Float and Overshoot at Tampa Executive
Excess approach energy, a short runway, and the decision to go around — runway excursion risk in the C172R
The scenario
Departing Tampa Executive Airport (KVDF), Tampa, FL — Runway 23, landing after a local flight. Elevation 22 ft MSL. Runway 23 is 5,000 ft long, true heading 222°. The off-field environment at the Runway 23 departure end (climb-out heading 222°) is pasture/hay, open water, and medium development — not a comfortable forced-landing option.
It is a typical Florida afternoon: OAT 29°C, winds 180° at 12 kt gusting to 18 kt. Runway 23 is a left-hand pattern from the west. The wind is roughly aligned with the runway but with a slight crosswind component (left crosswind, ~5–8 kt). Visibility is 10 SM, scattered clouds at 3,500 ft. You are in Class G airspace (non-towered, CTAF). Tampa Class B begins at 3,000 ft MSL; you are well below it.
You are on a 3-mile final for Runway 23, 800 ft AGL, descending at 500 fpm. The runway is in sight. You are carrying a bit more speed than ideal — 75 KIAS on final instead of the target 62 KIAS (Vref, short-field approach speed). The approach is stable but slightly high and fast. You have full flaps (30°) and the engine is at idle. You are committed to landing.
Aircraft: Cessna 172R, solo, within limits. Fuel-injected Lycoming IO-360-L2A, fixed-pitch prop, fixed gear, steam panel. The airplane is airworthy; nothing was written up.
Pilot: you — a Private pilot, current, roughly 250 hours total. You have landed at KVDF twice before, but not recently. You are familiar with the runway length (5,000 ft) but have not flown here in three months. You are not particularly sharp on crosswind technique today.
- {'label': 'Field', 'value': 'KVDF · Tampa Executive'}
- {'label': 'Runways', 'value': '5/23 · 18/36'}
- {'label': 'Elevation', 'value': '22 ft'}
- {'label': 'Aircraft', 'value': 'C172R'}
- {'label': 'Dominant phase', 'value': 'Landing / Takeoff'}
The decision
Before we get into the decision tree — what do you already know about runway excursion risk in the C172R? (Pick all that apply; this records your baseline.)
What the record shows
What the NTSB files show
NTSB CEN24LA263 (2024): A Cessna 172R on a power-off 180° maneuver landed too high on the runway and was unable to stop within the remaining distance. The aircraft overran the runway end, breached the perimeter fence, and came to rest upright. The probable cause was the pilot's decision to continue the landing attempt with insufficient runway remaining.
NTSB CEN24LA233 (2024): A Cessna 172R on an instructional flight veered left of the runway centerline during landing; the pilot's correction attempts resulted in a right veer, causing the aircraft to exit the left side of the runway and strike a distance marker. The probable cause was the pilot's failure to maintain directional control during landing.
NTSB ERA22LA280 (2022): A Cessna 172 flown by a student pilot during touch-and-go landings experienced a porpoising landing after an improper flare. The student's attempt to recover by pulling back caused a skid, and subsequent overcompensation with rudder input resulted in a runway excursion and collision with a taxiway sign. The probable cause was the student pilot's improper flare, which resulted in a loss of control during landing.
NTSB ERA21LA249 (2021): A Cessna 172R on a solo cross-country instructional flight experienced loss of directional control during landing when the nose gear contacted the runway. The accident resulted from the student pilot's failure to maintain directional control, resulting in a runway excursion and collision with an airport sign.
NTSB ERA21LA119 (2021): A Cessna 172R on a personal flight veered left off the runway during landing in gusting crosswind conditions and struck the ground with the propeller and left wing tip. The probable cause was the pilot's failure to maintain directional control during landing in a gusting crosswind, which resulted in a loss of control and runway excursion.
The common thread across all these accidents: excess approach energy (too fast, too high), a deep float (consuming runway), and either a failure to go around or a loss of directional control during rollout. Tampa Executive Airport (KVDF) is a non-towered field with Runway 23 at 5,000 ft — adequate for a normal landing, but an overshoot due to float or poor braking can breach the runway end. The real accidents cited above occurred at other airports — NOT at KVDF. However, the runway-length and off-field environment reality at KVDF makes this scenario directly applicable to your operations here.
The off-field environment off Runway 23's departure end (heading 222°) is pasture, open water, and medium development — not a comfortable forced-landing option. An overshoot at KVDF is not a minor excursion; it is a breach of the runway end into terrain or obstacles.
Key lesson — In the C172R, a stable approach at Vref (62 KIAS) is non-negotiable. If the approach is high, fast, or floating, a go-around is always an option — and it is the correct call. Excess approach energy consumes runway, and a deep float forces you to rely on aggressive braking and directional control to avoid an overshoot. At KVDF, Runway 23 is 5,000 ft long; a normal landing uses 2,500–3,000 ft. An overshoot due to float or poor braking breaches the runway end. Commit to a go-around when the approach is unstable, rather than trying to salvage a bad approach with aggressive braking.
Debrief — teaching points
Vref is the target approach speed — landing 10–15 KIAS fast significantly increases float distance.
Vref for the C172R in short-field landing is 62 KIAS with full flaps. Landing at 75 KIAS (13 KIAS fast) increases float distance by roughly 30–40%. The relationship between approach speed and landing distance is not linear — it is exponential. A 10% speed increase results in a 20–25% increase in landing distance. At KVDF, where Runway 23 is 5,000 ft long, landing 75 KIAS instead of 62 KIAS can consume 500–800 ft of additional runway. Scan the airspeed indicator on final approach and adjust pitch and power to maintain Vref.
A go-around is always an option — commit to it early if the approach is unstable.
An unstable approach (too fast, too high, floating, or off-centerline) is a valid reason for a go-around. The C172R has the performance to go around safely at any point on final approach — even at 500 ft AGL. The cost of a go-around is a few minutes and a second approach. The cost of pushing a bad approach is a runway excursion, a loss of directional control, or worse. Establish a personal minimums rule: if the approach is not stable by 500 ft AGL, go around. If the runway is not made by mid-field, go around.
Float consumes runway — a deep float forces aggressive braking and directional control.
Float (ballooning) happens when the approach is too fast or the flare is too shallow. The airplane drifts down the runway at 20–40 ft AGL, consuming runway. A deep float (1,500+ ft down the runway) forces you to rely on aggressive braking and directional control to avoid an overshoot. At KVDF, a deep float can consume 1,500–2,000 ft of runway, leaving only 3,000–3,500 ft to stop. This is a tight margin, especially in crosswind conditions where directional control is challenged. The correct response to a developing float is a go-around, not an attempt to salvage the landing with aggressive braking.
Crosswind gusts during rollout can cause directional control loss — maintain active crosswind inputs.
In crosswind conditions (like the 5–8 kt left crosswind at KVDF Runway 23), gusts during rollout can cause a wing drop or directional control loss. The correct technique is to maintain active crosswind inputs (right rudder and right aileron for a left crosswind) throughout the rollout and braking. Do not relax crosswind control until the aircraft is fully stopped. A gust that catches you with neutral controls during rollout can result in a veer off the runway and a collision with a runway marker or taxiway sign.
Runway 23 at KVDF is 5,000 ft long — adequate for a normal landing, but an overshoot is a breach.
Runway 23 at KVDF is 5,000 ft long. A normal landing in the C172R uses 2,500–3,000 ft, leaving 2,000–2,500 ft of safety margin. However, an overshoot due to float or poor braking breaches the runway end into the off-field environment (pasture, open water, medium development). An overshoot at KVDF is not a minor excursion; it is a breach of the runway end into terrain or obstacles. Know the runway length, know your landing distance, and commit to a go-around if the approach is unstable.
Built from the real accident record
Scenario built from NTSB CEN24LA263, CEN24LA233, ERA22LA280, ERA21LA249, ERA21LA119 (C172R runway excursion / loss of directional control events). Real accidents occurred at various airports — NOT at Tampa Executive Airport (KVDF). Localized to KVDF to highlight the runway-length and off-field environment reality at this field.
NTSB reports: CEN24LA263 · CEN24LA233 · ERA22LA280 · ERA21LA249 · ERA21LA119
ACS tasks: PA.I.F — Weather Information · PA.I.G — Cross-Country Flight Planning · PA.VIII.D — Approach and Landing · PA.VIII.E — Go-Around / Rejected Landing · PA.I.H — Human Factors
Relevant FARs: §91.3 · §91.13 · §91.175
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 KVDF