Selected passages from the existing NFA article. This public introduction offers an operational overview; the complete study is in the member library.
A go-around is a safety barrier
A go-around is not, by itself, an emergency or evidence of failure. It does not necessarily mean that the approach was poorly flown or that someone made an error. It is a planned operational barrier.
It may be required because of runway traffic, an unstable approach, significant wind changes, loss of visual references, changed runway conditions, a technical problem, an ATC instruction or because safe landing conditions no longer exist. In windshear, apply the approved response for the alert or encounter: an escape maneuver must not be confused with a normal go-around.
The FAA recommends early decision-making and commitment to the decision once the maneuver begins. A go-around works best when it is considered a normal alternative from the start of the approach.
The problem does not begin with the go-around call
The visible event begins with the command, but the decision developed earlier: during arrival, when the aircraft became high, when speed remained elevated or when a runway change was accepted.
Perhaps a trend was noticed and judged manageable. Perhaps the first indication of deterioration was rationalized. The final decision results from a sequence. Studying only the maneuver is insufficient; the development of the decision must also be studied.
Instability does not automatically create risk awareness
Two pilots may observe the same parameters and reach different conclusions: “We need to discontinue” or “We can still recover”. An observed deviation and perceived risk are not the same thing.
In the historical FSF research, accounts from pilots who continued unstable approaches differed from those who went around in risk perception and situational awareness. These findings describe associations in recalled experiences, not an individual diagnosis of every pilot. Technical criteria are necessary, but the pilot must also recognize the operational significance of the deviation.
The mind seeks continuity
During arrival, the crew builds a plan: runway, STAR, approach, configuration, autobrake, missed approach, weather, landing distance and ATC. Once the plan is well advanced, continuing may feel like the natural option.
Discontinuing requires replacing “We are landing” with “We are flying an exit flight path again”. The transition appears simple on paper, but reorganizes priorities, tasks and expectations. Preparing for it in the briefing helps reduce that disruption.
Plan continuation bias
Plan continuation bias is the tendency to continue an established plan even when new information indicates that another option may be more appropriate. It does not require a conscious intention to accept risk.
New information may be interpreted within the original expectation. Instead of “Is landing still the best option?”, reasoning shifts to “How can I make this landing work?”. This subtle change deserves recognition and comparison with objective criteria.
Educational material. Current aircraft and operator manuals, SOPs, mandatory criteria and required actions take precedence. These passages do not introduce new procedures or authorize exceptions.
Technical sources from the original article
NFA PROFESSIONAL
Explore the complete study
Continue with the complete existing article, its operational analysis, examples and references in the member library.
Access the complete study in the member area →The professional plan is in preparation. Paid subscriptions are not yet open.CONTINUE THE COLLECTION
Stabilized approach →Energy Management →