There's surely some interesting psychology at work with get-there-itis. I would be very interested to read about it. To my mind the pilot is weighing a few pos

There's surely some interesting psychology at work with get-there-itis. I would be very interested to read about it. To my mind the pilot is weighing a few possible future outcomes: - satisfying some obligation by completing the journey, getting pats on the back or avoiding further trouble. - disappointing or angering stakeholders (clients, wives and sisters-in-law, children) by cancelling a journey due to prudence, and then, potentially, further feeling that one will be perceived as inadequately skilled at something which is a prominent part of one's self-identity. - taking off anyway and maybe having to make an emergency landing en route, thus demonstrating eagerness to complete the journey and a heroic, skillful handling of a dangerous situation. - dying in a fiery crash. Even outcome three ends up being positive for the pilot. They get all the social credit for having attempted the journey, plus an unimpeachable excuse for failing to complete it. Dying in a crash is just a hard thing to imagine, so maybe features far less in the flight decision emotional risk balancing than it should. One of the vanishingly few safety things which the scuba diving community does perhaps better than aviation is the idea that "any diver may thumb [abort] a dive for any reason at any time," and that is fully expected to include just 'feeling bad.' It is an integral part of the buddy system which doesn't have an analog in aviation, but maybe there could be a mental preflight checklist which could be used to identify situations where GtI is a factor and thus give the pilot a basis for staying on the ground when their gut is saying, "don't take off!"