Ryan Davis

Overview

Runway excursions and hard landings are among the most common general aviation accidents, and a striking share of them start with an unstable approach that the pilot chose to continue. Industry studies have found that only a small fraction of unstable approaches end in a go-around — the rest are flown to the runway on hope. The go-around is the cheapest, simplest emergency procedure in aviation, yet pilots treat it as a last resort instead of a normal option. This article breaks down why the decision is so hard in the moment and how to make going around your default.

Things to Pay Attention To

• Define "stabilized" before you fly. A stabilized approach means configured for landing, on the correct airspeed, on glidepath, in trim, with a steady descent rate — established no lower than 500 feet AGL in VFR conditions (1,000 feet in IMC). If any one of those isn't true at the gate, the approach is over. Decide the gate on the ground, not on final.
• Brief the go-around every time. Before every approach, say out loud what you'll do if it doesn't work out: power, pitch, flaps, and where you'll fly. Pilots who brief it execute it; pilots who don't, don't.
• Know the traps. Sunk-cost thinking ("I'm almost there"), passenger pressure, not wanting to look bad in front of the tower, and the quiet belief that you can salvage it — these are the real reasons approaches get continued. Recognize them as hazards, not reasons.
• A go-around is a maneuver, not a failure. On a checkride, initiating a sound go-around is never the wrong answer — pressing on with an unstable approach is. The same standard applies every flight after the checkride.
• Execute it cleanly. Full power, pitch to the climb attitude, clean up the airplane in the right order (gear, then flaps on schedule per the POH), and fly a safe path — straight ahead or the published missed approach track until you're sorted out. Then tell ATC what you're doing.
• Practice the thing you never do. Most pilots go years without a real go-around, which is exactly why the skill and the decision both atrophy. Fly one to a safe altitude on a regular basis until the sight picture and the call feel routine.

Summary

The go-around decision is made on the ground, not on short final. Set your stabilized gate, brief the missed approach every time, and treat going around as the normal outcome of an approach that isn't working — because the accident record shows what happens when pilots treat landing as the only option.

Overview

Weather is the biggest variable in general aviation safety, and most weather-related accidents come down to the same few mistakes: misjudging a thunderstorm, pushing VFR into clouds, skipping the bigger-picture forecast, or leaving no trail for search-and-rescue. This guide condenses the key lessons — thunderstorm hazards, reading fronts and clouds, choosing the right forecast tool at the right time, avoiding VFR-into-IMC, and filing a flight plan that actually protects you.

Things to Pay Attention To

• Thunderstorms form fast. About 100,000 hit the U.S. each year, 10% severe. They bring turbulence, microbursts, wind shear, hail (up to 18 miles from the storm), and lightning. Avoidance is the only reliable strategy — keep at least 20 nautical miles of buffer.
• Read the big picture. Air masses and the fronts they form (warm, cold, stationary, occluded) drive what you'll actually fly into. Surface charts, prog charts, and Area Forecast Discussions reveal patterns days in advance.
• Know your clouds. Cloud type and altitude signal stability, turbulence, icing, and visibility risk. A wall cloud or shelf cloud near a storm is a hard stop.
• Match the tool to the time-to-flight. Prog charts a week out, Weather Underground at five days, GFA at two days, TAFs the night before, a standard briefing the morning of, and ADS-B/onboard radar in flight (remember: in-flight displays can lag 15–20 minutes).
• VFR into IMC is a leading killer. From 2014–2023, it caused 180 GA accidents with an 82% fatality rate. An instrument rating helps but isn't a guarantee — personal minimums, a flight risk assessment tool, and regular proficiency flying matter just as much. Treat any inadvertent IMC encounter as an escape, not a continuation.
• File it, activate it, update it. Flight following is an ATC traffic service, not a safety net — only an activated VFR flight plan starts the search-and-rescue clock. Update it if the flight deviates, and include a phone number in the remarks.

Summary

These hazards are ordinary parts of summer flying — what separates a safe flight from an accident is preparation: understanding the weather instead of just reacting to it, using the right tool at the right time, having a firm VFR limit, and leaving an accurate trail behind you.

Overview

The FAA WINGS Pilot Proficiency Program is a free way to stay current and satisfy your flight review, run through the FAASafety.gov website. The site isn't the most polished, but it works: you build a profile, then earn credit through courses, seminars, webinars, and flight activities. Completing a full "phase" (three ground activities plus three flight activities) counts as a flight review and gives the FAA a visible record that you're an active, proficient pilot.

Things to Pay Attention To

• Creating an account. You don't need a pilot certificate to sign up — even student pilots can join. Use your real home zip code, since it's used to tailor course and seminar results to your area.
• Link to the Airmen Registry. Correlating your account with your airman certificate lets the FAA see that you're an active WINGS participant. This matters: if you're ever involved in a pilot deviation, being current in WINGS can meaningfully change that conversation.
• Phase requirements. Each WINGS phase needs three knowledge (ground) activities and three flight activities. Credits generally track on a rolling 12-month basis, so older activities can roll off if not renewed.
• Courses. Browse "Available Courses" — many are free, some are hosted directly on the site, and others redirect to third-party providers like Sporty's or King Schools. Complete the material and pass the exam for credit.
• Seminars vs. webinars. Seminars are in-person events searchable by state. Webinars are live online sessions, far more plentiful since 2020, and worth attending outside your home region for fresh perspectives.
• Flight activities are the tricky part. They're harder to find than courses. Search by keyword, pick the activity that matches what you actually did, and request credit from a validator (usually your CFI), who approves it on their end — or your instructor can grant it directly using the activity number.
• Instructor benefits. CFIs who log 15+ flight activities across at least five different clients within 24 months can use that record toward certificate renewal instead of a FIRC, and can print a student's personalized WINGS checklist before a flight.

Summary

WINGS isn't flashy, but it's a legitimate, free path to a flight review and real proficiency. The main thing to understand is the split between ground credit (courses, seminars, webinars) and flight credit (activities that require a validator's sign-off) — get familiar with both sides early so a completed phase doesn't sneak up on you.

Overview

This case study follows a father-and-son team, Phil and Junior, along with A&P mechanic Kevin, performing owner-assisted maintenance on a GA aircraft. It's built as an observational exercise: watch each character's decisions and judge whether they're reasonable, legal, and safe. The scenario — a routine oil change and oil sample submission, repeatedly interrupted by phone calls — shows how human factors like task-saturation, multitasking, and inconsistent procedure can create risk even during "simple" maintenance.

Things to Pay Attention To

• Know who can do what. Under 14 CFR §43.3, a certificated pilot who is an owner/operator (Phil) can perform certain preventive maintenance on their own aircraft, but an uncertificated person (Junior) may only assist while directly supervised by an appropriately certificated mechanic (Kevin).
• Label samples immediately, not later. When taking an oil sample for lab analysis, label the bottle right at the engine, right after drawing it — not later while packing for shipment — to eliminate any chance of mixing up samples between aircraft.
• Treat interruptions as a real hazard. Frequent phone calls during the work session show how easy it is to lose track of where you are in a task. Most people overestimate their own ability to multitask.
• Have a policy for resuming after a break. When interrupted, back up at least a couple of steps before continuing — or better, restart the checklist from the beginning so you know for certain nothing was skipped.
• Watch technique, not just outcome. Small habits — like using a bare finger instead of a proper tool to coat a gasket — reflect a team's overall standard of discipline, even when nothing goes wrong that day.
• Compare focus levels. Phil works methodically from a checklist and manages distraction well; Junior multitasks, is impulsive, and handles interruptions poorly — a reminder that new learners are especially vulnerable to task-saturation.

Summary

Nobody in the story does anything outright illegal — the point is that small process shortcuts and unmanaged interruptions are exactly the kind of everyday human-factors risks that can quietly set up a bigger mistake. Solid checklist discipline, clear supervision boundaries, and a deliberate way of resuming after a distraction are simple habits that close that gap.

Overview

Continuing the case study, Chapter 2 follows Phil, Kevin, and Junior through the rest of the maintenance job, a schedule-pressured handoff, and the decision of how to safely proceed to a test flight before flying the family to lunch. It surfaces subtler risks than Chapter 1: rushed decisions under pressure, an incomplete handoff, ambiguous supervision once the mechanic leaves, and the importance of accurate maintenance recordkeeping.

Things to Pay Attention To

• Decisions made under pressure deserve a beat. When a customer pressures Kevin to arrive in 10 minutes instead of the 20 he'd planned, he caves rather than pushing back — absent a true emergency, it's safer to take a minute, think it through, and finish (or properly hand off) the task at hand before rushing to the next one.
• A rushed exit skips the handoff. Kevin leaves for another job without fully briefing Phil on exactly what's been completed and what hasn't — a gap that can let something fall through the cracks.
• Watch what a torque wrench is set to. Following manufacturer guidance, the wrench was stored at its lowest setting. If Junior wasn't paying full attention when Kevin explained the correct torque procedure (he'd been distracted by texting earlier), there's real risk of the filter going on under-torqued — or not checked at all.
• Supervision doesn't automatically transfer. Only a certificated mechanic or repairman may supervise non-certificated personnel like Junior. Kevin telling Junior to "help Phil" doesn't resolve who's properly supervising Junior once Kevin drives off — Phil's owner-privilege under 14 CFR §43.3 doesn't make him Junior's supervising mechanic.
• Logbook entries belong to whoever did the work. Per 14 CFR §43.9(b), each person can only log what they personally performed or supervised. Kevin logs his and Junior's work under his supervision; Phil separately logs whatever he did himself, including any test flight — traceability matters, especially if an investigation ever needs to reconstruct who did what.
• Good judgment under schedule pressure. With family waiting and everyone eager to get going, Phil resists loading passengers before the maintenance is verified — offering instead to fly the test flight solo first, so if anything is wrong, he's the only one at risk. A solid model for resisting "get-there-itis."

Summary

Chapter 2 shows how easily a well-run maintenance job can pick up small cracks — a rushed handoff, an unclear supervision chain, a distracted trainee — while nothing looks obviously wrong in the moment. The fix isn't dramatic: slow down under pressure, confirm who's actually responsible for what, and log work accurately so it can be traced back to the person who did it.

Overview

This FAA training video argues that human factors, not technology, remain the deciding variable in runway safety. Drawing on real tower operations, two serious incidents (Boston Logan, 2005, and Chicago O'Hare, 2006), and interviews with controllers, pilots, and a USC human-factors researcher, it makes the case that continuous education — technical and human-factors alike — is the single biggest lever pilots and controllers have to prevent runway incursions.

Things to Pay Attention To

• Human factors are the common denominator. Per the FAA's Runway Safety Blueprint, human factors are cited as a contributor in every runway incursion, even though the U.S. safely manages roughly 64 million tower operations a year and has the safest air transport system in the world.
• Takeoff and landing are the highest-risk phases. They're the most time-compressed parts of flight — why airlines like Southwest specifically train runway-incursion scenarios (e.g., go-arounds for vehicles or traffic on the runway) in the simulator every six months for every pilot.
• Moderate traffic is the most dangerous kind. Counterintuitively, a very light or a busy-but-manageable workload keeps people sharply focused; it's the "just a little busy" middle ground that breeds complacency — repeatedly named as the human factor that shows up most often in incidents.
• Real incursions are chains of errors, not one mistake. Both the Boston Logan (Aer Lingus/US Airways, June 2005) and Chicago O'Hare (July 2006) incidents unfolded as a sequence of small breakdowns — distraction, time lost while holding in position, delayed situational awareness — rather than a single failure.
• Treat red flags as doubt, and doubt as danger. The video specifically calls out things like being cleared for a visual approach far from the airport as the kind of anomaly that should prompt extra scrutiny rather than being explained away.
• Knowledge has two halves. Technical proficiency (charts, procedures, instrument approaches) matters, but so does understanding "the whole system" — how the pilot-controller choreography actually works together — and that only comes from ongoing, deliberate learning, not a one-time certification.

Summary

Technology keeps improving air traffic management, but the video's consistent message — from tower controllers to a human-factors researcher — is that people remain the deciding factor in runway safety. Staying sharp against complacency, working the full system rather than just your own role in it, and committing to continuing education are what actually close the gap between a near-miss and a safe outcome.

Overview

This talk turns the vague advice to "be safe" into something actionable. Building on the FAASTeam's Perceive–Process–Perform model, the speaker introduces AWARE — Aircraft, Weather, Airspace, Reality, and External pressures — as five categories pilots should continuously scan to stay ahead of surprises. This excerpt covers the Aircraft category in full and opens the Weather category.

Things to Pay Attention To

• Legal doesn't mean safe. An aircraft can check every airworthiness box (annual, ADs, VOR check, 100-hour if applicable, altimeter/pitot-static, transponder, ELT) and still not be safe to fly. In the video's example, a student's Cessna 152 preflight was called "fine, oil's a little low" — until fresh oil was found actively dripping from the nose gear fairing.
• Preflight expecting to find something wrong. A rushed or "phoned-in" preflight is how real problems get missed. Go in assuming you'll find an issue, and be pleasantly surprised if you don't.
• In flight, trust the gut check. If something looks, sounds, or feels even slightly off from what's normal for that airplane, that's the moment to investigate further — not to explain it away.
• Post-flight is part of the awareness loop too. A final walk-around after shutdown catches things like lights left on, a missed tie-down, or wear that needs attention before the next flight.
• Glass cockpits need three specific skills. Information management (configuring displays for what you actually need in that phase of flight), automation management (always knowing what mode the autopilot/flight director is in — "what's it doing now?" is the cue to turn it off and revert to raw data until you understand it), and risk management (remembering that airline-like avionics are still bolted to a light GA airplane with GA limitations).
• Break weather into three effects. Rather than one overwhelming stack of data, sort a briefing into wind (crosswind/turbulence), ceiling and visibility (clouds, rain, fog), and performance (density altitude, icing) — then identify which of the three actually applies to your flight.
• A crosswind limitation isn't what it sounds like. A max demonstrated crosswind component isn't a hard limit — it was set by a test pilot flying in ideal, controlled conditions while simulating average pilot skills, not a target to casually match.

Summary

"Be safe" only becomes actionable once it's broken into something you can actually check. AWARE gives pilots a repeatable scan — starting with a genuinely skeptical preflight and a structured way to read weather and cockpit automation — so surprises in the aircraft, the weather, or your own assumptions get caught early instead of in the air.

Overview

This FAA program briefing explains what Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast actually is, why the FAA built it, and what it means for GA pilots ahead of the January 1, 2020 equipage mandate. It covers the two data links, the free traffic and weather benefits, where equipage is actually required, and the ground infrastructure behind it.

Things to Pay Attention To

• ADS-B is a surveillance upgrade, not new restricted airspace. It replaces radar as the preferred surveillance method in the same airspace where a transponder is already required — it doesn't add a new layer of airspace GA pilots need to worry about.
• Two links, two purposes. ADS-B Out (the mandated part) transmits your position; ADS-B In (optional) lets you receive free traffic (TIS-B) and weather/airspace data (FIS-B). 1090ES shares your existing transponder frequency; UAT (978 MHz) is the GA-oriented link that carries the free FIS-B weather product.
• Free traffic has a catch: the "hockey puck." ADS-B In traffic display only works within a service volume roughly 3,500 feet above/below and 15 miles around your own aircraft, and only if you're broadcasting an adequate ADS-B Out signal yourself.
• A phone or tablet GPS isn't a valid position source. The rule requires a certified GPS/WAAS source because aviation surveillance depends on integrity and continuous availability, not just accuracy.
• Uncontrolled-airspace-only flying may not require equipage. The ADS-B Out mandate mirrors the existing transponder requirement — if you don't need a transponder today, you likely don't need to equip.
• Equipage costs dropped sharply over the life of the program. Early ADS-B Out solutions ran roughly $15,000; by the time of this briefing, GPS-plus-antenna-plus-installation from two vendors had fallen to around $2,000, with an industry/FAA "Equip 2020" push aiming to bring that down further.
• The benefits extend beyond the mandate. ADS-B doesn't replace an ELT, but its data can improve last-known-position information for search and rescue, and it feeds "Fusion" — a system letting controllers combine multiple surveillance sources so losing one feed doesn't mean losing the whole picture.

Summary

For most GA pilots flying where a transponder is already required, ADS-B Out equipage is not optional, but the technology is meant to be a safety and situational-awareness upgrade — free traffic and weather in the cockpit — rather than an added restriction. The practical takeaway: equip early rather than waiting, since installer capacity, avionics availability, and pricing all shifted as the deadline approached.

Overview

This FAASTeam video makes the case that a pilot's real capabilities shift day to day, so relying on regulatory minimums alone isn't enough. Pilots need documented personal minimums, built using the PAVE framework from Chapter 8 of the FAA's Risk Management Handbook, that they deliberately adjust — only in a more conservative direction, unless they've specifically built up the skill or equipment to justify going the other way.

Things to Pay Attention To

• PAVE breaks personal risk into four categories. Pilot (certification level, total time and recency in type, health, fatigue, self-imposed stress), Aircraft (performance and equipment matched to the mission), enVironment (topography, runways, approach aids, wind, weather, lighting), and External pressures (employer or passenger expectations to complete the mission on schedule).
• Pilot health deserves more scrutiny than most pilots give it. A cited study found over-the-counter or prescription medications in the post-mortem toxicology of 80% of pilots in fatal accidents — not proof those drugs caused the accidents, but a reason to think harder about what conditions you're flying with.
• External pressure is a recurring accident thread. Cited examples include pilots who skipped buying a little extra (expensive) fuel at the destination, and pilots who departed into darkness and marginal weather rather than pay for an overnight stay.
• Build the minimums as real documents, not gut feelings. Personal minimums come from filling out tables that assess your comfort and experience level against specific mission and environmental conditions.
• Only loosen a minimum after you've earned it. Flying to a less conservative limit requires first demonstrably building the pilot skill and/or aircraft capability that supports it — the video's example is a Category II approach, which requires specially trained crew, specific navigation equipment, and recent experience.
• Validate with an instructor. Once personal minimums are documented, review them with a CFI — who can help refine them, and doing so can count toward a WINGS proficiency credit.

Summary

Personal minimums turn "know your limits" into something concrete: a PAVE-based assessment of pilot, aircraft, environment, and external pressures, written down, reviewed with an instructor, and only ever relaxed once you've specifically built the skill or equipment to back it up.

Overview

An FAA-designated pilot examiner argues that most unstabilized approaches don't come from not knowing "on speed, on glideslope" — they come from three overlooked culprits baked into how landings are typically taught: over-reliance on power-on approaches, the touch-and-go, and a late (or never-really-made) go-around decision. The core theme: knowledge has to come first, because "the eye can't see what the mind doesn't know."

Things to Pay Attention To

• Flight hours aren't a safety guarantee. The presenter, a former FAA inspector, has investigated an accident involving a pilot with 31,000 hours — the real predictor of safety is a "safety mindset," not logbook time.
• Trust your gut before you rationalize it away. Self-talk on the way to the flight line ("that wind looks bad," "where'd these clouds come from") is worth listening to, not talking yourself out of.
• Power-off landing practice is disappearing. Students are increasingly taught to fly power-on approaches, which erodes the energy-management skill a power-off glide teaches — skill that matters most exactly when an engine actually quits.
• The touch-and-go was built to practice known skills, not teach landing. Because attention shifts to the next takeoff the moment the wheels touch, the presenter's research found the average time between touchdown and throttle-up is only 6–10 seconds — meaning roughly 100 touch-and-go landings from student to solo may add up to only about 10 minutes of real landing-debrief time.
• Full-stop landings let the debrief actually land. Feedback given while climbing out on a touch-and-go competes with airspeed, configuration, traffic, and ATC for the student's attention; feedback given after a full stop gets their full focus.
• The go-around decision should be made before the approach, not during it. Brief the touchdown point and the go-around as a package — "I'm going to land here, and it's a go-around" — rather than only deciding to land and treating a go-around as an exception.
• IFR approaches work the same way. Down to minimums (MDA/DH), you're flying a missed approach by default — it only becomes a landing once you have the required visual references.

Summary

Unstabilized approaches usually trace back to how landings are taught, not just how they're flown in the moment: leaning on power instead of practicing the glide, using touch-and-goes as a stand-in for real landing practice, and treating the go-around as an afterthought. The fix is simple: fly full-stop landings deliberately, and pre-commit to the go-around as part of every approach briefing.

Overview

This presentation makes the case that most GA checklists — whether decades-old originals or brand-new laminated cards bought off the shelf — are outdated the moment an airplane gets modified with new avionics, autopilots, or removed equipment. The average GA airplane is around 40 years old and has changed significantly since it left the factory, but its checklist usually hasn't. The talk covers why and how to build a custom checklist, plus the habits that make any checklist useful.

Things to Pay Attention To

• Factory checklists age out fast. New radios, GPS, ADS-B, multi-function displays, fuel totalizers, and autopilots all need to be checked and used correctly — but none of that is in a checklist written before those parts existed. Removed equipment should come out of the checklist too.
• Student-friendly checklists solve two problems at once. Manufacturer checklists assume prior knowledge a new student doesn't have; spelling out simple items reduces instructor repetition and builds student confidence.
• Format matters as much as content. Group items into logical sections (preflight, starting, pre-taxi, before takeoff, after landing, shutdown), use 12-point type or larger, and use bold, color, or underlining to flag safety-critical items.
• Keep the emergency checklist somewhere you can reach it in seconds. Digging through a seat pouch during an actual emergency wastes precious time; mount it somewhere immediately visible.
• "Safety creep" is real. Even experienced pilots drift away from using checklists as they get comfortable with an airplane — leading to skipped items like cowl flaps or autopilot disconnect checks. The FAA takes this seriously enough that a checkride applicant who never references a checklist during a preflight risks failing.
• You don't have to hold the checklist while you preflight. It's fine to walk the airplane from memory and then run the checklist afterward to catch anything missed — what matters is that it's actually referenced.
• Interruptions are exactly when checklists earn their keep. A friend walking up, a passing airplane, or an ATC clearance mid-checklist are common ways an item gets silently skipped. For the same reason, running a checklist while taxiing is a bad habit — stop at the hold-short line to do it.
• Field-test before you laminate. Build a draft, fly with it a few times, mark up what's wrong or misplaced, then finalize.

Summary

A checklist is only as good as its match to the airplane you're actually flying and the habits around using it. Building or updating a custom checklist that reflects real equipment, is easy to read, and is genuinely referenced — especially after interruptions — closes a gap that even experienced pilots fall into as familiarity breeds complacency.