In the post below about stable approaches I
promised to touch on the issue of the go-around and that raises two important
questions surrounding the manoeuvre:
However, I think it misses one fundamental factor. I stress here that I am not a psychologist (I would happily listen if you are) but I am a commercial pilot and instructor who has flown thousands of approaches and quite a few go-arounds. Crucially the go-around is not what we set out to do; we set out to land at our destination. No matter how much we briefed for the potential go-around it was never the real goal - keep your eyes on the prize! This conflict between our established intent to land and the alternative of a go-around (however appropriate it may be), which will thwart that outcome, must influence our behaviours and choices in the brief period available for making decisions. As I understand it the human desire to complete a task once started is characterised by something termed the Ziegarnik Effect, about which much can be found on the internet.
So to answer the two questions above, pilots don’t go-around because subconsciously they don’t want to – they want to land just like they said they would before they took off. And if they do go-around the ‘dissonance’ (good psycho-word) between what they wanted to do and what they actually did reduces cognitive (and another) capacity to correctly handle what is the most dynamic manoeuvre we execute in normal flight.
And if you doubt those last few words consider the other manoeuvres we fly: take-off only requires a change in pitch; landing requires a change in pitch and thrust; a go-around requires changes to pitch, thrust, configuration, trim and altitude target - perhaps lateral navigation as well.
- Why do pilots frequently fail to initiate a go-around when it would be the most appropriate and safest option?
- If a go-around is initiated why is it often incorrectly executed?
However, I think it misses one fundamental factor. I stress here that I am not a psychologist (I would happily listen if you are) but I am a commercial pilot and instructor who has flown thousands of approaches and quite a few go-arounds. Crucially the go-around is not what we set out to do; we set out to land at our destination. No matter how much we briefed for the potential go-around it was never the real goal - keep your eyes on the prize! This conflict between our established intent to land and the alternative of a go-around (however appropriate it may be), which will thwart that outcome, must influence our behaviours and choices in the brief period available for making decisions. As I understand it the human desire to complete a task once started is characterised by something termed the Ziegarnik Effect, about which much can be found on the internet.
So to answer the two questions above, pilots don’t go-around because subconsciously they don’t want to – they want to land just like they said they would before they took off. And if they do go-around the ‘dissonance’ (good psycho-word) between what they wanted to do and what they actually did reduces cognitive (and another) capacity to correctly handle what is the most dynamic manoeuvre we execute in normal flight.
And if you doubt those last few words consider the other manoeuvres we fly: take-off only requires a change in pitch; landing requires a change in pitch and thrust; a go-around requires changes to pitch, thrust, configuration, trim and altitude target - perhaps lateral navigation as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment