## 4 Results and Analysis
### Stabilised Approach: Analysis
#### 4.3.2. Stabilised Approach: General Analysis  
During the survey, two questions were included to assess the approach decision criteria in different contexts. Participants could select as many as were applicable to them, with the questions having many common factors. The role of having two similar questions was to see whether the factors influencing approach remained consistent, given different pilot scenarios. The questions remained slightly different, to ensure that they remain autonomous of each other, with the results shown in Table 8.  
The top three choices for both questions included airspeed, alignment with the centreline/runway alignment, and approach path/position relative to the runway. Whilst there is a difference in the latter option, the consistency indicates that pilots do categorise tasks into areas of priority [95], and this is continuously done on approach. The roundtable discussions added to this, stating that consistency is needed by setting touchdown and aim points beforehand and being meticulous about sticking to them. However, they also added that the concept of a stabilised approach is a concept associated with IFR, rather than a VFR approach. This indicates that a structured, standardised approach may be missing from VFR flying, which gives pilots significantly less clarity on what to expect during approach. To expand on the approach scenarios, pilots were asked about more hazardous approaches, assuming all other factors remained the same. When questioned about certain weather conditions, pilots favoured to abort the approach and circle until visibility improves option. Comparatively, 4% of pilots said they would be happy to continue the approach, relying on local knowledge. A concept conveyed by a pilot at Smiths Falls indicates the overarching theme of approaches, that \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline  & **You Are Flying a VFR Approach and** \\  & **What Factors Do You Look at to** & **Reach the Landing Transition Point.** \\  & **Determine Whether an Approach Is** & **Which of the Following Do you** \\  & **Stabilised or Not?** & **Look at to Determine Whether to** \\  & & **Continue Your Approach?** \\ \hline
**Factor** & **Number of Responses** & **Number of Responses** \\ \hline Airspeed & 21 & 19 \\ Alignment with the centre & 19 & 21 \\ line/runway alignment & 13 & 14 \\ Configuration/flap configuration & 14 & \\ Crosswind factor & 14 & \\ ATC permission (if applicable) & 11 & \\ Height of aircraft & 17 & \\ Position with regard to the runway & 19 & \\ State of the runway & 11 & \\ Weather conditions & 10 & \\ Being visual with the runway & 11 & \\ Approach path & & 20 \\ Descent rate & & 15 \\ Power setting & & 14 \\ Briefings and checklists & & 7 \\ Other & 4 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Factors determining an approach. \"Each approach shouldn't correlate [to] a landing.\"--SF2  
Many pilots who answered \"Other\" in the survey discussed diverting to alternate airports if fuel permitted, avoiding fog entirely, depending on how intense it is, or finding out whether the conditions would improve and waiting before attempting an approach. Meanwhile, pilots were asked how they would handle a familiar approach (Table 9), knowing that there are potential hazards on the approach. Most pilots elected to conduct a comprehensive pre-landing briefing, even if the area is familiar, followed by performing an overly of the area to inspect for any changes or obstacles. These responses indicate that pilots would err on the side of caution on approach, ensuring that they have a mental image of what to expect on approach before conducting it. Pilots in the survey also mentioned creating a mental model, studying the airport documentation before leaving, and using tools like Google Maps to gather local knowledge of the terrain before the flight. Furthermore, participants were asked about the steps they take to ensure a stable approach, especially during night operations.