## 6 Conclusions  
Ultimately, the findings from this study have identified key safety issues in the Canadian GA sector related to the approach, landing, and go-around phases of flight. This reinforces the need for integration of go-around decision-making into training and regulatory policy. Encouraging timely go-arounds can improve decision-making and reduce accident rates in the final flight stages. Furthermore, regularly updating stabilised approach criteria for VFR operations is recommended. Any changes should then be disseminated via newsletters, online content, and in-flight training channels to reinforce best practices.  
Employing a mixed-methods approach has enabled the integration of qualitative insights with quantitative trends influencing incidents and accidents during the stabilised approach, landing, and go-around phases of flight. Quantifying anecdotal evidence through numerical analysis has validated themes from qualitative data. Such findings as those from this study suggest that pilot reluctance to initiate go-arounds may reflect limited practise and procedural ambiguity.  
Moreover, terminological inconsistency was identified as a major issue in pilot training. Using multiple terms to describe a go-around throughout training contributes to procedural confusion and inconsistent decision-making. Consistent terminology should be adopted to standardise expectations and reinforce technical clarity.  
Efforts to address these issues must extend beyond training and engage the broader GA community. The findings from this study recommend that peer-level safety discussions can help cultivate a culture of proactive decision-making. Regular safety briefings, refresher flights, and delivery of human-factor content via newsletters, social media, and seminars can reinforce learning. Expanding the reach of these updates will increase pilot situational awareness and support more informed, timely decisions.  
Therefore, by addressing the challenges identified during the stabilised approach, landing and go-around phases of flight--whilst refining training, communication and decision-making strategies--the Canadian GA community can work towards reducing incident and accident rates, thus improving flight safety holistically.  
Writing--original draft preparation, R.D.; writing--review, editing, and supervision, A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was partially funded by the Basu Travel Award of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Imperial College London, which funded the overseas travel for the field research in this research project.  
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Imperial College London (protocol code 7033804 and 16 May 2024).  
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.  
The data presented in this study is available on request from the corresponding author due to ethical reasons.  
This authors would like to thank Transport Canada and the Stabilised Approach and Loss of Control on Ground Working Group (SLWG) of Transport Canada for their assistance in arranging access to the pilots and facilities.  
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.  
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:  
AGL Above Ground Level AIM Aeronautical Information Manual AOPA Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association ATC Air Traffic Control ATCO Air Traffic Control Officer ATPL Airline Transport Pilot License CAA Civil Aviation Authority CPL Commercial Pilot License EAA Experimental Aircraft Association ETA Estimate Time of Arrival FAA Federal Aviation Administration FSF Flight Safety Foundation ft F