Don’t Try to Save a Bad Approach
From the Examiner’s Chair
Article No. 12
Fix it early—and know when it is time to go around.
Introduction
A go-around is not an admission of failure.
Sometimes the real failure is continuing an approach that should have been abandoned.
Applicants occasionally believe that initiating a go-around during a practical test means they have failed the landing task. As a result, they continue approaches that are high, fast, slow, low, poorly aligned, or otherwise unstable. They keep making corrections, hoping they can salvage the landing before reaching the runway.
Sometimes they can.
Sometimes each correction creates another problem.
And sometimes the approach reaches a point where the safest—and most professional—decision is to stop trying to save it.
The Approach Was Already Lost
During one private pilot practical test, an applicant arrived high and fast. Instead of going around, he tried to force the airplane onto the runway.
He pushed the nose down and forced the airplane onto the ground. The airplane began to porpoise. Rather than recognizing what was happening and initiating a go-around, he tried to force the nosewheel onto the runway.
At that point, I had to intervene.
A private pilot applicant trying to force a landing after a poorly executed approach is probably the most common reason I have had to physically intervene during a practical test.
The problem usually does not begin at touchdown.
The landing is often the final result of an approach that had already deteriorated. The airplane may be too high, too fast, too low, too slow, poorly aligned, or simply not in a position from which a normal landing can be made.
By the time the airplane reaches the runway, the applicant is no longer making small corrections to a basically stable approach. The applicant is trying to solve several problems at once, with less altitude, less runway, and less time available.
The safest option may already have passed from “correct the approach” to “discontinue the approach.”
One Correction Creates Another
Airspeed control is probably the most common reason I see approaches become unstable.
That does not always mean excessive airspeed.
An applicant who is high and fast may lower the nose, increase the rate of descent, reduce the power, or make other aggressive corrections in an effort to reach the desired touchdown point. Even if the airplane reaches the runway, it may arrive with too much energy to make a normal landing.
The opposite situation can be just as serious.
An applicant who becomes too slow and too low is running out of energy. There may not be enough energy remaining for a normal roundout and flare. The applicant may increase pitch in an effort to stretch the glide, allow the airspeed to decay further, or add power too late.
Hard landings, bounced landings, porpoising, and loss of directional control can follow.
The issue is not simply whether the airplane reaches the runway.
The issue is whether it arrives in a condition from which a safe, controlled landing can reasonably be made.
A pilot should not treat every approach deviation as an emergency. Pilots are expected to make corrections. But when one correction leads to another, and the approach requires increasingly aggressive control inputs to keep it going, that is a warning that the approach may no longer be worth saving.
Fix It Early
In business jet operations, I frequently tell pilots: “Fix it early.”
That advice applies to every airplane.
If you are high and fast ten miles from the airport and still several thousand feet above the ground, fix it then. Make a positive correction while you still have altitude, distance, and time available.
Descending more rapidly from 4,000 feet to 2,000 feet AGL may create a much better setup than trying to smooth out the entire descent while carrying a faster-than-normal rate of descent almost all the way to the runway.
Small problems are usually easier to correct while there is still room to work.
As the airplane gets closer to the ground, the available options begin to disappear. A correction that would have been routine several miles earlier may become rushed or unsafe on short final.
This does not mean every pilot must use the same altitude or distance as an absolute stabilization limit. The appropriate decision point depends on the aircraft, runway, operating environment, weather, and other conditions.
A business jet approaching a short runway requires different planning than a training airplane approaching a long runway. A strong crosswind, contaminated surface, nearby obstacles, or unusual traffic situation may also change the decision.
The exact point may vary. The principle does not:
Recognize the problem early, correct it early, and do not wait until the runway forces the decision for you.
The Go-Around Is a Decision, Not a Failure
The Private Pilot for Airplane Category ACS and Commercial Pilot for Airplane Category ACS make the importance of a timely go-around clear.
With the exception of the commercial power-off 180-degree accuracy approach and landing, the applicable landing tasks include this skill element:
“Execute a timely go-around if the approach cannot be made within the tolerances specified above or for any other condition that may result in an unsafe approach or landing.”
That language matters.
The go-around is not separate from the landing task. The ability to recognize when an approach should be discontinued is one of the skills being evaluated.
If an applicant determines in a timely manner that the approach cannot be completed within standards—or that some other condition may produce an unsafe approach or landing—and then executes a safe go-around, the maneuver is not automatically unsatisfactory.
In fact, the go-around may be exactly what the ACS requires.
What matters is recognition, timing, and execution.
Waiting until the airplane is bouncing, porpoising, departing the side of the runway, or running out of usable pavement is not a timely decision. By then, the applicant may have allowed a correctable approach problem to become a serious safety problem.
A timely go-around demonstrates judgment.
A late reaction may require intervention.
The Power-Off 180 Is Different—but Safety Still Comes First
The commercial pilot power-off 180-degree accuracy approach and landing has specific guidance that applicants and instructors should understand.
Unlike the other landing tasks, it does not contain the same skill element permitting a go-around when the applicant cannot complete the maneuver within the specified tolerances. Appendix 3 of the Commercial Pilot ACS explains:
“Initiating a go-around as a result of an applicant’s inability to complete this Task within the tolerances specified in the skill elements is considered unsatisfactory. Runway safety concerns beyond the control of the applicant or evaluator that necessitate a go-around would not be considered unsatisfactory. The applicant and evaluator must not sacrifice the safety of flight and force a landing to complete this Task.”
I have had applicants go around during the power-off 180.
In some cases, a condition outside the applicant’s control created a legitimate runway-safety concern. In others, the go-around became necessary because the applicant had poorly executed the maneuver and could no longer complete it within standards.
Those situations do not necessarily produce the same practical-test result.
But in both cases, I have commended the applicant’s judgment in discontinuing an unsafe approach.
An applicant may receive a notice of disapproval when the maneuver was not completed within standards. That does not mean the applicant should have forced the airplane onto the runway.
There is an important distinction between the outcome of a task and the safety of a decision.
A go-around caused by poor execution may still result in an unsatisfactory task. Continuing an unsafe landing attempt, however, could result in damaged equipment or injured people.
The ACS does not require anyone to sacrifice safety to complete a maneuver.
When Saving It Becomes the Bigger Risk
Pilots sometimes become committed to completing a landing simply because the runway is in front of them.
That commitment can be intensified during a practical test. The applicant may believe the examiner expects the airplane to land or that going around will reveal weakness.
The opposite is often true.
Good judgment is not demonstrated by forcing every approach to work. It is demonstrated by recognizing when the conditions needed for a safe landing no longer exist.
Warning signs may include:
Airspeed that remains outside the acceptable range
An excessive or rapidly changing descent rate
Insufficient energy for the roundout and flare
Excessive altitude or energy close to the runway
Poor runway alignment
Inadequate crosswind correction
Repeated large control inputs
A balloon, bounce, or porpoise that is not being properly corrected
Traffic, wildlife, an obstruction, or another changing runway condition
The feeling that the pilot is chasing the airplane rather than controlling it
No single list can account for every airplane and every runway.
The question is whether the pilot is still making a normal approach with manageable corrections—or trying to rescue an approach that has already become unsafe.
For Flight Instructors
Students should not learn that a go-around is an emergency procedure used only after something has gone badly wrong.
It is a normal maneuver and an ordinary exercise of pilot-in-command authority.
Instructors should teach students to recognize deteriorating approaches early. Do not limit go-around training to a command from the instructor on short final. Give students opportunities to evaluate the approach and make the decision themselves.
Ask:
Is the airplane on the desired flightpath?
Is the airspeed appropriate and stable?
Is the descent rate reasonable?
Is the airplane properly configured?
Is it aligned with the runway?
Can a normal roundout, flare, and touchdown still be made?
Are the corrections becoming smaller—or larger?
If this approach continues, what is likely to happen next?
Applicants should also understand the difference between ordinary landing tasks and the power-off 180. That distinction should be taught clearly, but it should never be presented as a reason to force an unsafe landing.
A student who believes every approach must end in a landing has learned the wrong lesson.
Putting It Into Practice
Before the next flight, instructors and applicants should discuss what makes an approach stable in the aircraft being flown.
For instructors
Establish realistic stabilization expectations for the aircraft and airport.
Teach students to recognize energy problems, not merely airspeed deviations.
Practice go-arounds from different points in the approach and landing.
Allow students to make the go-around decision without waiting for a command.
Discuss how runway length, wind, obstacles, aircraft performance, and traffic affect the decision.
Teach students to correct developing problems while altitude and distance remain available.
Make it clear that safety takes priority during every maneuver, including the power-off 180.
For applicants
Am I correcting this approach, or am I chasing it?
Can I still make a normal landing without aggressive control inputs?
Is my airspeed stable?
Do I have enough energy for the roundout and flare?
Am I trying to land because the approach is acceptable—or because I am afraid to go around?
If the situation continues to deteriorate, what is my next decision?
Have I practiced go-arounds enough that I can execute one promptly and confidently?
Do not wait until the airplane is on the runway to admit that the approach was unstable.
Fix it early. If it cannot be fixed safely, go around.
From the Examiner’s Chair
I do not expect every approach to be perfect.
Pilots make corrections. Wind changes. Traffic interferes. An airplane may not perform exactly as expected. Recognizing and correcting small deviations is part of flying.
But there is a point at which continuing becomes the greater risk.
A timely, well-executed go-around during most landing tasks does not mean the applicant failed. It may demonstrate the judgment the task was designed to evaluate.
The power-off 180 has different evaluation requirements. If poor execution makes a go-around necessary, the task may be unsatisfactory. Even then, the applicant and evaluator must not sacrifice safety by forcing a landing.
The result of a practical test matters.
The safety of the flight matters more.
Good pilots are not defined by how many bad approaches they can save. They are defined partly by how early they recognize when an approach should no longer be saved.
— Brad Kramer
FAA Designated Pilot Examiner
About the Author
Brad Kramer is an FAA Designated Pilot Examiner based in Evansville, Indiana. He has more than 25 years of aviation experience and has conducted FAA practical tests for more than a decade. His goal is to help applicants and flight instructors better understand the principles behind safe flight operations, sound aeronautical decision-making, and the Airman Certification Standards.
