Long and High on Runway 22
Excess approach energy, a tailwind, and the decision to go around — runway excursion risk in the Cessna 172S
The scenario
Departing Venice Municipal Airport (KVNC), Venice, FL — Runway 22 (true heading 225°), on a personal VFR flight. Field elevation 18 ft MSL. The runway is 5,000 ft long, asphalt, in good condition.
It is a late-afternoon Florida flight: OAT 29°C, altimeter 29.98, wind reported as 180° at 8 knots gusting to 14 knots. That is a direct tailwind on Runway 22 (heading 225°). Visibility 10 SM, scattered clouds at 3,500 ft. KVNC is non-towered Class G airspace; you are operating on CTAF (122.8). No other traffic reported.
You are on short final for Runway 22, 400 ft AGL, descending at 68 KIAS (best glide speed / approach speed). The runway is ahead. But as you descend through 300 ft AGL, you notice the airplane is not descending as steeply as you expected — you are floating. The tailwind is pushing you down the runway. You are still 2,000 ft from the runway threshold, and you are high and long.
Aircraft: Cessna 172S, solo, 1,800 lb (well within limits). Fuel-injected Lycoming IO-360-L2A, fixed-pitch prop, fixed gear, G1000 glass panel. Nothing was written up; the airplane is airworthy. Flaps are at 20° (approach setting).
Pilot: you — a Private pilot, current, roughly 250 hours total. You have 40 hours in the C172S. This is your second approach to KVNC. The tailwind was not obvious on the downwind leg; it became apparent only on short final. You did not request a forward slip or plan for a go-around; you committed to landing.
- {'label': 'Field', 'value': 'KVNC · Venice'}
- {'label': 'Runways', 'value': '4/22 · 13/31'}
- {'label': 'Elevation', 'value': '18 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 landing approach energy, go-around technique, and runway excursion risk 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 aircraft porpoised (pitched up and down abruptly), 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. The tailwind and the improper go-around technique combined to create a loss-of-control scenario.
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 lesson: a go-around requires smooth, coordinated pitch control — abrupt inputs or improper flap retraction can result in a tail strike or porpoising.
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. The lesson: a long landing with inadequate braking performance is a runway excursion waiting to happen.
At Venice Municipal Airport (KVNC), Runway 22 is 5,000 ft long — adequate for a normal landing in the C172S, but not forgiving of a long landing combined with a tailwind. The off-field environment off Runway 22's departure end (heading 225°) is open water and developed areas — not a safe place for a runway excursion. The real accidents cited above occurred at other airports and in other conditions — NOT at KVNC. The scenario is localized to KVNC to make the runway length and off-field environment real and consequential for you as a student here.
The consistent thread across all these events: excess approach energy (high altitude, high airspeed, or tailwind) combined with improper decision-making or technique results in runway excursion. The C172S is a stable, forgiving airplane — but it will not forgive a high-and-long approach combined with a delayed go-around decision or improper go-around technique. The decision window is short: at 300 ft AGL, a go-around is still safe; below 200 ft AGL, the risk of a tail strike or loss of control increases significantly.
Key lesson — A tailwind on final approach increases ground speed and landing distance required. At 300 ft AGL, high and long, with a tailwind, you have three safe options: (1) execute a forward slip to steepen the descent and land on the runway, (2) go around early and request the opposite runway (headwind), or (3) continue the approach and land long with maximum energy management (full flaps, maximum braking). Do NOT attempt a go-around below 200 ft AGL — the risk of a tail strike or porpoising is high. Do NOT accept a runway excursion into grass or water. The decision must be made early, at 300 ft AGL or higher.
Debrief — teaching points
Tailwind on final approach increases landing distance required by 20–30%.
A 10-knot tailwind increases ground speed by 10 knots. In the C172S at 68 KIAS, a 10-knot tailwind increases ground speed from 68 to 78 knots. Landing distance is not linear with ground speed — it increases with the square of speed. A 10-knot increase in ground speed can increase landing distance by 20–30%. At KVNC, Runway 22 is 5,000 ft long. A normal landing in the C172S requires roughly 1,500 ft. A long landing with a tailwind can require 2,000–2,500 ft. The margin shrinks. Always request the runway that gives you a headwind, not a tailwind.
At 300 ft AGL, high and long, you have three safe options: slip, go around, or land long with maximum energy management.
A forward slip is the most direct solution — it increases descent rate and steepens the approach angle without increasing airspeed. In the C172S, the forward slip is approved and effective. A go-around is safe at 300 ft AGL — pitch up smoothly, apply full power, and retract flaps in stages. Continuing the approach and landing long is acceptable if you have the runway length and can execute maximum energy management (full flaps, maximum braking, forward slip if needed). Do NOT attempt a go-around below 200 ft AGL — the risk of a tail strike or loss of control is high.
A go-around requires smooth, coordinated pitch control and staged flap retraction.
The C172S has a tendency to porpoise (pitch up and down abruptly) if pitch control is improper during a go-around. Retract flaps in stages — 20° to 10° to 0° — as the airplane climbs and gains airspeed. Do NOT retract all flaps at once; the sudden loss of lift will cause the nose to pitch down, and you may strike the tail on the runway. Pitch up smoothly to establish a climb, apply full power, and manage the flaps carefully. A go-around is a normal maneuver — execute it with precision.
Maximum braking and a forward slip are tools for energy management on a long landing.
If you are committed to landing long, use all available tools to bleed airspeed and distance. Extend flaps to full 30° (Vfe is 110 KIAS; you are well within limits at 68 KIAS). Apply maximum wheel brakes. Use a forward slip if needed to increase drag and steepen the descent. These tools, used together, can stop the airplane in a surprisingly short distance. A long landing executed with good energy management is safe; a long landing executed with complacency is a runway excursion.
The decision to go around must be made early — at 300 ft AGL or higher.
Below 200 ft AGL, the risk of a tail strike or loss of control during a go-around increases significantly. At 300 ft AGL, you have altitude and time to execute a smooth go-around. At 100 ft AGL, you do not. If you are high and long at 300 ft AGL, make the decision: slip, go around, or land long. Do not wait. The window closes fast.
Built from the real accident record
Scenario built from NTSB CEN23LA159 (2023 C172S go-around porpoise / nose gear collapse / runway excursion), ERA21LA202 (2021 C172S improper pitch control during go-around / tail strike / excursion), and ERA11LA421 (2011 C172S electrical failure / long landing / overrun). Localized to Venice Municipal Airport (KVNC), Venice, FL.
NTSB reports: CEN23LA159 · ERA21LA202 · ERA11LA421
ACS tasks: PA.I.F — Weather Information · PA.VIII.D — Approach and Landing · PA.VIII.E — Go-Around / Rejected Landing · PA.I.H — Human Factors · PA.II.A — Preflight Assessment
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 KVNC