The recent airplane accident involving the Asiana Airlines (AA) flight 214 at San Francisco airport reveals the importance of cockpit decisions just before an airplane touches down. One important decision that every pilot has to make in the cockpit before landing is whether to land in the prevailing conditions (a risky option), or whether to go-around and try again (a safe option).
As told by flight recorders, the AA 214 was flying much below its landing altitude as well as much below its minimum velocity; yet, the pilots attempted to land the airplane in such unfavourable conditions when the logic dictated one to abort the risky landing and go-around. As the AA 214 case highlights, the correctness of this simple decision has the potential to save the lives of all on-board. Yet, pilots often take risks and seldom go-around even when they should. One might then ask: What is the logic behind such irrational decisions?
According to Maxime Gariel and colleagues at MIT, go-around decisions are less common in cockpits as such decisions tend to intensify the workload of air traffic controllers, as landing sequences must be amended to accommodate the aircraft that failed to land. Secondly, go-arounds are also perceived as undesirable from a safety perspective: The requisite overhauling of schedules through go-arounds taxes an airport system that maintains high-safety standards largely through comprehensive planning and delegation. Thirdly, go-arounds are avoided as they are costly for airlines, both in terms of the added fuel cost and the logistic delays absorbed from spending extra time airborne.
10/07/13 Varun Dutt/mydigitalfc.com
To Read the News in full at Source, Click the Headline
As told by flight recorders, the AA 214 was flying much below its landing altitude as well as much below its minimum velocity; yet, the pilots attempted to land the airplane in such unfavourable conditions when the logic dictated one to abort the risky landing and go-around. As the AA 214 case highlights, the correctness of this simple decision has the potential to save the lives of all on-board. Yet, pilots often take risks and seldom go-around even when they should. One might then ask: What is the logic behind such irrational decisions?
According to Maxime Gariel and colleagues at MIT, go-around decisions are less common in cockpits as such decisions tend to intensify the workload of air traffic controllers, as landing sequences must be amended to accommodate the aircraft that failed to land. Secondly, go-arounds are also perceived as undesirable from a safety perspective: The requisite overhauling of schedules through go-arounds taxes an airport system that maintains high-safety standards largely through comprehensive planning and delegation. Thirdly, go-arounds are avoided as they are costly for airlines, both in terms of the added fuel cost and the logistic delays absorbed from spending extra time airborne.
10/07/13 Varun Dutt/mydigitalfc.com
