Long and High on Final
Excess approach energy, a go-around decision, and the margin between a safe abort and a runway excursion — the C172S at Tampa Executive
The scenario
Departing Tampa Executive Airport (KVDF), Tampa, FL — Runway 05, on a personal VFR flight. Elevation 22 ft MSL. The field is non-towered (CTAF 122.8); you are operating under 14 CFR §91.3 as pilot in command. Overlying Class B airspace (Tampa Bravo) begins at 3,000 ft MSL.
It is a warm Florida afternoon: OAT 26°C, wind 180° at 12 knots gusting to 18 knots. Runway 05 is oriented 042° true; the wind is nearly a direct crosswind (12–18 knots from the south). Runway 23 (the reciprocal, 222° true) would be a direct tailwind — not an option. Visibility 10 SM, scattered clouds at 3,500 ft. VFR all the way.
You are on short final for Runway 05, 400 ft AGL, descending at 68 KIAS (best glide / approach speed). Flaps are at 20° (approach flaps). The runway is 5,000 ft long — plenty of runway. But you are high on the glide slope. The runway threshold is passing below you; you are still 200 ft AGL at a point where you should be 50 ft AGL. You have excess energy.
Aircraft: Cessna 172S, solo, within limits. Fuel-injected Lycoming IO-360-L2A, fixed-pitch prop, fixed gear, G1000 glass panel. The airplane is airworthy; nothing was written up. Flaps are working normally.
Pilot: you — a Private pilot, current, roughly 250 hours total. You have 40 hours in the C172S. You have landed at KVDF before, but not in gusting crosswind conditions. You are beginning to realize the approach is not stabilized — you are high, and the wind is pushing you around.
- {'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-arounds in the C172S and stabilized approach criteria? (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 aircraft porpoised (pitched up and down uncontrollably), 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 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 accident was attributed to improper pitch control during a go-around in gusting crosswind conditions — the pilot pitched up too aggressively, causing the tail to strike the runway, and then lost directional control in the crosswind.
NTSB ERA11LA421 (2011): A Cessna 172S experienced total electrical failure shortly after takeoff. The electrical failure rendered the flaps inoperable (the flap motor is electrically driven). 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 — landing too far down the runway — combined with the inability to use flaps to slow the airplane.
Tampa Executive Airport (KVDF) has its own accident history dominated by loss-of-control-ground events (18.4%), hard landings (18.4%), and forced landings (15.8%). The field's two runways — Runway 05/23 (5,000 ft) and Runway 18/36 (3,219 ft) — offer different off-field environments. Runway 05's departure end is mostly wooded wetland, medium development, and pasture — marginal but better than open water. Runway 36's departure end is open water and wooded wetland — a ditching environment. The runway choice and the approach energy management are critical.
The real accidents cited above occurred at other airports and in other aircraft — NOT at Tampa Executive Airport. The scenario is localized to KVDF to make the runway environment and the off-field reality consequential for you as a student here.
The consistent thread across all these events: an unstabilized approach in challenging conditions (crosswind, high energy, gusting wind) leads to a go-around decision. The go-around itself — if executed with improper pitch control, aggressive flap retraction, or inadequate altitude — becomes the accident. The C172S is a stable, forgiving airplane, but it will not tolerate improper pitch control or aggressive control inputs at low altitude. The lesson is not 'never go around' — it is 'go around early, from stable altitude, with smooth control inputs.'
Key lesson — An unstabilized approach in gusting crosswind conditions is a go-around candidate. But the go-around itself is a maneuver that demands precise pitch control, staged flap retraction, and adequate altitude. At 150 ft AGL, a go-around is marginal; at 350 ft AGL, it is safe. At KVDF, Runway 05's off-field environment (wooded wetland, medium development) is marginal for a forced landing; Runway 36's environment (open water) is a ditching. Know your runway options and your altitude before you commit to a go-around.
Debrief — teaching points
A stabilized approach is on glide slope, on heading, at approach speed, with a steady descent rate.
In the C172S, a stabilized approach means: on the glide slope (descending toward the runway threshold at a 3° angle), on the assigned heading, at 65 KIAS (Vref, approach speed), with a descent rate of 300–500 ft/min. If you are high on the glide slope, drifting in the wind, or above approach speed, the approach is not stabilized. A high approach in gusting crosswind conditions is a go-around candidate. Do not try to salvage it with aggressive flap extension or a steep descent — go around early, from stable altitude, and re-approach.
A go-around requires positive pitch control and staged flap retraction.
When you go around, advance the throttle to full power, pitch up smoothly to arrest the descent, and establish a climb at Vy (74 KIAS). Retract flaps in stages: 20° → 10° → 0° as airspeed increases. Do not dump all flaps at once — the sudden flap retraction will cause a sharp pitch-up moment and can lead to a stall or loss of control. In gusting crosswind conditions, smooth control inputs are essential. The C172S will not tolerate aggressive control inputs at low altitude.
Altitude is your margin in a go-around — go around early.
A go-around from 350 ft AGL is safe; a go-around from 150 ft AGL is marginal; a go-around from 50 ft AGL is a stall/spin risk. If you realize the approach is unstabilized, go around early — while you still have altitude to execute the maneuver smoothly. The cost of an early go-around is a few minutes of flight time and a re-approach. The cost of a late go-around is a crash.
Gusting crosswind conditions increase the risk of a go-around.
In gusting crosswind conditions, the airplane is already fighting the wind on approach. A go-around adds a maneuver (pitch up, flap retraction, turn back toward the runway) that demands precise control. The wind gusts can push the airplane around during the go-around, making control difficult. If the approach is unstabilized in gusting crosswind conditions, go around early and plan a stabilized re-approach from higher altitude. Do not try to salvage an unstabilized approach in gusting wind.
A firm landing is not a failure — but it has consequences.
A firm landing (touching down with excess airspeed or a steep descent rate) is not a crash, but it stresses the landing gear and the airframe. If you land firm, plan a post-flight inspection before the next flight. The nose gear is particularly vulnerable to firm landings and aggressive braking. The C172S is built to handle firm landings, but repeated firm landings will shorten the life of the landing gear.
Know your runway off-field environment before you depart.
At KVDF, Runway 05's off-field environment (heading 042°) is mostly wooded wetland, medium development, and pasture — marginal but better than open water. Runway 36's off-field environment (heading 360°) is open water and wooded wetland — a ditching environment. If you lose an engine on the Runway 05 departure, you have a marginal forced-landing option. If you lose an engine on the Runway 36 departure, you are ditching. Know this before you line up on the runway. It affects your go-around decision and your risk tolerance.
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). Localized to Tampa Executive Airport (KVDF).
NTSB reports: CEN23LA159 · ERA21LA202 · ERA11LA421
ACS tasks: PA.II.J — Approach and Landing · PA.II.K — Go-Around / Rejected Landing · 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 KVDF