Go-Around Decision at Peter O Knight
A destabilized approach, a bounced landing, and the critical seconds of a go-around decision — the C172S does not forgive improper pitch control at low altitude
The scenario
Departing Peter O Knight Airport (KTPF), Tampa, FL — Runway 22, a touch-and-go landing practice flight. Elevation 8 ft MSL. You are a Private pilot with roughly 250 hours total time, current and proficient. This is your second solo flight in the C172S after transitioning from a C172M at another school.
It is a warm Tampa afternoon: OAT 31°C, wind from 240° at 12 kt gusting to 18 kt. Runway 22 is oriented 217° true. The wind is nearly aligned with the runway but has a slight tailwind component — roughly 3–5 kt. The gusts are intermittent. Visibility 10 SM, scattered clouds at 3,500 ft. KTPF is non-towered Class G airspace; you are operating on CTAF (122.8). The field is busy — three other aircraft in the pattern.
You have completed two full-stop landings and are on your third approach. The first two landings were acceptable — a bit firm on the second one, but within limits. This approach is different: you are high on the glide path and slightly fast. On short final, you are at 400 ft AGL, 75 KIAS (Vref is 65 KIAS), and the runway is visibly ahead but the descent rate feels shallow. You are committed to the approach.
Aircraft: Cessna 172S, solo, 45 gallons usable fuel (full), within CG and weight limits. Glass panel (G1000), fuel-injected Lycoming IO-360-L2A, fixed gear, fixed-pitch prop. All systems normal. The airplane is airworthy.
Pilot: you — Private, 250 hours, current. You have 8 hours in the C172S; the rest of your time is in the C172M (carbureted, steam panel). The transition training was thorough, but the muscle memory for pitch control and the feel of the glass panel are still new. You have not practiced go-arounds in the C172S — only in the C172M.
- {'label': 'Field', 'value': 'KTPF · Peter O Knight'}
- {'label': 'Runways', 'value': '4/22 · 18/36'}
- {'label': 'Elevation', 'value': '8 ft'}
- {'label': 'Aircraft', 'value': 'C172S'}
- {'label': 'Dominant phase', 'value': 'Landing / Approach'}
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 a personal flight experienced a tailwind on final approach and the pilot attempted a go-around when landing appeared long. The aircraft porpoised (bounced), 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.
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 a go-around in gusting crosswind conditions.
NTSB CEN14CA322 (2014): A Cessna 172S flown by a student pilot 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.
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.
All of these accidents occurred at other airports — NOT at Peter O Knight Airport. However, KTPF's own accident corpus shows that FORCED_LANDING (19.4%), LOSS_OF_CONTROL_INFLIGHT (16.7%), and STALL_SPIN (8.3%) are the dominant patterns. A go-around accident at KTPF would fit the field's historical risk profile.
The consistent thread across all these C172S go-around accidents: excessive back pressure on the control yoke during the flare or go-around induces a stall at an altitude where recovery is impossible. The C172S stalls at 48 KIAS (clean) or 40 KIAS (landing configuration). At 50–100 ft AGL, there is no altitude to recover from a stall. The pilot's failure to maintain airspeed and proper pitch control is the accident.
Key lesson — A go-around in the C172S is not a recovery maneuver — it is a controlled climb away from the runway. The critical errors are: (1) excessive back pressure during the flare, (2) full flap retraction without airspeed management, and (3) holding a nose-high pitch attitude while airspeed decays. The correct technique is: apply full power, establish a positive rate of climb at Vy (74 KIAS), retract flaps in stages while maintaining airspeed above 68 KIAS (best glide), and climb straight ahead. At KTPF, three of the four runway ends have water or dense development as the off-field environment — a stall at low altitude is not survivable.
Debrief — teaching points
A go-around is not a recovery — it is a controlled climb away from the runway.
The moment you recognize an unstable approach, the decision is binary: land smoothly or go around. There is no middle ground. A go-around is initiated by applying full power and establishing a positive rate of climb at Vy (74 KIAS). The airplane will climb at its natural rate; your job is to maintain airspeed and control pitch attitude. Do not try to climb faster by pulling back harder — that induces a stall. Let the airplane climb.
Pitch control during a go-around is the single most critical factor.
Excessive back pressure during a go-around induces a stall at low altitude where recovery is impossible. The C172S stalls at 48 KIAS (clean) or 40 KIAS (landing configuration). At 50–100 ft AGL, there is no altitude to recover. The correct pitch control is: establish a positive rate of climb, maintain airspeed at or above 74 KIAS (Vy), and let the airplane climb at its natural rate. If the stall warning sounds, lower the pitch attitude immediately to regain airspeed.
Flap retraction during a go-around must be staged and coordinated with airspeed.
Full flap retraction at low altitude causes an abrupt pitch change and airspeed decay. The correct technique is: apply full power, establish a positive rate of climb at Vy (74 KIAS), then retract flaps in stages (30° → 20° → 10° → 0°) while maintaining airspeed above 68 KIAS (best glide). Each flap retraction will cause a slight pitch change; anticipate it and adjust pitch attitude to maintain airspeed. Do not retract flaps fully and immediately.
An unstable approach at 400 ft AGL warrants a go-around — not a recovery attempt.
If you are high, fast, slow, or in a slip at 400 ft AGL on short final, the correct decision is to go around. Do not try to salvage the approach with aggressive pitch changes or steep descents. A go-around at 400 ft AGL is safe and normal. A stall at 50 ft AGL is not. The FAA and every accident investigation board agree: unstable approaches lead to accidents. Go around early and often.
A bounced landing is a signal — not a reason to apply back pressure.
If the airplane bounces on touchdown, the correct response is to land again smoothly or go around. Do not apply back pressure to arrest the bounce — that induces a stall at 50 ft AGL. If you are airborne again after a bounce with runway remaining, you have two good options: land smoothly or go around. Both are safe. Applying back pressure is not.
At KTPF, three of the four runway ends have water or dense development as the off-field environment.
Runway 22 climb-out (217°) is over open water. Runway 18 and 36 climb-outs are over open water or dense development. A stall at 50–100 ft AGL during a go-around off any of these runways is not survivable. The margin for error is zero. Pitch control and airspeed management are not optional — they are the difference between walking away and not.
Built from the real accident record
Scenario built from NTSB CEN25LA128 (2025 C172S go-around stall / terrain impact), CEN23LA159 (2023 C172S go-around porpoise / gear collapse), ERA21LA202 (2021 C172S go-around tail strike / crosswind), CEN14CA322 (2014 C172S go-around stall / excessive back pressure), and CEN13LA348 (2013 C172S go-around stall / bounced landing). Localized to KTPF.
NTSB reports: CEN25LA128 · CEN23LA159 · ERA21LA202 · CEN14CA322 · CEN13LA348
ACS tasks: PA.II.D — Approach and Landing · PA.II.E — Go-Around / Rejected Landing · PA.I.H — Human Factors · PA.IX.C — Emergency Approach and Landing · PA.II.B — Engine Starting / Systems Preflight
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 KTPF