We all know the expression “pride comes before a fall.” Pride in this old Biblical proverb can mean overconfidence in our abilities. But I think it could also mean insecurity about our abilities and fear of embarrassing ourselves by appearing foolish or incompetent. Or maybe even appearing not “macho” enough, a trait that can apply to women as well as men.  

I was thinking of this expression recently as I read the NTSB’s 2017 to 2018 Most Wanted safety recommendations. Topping the NTSB’s list again for GA is loss of control in flight. While GA accidents have been trending down—and this can be attributed to a lot of factors, not least the government partnership with a number of GA organizations such as AOPA focused on this issue—the number of accidents remains unacceptably high. For the third year, the NTSB has highlighted the importance of preventing this type of accident, citing data that shows nearly half of all general aviation accidents are caused by loss of control. From 2008 to 2014, the NTSB data shows 1,194 fatalities from these crashes. According to the most recent FAA data, 384 people died in 238 GA accidents last year, with loss of control the number-one reason. This data shows one fatal accident every four days involving loss of control. Think about it. One fatal accident every few days.

Many new pilots are taught “don’t be too proud to go around,” but how well does that lesson stay with them throughout their flying years? I got to thinking about the role pride might play in some of our safety decisions. More specifically, does pride play into safety decisions general aviation pilots make?  Can pride or fear of looking incompetent be a factor in the most common type of general aviation accident—loss-of-control crashes—especially in the decision not to go around when landing?

The NTSB report calls for more pilot training and better awareness of technologies that can help prevent these accidents. The report cites recommendations the NTSB formulated after its October 2015 public forum on preventing loss of control accidents. These recommendations are worth repeating in full:

• Understand stall characteristics and warning signs, and be able to apply appropriate recovery techniques before the stall onset.
• Realize that stall characteristics can vary with aircraft loading and are usually worse at aft cg positions.
• Be aware that stall can occur at lower AOA in icing conditions.
• Use effective aeronautical decision-making techniques and flight risk assessment tools during both pre-flight planning and in-flight operations.
• Manage distractions so that they do not interfere with situational awareness.
• Obtain training in emergency response skills so it is more natural to apply those skills in an emergency.
• Understand and maintain currency in the equipment and airplanes being operated.
• Take advantage of available commercial trainer, type club and transition training opportunities.
• Consider installing new technology, such as an AOA indicator, which when coupled with pilot understanding and training in its best use can assist pilots during critical or high-workload phases of flight.

FAA Guidance

Coincidentally or not, a couple of days after the NTSB issued its Most Wanted list, the FAA disseminated its latest in a series highlighting loss-of-control preventiontechniques. I really hope GA pilots are taking advantage of this excellent series. I spend a fair amount of time criticizing the FAA (which it deserves, of course), but I have to give credit where it’s due. Here, the FAA focuses on when a pilot should go around for safety. The FAA’s message does a particularly helpful job of breaking down how a loss-of-control accident can be prevented on landing and when the decision to go around should be considered.  

Here is the entire section since I do believe it bears repeating anywhere that it might be read by GA pilots:

What is a Stabilized Approach?

A stabilized approach is one in which the pilot establishes and maintains a constant-angle glidepath toward a predetermined point on the landing runway.

However, the pilot must also:

• Maintain a specified descent rate.

• Maintain a specified airspeed.

• Complete all briefings and checklists.

• Configure the aircraft for landing (gear, flaps and so on)

• Maintain the correct altitude levels (such as 500 feet for a VMC approach or 1,000 feet for an IMC approach).

• Ensure only small changes in heading/pitch are necessary to maintain the correct flight path.

Go-Around for Safety

If a pilot does not meet these conditions, the approach becomes “unstabilized” and the pilot should consider a go-around to make a second attempt to land safely.

If you choose to continue with an unstabilized approach, you risk landing too high, too fast or out of alignment with the runway centerline, and may be unprepared for landing. These situations can result in damage to the aircraft or, worse, to you and your passengers!

Important Clues

How you see the runway on your approach is an important factor in maintaining your safety. Pay attention to the shape of the runway. We all know that a runway is an elongated rectangle. However, from the air, the runway can appear to be a trapezoid, with the far end looking narrower than the approach end.

If your approach is too shallow, the runway will appear to shorten and become wider. If it is too steep, the runway will appear to become longer and narrower. These are signs that you may want to consider a go-around.

Reading these suggestions—all of which, as I noted, are excellent—I didn’t see any relating specifically to social or psychological pressure that might push a pilot to continue an approach, even when he or she knows it’s an unstable approach. The one thing I would like to see both the government and the GA alphabet groups tackle head on is the notion that going around is embarrassing or makes you look bad to your passengers, ATC or your fellow pilots. It isn’t just GA pilots who have “ego” problems doing go-arounds. I’ve seen a number of airline accidents where an approach was clearly unstable and the decision to go around would have been the most prudent and avoided an accident or runway excursion. Yetthe crew did not initiate a go-around. (And, yes, I realize that for airline pilots there can be the added factor of company pressure to make on-time performance and manage fuel.)

So I would like to add my own safety recommendation: to regularly remind pilots it’s OK to do a go-around if your approach is unstable or you believe, for whatever reason, a go-around would be prudent. Just like it’s OK to cancel a flight if the weather looks iffy. Or to turn back if a situation develops that makes continued flight unsafe. It might not just be new pilots who need to be told not to let pride be their downfall.  

And while I’m talking about developing a safety culture that makes it OK for GA pilots to go around when it’s appropriate, the rest of us in the industry need to be supportive of pilots who make prudent safety choices even if those choices cause delays. Aviation banter, teasing or pressure that can seem harmless can make it difficult for some pilots to make prudent safety choices for fear of appearing foolish or inadequate before their aviation peers.

In the end, it’s always ultimately the pilot flying’s responsibility to ensure a safe flight for him/herself and passengers. I would just ask that you consider whether any decisions you’ve made when flying were influenced by what others would think of you. And if they were, what can you do to stop that influence from affecting the safety of your future flights?