Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Plan Continuation Bias

This is an interesting article.

Psychologists call the continuation of an original plan even when information suggests the plan should be abandoned plan continuation bias. Pilots more commonly refer to it as get-there-itis. It’s an unconscious bias that can appear stronger the closer you get to accomplishing an activity (e.g., approach to landing).

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

It is a good article. I can also recommend the “AOPA Air Safety Institute” Accident Case Studies series of videos, which has several good examples of this bias leading to fatal results.

Note that this bias is also present in other walks or life and similarly damaging as in flying, though often not as immediately lethal. Investment decisions or even bad relationships come to mind…

Last Edited by MedEwok at 23 Nov 11:38
Low-hours pilot
EDVM Hildesheim, Germany

There was a related article in Info-Pilote recently on poor changes to a plan of action

They analysed 7 accidents where the pilot changed their plan, then changed or reversed the change, making the situation worse. E.g. the analogy of a car driver who changes lanes in a traffic jam which makes it even slower or has an accident.

  1. Turned back from destination due weather, but convinced by passenger to try again
  2. Gusting wind: changed arrival runway several times
  3. Abort go-around and try to recover the landing
  4. Abort go-around and try to recover the landing (again)
  5. Abort take-off, then start again mid-runway
  6. Spin exercise: try several recovery methods without allowing enough time for any to work
  7. Engine failure in a twin: pilot and instructor followed opposing plans

The sequence of events were summarised

  1. A problem, which needs a decision. Danger level increases.
  2. Action taken. Danger level decreases (or only appears to decrease)
  3. Reversion to original plan. Danger level increases dramatically.

General causes are lack of analysis and too hasty evaluation. A specific possible cause is the difficulty of evaluating concrete values quickly, e.g. runway distance available calculated at home is easy, but in the plane is done by feel. Another is pride / overconfidence / fear of recrimination. There was no real suggestion to combat the problem, other than to prepare better.

EGHO-LFQF-KCLW, United Kingdom

There was a related article in Info-Pilote recently on poor changes to a plan of action

Hmm. We all know that when you read what a journo has written about a field you know well, you get some idea of the value of all the OTHER stuff they write about.

I was the pilot in #3 (or 4) in your list. Let’s just say it didn’t happen at all like the story he constructed on the basis of the BEA report.

LFMD, France

Sorry John. I had no idea. I’ll take any other articles with a pinch of salt. It sounds like the journalist changing the facts to fit the theory.

EGHO-LFQF-KCLW, United Kingdom

Capitaine wrote:

Reversion to original plan. Danger level increases dramatically.

One example that occurs regularly is landing too fast and very long before hasty deciding to go-round with short remaining runway: it’s throwing fuel on fire…usually it’s not clear how much runway one needs when doing touch-and-go or balked landings on new types? on bad flap config?

The advice is to go for long runway with balanced length, if you go for short runway it has to be: go-around very early or full stop and take the loss…

Last Edited by Ibra at 23 Nov 13:59
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Let’s just say it didn’t happen at all like the story he constructed on the basis of the BEA report.

I am not surprised about a junk BEA report. N2195B, D-ESPJ…

I too tend to think that focusing on a landing is safer than the standard advice which is to treat a landing as a go-around, and you land only when everything is going well. That’s ok on a 2km runway but in GA we are often landing on marginal runways and really need to get the landing right. I don’t think I have ever gone around from a landing unless there was a runway obstruction.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I don’t think I have ever gone around from a landing unless there was a runway obstruction.

I have never gone around except for training purposes although I’m pretty focused on such option in case of weather minima or other weather-related potentially dangerous phenomena.

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

I have only gone around from a landing approach three times, but two of them at very low altitude height (<50ft) .

My experience has been that when landing with standard Vref, a transition to a climb is very undramatic. You don’t need full power (although that is SOP) and the flap setting seems to have the biggest impact. Understandably, one does not want to retract flaps when close to the ground, but after power application if you can keep the nose in check the risk of a stall is usually low and a quick airspeed check and perhaps progressive flap retraction minimize any fear of altitude loss.

I could not reasonably have avoided either of those two go arounds which were due to a runway incursion and my own omission in gear-down selection, respectively. Aiming for the runway posed a higher risk than what ended up being a very undramatic go around. The third one was at 500ft when another airplane rolled out on final 50m ahead of me unannounced and then I flew announced formation on him for a few seconds before peeling off for another circuit. Also undramatic.

A different matter is if you are flying short-field approach speeds: then the speed and trim changes required to establish a climb can have a bigger impact. Never happened to me, but usually when in that situation I am typically more focused on landing a’la @Peter. On our plane it is about 72 vs 82KIAS .

Last Edited by Antonio at 23 Nov 17:02
Antonio
LESB, Spain

I could not count the number of times I have chosen to go around – lots. Mostly because I didn’t fly the approach right, not due to external factors. I’m sure for each one of these I could have gotten on the ground without killing myself or someone else, but probably not without aircraft damage. I have never regretted a go-around, but I have regretted some of my ugly landings!

Fly more.
LSGY, Switzerland
15 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top