Visual Flight Rules Stabilised Approach: Identifying Human-Factor Influences on Incidents and Accidents During Stabilised Approach, Landing, and Go-Around Flight Phases for General Aviation
Source abstract
Abstract
According to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, between 2013 and 2023, 62% of aviation accidents occurred during the approach, landing, and post-impact phases of flight. Hence, this study targets factors contributing to increased accident rates during the final stages of flight. It will review how pilot experience influences decision-making and identifies mitigation strategies, focusing on go-arounds to prevent accidents during these critical phases. Surveys and roundtable discussions were conducted to identify factors influencing pilot performance during approach, landing, and go-around manoeuvres. By using a mixed-methods approach that combined thematic and statistical analyses, key safety factors were identified, including situational awareness, decision-making, and operational complexity. The study also examined the relationship between experience and decision-making, highlighting areas for targeted interventions to improve safety. The research emphasises the importance of integrating decision-making considerations into training programmes and connecting these to human factors. Through identifying areas for improvement, this study offers a safety-driven framework to address decision-making challenges during approach, landing, and go-around phases, with the objective of reducing accident and incident rates in general aviation.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Human-Automation Interaction and Safety · Occupational Health and Safety Research · Risk and Safety Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London Faculty of Engineering, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK
Funding
Basu Travel Award of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Imperial College London
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. International Civil Aviation Organization (2024, August 30). Review of the Classification and Definitions Used for Civil Aviation Activities. Available online: https://www.icao.int/Meetings/STA10/Documents/Sta10_Wp007_en.pdf.
2. A review of general aviation safety (1984–2017)10.3357/AMHP.4862.2017 ↗
3. Transportation Safety Board of Canada (2024, August 21). Air Transportation Occurrences in 2023. Available online: https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/stats/aviation/2023/ssea-ssao-2023.html.
4. Campbell, A., Zaal, P., Schroeder, J.A., and Shah, S. (2018, January 25–29). Development of possible go-around criteria for transport aircraft. Proceedings of the 2018 Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Atlanta, Georgia.10.2514/6.2018-3198 ↗
5. FAA (2024, August 21). Stabilized Approach and Landing, Available online: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-01/Stabilized%20Approach%20and%20Landing.pdf.
6. Goblet, V., Fala, N., and Marais, K. (2015, January 22–26). Identifying phases of flight in general aviation operations. Proceedings of the 15th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Dallas, TX, USA.10.2514/6.2015-2851 ↗
7. AOPA (2024, August 17). Go Around: Do This if an Approach or Landing Isn’t Working Out. Available online: https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/students/presolo/skills/go-around#:~:text=The%20rule%20of%20thumb%20says,for%20landing%20%E2%80%94%20not%20going%20around.
8. FAA (2025, March 06). Flight Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT), U.S. Department of Transportation, Available online: https://www.faa.gov/media/34256.
9. Blajev, T., and Curtis, W. (2017). Go-Around Decision-Making and Execution Project, Final Report to Flight Safety Foundation.
10. Fatal light aircraft accidents in Ontario: A five year study10.1520/JFS15423J ↗
11. Drinkwater, F.J., and Cooper, G.E. (1958). A Flight Evaluation of the Factors Which Influence the Selection of Landing Approach Speeds, NASA. No. NASA-MEMO-10-6-58A.
12. Flight Safety Foundation (2024, August 21). Stabilized Approach: Importance and Guidelines. Available online: https://flightsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/alar_bn7-1stablizedappr.pdf.
13. General Aviation Joint Steering Committee (GAJSC) (2025, March 03). Loss of Control Work Group Approach and Landing. Available online: http://www.gama.aero/files/ral_Aviation_Joint_Steering_Committee_DLV_v7.pdf.
14. Higgins, J. (2017). The Effects of Visually Uncertain and Ambiguous Conditions on Aircraft Approaches Conducted by General Aviation Aircraft. [Doctoral Dissertation, Saint Louis University].
15. AOPA (2024, August 30). Avoiding, L.O.C.-G. Available online: https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/online-learning/safety-videos/avoiding-loc-g#:~:text=From%20ground%20loops%20to%20veer,questions%20in%20Avoiding%20LOC%2DG.
16. An analysis of human factors in fifty controlled flight into terrain aviation accidents from 2007 to 201710.1016/j.jsr.2019.03.009 ↗
17. Occupant injury severity in general aviation accidents involving excessive landing airspeed10.3357/AMHP.5249.2019 ↗
18. Gibb, R.W. (2007). Visual Perception in Aviation: Glide Path Performance During Impoverished Visual Conditions, Arizona State University.
19. Iiyama, K., Tomita, K., Jagatia, B.A., Nakagawa, T., and Ho, K. (2021). Deep reinforcement learning for safe landing site selection with concurrent consideration of divert maneuvers. arXiv.
20. The importance of domain-dependent cognitive factors in GA safety: Predicting critical incidents with prospective memory, situation awareness, and pilot attributes10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104892 ↗
21. Pilot flying and pilot monitoring’s aircraft state awareness during go-around execution in aviation: A behavioral and eye tracking study10.1080/10508414.2017.1366269 ↗
22. Reducing Go-Around Attempts Based on History of Successful Landings for Aviation in General
23. Go-around accidents and general aviation safety10.1016/j.jsr.2022.06.008 ↗
24. Roth, E., Klein, D., and Ernst, K. (2021). Aviation decision making and situation awareness study: Decision making literature review.
25. Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems10.1518/001872095779049543 ↗
26. Reason, J. (1990). Human Error, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139062367 ↗
27. Wiegmann, D.A., and Shappell, S.A. (2001). Human Error Analysis of Commercial Aviation Accidents Using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS), No. DOT/FAA/AM-01/3.10.1037/e420582004-001 ↗
28. Boyd, J.R. (1987). A Discourse on Winning and Losing, Air University Press.
29. Wickfield, E. Cockpit Leadership: Big Picture. National Associations Newsletter, September/October 1996.
30. How do general aviation pilots choose their route when flying in complex airspace?10.1080/24721840.2019.1596744 ↗
31. Hunter, D.R. (1995, January 24–27). The airman research questionnaire- Characteristics of the American pilot population. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, OH, USA.
32. Pilot situation awareness training in general aviation10.1177/154193120004401107 ↗
33. Situation awareness training for general aviation pilots using eye tracking
34. Evaluation of computer-based situation awareness training for general aviation pilots10.1080/10508414.2010.487013 ↗
35. Broadening the definition of decision making: The role of prechoice screening of options10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00264.x ↗
36. Judgment and decision making10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050747 ↗
37. Pilot decision making during landing point designation10.1007/s10111-012-0233-8 ↗
38. The reinvention of decision making
39. Klein, G.A. (2017). Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions, MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/11307.001.0001 ↗
40. Patterson, E.S., Roth, E.M., and Woods, D.D. (2018). Facets of complexity in situated work. Macrocognition Metrics and Scenarios, CRC Press.10.1201/9781315593173-17 ↗
41. Aviation as a system of systems: Preface to the special issue of human factors in aviation10.1080/00140130903521587 ↗
42. Improving decision making in complexity environment10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00819-3 ↗
43. Guidelines for conducting mixed-methods research: An extension and illustration
44. Mixed methods
45. Qualitative and mixed-methods research in economics: Surprising growth, promising future10.1111/joes.12004 ↗
46. Keogh, E. (2005). Developing a framework for budgeting for household surveys in developing countries. Household Sample Surveys in Developing and Transition Countries, United Nations.
47. Realism, reflection and responsibility: The challenge of writing effective scenarios to support the development of ethical thinking skills
48. Cognitive bias modification: Past perspectives, current findings, and future applications10.1177/1745691611421205 ↗
49. Should we trust survey data? Assessing response simplification and data fabrication10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.03.006 ↗
50. The importance of selection bias in internet surveys10.4236/ojs.2016.63035 ↗
51. The limitations of online surveys10.1177/0253717620957496 ↗
52. Treatment satisfaction of patients with lower urinary tract symptoms: Randomised controlled trials vs. real life practice10.1159/000052400 ↗
53. Interviews, surveys, and the problem of ecological validity
54. Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance10.1037/a0014201 ↗
55. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, Sage Publications. [3rd ed.].
56. Parker, C., Scott, S., and Geddes, A. (2019). Snowball sampling. SAGE Research Methods Foundations, Sage Publications.
57. Thematic analysis
58. Riger, S., and Sigurvinsdottir, R. (2016). Thematic analysis. Handbook of Methodological Approaches to Community-Based Research: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods, Oxford Academic.10.1093/med:psych/9780190243654.003.0004 ↗
59. Mandel, J. (2012). The Statistical Analysis of Experimental Data, Courier Corporation.
60. Nikulin, M.S., and Chimitova, E.V. (2017). Chi-Squared Goodness-of-Fit Tests for Censored Data, John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781119427605 ↗
61. Transport Canada (2024, August 26). Aviation Personnel Licensing Statistics. Available online: https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/licensing-pilots-personnel/aviation-personnel-licensing-statistics.
62. Putting the kappa statistic to use10.1002/qaj.481 ↗
63. Estimating equations for kappa statistics10.1002/sim.603 ↗
64. Fleiss, J.L., Levin, B., and Paik, M.C. (2013). Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, John Wiley & Sons.
65. Fleiss’ kappa statistic without paradoxes10.1007/s11135-014-0003-1 ↗
66. Ordinal regression methods: Survey and experimental study
67. Ordinal regression models for epidemiologic data10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115109 ↗
68. Ethical considerations in qualitative research10.1177/019394598801000204 ↗
69. Kvale, S. (2012). Doing Interviews, Sage.
70. Alliu, A.A. (2020). Power-Distance in the Cockpit: A Study of the Effect of Age and Seniority on the Communication Aspect of Crew Resource Management among Nigerian Pilots. [Doctoral Dissertation, Saint Louis University].
71. Goel, S., Obeng, A., and Rothschild, D. (2024, August 21). Non-Representative Surveys: Fast, Cheap, and Mostly Accurate; Work Pap: 2015. Available online: https://adamobeng.com/download/FastCheapAccurate.pdf.
72. Hohenberger, S., Myers, S., and Pass, R. (2014, January 18–21). ANONIZE: A large-scale anonymous survey system. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Berkeley, CA, USA.10.1109/SP.2014.31 ↗
73. Conceptualizing from the inside: Advantages, complications, and demands on insider positionality
74. Recognizing and resolving the challenges of being an insider researcher in work-integrated learning
75. Understanding how pilots make weather-related decisions10.1207/S15327108IJAP1301_5 ↗
76. Transport Canada (2024, August 28). Flight Test Guide: Private Pilot Licence—aeroplane, 6th ed.; TP 13723E; 2021. Available online: https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/files/2021-02/FLIGHT_TEST_GUIDE_PRIVATE_PILOT_LICENCE_-_AEROPLANE_TP_13723E_SIXTH_EDITION.pdf.
77. Becker, T. (2024). Flight Crew Teamwork and Decision-Making: The Influence of Roles and Attitudes. [Doctoral Dissertation, University of London].
78. Flight Safety Foundation (2024, August 28). Go-Around Risks. Available online: https://flightsafety.org/asw-article/go-around-risks/.
79. Silence in aviation: Development and validation of a tool to measure reasons for aircraft maintenance staff not reporting10.2478/orga-2021-0001 ↗
80. Transport Canada (2024, August 17). Safety Culture Policy Statement: Fundamentals of Safety Culture as a part of a Federally-Regulated Rail Safety Regime. Available online: https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/files/2022-01/SAFETY_CULTURE_POLICY_STATEMENT.pdf.
81. Bailey, R.E., Kramer, L.J., Kennedy, K.D., Stephens, C.L., and Etherington, T.J. (2017, January 17–21). An assessment of reduced crew and single pilot operations in commercial transport aircraft operations. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/AIAA 36th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), St. Petersburg, FL, USA.10.1109/DASC.2017.8101988 ↗
82. Hierarchy in the cockpit: How captains influence the decision-making of young and inexperienced first officers10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105536 ↗
83. Characteristics of pilots who report deliberate versus inadvertent visual flight into instrument meteorological conditions10.1016/j.ssci.2011.10.010 ↗
84. Gao, Z., Lin, P.N., Chakraborty, A., Sells, B.E., Briceno, S.I., Crossley, W.A., and Mavris, D.N. (2018, January 8–12). Challenges and opportunities: A strategic general aviation exploratory analysis for 2030. Proceedings of the 2018 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Kissimmee, FL, USA.10.2514/6.2018-2009 ↗
85. EAA (2024, August 28). To go around or not go around?. Available online: https://inspire.eaa.org/2021/06/15/to-go-around-or-not-go-around/.
86. EASA (2024, August 28). Safety issue report: Skills and knowledge degradation (Rev 2). Available online: https://www.easa.europa.eu/community/system/files/2021-08/Safety%20Issue%20Report%20-%20%20Skills%20and%20Knowledge%20Degradation_REV2%20Clean_0.pdf.
87. Rasmussen, J. (1976). Outlines of a Hybrid Model of the Process Operator, Risø National Laboratory.10.1007/978-1-4684-2523-9_31 ↗
88. Effectiveness of virtual reality simulations for civilian, ab initio pilot training
89. Developing the pilots’ load measuring system10.1108/AEAT-01-2018-0080 ↗
90. Aviation operators (pilots, ATCOs) decision-making process10.1108/AEAT-02-2022-0053 ↗
91. Endsley, M.R. (2001, January 12). Designing for situation awareness in complex systems. Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Symbiosis of Humans, Artifacts and Environment, Kyoto, Japan.
92. Myths and realities of respondent engagement in online surveys10.2501/IJMR-54-5-613-633 ↗
93. Transport Canada (2024, August 29). Standard 421—Flight Crew Permits, Licences, and Ratings: Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs). Available online: https://tc.canada.ca/en/corporate-services/acts-regulations/list-regulations/canadian-aviation-regulations-sor-96-433/standards/standard-421-flight-crew-permits-licences-ratings-canadian-aviation-regulations-cars.
94. Requirements for minimum sample size for sensitivity and specificity analysis
95. Factors affecting individual task prioritisation in a workplace setting10.7861/futurehosp.5-2-138 ↗
96. The role of visual conditions and aircraft type on different aspects of pilot workload10.1016/j.apergo.2024.104268 ↗
97. The influence of pre-flight briefings on flight safety10.19062/1842-9238.2017.15.1.15 ↗
98. Flight Safety Foundation (2024, August 29). Bounce Recovery Techniques. Available online: https://www.flightsafety.org/files/alar_bn6-4-bounce.pdf.
99. Government of Canada (2024, August 19). Statistical summary of civil aviation 2022. Bureau of Statistics., Available online: https://www.bst.gc.ca/sites/default/files/stats/aviation/2022/eng/ssea-ssao-2022.pdf.
100. Training pilots for unexpected events: A simulator study on the advantage of unpredictable and variable scenarios10.1177/0018720818779928 ↗