Destabilized on Final — Go-Around Decision at Tampa Executive
A bounced landing, a low go-around, and the margin between recovery and terrain impact — the C172S demands precise pitch control
The scenario
Departing Tampa Executive Airport (KVDF), Tampa, FL — Runway 23, landing after a local training flight. Elevation 22 ft MSL. The runway is 5,000 ft of asphalt, oriented 222° magnetic (true heading 222°).
It is a gusty Florida afternoon: OAT 26°C, wind 180° at 12 gusting to 18 knots. This is a crosswind on Runway 23 — roughly 8–10 knots of crosswind component, with gusts pushing toward 12 knots. Visibility 10 SM, scattered clouds at 3,000 ft. A typical Tampa Executive day — busy, gusty, and unforgiving of sloppy technique.
You are on short final for Runway 23, 400 ft AGL, descending at 68 KIAS (Vref, approach speed). The approach has been stable until now, but the last 200 ft have been ragged: a gust pushed you high, you corrected with forward pressure, the gust eased and you drifted low, you corrected again. The runway is ahead. You are not in a stable descent. The wind is gusting.
Aircraft: Cessna 172S, solo, within limits. Fuel-injected Lycoming IO-360-L2A, fixed-pitch prop, glass panel (G1000), fixed gear. Flaps are at 30° (full). You have 1,500 ft of runway ahead.
Pilot: you — a Private pilot, current, roughly 250 hours total. You have landed at KVDF before, but not in these wind conditions. You are aware the approach is not stable, but you are committed to the landing.
- {'label': 'Field', 'value': 'KVDF · Tampa Executive'}
- {'label': 'Runways', 'value': '5/23 · 18/36'}
- {'label': 'Elevation', 'value': '22 ft'}
- {'label': 'Aircraft', 'value': 'C172S'}
- {'label': 'Dominant phase', 'value': 'Landing / Takeoff'}
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 when the pilot failed to maintain adequate airspeed during a go-around near a tree line at low altitude. The probable cause was the pilot's failure to maintain airplane control and adequate airspeed during the go-around, resulting in an aerodynamic stall and terrain impact. The accident occurred at a different airport, but the mechanism — a stall during a low-altitude go-around — is identical to the risk in this scenario.
NTSB CEN23LA159 (2023): A Cessna 172S on final approach experienced a tailwind and the pilot attempted a go-around when landing appeared long. The aircraft porpoised, the nose landing gear collapsed, and the aircraft departed the runway. The probable cause was the pilot's failure to maintain airplane control during the go-around, resulting in abnormal contact with the runway and a runway excursion. The tailwind (a destabilizing factor) combined with improper go-around technique (pitch control) created the accident.
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. This accident mirrors the scenario's conditions exactly: gusting crosswind, high and slow on final, go-around initiated, improper pitch control (excessive back pressure) induced the stall.
NTSB CEN14CA322 (2014): A Cessna 172S being 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 the go-around that induced a stall and loss of control. The student's instinctive reaction to the bounce — pulling back — is the exact error that kills pilots in this scenario.
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 the bounced landing, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall during the go-around. The pattern is clear: bounced landing → instinctive pull-back → stall at low altitude → impact.
All these accidents occurred at other airports — NOT at Tampa Executive Airport (KVDF). However, KVDF's own accident corpus shows LOSS_OF_CONTROL_GROUND (18.4%), HARD_LANDING (18.4%), and FORCED_LANDING (15.8%) as the dominant patterns — suggesting that landing-phase control and decision-making are the critical vulnerabilities at this field. The scenario is localized to KVDF to make the off-runway environment (pasture/hay and open water off Runway 23's departure end) real and consequential for you as a student here.
The consistent thread across all these events: the go-around is not a single action (advance throttle, climb); it is a precise maneuver that demands careful pitch control. Excessive back pressure — trying to climb too steeply — induces a stall at low altitude where recovery is impossible. The C172S stalls at 40 KIAS in landing configuration (Vs0). At 50 KIAS in the flare, you are 10 knots above stall — a margin that disappears with a gust and a pull on the yoke.
Key lesson — An unstable approach in gusting crosswind conditions at Tampa Executive demands an early go-around decision. A go-around from 400 ft AGL is safe and clean; a go-around from 100 ft AGL is marginal; a go-around from 20 ft AGL is survivable only if you manage pitch carefully (nose down to establish airspeed, not up). The C172S's stall speed in landing configuration is 40 KIAS — a slow, unstable approach at low altitude is a stall waiting to happen. Recognize the instability early and go around. Do not try to salvage an unstable landing by adding back pressure; that is the mechanism of every stall-on-landing accident in this airplane.
Debrief — teaching points
A stable approach is defined by three criteria — all must be met by 500 ft AGL.
A stable approach means: (1) a steady descent rate (not high, not low, not correcting), (2) constant airspeed (Vref = 65 KIAS for the C172S, or 68 KIAS best glide if you are not yet in the flare), and (3) alignment with the runway (not drifting left or right, not correcting). If any of these is not met by 500 ft AGL, a go-around is the correct decision. In gusting crosswind conditions, an unstable approach is the norm — the wind is doing the destabilizing. The question is not 'Is the approach unstable?' but 'Can I stabilize it by 500 ft AGL?' If the answer is no, go around.
A go-around from a stable altitude is always safer than landing unstable.
The C172S has 5,000 ft of runway at KVDF Runway 23. A go-around from 400 ft AGL costs you 400 ft of altitude and a few seconds of time. You re-enter the pattern, fly another approach, and land. The cost is minimal. A hard landing or stall from an unstable approach costs you the airplane and possibly your life. The decision is simple: if the approach is unstable at 500 ft AGL, go around. Do not try to salvage it.
During a go-around, pitch control is critical — excessive back pressure induces a stall.
Go-around procedure for the C172S: (1) Advance throttle to full power. (2) Establish a climb at 74 KIAS (Vy, best rate of climb). (3) Retract flaps to 20° (not full retraction — full retraction can cause a pitch-down that is hard to control). (4) Trim as needed. The critical error is excessive back pressure trying to climb steeply. At low altitude, a stall is fatal. The nose must come down to establish airspeed; the climb will follow. If you are at 100 ft AGL and the airspeed is 55 KIAS, pitch forward to establish 74 KIAS — do not pull back.
A bounced landing is a go-around, not a recovery.
If the airplane bounces on landing, the correct response is to go around immediately. Do not try to salvage the landing by adding back pressure (the instinctive reaction). A bounce means the airplane is airborne again at low altitude with low airspeed — exactly the conditions for a stall. Advance throttle, establish a climb at 74 KIAS, retract flaps to 20°, and go around. The second landing will be better.
Gusting crosswind conditions increase the likelihood of an unstable approach.
At KVDF, Runway 23 is oriented 222° (true). A wind from 180° is a crosswind. A 12-knot wind gusting to 18 knots creates a crosswind component of roughly 8–10 knots gusting to 12 knots. This is within the C172S's demonstrated crosswind capability (roughly 15 knots), but it is at the edge of comfort for a Private pilot. Gusts push the airplane high, you correct with forward pressure, the gust eases and you drift low, you correct again. The approach becomes ragged and unstable. In these conditions, a go-around from 400 ft AGL is not a failure — it is airmanship.
The C172S stalls at 40 KIAS in landing configuration (Vs0).
Vref (approach speed) for the C172S is 65 KIAS. In the flare, if the airspeed decays to 50 KIAS and a gust causes you to pull back, the airspeed can drop to 40 KIAS — stall speed. At 25 ft AGL, there is no altitude to recover. The stall is sudden and violent; the nose drops, a wing drops, and the airplane impacts the runway. A slow, unstable approach is a stall waiting to happen. Maintain Vref (65 KIAS) all the way to the flare; do not let the airspeed decay.
Built from the real accident record
Scenario built from NTSB CEN25LA128 (2025 C172S stall during go-around after flare loss of control), CEN23LA159 (2023 C172S porpoise and go-around loss of control), ERA21LA202 (2021 C172S tail strike and excursion during go-around in crosswind), CEN14CA322 (2014 C172S stall from excessive back pressure during go-around), and CEN13LA348 (2013 C172S stall during go-around after bounced landing). Localized to Tampa Executive Airport (KVDF).
NTSB reports: CEN25LA128 · CEN23LA159 · ERA21LA202 · CEN14CA322 · CEN13LA348
ACS tasks: PA.II.E — Approach and Landing · PA.II.F — Go-Around / Rejected Landing · PA.I.H — Human Factors · PA.IX.C — Emergency Approach and Landing
Relevant FARs: §91.3 · §91.13 · §91.21
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 KVDF