The technology to prevent controlled flight into terrain exists. It’s installed in most business aircraft. So why are CFIT accidents still happening?
That’s the question the National Business Aviation Association’s Safety Committee is trying to answer — and they need pilot input to do it.
The Problem Isn’t the Technology
CFIT — controlled flight into terrain — is when an airworthy aircraft, under the pilot’s control, flies into the ground, water, or an obstacle. The crew is usually unaware of the threat until it’s too late. These accidents are almost always fatal.
Terrain Awareness and Warning Systems (TAWS) and Ground Proximity Warning Systems (GPWS) were designed to prevent exactly this. The FAA mandated them on turbine aircraft with six or more seats. GPS-based look-ahead modes give pilots advance warning of terrain conflicts. Synthetic vision, head-up displays, and integrated autoflight systems add even more layers of protection.
The technology works. Airline CFIT rates have dropped sharply over the past two decades largely because of TAWS adoption.
But business aviation hasn’t seen the same gains.
The Numbers Are Stark
Flight Safety Foundation data reviewed by the NBAA Safety Committee shows that between 2017 and 2025, 38 fixed-wing turbojet or turboprop aircraft were involved in CFIT accidents. Those crashes killed 114 people. Thirty-three of the 38 occurred during the enroute or approach phase of flight — exactly when TAWS should be providing warnings.
The data set is small, which makes it harder to identify patterns. But one finding stands out: pilot response rates to TAWS alerts are poor.
“Based on industry data reviewed by our working group, response rates are generally quite poor,” said Richard Meikle, executive vice president of safety at NetJets and leader of the NBAA Safety Committee’s CFIT Working Group. “It really doesn’t seem to matter whether you are in visual or instrument conditions, night or day, mountainous or flat terrain.”
The aircraft had the warnings. The pilots didn’t respond.
What the Survey Is About
The NBAA Safety Committee has launched a pilot survey at nbaa.org/cfit to better understand the human factors behind TAWS alert compliance. The survey is brief and asks pilots about their real-world experiences with terrain alerts — when they’ve received them, how they responded, and what factors influenced their decision-making.
“We want to know where pilots are experiencing these alerts,” said Mark Larsen, NBAA director of safety and flight operations. He pointed to one example: pilot submissions to the FAA’s Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) program flagged recurring TAWS alerts during extended visual approaches to Henderson Executive Airport near Las Vegas.
The results will be used to develop recommendations for system manufacturers, training providers, and operators. The goal is to figure out whether the issue is alert design, pilot training, operational procedures, or some combination of all three.
Why Pilots Ignore Terrain Warnings
There are several theories about why TAWS compliance is low, and the NBAA’s working group is exploring all of them.
Alert fatigue. Pilots who fly into mountainous areas or certain airport environments regularly may experience frequent nuisance alerts — TAWS activations triggered by terrain that the pilot is already aware of and flying away from. Over time, these false alarms can train pilots to dismiss alerts rather than respond to them.
Situational confidence. In visual conditions, pilots may trust what they see out the window more than what the avionics are telling them. The flight instruments might show the aircraft on the correct path, but if the altimeter setting is wrong, the actual altitude could be hundreds of feet lower than displayed. That disconnect has contributed to real-world CFIT events.
Lack of clear SOPs. Not every flight department has a documented standard operating procedure for how to respond to a TAWS alert. Without a clear, trained response — “you get a warning, you do this” — pilots are left to make judgment calls in the moment. Those calls are often wrong.
Training gaps. Most recurrent training programs don’t include realistic TAWS scenarios. Pilots may know what a terrain alert sounds like, but they’ve never practiced responding to one under pressure in a simulator that replicates the confusion and time compression of a real event.
What NBAA Is Doing About It
The survey is one piece of a broader push. The NBAA Safety Committee has also released updated CFIT resources that include new training scenarios and case studies.
The training scenarios are built from real accident data. One is based on a high-profile event in Paris where pilots received an incorrect altimeter setting during an LNAV/VNAV approach. Meikle described why it’s effective as a training tool: the flight instruments show the aircraft on the correct path, but the wrong altimeter setting means the aircraft is actually much lower than the crew believes.
“It’s eye-opening to everybody when the flight instruments are showing the aircraft on the correct path,” Meikle said, “but due to an incorrect altimeter setting, they are actually leading you to a potential CFIT accident.”
These scenarios are designed for simulator instructors to use during recurrent training. The goal is to expose pilots to the cognitive traps that lead to CFIT — not just the mechanics of a terrain warning.
NBAA is also working on an industry-standard SOP for TAWS/GPWS alert response. The committee’s recommendations include three baseline practices for every flight department:
Keep the TAWS current. Make sure the system is running the latest operating software and obstacle database. Outdated databases are a known risk factor.
Have a written alert response policy. Every flight department should have a clear, documented SOP for how crews respond to terrain cautions and warnings.
Train to the SOP. Classroom briefings aren’t enough. Crews need simulator-based practice responding to TAWS alerts in realistic scenarios.
Why This Matters Beyond Business Aviation
CFIT is not unique to business aviation. General aviation pilots, especially those flying in mountainous terrain or at night, face the same risks — often with less sophisticated avionics.
The human factors at the core of this issue — alert fatigue, over-reliance on visual cues, poor procedures, and inadequate training — apply across the board. Flight instructors teaching instrument students should be talking about TAWS, how it works, what its limitations are, and what to do when it activates.
The NBAA survey is aimed at business aviation pilots, but the lessons that come out of it will be relevant to anyone who flies.
Take the survey: nbaa.org/cfit
