Changing Destinations in Mid-Flight

Tom Benenson

Friday, April 30, 2004 at 08:00 AM ET

Verified

Key Takeaways:

Pilots often endanger themselves by succumbing to "get-home-itis" or overconfidence, leading them to press on with flights despite clear evidence of imprudent conditions.
The article stresses the critical importance of continuous risk assessment and the willingness to deviate from original plans, highlighting that diverting or aborting a flight is a wise safety decision, not a failure.
It cautions against "expanding the risk-acceptance envelope," where surviving a risky situation is mistakenly attributed to skill rather than luck, urging pilots to remain within conservative safety limits.

See a mistake? Contact us.

Robert Goyer was on a flight back from Syracuse when the controller called him. “Let me tell you about your situation,” the controller offered. But Robert already had a pretty good idea. He’d been “looking ahead” and knew there were weather doings on his trip back to White Plains’ Westchester County Airport. He’d been in touch with Flight Watch (122.0) and been advised that things were closing down. The controller told him that everything south of Albany was well below minimums and if he needed to get to VFR conditions, he’d have to go as far west as Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

Robert elected to cut short his trip. He flew the ILS approach at Albany, left the airplane there, rented a car and drove home. I was impressed that his discretion outweighed any concern about valor or misguided machismo.