Long and High on Final
Excess approach energy, a tailwind, and the decision to go around — runway excursion in a glass-panel C172S
The scenario
Departing Peter O Knight Airport (KTPF), Tampa, FL — Runway 22, a 3,583 ft asphalt runway. Elevation 8 ft MSL. You are on a local VFR flight, solo, full fuel, within limits. Aircraft: Cessna 172S with glass G1000 panel, fuel-injected Lycoming IO-360-L2A, fixed gear, fixed-pitch prop.
It is late afternoon, winds are gusting. ATIS reports: winds 200° at 12 knots, gusting to 18 knots. Runway 22 is the active runway (heading 217°). The wind is roughly aligned with the runway, but there is a tailwind component — the wind is coming from behind the runway heading. Visibility 10 SM, scattered clouds 3,500 ft, temperature 26°C, dew point 19°C. KTPF is non-towered Class G airspace; you are on CTAF (122.8). Overlying Class B (Tampa Bravo) begins at 1,200 ft MSL.
You are on short final for Runway 22, 2 nm out, descending through 800 ft MSL. The runway is in sight. You are configured: flaps 20°, landing gear down (fixed), mixture leaned for descent, fuel pump on. Airspeed is 75 KIAS — slightly above Vref (65 KIAS) but acceptable. The approach feels stable.
At 500 ft AGL, you notice the runway is not growing as quickly as expected. The wind gust has shifted; you are now experiencing a tailwind on final. Your ground speed is higher than your airspeed. The runway is still ahead, but you are not descending as steeply as planned. You are going to land long — the first 500 ft of the runway will be behind you when you touch down.
Pilot: you — a Private pilot, current, roughly 250 hours total. You have about 80 hours in the C172S. You are familiar with KTPF from training flights. You have never executed a go-around in gusting wind conditions. Your CFI has emphasized that a go-around is always an option, but you have not practiced one in these conditions.
- {'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 already know about go-arounds in the C172S? (Pick all that apply; this records your baseline.)
What the record shows
What the NTSB files show
NTSB CEN23LA159 (2023): A Cessna 172S on a personal flight experienced a tailwind on final approach. The pilot attempted a go-around when landing appeared long. During the go-around, the pilot retracted flaps abruptly, causing the airplane to porpoise. The nose landing gear contacted the runway hard and collapsed. The airplane departed the runway and came to rest in grass. The probable cause was the pilot's failure to maintain airplane control during the attempted go-around, resulting in abnormal contact with the runway pavement and a runway excursion.
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 the pilot's improper pitch control during a go-around in gusting crosswind conditions, which resulted in a tail strike and a runway excursion.
NTSB ERA11LA421 (2011): A Cessna 172S experienced total electrical failure shortly after takeoff from Lincoln Park Airport, rendering the flaps inoperable. The pilot landed long on the runway with high airspeed and inadequate braking performance, resulting in a runway overrun and collision with a guardrail. The probable cause was the pilot's improper touchdown point, resulting in a runway overrun and collision with a guardrail.
Peter O Knight Airport (KTPF) has its own accident pattern: FORCED_LANDING 19.4%, LOSS_OF_CONTROL_INFLIGHT 16.7%, LOSS_OF_CONTROL_GROUND 11.1%, DITCHING 11.1%, STALL_SPIN 8.3%. Runway excursions are not the dominant pattern, but they are a known risk at this field. The runway 22 departure end is over open water — a forced landing off that end is a ditching, not a field landing. This makes the decision to go around vs. continue the approach more consequential: a go-around in marginal conditions can result in a runway excursion; a long landing on a long runway is safe.
The real accidents cited above occurred at other airports and in other aircraft — NOT at KTPF. The scenario is localized to KTPF to make the runway length and off-field environment real and consequential for you as a student here. The decision to go around vs. continue a long landing depends on the runway length and the off-field environment. At KTPF, Runway 22 is 3,583 ft — long enough for a safe long landing. The decision calculus is different at a shorter runway.
The consistent thread across all these events: a go-around in gusting wind conditions requires smooth, precise pitch and flap control. Aggressive pitch, abrupt flap retraction, or improper control inputs during a go-around can result in a tail strike, porpoise, or loss of control. The C172S is a stable airplane, but it is not forgiving of poor technique during a go-around at low altitude.
Key lesson — At KTPF, Runway 22 is 3,583 ft — long enough for a safe long landing if you land in the second half of the runway and manage braking correctly. A tailwind on final will push you down the runway, but the runway is still long. A go-around in gusting wind conditions is riskier than a long landing on a long runway. If you do go around, execute it with smooth, precise control: full throttle, flaps retracted in stages (not all at once), pitch smoothly for Vy (74 KIAS). Aggressive pitch or abrupt flap retraction can result in a tail strike, porpoise, or loss of control at low altitude.
Debrief — teaching points
A long landing on a long runway is safe — a go-around in marginal conditions is risky.
Runway 22 at KTPF is 3,583 ft. Landing 1,800 ft down the runway leaves 1,783 ft for rollout and braking — plenty of distance. A tailwind on final will push you down the runway, but the runway is still long. A go-around at 300–400 ft AGL in gusting wind conditions is riskier than a long landing on a long runway. The decision to go around should be based on whether the approach is unstable or the landing distance is marginal — not on whether the landing is long. At KTPF, a long landing is safe.
Go-around pitch control must be smooth and gradual — not aggressive.
A go-around requires full throttle and a climb at Vy (74 KIAS). But the pitch control must be smooth and gradual. Pitching up too aggressively at low altitude can bring the tail close to the runway surface — a tail strike can result from a gust or a moment of inattention. The pitch attitude should be established gradually, with reference to the attitude indicator on the G1000 PFD. At 300 ft AGL, a steep pitch attitude is dangerous.
Flap retraction during a go-around must be in stages — not all at once.
Retracting all flaps at once causes a sudden loss of flap lift, which creates a pitch-down moment. You have to pitch up to recover, creating an abrupt pitch oscillation — a porpoise. At low altitude, a porpoise can result in the nose gear contacting the runway hard, which can collapse the gear. Flaps should be retracted from 20° to 10° to 0° in stages, with time for the airplane to stabilize between each retraction. The G1000 flap indicator will show the current flap position.
A go-around in gusting crosswind conditions is more difficult than in calm wind.
Gusting winds make the airplane less stable and require more precise control. During a go-around in gusting wind, the airplane may be buffeted by wind gusts, and the pitch and roll control may feel sensitive. The pilot must be prepared for wind gusts and must maintain smooth, precise control inputs. A forward slip in gusting wind is also risky — the slip reduces stability and can result in loss of control if a gust hits during the slip.
The C172S G1000 glass panel provides precise pitch and roll information — use it.
The G1000 PFD displays the pitch attitude (the artificial horizon), the airspeed, the altitude, and the vertical speed. During a go-around, reference the pitch attitude to establish a smooth climb at Vy (74 KIAS). The vertical speed indicator will show whether you are climbing at the desired rate. The airspeed indicator will show whether you are maintaining Vy. Use the glass panel to fly a smooth, stable go-around — do not rely on feel alone.
Built from the real accident record
Scenario built from NTSB CEN23LA159 (2023 C172S go-around porpoise / nose gear collapse), ERA21LA202 (2021 C172S improper pitch control go-around / tail strike), and ERA11LA421 (2011 C172S electrical failure / long landing / runway overrun). Anonymized and localized to KTPF.
NTSB reports: CEN23LA159 · ERA21LA202 · ERA11LA421
ACS tasks: PA.II.E — Approach and Landing · PA.II.F — Go-Around / Rejected Landing · PA.I.F — Weather Information · PA.I.H — Human Factors · PA.IX.C — Emergency Approach and Landing
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 KTPF