“Aviate, navigate, communicate” – but how often do we forget to simply say “unable” when it matters most?
AirVenture Oshkosh 2025 is now concluded as I write this. Among the many great benefits of this annual event are the myriads of opportunities to meet and talk with other pilots. Standing in line one day (there were lines everywhere at KOSH), I struck up a conversation with the fellow behind me, who was (as I learned) about three years short of retirement with a major airline. The topic of flying into Oshkosh came up, as the airline captain and his adult son had arrived a few days earlier in a Cessna 180.
We talked about the challenges the arrival into Oshkosh presents – challenges that can test both professional pilots and GA pilots alike. We nodded to each other as we spoke about non-standard altitudes and patterns, and air traffic controllers forcefully requesting slow speeds, tight pattern legs, and steep turns. We both commented on the consistently high traffic density in and around the airport.
“I am surprised,” the airline pilot said, “that GA pilots do not use the word ‘unable’ more often.”
My new friend raised a very good point. In GA, there’s a persistent reluctance among pilots to admit limits – whether to ATC, passengers, or themselves. This article explores why saying “unable” is underused, the psychological and systemic factors behind it, and the profound safety implications of embracing vulnerability in aviation.
For GA pilots, “unable” can signal self-protection, technical limitation, or even fear. At its best, it is a boundary drawn with clarity and foresight. At its worst, it is a default response that shuts down collaboration and problem-solving.
The FAR/AIM Pilot/Controller Glossary defines “unable” as indicating an inability to comply with a specific instruction, request, or clearance. I believe that the use of the word “unable” is employed relatively much more frequently by commercial and military pilots than it is by GA pilots.
For example, we all know of or have heard the calm assertiveness of a commercial pilot saying “unable due to weather” vs. a GA pilot silently pushing through marginal weather. And, of course, we all know of Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger famously using “unable” during the “Miracle on the Hudson” water landing of an Airbus A320 on January 15, 2009.
Why the reluctance of GA pilots to use “unable?” There are many reasons. Start with “Ego” and “Overconfidence.” Many GA pilots are determined, high-achieving, and competitive. It is difficult to admit any limitations on abilities. Saying “unable” could be viewed as a personal failure as a pilot in command (PIC).
GA pilots may fear being judged, particularly in a high-profile situation such as a hectic and somewhat unpredictable arrival into Oshkosh during AirVenture. Many GA pilots, who contemplate the use of “unable,” are concerned about how they may be perceived by ATC, passengers, or fellow pilots who may be watching or listening to them.
There are certain cognitive biases that may prevent the use of “unable.” I think, with GA pilots generally, there is a belief that “I will just keep going along with this, and things will work out.” Optimism Bias is not a plan or course of action, especially when a pilot is confronted with circumstances that may be beyond his or her capabilities or those of the aircraft.
Another reason holding some GA pilots back is Confirmation Bias; that is, a pilot erroneously interpreting ambiguous or risky conditions as “good enough” or “safe enough.” It is not unusual for people (including pilots) to simply assume that if something has not been a problem in the past, then it will simply continue to not be a problem in the future. Bad idea.
In addition, some GA pilots wrongly assume that the airlines must receive preferential treatment. Because of faster airspeeds, instrument approach procedures, and revenue-producing schedules to maintain, airlines do often receive priority over GA airplanes at tower-controlled airports. However, I am unaware of any FAA regulation that states that GA pilots should always yield to scheduled air carriers.
As Mick Kaufman, a Certified Flight Instructor Instrument (CFII) and the program manager of flight operations with the “Bonanza/Baron Pilot Training” organization, wrote in the December 2017/January 2018 issue of Midwest Flyer Magazine, GA pilots can and must use “unable” when necessary and appropriate.
As Mr. Kaufman explained, a June 9, 2016, fatal stall/spin accident of a Cirrus at the William P. Hobby-Houston Airport (KHOU) could have been avoided with this single word. While the Cirrus pilot was attempting to fly the assigned pattern, the pilot was repeatedly vectored to go around because of faster airline traffic on final approach. Being courteous, the pilot agreed. The result: different runway assignments, different controllers, high or fast approaches, and a level of stress that likely caused the pilot to lose sight of airspeed on the last, deadly go-around.
As GA pilots, we must be assertive while flying our aircraft. Had the pilot in the KHOU accident, when told to go-around repeatedly, used PIC authority at some point to advise “unable,” this accident likely would not have occurred.
Why are many GA pilots more courteous and less assertive than their airline brethren?
First, GA often lacks the structured crew resource management (CRM) training and safety culture of the airlines. As GA pilots, we are exposed to significantly less training, and fewer opportunities to consult with and be mentored by more experienced pilots.
Second, the Private Pilot training environment does not explicitly teach when, and in what circumstances, to say “unable.” The use of this word is not theoretical; it has a very practical application that should be taught and explained early on in primary training, with emphasis on both the safety and the psychological aspects of employing it when necessary.
As readers of my articles know, I am a believer in Advanced Qualification Programs (AQP) for General Aviation pilot training. The airlines have for years successfully used AQP with its real-world, training-based scenarios to provide its pilots with better knowledge and, more importantly, to make its pilots safer. By adding an “unable” training scenario to the existing list of AQP training scenarios for GA pilots, it could help normalize assertive safety communications in GA.
When a new or inexperienced GA pilot is landing at an unfamiliar towered airport and is asked to accept a “Land and Hold Short” (LAHSO) request for landing traffic on an intersecting runway, that is not the time to impress ATC or your passengers. It may be possible to accept the request – or not – depending on altitude, airspeed, length of the available runway, and personal skills and proficiency. It is a PIC decision. However, if you have been properly trained to evaluate the ATC request in light of your experience, proficiency, and the other relevant factors, you will be much better prepared to both assess the request and, if necessary, to assertively state, “Affirmative,” or “Unable.”
There are also some systemic contributors to the reluctance of GA pilots to say “unable.” To new or inexperienced pilots, ATC can sometimes be imposing, and without even being aware of it, GA pilots can feel subtle pressure to comply, regardless of actual circumstances. GA pilots may feel that saying “unable” is disruptive to ATC’s coordinated traffic flow and will reflect badly on them with ATC or other pilots sharing the airspace.
Because there is no standardization in private pilot training for the use of “unable,” there may be inconsistent information and instruction from CFIs on the subject. Perhaps a real-world learning opportunity presents itself and provides the CFI with a teaching moment. But what if that real world experience does not happen? Where and when does a student pilot receive this training?
Also, as is true with some other misunderstood topics regulated by the FAA, some GA pilots may mistakenly believe that if they say “unable” at a towered airport, it implies vulnerability (i.e., lack of skill or proficiency), opens them up to scrutiny, and may result in a follow-up pilot deviation action by ATC. We all should know that, emphatically, it does not.
If there is a concern you have with ATC’s perception, you can allow yourself to reframe “unable” not as a weakness, but as wisdom. By doing so, you can demonstrate to yourself, ATC, and fellow pilots, that you are confident enough to recognize limitations and safely deal with them. As a result, you may even build trust with ATC. Using “unable” when needed can and will make your passengers safer. An added benefit is that if less experienced pilots hear the use of “unable” in radio transmissions, it sets a positive safety precedent.
To be clear: “unable” is necessary in certain situations. Wise pilots recognize when to draw the line, and they do so decisively.
If a pilot experiences an engine problem in IMC and cannot maintain the assigned altitude, the pilot will advise ATC, “Unable to maintain altitude due to engine failure.” Or, if advised by ATC to fly a certain heading for traffic avoidance, but the result may lead a VFR pilot to fly into clouds, the pilot should advise ATC, “Unable to fly that heading due to clouds ahead at my altitude.” Or, if flying on instruments in IFR conditions, and ATC requests a published hold, but the pilot determines the fuel onboard is insufficient, and will advise ATC, “Unable to hold. We are minimum fuel.”
In the above examples, “unable,” when used properly, becomes a lifeline. It informs ATC of an immutable boundary and prompts coordination. Used wisely, it protects without paralyzing.
As GA pilots, what can we do to reinforce the wise use of “unable?” First, if you have a story, or you have heard a story about a GA pilot who used “unable” wisely, share it with other pilots.
Second, propose workshops or seminars that broadly cover assertive communications by pilots, including the use of “unable.” I do not recall many seminar topics like this being offered and presented to GA pilots.
Third, all pilots should promote the integration of a humility-based safety culture into our GA flying. We do not need more macho pilots who will accept every ATC instruction without question or take every flying risk, regardless of skill level or proficiency.
Lastly, encourage CFIs to incorporate real-world “unable” scenarios into training. In my own private pilot training years ago, despite very good flying instruction, I recall only a passing reference to the use of “unable,” but without any real context or explanation.
I wrote an article for the January 1, 2025, issue of Midwest Flyer Magazine, “Eyes on the Target . . . Defined Minimum Maneuvering Speed (DMMS),” about the fatal stall/spin accident on the Monday of the week at AirVenture Oshkosh 2024. In that article, I focused more on the high traffic density, ATC’s instructions in guiding the pilot to a slow and tight left base turn to 36L, and the distractions encountered that divided the pilot’s attention into too many small pieces. The pilot lost sight of airspeed in the base turn close to the ground. Game over. Advising the controller “unable” could have saved the life of the pilot and his passenger.
As GA pilots, in any circumstance and at any towered airport, we should always have the courage to say “unable.”
We need to continually reinforce that use of “unable” is not about personal failure or a lack of flying skills. Instead, it is about flying smart.
So, when you are asked by ATC to comply with a specific instruction, request, or clearance, think for a moment prior to responding. Assess ATC’s proposition in view of your skills and abilities, your confidence level, and your aircraft’s capabilities and limitations. If the success of the contemplated action is not assured or makes you uncomfortable, speak up. Simply say “unable.”
Live to fly another day.
© Copyright Dean Zakos 2025. All Rights Reserved!
