-around in Brazil) and WPR21LA193 (2021, C172 powerline strike during go-around after misalignment in low light). Localized to Peter O Knight Airport (KTPF), Tampa, FL. Real accidents occurred at other airports — NOT at KTPF.
NTSB reports: ERA14WA437 · WPR21LA193 · ATL97LA099 · NYC03LA109 · BFO91LA069
ACS tasks: PA.I.F — Weather Information · PA.I.H — Human Factors · PA.II.E — Approach and Landing · PA.IX.C — Emergency Approach and Landing · PA.IX.D — Systems and Equipment Malfunctions
Relevant FARs: §91.3 · §91.13 · §91.119
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 172R scenarios · More scenarios at KTPF