{"id":66087,"date":"2026-01-30T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-30T10:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/?p=66087"},"modified":"2026-01-30T04:51:12","modified_gmt":"2026-01-30T04:51:12","slug":"why-pilots-sometimes-persist-when-its-safer-to-stop","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/2026\/01\/30\/why-pilots-sometimes-persist-when-its-safer-to-stop\/","title":{"rendered":"Why pilots sometimes persist when it\u2019s safer to stop"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n
The Aeronautical Journal February 2026 Vol 130 No 1344<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Modern airline pilots operate in a highly proceduralised, wellregulated environment. It is often said that procedures are clear: if an approach is unstable, a go-around should be flown. Yet accident and incident data repeatedly show that this does not always happen. My recent paper examines why capable, well-trained airline pilots sometimes persist with a plan even when conditions have clearly changed. The apparent contradiction, between knowledge and action, forms the starting point for the paper. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The concept at the centre of this work is cognitive lockup. Simply put, it describes a human tendency to stay engaged with an ongoing task instead of switching to a new, more critical one. In the cockpit, this often appears near task completion, on final approach, when time pressure is high, workload is elevated, and the goal of \u201cgetting the aircraft on the ground\u201d feels close. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is not about recklessness or poor professionalism. Cognitive lockup arises from normal human mechanisms: the pull of task completion, the discomfort of abandoning progress, framing effects that portray go-arounds as failure, and the mental effort required to reorient under stress. When these factors combine, they can delay or prevent timely task switching, even when pilots consciously \u201cknow\u201d the safer option. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paper explores these mechanisms using findings from psychology, human factors research, and aviation-specific studies, and then looks at what can realistically help. Training that deliberately practices task switching, organisational language that positively frames go-arounds, and technological cues that make shrinking safety margins more visible all play a role. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I also discuss how simple attention-regulation practices may help pilots recognise fixation earlier, without replacing procedures or judgement. These practices are complementary elements, and not substitutes for procedures or discipline. They are tools that may help pilots notice fixation earlier and create a brief mental pause under pressure. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Understanding cognitive lockup shifts the conversation from blame to design of training, policy, and systems, and offers a more human, and ultimately safer, way to think about decision-making on the flight deck.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The paper Failure to switch tasks due to cognitive lockup in airline pilots: a review of mechanisms, influences and mitigation strategies<\/a> by A Singh appears in Volume 130 Issue 1344<\/a> of The Aeronautical Journal<\/a><\/em> and is free to access for one month.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

The Aeronautical Journal<\/em><\/a> has, for over a century, been the UK\u2019s leading scientific and technical aeronautics Journal and is the world\u2019s oldest Aerospace Journal that remains in production. Published monthly, The Aeronautical Journal draws upon the expertise and resources of The Royal Aeronautical Society providing a world-wide forum for authors from the UK and overseas. Research papers are solicited on all aspects of research, design and development, construction and operation of aircraft and space vehicles. Papers are also welcomed which review, comprehensively, the results of recent research developments in any of the above topics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Royal Aeronautical Society is the world\u2019s only professional body dedicated to the entire aerospace community. Established in 1866 to further the art, science and engineering of aeronautics, the Society has been at the forefront of developments ever since.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

www.aerosociety.com<\/a> | National Aerospace Library catalogue & e-books<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Book reviews covering academic, scientific and technical books covering aeronautical engineering and topics relating to it can be found here: www.aerosociety.com\/news-expertise\/national-aerospace-library\/book-reviews<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Aeronautical Journal has, for over a century, been the UK\u2019s leading scientific and technical aeronautics Journal and is the world\u2019s oldest Aerospace Journal that remains in production. Published monthly, The Aeronautical Journal draws upon the expertise and resources of The Royal Aeronautical Society providing a world-wide forum for authors from the UK and overseas. Research papers are solicited on all aspects of research, design and development, construction and operation of aircraft and space vehicles. Papers are also welcomed which review, comprehensively, the results of recent research developments in any of the above topics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Aeronautical Journal February 2026 Vol 130 No 1344 Modern airline pilots operate in a highly proceduralised, wellregulated environment. It is often said that procedures are clear: if an approach is unstable, a go-around should be flown. Yet accident and incident data repeatedly show that this does not always happen. My recent paper examines why […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":821,"featured_media":66085,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2262],"tags":[2454,2527,62,2526],"coauthors":[12129],"class_list":["post-66087","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-engineering","tag-aer","tag-aviation","tag-engineering","tag-the-aeronautical-journal"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66087","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/821"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66087"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66087\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":66096,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66087\/revisions\/66096"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/66085"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66087"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66087"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66087"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=66087"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}