## 4 Results and Analysis
### Go-Around: Analysis
#### 4.5.3 Go-Around: General Analysis
Pilots at the Rockcliffe roundtable reiterated that reaction time is always impacted in a go-around, due to the complexity and suddenness of the manoeuvre. This is particularly prevalent in a go-around during the flare, as pilots are about to land but must very quickly change their setup to a go-around. Additionally, pilots also added that pitching the nose down and adding power is very counterintuitive and is particularly challenging for student pilots due to counterintuitive pitch and power changes. This was reflected in the survey results, with 65% choosing a go-around during the flare requiring the most focus to perform, followed by 5% choosing a go-around occurring between 200 ft and the flare. Also, 30% of pilots selected \"they are all equal\", highlighting that a go-around procedure from any height requires rapid situational assessment and precise execution. Pilots in the survey responded that certain factors could be off-putting when conducting a go-around (Table 24), with time and a commitment to landing being the most prevalent. **What Factors Put You Off Conducting a Go-Around Procedure? Please Select**  
**as Many as You Feel Are Relevant**  
Time; each additional circuit causes increasing time pressure  
10  
Money; each extra circuit will mean more fuel costs  
7  
Negative attitudes towards conducting a go-around exist within the GA community  
7  
A commitment to landing; upon approach you become committed to landing as far as possible  
8  
Lack of practice, I would not feel comfortable conducting a go-around  
1  
Other  
9 \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**What Factors Put You Off Conducting a Go-Around Procedure? Please Select** & **Number of Respondents** \\  & **as Many as You Feel Are Relevant** & 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 24: What factors put you off conducting a go-around procedure?However, many pilots did select the \"other\" category, expressing other factors such as environmental concerns, external pressures, and aircraft limitations. Evidently, this demonstrates the volume of variables pilots must consider when making decisions. Moreover, these answers included: that they are always open to a go-around unless there is an emergency like a fire, the hazards of low fuel, operational pressures, or the feeling of a failed landing. The perception of a go-around as a failed landing contributes to psychological resistance. Existing research highlights that flights with multiple go-arounds that were not part of flying practice had a significantly higher proportion of fatalities [23] compared to the practice flights and flights where the first go-around led to an accident. The pressure of pilots to land is reflected in this, as well as the high cognitive load associated with late-stage go-arounds. Finally, pilots were asked how perceptions shaped their likelihood of conducting a go-around. Fully 50% of pilots have found that a go-around was encouraged in their experience, while 29% chose \"go-arounds receive no backlash, performing this procedure is just like performing any other procedure during flight\", 4% chose \"after conducting a go-around, I have received negative feedback\", and 17% chose \"other\". Of those who responded \"other\", some pilots highlighted ATC pressure:  
\"ATC doesn't typically respond positively to unplanned go-arounds.\"--Survey participant 16  
Others acknowledged that commercial flying backgrounds, which they have stated advocate for go-arounds as part of their operational safety policies, have shaped their GA decision-making.