## 4 Results and Analysis
### Go-Around: Analysis
#### 4.5.2 Go-Around: Ordinal Regression  
This was used to assess whether pilots were able to confidently differentiate among different go-arounds. The resulting positive coefficient (0.0010) associated with the \"hours\" insinuates that the more hours flown, the more likely it is that the pilot can define each procedure. However, the \(p\)-value of 0.457 indicates this is not statistically significant, hence there is insufficient evidence to prove the above. However, the findings did demonstrate that 70% of pilots could define each procedure, 8.5% chose that they could not define each procedure, 13% stated they were unaware of the differences among the procedures, and 8.5% said they all meant the same thing. Hence, whilst the ordinal regression was not successful, this question did highlight that most pilots felt comfortable differentiating a go-around from the landing transition point, from below the landing transition point, and during the flare, respectively. Similarly, the pilots in the survey were asked how often they conducted a go-around (Table 18). The ordinal regression for this failed to produce a result for this question. Most pilots do not regularly schedule go-around procedures in their flights, and instead only do them during a proficiency check. Responding to the question \"Do you consider a go-around procedure during your landing checklist?\", the pilots responded with a mix from yes to no, with 48% of pilots responding \"Yes, I always prepare for go-around procedure\", 35% answering \"I think about a go-around if my approach isn't as stable as I would like\", and 13% stating \"Even if my approach is stable, I sometimes incorporate go-around procedures in my landing checks, but not all the time\". Only 4% of respondents answered \"No, I do not think about go-around procedures during the approach and landing phases\". For the ordinal regression, the \"hours\" coefficient of 0.0012 suggests that the more hours a pilot has, the more likely they are to answer yes. Nevertheless, the \(p\)-value of 0.307 would make this statistically insignificant, indicating that there is not enough evidence to prove this correlation. In response to \"When would you conduct a go-around procedure\" (Table 19), the ordinal regression did not work. This could be due to many participants answering similarly to each other, alongside various other reasons. Almost all participants agreed they would go around by approach or short final. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Answer** & **Proportion** & **Reason** \\ \hline Every time I fly & 0\% & \\ Every 2–3 flights & 18\% & \\ During a proficiency check & 46\% & \\ Once a year & 0\% & \\ Any time I feel rusty & 8\% & \\ I don’t practise them & 14\% & \\ I schedule them into practice & 14\% & “Every 2–3 h” \\  & & “Only go-around if approach is unstabilised” \\  & & “Depends where students are in their training” \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 18: How often pilots conduct a go-around. Continuing with assessing whether pilots had trained for a go-around during the flare, 9% of respondents had not trained for a go-around during the flare. Meanwhile, 74% of pilots said that they have had training for this, and 17% answered that \"I have done training for a go-around; however, I have not conducted one from this stage of flight\". The hours coefficient of \(-0.0008\) indicates that as hours increase, the likelihood of having trained for these decreases very slightly. However, the \(p\)-value of 0.545 is too high for this to be statistically significant. Additionally, during the roundtable discussion, many pilots mentioned that they practise go-arounds from 500 ft, not during the flare. This could be due to the high risk involved for the instructor, aircraft, and passengers, should the recovery not go to plan. Alongside the risky nature of the procedure, existing attitudes towards go-arounds can hinder the decision-making process.