Assessing unstabilized approaches: A phenomenology study of the risk perceptions and decision-making thought process of general aviation pilots.

The Federal Aviation Administration has emphasized on the need to focus on and develop human factors training as early as 1993 in official Human Factors Policy Order 9550.8 (FAA, 1993). The purpose of this study was to conduct a detailed qualitative phenomenological analysis of the risk perceptions and decision-making model of general aviation pilots for unstabilized approaches. The study focussed on understanding how do general aviation pilots perceived unstable approaches, the risk associated with unstable approaches, and the factors that triggered pilots to execute a go-around. The International Air Transportation Association (IATA) warns that continuing an unstabilized approach can lead to runway excursions, hard landings causing damage to the aircraft, or even controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) (IATA, 2016). The theoretical framework guiding this study was the risk compensation theory. The researchers recruited 15 participants through purposeful sampling for a phenomenological analysis using semi-structured interviews. The use of a phenomenological methodology enabled the researchers to bring forth into consciousness preconceived ideas about unstabilized approaches and then set them aside (Creswell, 2013; Moustakas, 1994). To address the research questions, information collected from individual interviews was analyzed and triangulated with the use of a qualitative questionnaire. There were three major themes that emerged from the data: (a) hesitation, (b) external pressures, and (c) sense of complacency. The findings of this study highlighted the lack of objective stabilized approach criteria. Further research is required for developing standardized and objective stabilization criteria that can be accepted by the general aviation community.