Copyright: Dougal Watson 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000.

patial orientation and

disorientation during flight:
Illusions during the
approach and landing.

Dr Dougal Watson
Virtually every pilot has experienced some form of illusion
during the approach and landing phases of a flight. Few cause
more than an untidy approach or a hard landing, unfortunately
fewer still are recognized for what they are - ILLUSIONS.
The approach and landing is the most demanding phase of a
flight due to the precision required and the increased workload.
The last thing that a pilot needs is some form of disorienting
illusion to interfere with these final flight segments. There are a
variety of illusions that can create problems during the approach
and landing. Fortunately it is usually possible, through

understanding and preparation, to prevent these illusions from

causing problems.
While flying an approach we continuously monitor our progress
on the glideslope, the flare, and the landing. Unconsciously we
compare each approach to a model built up in our mind from
all previous approaches and landings. This model lets us know
where things should be, how they should look, and how they
should move relative to one another at different times during
the approach and landing.
Our sense of vision is of prime importance in aviation (See
Visual dominance can lead to illusions and disorientation,

Dr Dougal Watsons
Aviation Medicine Website

Last Page

Next Page

Copyright: Dougal Watson 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000.

Aviation Bulletin, March 1992) and it is usually visual cues that

allow us to recognize whether our approach is above, below, or
on the planned glideslope. These visual cues include the
apparent shape and size of the runway, the spacing and size of
runway markings, the relative size of nearby objects such as
windsock, cars, and buildings, and the way objects move in
relation to one another and the aircraft. It is these cues, and
others, that we continuously compare with our minds model
to determine whether the approach is progressing as expected.

Figure 1.

When the visual cues do not fit our expectations (model) we

usually recognize the approach as not being right and make
adjustments accordingly. This may include corrective alteration
of the power settings, the aircraft attitude or heading, flap or
gear extension, or in the extreme a missed approach.
During a visual approach (to an airfield not equipped with
VASIS, PAPI, or similar) we maintain our glideslope primarily
by the perspective of the runway and the surrounding terrain. If
we fall below our intended glideslope the runway will appear
fore-shortened (Figure 1 - left panel) and the surrounding
terrain may appear to move by more quickly than usual.
Structures such as fence lines or buildings near the airstrip will
also take on a different perspective. During a night approach the
runway shape will appear fore-shortened and the runway lights
Previous Page

First Page

The effect of visual perspective during approach. The middle panel shows
a simplified view of the runway during an approach flown down a correct
glideslope. The left and right panels show, respectively, approaches flown
below and above the correct glideslope. Note the difference in runway
perspective.

Dr Dougal Watsons
Aviation Medicine Website

Last Page

Next Page

Copyright: Dougal Watson 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000.

will appear closer together than expected. Conversely, if we

approach higher than planned, the runway will appear to be
stretched out in front of us (Figure 1 - right panel) and the
terrain beside and below us may appear to move past slower
than expected. At night a high approach will result in the
runway lights looking further apart than usual as well as the
runway being stretched out.
Its not difficult to understand how differences in runway width
and slope can interfere with an approach. A runway that is
wider than you are used to will cause the illusion that you are
lower than your anticipated glideslope (Figure 2 - left panel).
This could cause the unwary to approach too high and flare too
early. I remember flying into Melbournes Tullamarine airport,
for the first time, and flaring at about 100 feet. All of my
previous flying had been on thin grass strips and I was
unprepared for this illusion caused by the runway width. A
thinner runway than expected gives the impression of extra
height. This causes the illusion that you are higher than your
intended glideslope (Figure 2 - right panel). Inappropriate
correction in this situation can result in a low approach and
possibly a hard landing.

Previous Page

First Page

Figure 2.

The effect of runway width during approach. The middle panel shows a
simplified view of a normal runway during an approach. The left panel
shows the visual perspective of a correct approach flown to a wider-thanexpected runway. The right panel illustrates the effect of a thinner-thanexpected runway. Compare these perspectives with those of Figure 1.

Dr Dougal Watsons
Aviation Medicine Website

Last Page

Next Page

Copyright: Dougal Watson 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000.

Runway slope can have a similar effect in that a downsloping

runway appears fore-shortened giving the illusion that your
approach is low (Figure 3 - left panel) and an upsloping runway
looks stretched and your approach seems too high (Figure 3 right panel).

Figure 3.

The absence of visual cues during night approaches makes

runway illusions more likely. Colour vision is impaired at night
because the colour sensors within the eye require relatively high
light levels to be activated. At night our depth perception is also
restricted. This is because cues such as the relative motion of
the ground below, the size of buildings near the runway, or the
width of nearby roads may not be visible. Night-time approach
perspective depends, almost solely, on the shape formed by the
runway lights. Figures 1, 2, and 3 also show the illusions that
changes in runway width and slope can generate during a night
visual approach.
I recently flew with the W.A. Royal Flying Doctor Service from
Derby to pick up a patient at Kalumburu mission in the
Kimberleys*. It was a clear night with virtually no surface
wind. We flew four missed approaches at Kalumburu before
landing. The approaches had not felt right to the captain.
Upon landing it was discovered that the runway lights, kerosene
lamps, had been placed wider than usual. This effectively
Previous Page

First Page

The effect of runway slope during approach. The middle panel shows a
simplified view of a normal horizontal runway during an approach. The
left panel shows the visual perspective of a correct approach flown to an
upsloping runway. The right panel illustrates the effect of a downsloping
runway. Compare these perspectives with those of Figures 1 and 2.

Dr Dougal Watsons
Aviation Medicine Website

Last Page

Next Page

Copyright: Dougal Watson 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000.

higher than glideslope approach. Subconsciously he may have

recognized a different perspective between the wider runway
lighting and the nearby settlement lights.

Figure 4.

Anyone who has flown into the Royal Australian Navys Air
Station Nowra will also appreciate some of the potential
problems associated with sloping runways. Nowras runways
dont simply slope down at the threshold but have a pronounced
dip in the middle and slope up again as you continue along their
length.

The effect of sloping approach terrain. The middle panel shows a

simplified view of a normal approach over horizontal terrain. The left
panel shows an approach over downsloping terrain causing an illusory
perception of approaching low. The right panel shows the opposite effect
as an approach is flown over upsloping terrain.

produced a wider runway than expected. The experience of the

pilot had probably allowed him to recognize that something was
amiss and go-around rather than continue what was probably a
Previous Page

First Page

The slope and composition of the terrain around a runway is

also a potential source of illusions during approach and landing.
It is difficult to maintain a glideslope visually when flying a
runway approach over sloping terrain. If the terrain slopes up
towards the runway we suffer the illusion of being higher than
glideslope (Figure 4 - left panel), because the ground is further
away than we expect. Conversely an accurate approach flown
over downsloping terrain will give the illusion of being lower
than glideslope (Figure 4 - right panel). This is because the
ground isnt as far away as expected. A classic example of this
illusion can be experienced by anyone who flies into the
Denham International airport in Northern W.A. (Figure 5).
The strip itself is on a salt-pan surrounded by dunes. The
sloping dunes cause a strong illusion that your approach is

Dr Dougal Watsons
Aviation Medicine Website

Last Page

Next Page

Copyright: Dougal Watson 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000.

lower than intended. To a lesser extent this also occurs on

runway 30/12 at Perths Jandakot airport .
Figure 5.

Shark Bay International airport near Denham W.A. Sand dunes

surrounding the strip cause both approaches and takeoffs to be flown over
sloping terrain.
Previous Page

First Page

The composition of the approach terrain is also important. If

you are familiar with trees being 80 - 100 feet tall on your
approach path you will find an approach over small, stunted
trees disconcerting. When flying a correct glideslope over
smaller trees an unfamiliar pilot will perceive his approach to
be too high (Figure 6). An often quoted example of this illusion
is USAF crews flying into the Aleutian Islands where the
evergreen trees are much smaller than on the US mainland. In a
similar manner flying over water, especially still or glassy
water, usually causes an illusion of being high. This occurs
because of the lack of adequate visual cues during the approach.
Lights near an airfield can cause illusory false horizons. In the
absence of a clear horizon, scattered lights on the ground may
appear to be stars. This may give a night flying pilot the illusory
impression of a higher nose attitude. Similarly the horizon may
appear lower than usual if there is unlit terrain (or water) and an
overcast or unlit sky behind foreground lights (Figure 7). An
example of problems caused by city lights is an American
Boeing 737 incident in 1989. This aircraft mistook the lights of
an industrial area for the approach lights at Kansas City
International Airport. Luckily at approximately 75 feet AGL,
two miles from the runway, the aircrafts vertical stabilizer cut
through a set of power lines and blacked out the industrial area.

Dr Dougal Watsons
Aviation Medicine Website

Last Page

Next Page

Copyright: Dougal Watson 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000.

This caused the crew to initiate a go-around and subsequently

make an approach using the correct lights.
Figure 6.

The black-hole approach illusion can also create great

difficulty for the pilot. A black-hole approach is made at
night, in the absence of a discernible horizon, over unlit terrain
onto a lit runway. Without peripheral visual cues such as
ground lights or horizon the pilot tends to feel that his aircraft is
stable and correctly positioned and that the runway moves or is
poorly positioned (Figure 8). This illusion makes the blackhole approach dangerous and difficult, and can result in a
landing far short of the runway.
Figure 7.

The effect of unfamiliar terrain composition under the approach path. If

used to tall trees an illusion of approaching too high may result during an
approach flown over small trees.

Previous Page

First Page

Unlit ground, merging imperceptibly with a featureless, unlit, sky may

cause a dangerous false horizon illusion. In this example the horizon
appears lower than it actually is.

Dr Dougal Watsons
Aviation Medicine Website

Last Page

Next Page

Copyright: Dougal Watson 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000.

The intensity of runway or approach lights may also contribute

to illusory effects during night flight. Very bright lights, or
lights viewed through extremely clear air, appear closer than
they really are. This can cause an approach higher than

glideslope and a premature flare. During poor visibility there is

a temptation to make approach lights the aim point when they
first come into view through the weather. Many mishaps have
been caused by using approach lights as an aim point.

Figure 8.

occurs because, on glideslope, you are looking at the runway

surface through a much greater thickness of fog (Figure 9).
Figure 9.

During a black hole approach, in the absence of visual horizon cues, a

pilot tends to assume his aircraft is stable.

Rain and fog tend to restrict visibility, obscure runway lights or

markings, and cause the illusion of being higher than expected.
Flying into gradually thickening fog creates an illusory
climbing sensation. Shallow fog can be quite disorienting when
runway markings, clearly visible from directly overhead,
disappear as you descend on the approach glideslope. This
Previous Page

First Page

A runway, clearly visible through fog when viewed from directly

overhead, may disappear when viewed through the fog while on approach
glideslope. A bank of fog is over twenty times thicker when viewed at a 3
angle.

Dr Dougal Watsons
Aviation Medicine Website

Last Page

Next Page

Copyright: Dougal Watson 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000.

Another important group of illusions that can occur during the

approach as well as take-off are the false climb and false
descent illusions that occur during dark night operations. It is
this type of illusion that probably caused the loss of Beech King
Air VH-LFH, her pilot, and four of her five passengers at
Wondai, Queensland on 26 July 1990. These illusions will be
the topic of the next article in this series.
No-one is immune to visual illusions during the approach and
landing phases of flight. Almost every pilot will have
experienced some of these illusions at sometime or other during
their flying career. Most of us probably wonder why we
botched up a particular landing without understanding the
sensory illusion that caused us to fly the incorrect approach
path. Those that make the effort to learn about these illusions
will be better prepared for their next flight. Those who are
better prepared and have a better understanding of their sensory

limitations are less likely to become victims of illusions during

the approach and landing phases of flight.
Acknowledgements: The following texts and reports are
acknowledged for their contribution of information and ideas:
Ernsting and Kings Aviation Medicine (Second Edition
Butterworths 1988); Gillinghams Spatial Orientation in
flight (USAF School of Aerospace Medicine USAFSAM-TR85-31 1985); The USAF Strategic Air Command Instrument
Flight Course article Landing Illusions: When what you see is
not what you get (Combat Crew Magazine October 1991);
The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation report of the King Air
accident in Queensland in 1990 (BASI Report B/901/1047).
The opinions expressed are those of the author and should in no
way be construed as reflecting policy of the RAAF or the CAA.

This article was originally published as:

'Illusion: The last thing needed on approach and landing' in the CAA Aviation Bulletin, July 1992
Comments should be directed to the author, Dr. Dougal Watson at dxw@ozemail.com.au.

Previous Page

First Page

Dr Dougal Watsons
Aviation Medicine Website