The hidden edge in cockpit emergencies isn’t just training. It’s the pilot’s mindset, technical curiosity, and grit – and a new Safety Science study puts data behind what many instructors already sense in the circuit.
Researchers at Griffith University in Australia interviewed 18 pilots from different parts of aviation who had already lived through real in‑flight emergencies.
Their answers line up with what we see every day in GA and recreational flying.
When the checklist is not enough
The usual suspects still matter: solid stick‑and‑rudder skills, systems knowledge, and time in type. But in these pilots’ stories, survival rarely came from following a neat, linear checklist.
The study highlights a bundle of human factors that made the difference once the emergency was already unfolding:
- Emotional stability under pressure
- Clear, timely decision‑making
- Situation awareness when the picture is changing fast
- Professionalism and leadership, even in a two‑seat cockpit
- Willingness to improvise when the “book answer” does not fit
These are not separate traits. In the interviews, they fed off one another. A pilot who stayed emotionally steady could think more clearly. Clear thinking made it easier to improvise within safe limits, rather than freeze or fixate on the first idea.
Mindset: calm is a trained skill
One of the strongest themes was mental preparedness – the way pilots had quietly rehearsed emergencies in their heads long before they ever happened in the air.
This “pre‑briefing in your own brain” showed up in small details:
- Pilots who had already decided what “knocking it off” looks like for them
- Pilots who had walked through “what if the engine coughs here?” on downwind, base, and final
- Pilots who had mentally practised the first three actions after a failure until they were boring
When things went sideways, they simply fell back on a mindset they had been building deliberately: accept the problem, slow the situation down, and work one decision at a time.
Technical curiosity: knowing your aircraft beyond the POH
The study also surfaced something that often gets hand‑waved in training: system knowledge and technical curiosity.
Pilots who had gone deeper than “just enough to pass the test” had more options when systems misbehaved. That technical curiosity looked like:
- Understanding how fuel, electrics, and engine management interact in the real aircraft they fly
- Knowing which indications are truly independent, and which all come from the same failed source
- Being willing to ask “why does it work that way?” during maintenance, type transitions, or sim time
In several cases, this extra layer of understanding allowed pilots to improvise safely – for example, by reconfiguring systems, choosing a less obvious checklist item, or recognising that one scary indication did not mean the whole aircraft was lost.
Curiosity did not replace procedures. It made procedures more flexible when the failure did not match the textbook.
Grit: staying in the problem until you are clear of it
The third theme is the least glamorous and maybe the most important: resilience and grit.
Pilots who got their aircraft back on the ground did not tell “hero stories”. They described something quieter:
- Refusing to mentally check out before the aircraft had stopped moving
- Holding heading and attitude even when the outcome still felt uncertain
- Continuing to manage the flight after the immediate threat had eased – securing the aircraft, communicating clearly, and debriefing honestly
The study links this resilience to a cluster of traits: confidence grounded in practice, the ability to absorb stress without denial, and a commitment to professionalism even when nobody is watching.
Grit, in this context, is not bravado. It is simply the decision to stay engaged with the problem, minute by minute, until the emergency is truly over.
What this means for training
For instructors, schools, and pilots in training, the study suggests a shift in emphasis:
- Train the mindset, not just the manoeuvre. Every emergency drill is a chance to practise staying calm, verbalising options, and choosing the least‑bad path, not just hitting the right power setting.
- Make technical curiosity normal. Encourage questions that go beyond the exam bank. Point students toward maintenance hangars, system schematics, and real accident reports.
- Build resilience on purpose. Use scenario‑based training that includes ambiguity, partial failures, and long timelines, not only short, clean “fail‑fix” events.
The research does not downplay the value of procedures or modern automation. It simply reminds us that in the most critical moments, the true safety margin often sits inside the pilot’s head.