The General Aviation Joint Safety Committee (GAJSC) is the primary vehicle for government–industry cooperation, communication, and coordination on GA accident reduction. GAJSC findings reveal common pilot errors, while GAJSC recommendations provide mitigation strategies to reduce GA fatalities. Pilots and flight instructors should apply GAJSC findings and recommendations to their plans of action as they pertain to personal currency programs, pilot proficiency training, flight reviews, and instrument proficiency checks (IPC). For these reasons, the FAA encourages pilots and flight instructors to keep informed on GAJSC findings and recommendations. You can find additional information about the GAJSC online at https://www.gajsc.org.

The GAJSC cites LOC as one of the six most critical and common causes of GA accidents. Further, LOC was the number one cause of GA fatalities from 2012 through 2021. LOC refers to aircraft accidents that result from
situations in which a pilot should have maintained (or should have regained) aircraft control but failed to do so. In some cases, training accidents occurred because the pilots were not in agreement as to who should be manipulating the flight controls. A recommended three-step process of exchange includes a verbal handoff from the pilot flying, verbal acceptance by the pilot taking over, and a verbal and visual confirmation
that the exchange has taken place by the pilot relinquishing control. This procedure should be briefed before flight and include a method to relinquish and take control of the aircraft when normal communications are not possible (e.g., tandem cockpit interphone failure or wind noise). Pilots and flight instructors are encouraged to practice and use aircraft control handoff procedures on every instructional flight. In addition, flight instructors need to maintain diligence while providing instruction. A flight instructor
should always be in a position to take over control of the aircraft when doubt exists as to the safe outcome of any maneuver. The FAA reminds pilots and flight instructors to regularly evaluate (and elevate) procedures and skills to avoid, recognize, and recover from emergencies such as LOC.

Studies have shown that LOC usually occurs when pilots lack proficiency. Conditions exceeding personal skill limitations can present themselves at any time and can occur unexpectedly. In this event, the pilot should be able to avoid being startled, make appropriate decisions in a timely manner, and be able to exercise
skills at a proficiency level the pilot may not have maintained or attained since acquired during initial training. This makes personal currency programs and proficiency training essential. Personal currency programs serve to develop and maintain pilot proficiency by promoting attributes such as aeronautical knowledge, aeronautical skill, and ADM. These attributes collectively determine the degree of aeronautical ability a pilot possesses. Highly proficient pilots are better able to avoid or manage an in-flight emergency in a safe and efficient manner. Consequently, the GAJSC recommends that pilots place emphasis on their specific proficiency needs by including training that may exceed regulatory minimum currency requirements.

LOC accidents often occur while pilots are maneuvering at low altitude and airspeed, such as in an airport traffic pattern. Pilots should adopt, and flight instructors should promote, training programs designed to reduce the risk of GA accidents in traffic pattern operations. Flight instructors should provide training to mitigate the three areas of highest risk involving maneuvering an airplane in an airport traffic pattern. The first area is the risk of a departure stall; the second area is the risk of LOC if attempting to return to the field after an engine failure on takeoff; and the third area is the risk of LOC on the base to final turn.

Flight instructors should emphasize training that ensures that pilots of small single-engine airplanes depart in coordinated flight at the speed for best rate of climb (VY) for normal takeoffs and maintain this speed to the altitude necessary for a safe return to the airport in the event of an emergency. Flight
instructors should train pilots of single-engine airplanes not to return to the field after an engine failure unless altitude and best glide requirements permit. Accordingly, flight instructors should provide training that emphasizes the correct speeds at which light twin-piston aircraft depart the runway. Flight
instructors should emphasize that a departure at the speed for best angle of climb (VX) is used for obstacle clearance and short-field takeoff procedures.

Flight instructors should also emphasize the risks and potential consequences of climbing out at speeds less or greater than what is required for a particular type of takeoff. Flight instructors should train pilots of single-engine airplanes not to return to the field after an engine failure unless altitude and best glide
requirements permit a safe return. Therefore, flight instructors should not routinely train pilots to make a 180-degree turn from a simulated engine failure while climbing. However, this training should occur at a safe altitude. A critical part of conducting this training is for the flight instructor to be fully
aware of the need for diligence, the need to perform this maneuver properly, and to avoid any potential for an accelerated stall in the turn. It is essential for a pilot to know the altitude that will be lost in a 180-degree turn, in the specific make and model (M/M) flown, for when a pilot considers turning back to the departure airport at best glide. Flight instructors should also emphasize that a return to the runway the pilot just took off from will require more than a 180-degree turn. During the before-takeoff check, the expected loss of altitude in the turn, plus a sufficient safety factor, should be related to the absolute altitude at which a turnback may be attempted. In addition, the effect of existing winds on the preferred direction of a turnback should be briefed.

Flight instructors should also teach pilots to reject an approach and initiate a go-around when the pilot cannot maintain a stabilized approach. The GAJSC recommends that pilots and flight instructors emphasize stabilized approach and landing proficiency and conduct stabilized approaches as a standard practice. Flight reviews and IPCs should emphasize evaluating a pilot’s ADM, departure skills, and ability to establish and maintain a stabilized approach and landing, while applying effective crosswind techniques to avoid the risk of LOC when maneuvering in an airport traffic pattern. Effective scenario-based training, emphasizing ADM, departures, and establishing and maintaining a stabilized approach to a landing, reduces the risk of LOC in an airport traffic pattern. Many of the principles discussed in this paragraph apply to multiengine aircraft, but do not apply to single-engine operations in the multiengine airplane. Flight instructors should emphasize the correct speeds at which light twin-piston aircraft are operated in the traffic pattern and provide training in response to an engine failure in a variety of situations.

Under most circumstances, the airplane should be stabilized by 1,000 feet above airport elevation in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) and by 500 feet above airport elevation during straight-in approaches in visual meteorological conditions (VMC). Pilots should monitor at least seven major elements that define a stabilized approach in a GA airplane. The FAA considers an approach to touchdown to be stabilized when the airplane meets all of the following criteria, with only minor deviations:

The airplane is on the correct flightpath. Typically, the glidepath is 3 degrees to the runway touchdown zone (TDZ) (obstructions permitting).

The airplane is tracking the extended centerline to the runway with only minor heading/pitch changes necessary to correct for wind or turbulence to maintain alignment. Bank angle should not exceed 15 degrees on final approach.

The pilot maintains a constant target airspeed within +10/-5 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS), which is usually at, but no lower than, the recommended landing speed specified in the pilot’s operating handbook (POH)/Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), approved placards/markings, or 1.3 times the stalling speed or the minimum steady flight speed in the landing configuration (VS0), if not specified.

The airplane is in the correct landing configuration with flaps as required, landing gear extended, and the airplane in trim.

Descent rate is a constant and generally no greater than 500 feet per minute (fpm). If a descent greater than 500 fpm is required due to approach considerations, it should be reduced prior to 300 feet above ground level (AGL) and well before the landing flare and touchdown phase.

Power setting is appropriate for the airplane configuration and is not below the minimum power for approach as defined by the POH/AFM

All briefings and checklists (except the landing checklist) are completed prior to initiating the approach.

Another area where pilots have experienced LOC is while maneuvering in IMC. Vertigo or spatial disorientation has been a significant factor in many aircraft accidents. The common result when a non-instrument-rated pilot inadvertently continues flight into IMC is spatial disorientation of the pilot and LOC. Pilots who are instrument rated, but not instrument proficient, are also susceptible. Recovery from LOC in IMC can be nearly impossible without skills and competency. Additionally, instrument-rated pilots maneuvering in IMC who fail to prioritize pilot workload properly and use Crew Resource Management (CRM) or Single Pilot Resource Management (SRM) may become inattentive or distracted and lose situational awareness (SA), which too often can lead to LOC. The GAJSC determined that pilots and flight instructors need to emphasize effective preflight planning and pilot proficiency to reduce the risk of LOC in IMC.

Pilots and aircraft owners have taken advantage of modern avionics and flight automation equipment. “Glass cockpits” are available for virtually every new aircraft, as well as for many legacy and experimental aircraft. Global Positioning Systems (GPS), positioning on a moving map, real-time weather, terrain/traffic awareness, and modern autopilots have made a significant presence in the GA fleet. Pilots also employ handheld equipment not installed in the aircraft much more frequently than in the past. This equipment can make flight operations safer and help avoid LOC situations; however, pilots should be proficient in all
automation tools and know the system limitations. The FAA reminds flight instructors conducting flight reviews and IPCs to ensure that a pilot under evaluation is proficient with the automated system and knows what to do if it fails.

Pilots should learn their aircraft’s systems, limits, and recommended procedures before a pilot can fly the aircraft safely. This is especially important for technically advanced aircraft (TAA) equipped with the automated avionics described in paragraph 2.2 or flight automation systems (e.g., flight management system (FMS) or coupled autopilot). The FAA strongly recommends that a pilot receive a thorough evaluation from a qualified instructor with experience in the automation equipped in the specific aircraft M/M flown.

Overreliance on automation or automated flight systems has resulted in accidents. A 2010 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) safety study concluded that glass cockpit aircraft (TAA) experience a lower total accident rate, but a higher fatal accident rate, than the same type of aircraft equipped with conventional analog instrumentation. (Refer to https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safetystudies/Documents/SS1001.pdf.) The NTSB study also reported, “Even before electronic displays became common, anecdotal reports from flight crews, as well as findings from accidents and research, revealed potential problems if pilots relied too heavily on automated systems or if they misunderstood automated system behavior” (refer to the third paragraph under Chapter 1 Background, “Previous Lessons Learned”). Automation can lull some pilots into complacency. Furthermore, automation bias presented a new breed of accident by creating the potential to erode a complacent pilot’s manual flight skills. Automation bias refers to the willingness of the pilot to trust and utilize automated systems while feeling that the automation is more capable than the pilot. This perception may result in passive automation management (commonly referred to as “set and go”). Eroded skills can degrade the pilot’s ability to recognize potential system issues and avoid or recover from LOC. The FAA strongly recommends that pilots who fly aircraft with automated flight systems manually control the aircraft at times to maintain manual flying skills. Pilots should actively manage automation by making use of all systems; cross-referencing data provided by the various systems; and monitoring and managing flight progress such as waypoints or checkpoints. Active automation management ensures enhanced SA while providing the opportunity for quick identification of automation failure.

Pilots should be proficient in manual aircraft control and should be able to operate the aircraft without the use of the aircraft’s automation. Advanced avionics and flight automation offer many levels of automation. Pilots need to understand that no one level of automation is appropriate for all flight situations. If a flight automation system failure occurs, in whole or in part, the pilot should possess the knowledge to address the situation. This may include isolating the defective components and/or manually flying the aircraft. In any event, manual flight may be necessary to ensure positive control of the aircraft while the pilot identifies problems and determines an appropriate course of action. All flight reviews conducted in aircraft equipped with automation should include training in manual aircraft control. In this case, the flight instructor should simulate failures of critical components of automation through safe and practical means. The instructor should never actually render an automated system inoperative, such as turning off switches or disengaging circuit breakers. For example, a flight instructor can simulate an automation failure simply by disengaging an integrated autopilot on an approach. The FAA strongly recommends that pilots and flight instructors strive for proficiency in manual aircraft control to mitigate the risk of loss of aircraft control.

Runway incursions, like other pilot deviations (PD), are usually due to pilot error. GA pilots are responsible for the largest percent of PDs in our National Airspace System (NAS). PDs occur in flight and on the ground. Airborne deviations include occurrences that result when a pilot does not maintain an assigned heading, altitude, or instrument procedure while conducting flight operations under an air traffic control (ATC) clearance, or when a pilot penetrates airspace requiring an ATC clearance without having received one. Ground deviations include taxiing, taking off or landing without clearance, not maintaining an assigned taxi route, and failing to hold short of an assigned clearance limit.1 Although pilot airborne and ground deviations are avoidable, GA PDs continue to be the largest cause of runway incursions. Preventing runway incursions is one of the FAA’s top priorities. Flight instructors should also provide training to GA pilots to mitigate wrong surface landing incidents. Recently, the FAA Air Traffic Organization (ATO) has advised of an increase in wrong surface landings in the NAS. For more information, please refer to Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) 17010, Incorrect Airport Surface Approaches and Landings. To understand and mitigate the risk of a runway incursion, GA pilots and flight instructors should become familiar with the following information.

The FAA defines a runway incursion as “any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take off of aircraft.” The FAA divides runway incursions into three incident (human error) types:

A PD is an action by a pilot that violates FAA regulations, such as taxiing an airplane on a runway or taxiway without authorization from ATC.

An OI is an action by an air traffic controller that results in either less than the required minimum separation between two or more aircraft, or between an aircraft and obstacles (e.g., vehicles or people); or an aircraft landing or departing on a closed runway.

A V/PD is a pedestrian or vehicle entering any portion of the airport movement areas (runways or taxiways) without authorization from ATC.

There are four categories of runway incursions:

PDs were responsible for 63 percent of runway incursions in fiscal year (FY) 2012. GA pilots were responsible for more than 80 percent of the PDs. In addition, OIs accounted for 20 percent of runway incursions and V/PDs accounted for 17 percent that year.2 For these reasons, the FAA is encouraging GA pilots and flight instructors to become familiar with industry best practices and mitigation procedures to avoid runway incursions.

Detailed investigations of runway incursions since 2008 have identified three major areas (pilot errors) contributing to these events:3

Pilot proficiency, preflight planning, taxi procedures, runway confusion, SA, and the use of aircraft lights are all challenges that, if not properly managed, lead to deviations. Adverse weather, technology limitation, and complex airport designs are additional challenges that contribute to PDs such as runway incursions.

As previously noted, runway incursions are generally the result of pilot error. To reduce this risk, pilots should adopt effective mitigation strategies to avoid runway incursions. Flight instructors should offer training that includes runway incursion avoidance strategies. Training and procedures developed in compliance with FAA policies and industry best practices reduce pilot errors and runway incursions. To meet this goal, pilots can take (and flight instructors should teach) the following steps:

Receiving continuing education and training is an essential step that a pilot can take to ensure that they are proficient. Each pilot is unique and no pilot is proficient in all situations. Therefore, GA pilots should self-assess their aeronautical ability prior to conducting a flight as pilot in command (PIC). Poor training in any skill set increases the potential for an undesirable outcome. Poor radio communication skills, for example, have caused runway incursions. To reduce this risk, pilots should meet English language skill standards, understand and use correct pilot/controller terminology, and use proper voice cadence when communicating by radio. Lack of familiarity with airport markings can also lead to runway incursions. Some GA pilots tend to ignore signage when the pilot is familiar with an airport. Pilots who operate in the same environment most of the time may find themselves at a new airport and lack familiarity with signage. This places the pilot in a vulnerable position. GA pilots who do not have much experience or recency with ATC or controlled airport operations should work with a flight instructor to develop proficiency. These examples illustrate the need for continuing education and training. Familiarization with airport markings, airport operations, and ATC/pilot terminology are also important areas that a flight instructor should consider when conducting an IPC or flight review. Recurrent training, including a flight to a towered airport with an experienced flight instructor, is a good way to gain proficiency with airport operations and to develop the required skills to avoid runway incursions.

Planning is an essential step that GA pilots can take to avoid pilot errors and runway incursions. Pilots should plan each flight before it takes place, even when flying to a familiar airport. Preflight planning enables the pilot to gain SA and make an informed go/no-go decision. Flight planning should not merely include planning the route of flight; it should also include a review of pertinent airport diagrams. Taking time during the preflight planning process to review airport diagrams is essential. For example, airport diagrams often include “hot spots.” The FAA defines a hot spot as a location on an airport movement area with a history of potential risk of collision or runway incursion. Many airports with a high incidence of runway incursions have identified hot spots where incursions most frequently occur. Pilots can avoid the common errors related to runway incursions by being aware of each hot spot as it relates to the taxiways and runways. Airport hot spots are only one of many considerations in preflight planning. Circumstances change quickly. En route weather conditions or airport movement area closures is vital information. To be prepared, pilots need to review all information concerning the flight, including Notices to Air Missions (NOTAM). Pilots should always obtain a standard briefing and review pertinent NOTAMs prior to each flight. Conducting preflight planning prior to every flight places a pilot in a better position to avoid incidents, accidents, and runway incursions.

GA pilots should develop and adhere to set cockpit procedures based on regulatory requirements and industry best practices. Taking the step to develop and routinely use set procedures complements mandatory actions and reduces the risks of human errors and runway incursions. Pilots should also include the following items in their set cockpit procedures:

GA pilots should always brief passengers prior to a flight operation. Determining the necessary components for developing or validating an effective passenger briefing begins in the planning stage of a flight. The passenger briefing should contain the pilot’s instruction and procedures for minimizing distractions in the cockpit. It should also include all the pertinent elements prescribed by 14 CFR part 91, § 91.107(a)(1) and (2). Many proprietary checklists include the passenger briefing.

GA pilots should use an effective, aircraft-specific checklist as a matter of routine throughout all phases of aircraft operations. Pilots should complete all aircraft pretaxi checklist items prior to taxi.

Communications and navigation aids should be set up prior to taxi. Setting up radios and navigational aids on the roll are distractions; this is the leading cause of “heads down” in the cockpit. This in turn hinders the pilot’s ability to see and avoid any conflicts while taxiing.

Most pilots have, or should develop, a shorthand method for copying an instrument flight rules (IFR) clearance. The same is true for a taxi clearance. Pilots should develop a set method to copy any type of taxi clearance. Pilots should write down and read back all clearances to ensure that the pilot establishes and maintains effective communications. As with any clearance, a readback for a taxi clearance is mandatory.

A sterile cockpit is another procedural step that pilots should take to reduce the risk of a runway incursion. A sterile cockpit means avoiding all conversations and actions not related to flight during critical phases of aircraft operations such as taxi, takeoff, and landings. A distraction-free cockpit should always include proper taxi procedures and no extraneous conversations or cell phone use.

GA pilots should use proper taxi procedures to reduce the risk of an incident or accident. Maintaining an appropriate taxi speed is a crucial element of an effective taxi procedure.

Pilots can take additional steps to reduce the risk of confusion during ground operations. Taxi confusion most commonly occurs when a pilot is taxiing at an unfamiliar airport. Low-visibility conditions increase the potential for confusion. Pilots have the option to request progressive taxi instructions when taxiing at a controlled airport. Progressive taxi instructions are an excellent mitigation strategy to ensure compliance with taxi clearances. This procedure is especially useful at unfamiliar controlled airports. Receiving progressive taxi instructions is an effective strategy to prevent runway incursions. Pilots should have access to the airport diagram when taxiing. Pilots may use the same diagram that they used during the preflight planning process. Airport diagrams are designed to assist in the movement of ground traffic at locations with complex runway/taxiway configurations. Runway confusion occurs when pilots confuse the identity of a runway. This is another example of an error that an effective set operating procedure can prevent. Setting the heading bug to the assigned runway heading, when a runway assignment is given, provides a method to ensure that the pilot identifies the correct runway. Familiarity with airport markings comes into play here, too. Reading all available signs and verifying them with the runway assignment should be part of a pilot’s set procedure. The critical part is to include these actions into the set procedure and use the procedure on every flight. A comprehensive and set taxi procedure will help to prevent an unwanted event such as a runway incursion.

Ensuring SA is another step that begins with preflight planning. Some pilots only think of SA in terms of flight operations. Reframing SA to cover all phases of flight is one more step in reducing pilot errors. While maintaining SA is important in all circumstances, it is particularly important when operating at an airport without an operating control tower. To achieve SA, pilots should be fully aware of their intended taxi route and be able to follow the planned route correctly. To maintain SA, pilots should always adopt a heads-up attitude when taxiing. This industry best practice is also a step to reduce the risk of an inadvertent runway incursion.

Use of aircraft lights is an additional procedure that GA pilots often overlook. Exterior aircraft lights may be used to make an aircraft operating on the airport surface more conspicuous. Aircraft lights allow others to have some idea of the pilot’s intentions. Proper use of aircraft lights should be a defined element in every pilot’s set procedures. One example of how this might help prevent runway incursion is that airmen assume that an aircraft’s landing light will be on when it is ready to take off. If ATC issues a Line Up and Wait (LUAW) clearance and the pilot mistakenly plans to take off, the tower may notice the landing lights on and call for confirmation so that a mishap is avoided.

Because GA PDs comprise the greatest percentage of all runway incursions, the FAA has increased its outreach efforts through its Flight Standards FAASTeam program. The FAASTeam program provides outreach to GA pilots on topics concerning aviation safety. For example, the FAASTeam addresses local runway safety issues by posting hot spot charts, runway safety bulletins, runway safety event notices, and other materials on its website, https://www.faasafety.gov. Additionally, the FAASTeam also provides web-based training. Pilots and flight instructors should become familiar with all FAASTeam resources to learn more about runway incursions.

GA runway incursions are too common. Sometimes they result in tragedy. Pilots and flight instructors need to 1) understand the root causes of runway incursions, 2) be aware of industry best practices to mitigate runway incursions, and 3) integrate the steps described above into effective set procedures to avoid runway incursions. In addition, GA pilots should apply this information to their personal currency programs. Flight instructors should apply runway incursion avoidance strategies in their training and pilot evaluation plans of action. You can find additional runway incursion information and mitigation resources at https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety.

The only contact that many pilots may have with an aviation authority is through their instructors. Flight instructors are professionals who play a vital role in ensuring aviation safety. Consequently, flight instructors are the cornerstone of aviation safety. They mentor pilot safety practices as they mitigate aviation accidents by providing pilot flight training and conducting pilot evaluations. In other words, flight instructors bear a responsibility to produce and sustain the safest pilots possible.

A flight instructor’s actions influence the GA safety culture. The FAA expects all flight instructors to adhere to the highest training standards and safety practices. Flight instructors should be fully qualified in every role they perform. For example, and as discussed further in paragraph 4.2.5, the flight instructor should be qualified in each specific aircraft M/M in which they provide instruction. For this reason, flight instructors should consider their personal qualifications prior to accepting any instructional or pilot evaluation role. This is an important consideration for conducting a flight review, IPC, or specialized flight training, such as transition training in a specific TAA. If a flight instructor is not proficient in an aircraft or specialized field of instruction, the flight instructor should always be honest and decline to provide flight training or a pilot evaluation in an unfamiliar aircraft or role. As an alternative, the flight instructor should assist the pilot in finding an experienced flight instructor who is qualified to fill the flight instructor role in the specialized aircraft or field of interest. The FAA’s optional Best Practices for Mentoring in Flight Instruction provides additional tips for aviation mentors. You can find this publication at https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/training_testing/training/mentoring_best_practices.pdf

Flight instructors are required to be knowledgeable and up to date on issues critical to aviation safety. Government/industry safety recommendations help flight instructors meet this responsibility. GAJSC findings and recommendations, NTSB safety reports, and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association’s (AOPA) Air Safety Institute’s Joseph T. Nall Reports all provide critical safety information. Flight instructors should incorporate this information into the training they provide. Utilizing and disseminating this critical information when promoting personal currency programs, providing effective flight reviews, and conducting IPCs helps to build a positive safety culture that can reduce GA accidents.