The Go-Around Decision: Why Pilots Wait Too Long

The airplane floats past the intended touchdown point. The crosswind correction is getting untidy, the runway is disappearing under the nose, and a small voice says, “This is still salvageable.” That voice is often the last thing a pilot should trust.

The go-around decision is rarely difficult because pilots do not know how to perform the maneuver. The harder problem is recognizing—then accepting—that the approach has stopped developing as planned. Each extra second invites another correction, another compromise, and another reason to continue.

A go-around is not an admission that the flight went wrong. It is a normal transition from an approach to a climb when the conditions for landing are not there. Treating it that way, however, requires more than repeating “go around if unstable” during a briefing.

Why the go-around decision keeps getting delayed

An approach creates momentum in the pilot’s mind. The checklist is complete, the airplane is configured, the runway is close, and everyone expects the next event to be a landing. Abandoning that sequence takes a deliberate mental reset.

This is often described as plan continuation bias: once people commit to a plan, they tend to keep pursuing it even when changing conditions weaken the original case for it. In the cockpit, the bias can sound perfectly reasonable: “The next correction will fix it,” “There is plenty of runway,” or “I don’t want to make another circuit.”

Several pressures can reinforce it. A pilot may be tired after a long leg, concerned about fuel, uncomfortable inconveniencing a controller, or reluctant to disappoint passengers. A student may want to prove that the landing can be saved. An experienced pilot may be vulnerable for the opposite reason: confidence built over hundreds of successful landings can make one more correction seem harmless.

None of those pressures improves the approach. They merely raise the emotional cost of discontinuing it.

A landing is earned by the approach

A stabilized approach is not simply one with the airspeed needle near a preferred number. The airplane should be on an appropriate flight path, properly configured, under control, and requiring only ordinary corrections to continue toward the intended touchdown area. The details depend on the aircraft, operation, runway, weather, and guidance in the POH or AFM and approved procedures.

The FAA’s Airplane Flying Handbook treats the go-around as a standard maneuver and emphasizes prompt power application, control of pitch, configuration changes in the proper sequence, and maintaining directional control. Aircraft-specific procedures take precedence, but the larger lesson is universal: delaying the decision compresses the time available to carry out those actions correctly.

Useful go-around cues include an approach that is not stabilized by the pilot’s predetermined gate, excessive sink or speed, repeated large control inputs, poor runway alignment, an unexpected runway incursion or obstruction, loss of required visual reference, an unacceptable bounce, or a touchdown that is no longer occurring where planned. A warning from an instructor, safety pilot, or passenger may also reveal something the flying pilot has not processed yet.

The list cannot cover every situation. That is why pilots need both objective limits and a broader escape clause: if the approach no longer looks or feels right, go around.

Set the decision before workload peaks

The worst time to invent go-around criteria is while crossing the threshold with excess energy. Decide them during preflight planning or before beginning the approach, when there is enough mental capacity to be honest.

A short approach brief can answer four questions:

• What airspeed, configuration, flight path, and alignment should be established?
• At what altitude or point must the approach be stable?
• What runway conditions, traffic conflicts, wind changes, or touchdown results will trigger a go-around?
• What is the aircraft-specific go-around procedure, and what obstacles or traffic-pattern considerations matter?

For many GA pilots, the most effective rule is simple: a limit is a limit, not the opening offer in a negotiation. If the approach misses the selected gate, the response should already have been decided. This removes the temptation to assess the same deteriorating situation repeatedly at lower altitude.

Keep the cockpit arranged so the maneuver does not begin with a scavenger hunt. Charts, checklists, and electronic flight bags should be readable without blocking controls or demanding prolonged head-down attention. A compact option such as the Dream Pilot Magic Kneeboard can keep a compatible phone or tablet on the thigh in portrait or landscape orientation. Whatever mounting method is used, confirm before flight that it does not restrict full control movement, interfere with belts, or complicate rapid access to switches and levers.

Execute first, explain second

Once the decision is made, fly the airplane. Apply power, manage pitch, maintain directional control, and reconfigure in the sequence specified for the aircraft. Trim changes and configuration changes can produce substantial forces, particularly when power is added from a landing configuration. Rushing to retract flaps or gear without following the POH or approved checklist can create a new problem at the moment the airplane has the least spare energy.

Radio work comes after aircraft control. At a towered airport, advise ATC as soon as practical and follow instructions, but do not let the desire for a polished transmission delay the maneuver. At a nontowered airport, communicate clearly when workload permits and remain alert for traffic that may not have heard—or may not be using—the frequency.

A go-around also does not erase the hazards that caused it. A gusty crosswind remains gusty. Wildlife may remain near the runway. Another aircraft may still be in the pattern. After establishing the climb, reassess fuel, weather, traffic, and pilot condition. Sometimes another approach is sensible; sometimes the better decision is to hold, change runways, or divert.

Training should include the awkward go-arounds

Planned go-arounds at a comfortable altitude are useful for learning the sequence, but they do not reproduce the surprise and workload of a real rejected landing. With a qualified instructor and within appropriate operating limits, training should also cover scenarios such as a late runway obstruction, a bounced landing, an unexpected loss of alignment, and a go-around initiated after the flare.

The aim is not to make the exercise dramatic. It is to build recognition and disciplined sequencing. Pilots should know how the airplane feels when power is applied in landing trim, how much right rudder may be needed in a typical single-engine airplane, and how configuration changes affect climb performance. Exact control inputs are aircraft- and condition-dependent; memorized generic recipes are not substitutes for the POH, AFM, or instruction.

Briefing passengers helps too. A sentence before arrival—“We may climb away and make another approach if the runway or wind is not right”—removes the feeling that a go-around needs an apology. It also reduces the chance that a surprised passenger will distract the pilot at a busy moment.

Debrief the decision, not just the landing

After the flight, ask when the approach first stopped meeting the plan. Was the cue noticed immediately? If so, why did continuation still feel attractive? Did fatigue, traffic, embarrassment, or the desire to finish the flight influence the choice?

The NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System is also valuable reading because its reports show how ordinary operational pressure, incomplete communication, and expectation can shape cockpit decisions. The point is not to search for a story identical to your flight. It is to become better at spotting the familiar chain: a minor deviation, a hopeful correction, another deviation, and a shrinking margin.

The best go-around is usually the one started before it becomes urgent. Establish clear criteria, brief the escape path, keep the cockpit ready, and act when the first honest assessment says the landing is no longer set up properly. A second approach costs a few minutes. Trying to rescue an approach below your own limits can cost far more.