Pilot Decision Making: Approach and Landing

Recent events have prompted many questions about the decision-making process pilots go through during an approach and landing. Below is a summary of the steps involved.

Photo by Ilyas Dautov on Unsplash

Planning

Before passengers even board the flight, a team of professionals considers numerous factors at the destination. These include:

• Actual and forecasted wind, visibility, and cloud ceiling
• Runway conditions
• Navigational aids
• Aircraft, airport, and approach limitations
• Crew limitations
• Available services

In Canada, unless the destination has excellent weather forecasts and more than one runway, regulations require a legal alternate airport with adequate weather conditions (depending on the type and number of approaches). An aircraft must always carry enough fuel to reach its destination, fly to the alternate, and hold additional reserves (45 minutes for propeller aircraft, 30 minutes for jets). This adds safety but also complexity. During widespread poor weather, finding a suitable alternate nearby can be challenging. Some airlines plan for enough fuel to return to the departure airport, which may be more practical for passengers than diverting to a remote location.

En Route

Planning doesn’t stop once the aircraft is airborne. Dispatchers continuously monitor weather and other variables at the destination and alternate airports. This information is relayed to the pilots if necessary. As the aircraft approaches the destination, pilots begin assessing specific weather conditions and planning their approach.

Typically, pilots aim for a runway aligned with the wind and equipped with an appropriate approach procedure. However, they may select a runway with a crosswind or slight tailwind if the approach better suits the conditions. Factors such as wind speed, approach type, aircraft weight, and runway conditions are all considered to determine whether it’s safe to proceed.

Approach

By the time the aircraft is within 50 miles of the airport, pilots usually have a clear plan of action. They’ve reviewed the conditions, programmed and briefed the approach, and calculated the runway distance required to stop the aircraft.

In some situations, weather conditions may be “at limits” or “below limits.” These limits are set by regulations, aircraft capabilities, crew training, or company policies. Often, these limits dictate whether pilots can attempt an approach. Even when legal to proceed, there may be a low likelihood of seeing the runway.

Approaches vary in accuracy. Less accurate approaches don’t bring aircraft as close to the runway or as low to the ground as more precise options, like an Instrument Landing System (ILS). These approaches aren’t unsafe but are designed for specific weather conditions. Airports with high traffic volumes, frequent poor weather, and well-equipped aircraft often have ILS, which can guide planes as low as 200 feet or less above the ground. In contrast, GPS approaches are a cost-effective alternative and can bring planes as low as 250 feet, though not all aircraft are GPS-equipped. Less accurate approaches provide higher safety margins by keeping planes further from the ground.

Landing

Landing involves visually manoeuvring the aircraft from the approach to the runway. This means pilots must see the runway to land. If they reach the lowest altitude approved for the approach and can’t see the runway, they must execute a go-around.

A go-around, or missed approach, involves discontinuing the landing attempt and climbing away from the ground. Frequent flyers may have experienced a go-around, which is used not only for visibility issues but for any safety concerns raised by the pilots or air traffic control. If you’ve ever landed in poor visibility and thought, “Wow, the pilots landed in zero visibility,” rest assured that they still saw the runway at a safe altitude and visually guided the plane to the ground.

Conclusion

Recent speculation in the media has raised concerns about whether certain airlines and airports have adequate equipment to ensure safe landings. This is misleading. If an airport lacks the necessary equipment for safe landing, the result isn’t a dangerous attempt but rather a diversion to an alternate airport.

While diversions can be inconvenient, they are often a result of prioritizing safety. As pilots, we are trained to err on the side of caution, even if it inconveniences passengers. This commitment to safety often leads to criticism but also earns gratitude from those who understand our responsibility.

The media may sensationalize air travel issues, but it’s important to remember that pilots are professionals with families and loved ones, just like the passengers they serve. We take our job seriously and strive to maintain air travel as the safest mode of transportation. Despite occasional mistakes or system failures, thousands of dedicated professionals work tirelessly to uphold safety standards. Let’s keep that in mind the next time we take to the skies.