Talk:Controlled flight into terrain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aviation accidents (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

EGPWS vs. TAWS[edit]

EGPWS is a product name (from Honeywell company) which "implements" the TAWS system. Shouldn't the article use "TAWS" instead of "EGPWS" ? --Laomai Weng (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggest to remove two accidents[edit]

Both crashes of the thunderbirds ( jan18, 1982 and sept 14, 2003) are - in my opinion- not CONTROLLED flight into terrain. Both are crashes while performing aerobatic maneuvres, and should be listed on a different list. --Saschaporsche (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

removed these 2 accidents --Saschaporsche (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture[edit]

What's the picture of a guy ejecting got to do with the article? Sure, it's a nice picture - but it clearly isn't a CFIT. Suggest it's removed. 89.5.234.158 (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

911[edit]

Aren't the 11/09/01 plane hijacks and subsequent crashes into buildings technically CFITs ?

Buildings aren't terrain. Kurt Weber 19:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the planes did land in a field. Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The article states CFITs are inadvertent. All of the September 11 planes were intentionally crashed, likely including United Airlines Flight 93 - the black box seems to indicate the terrorists crashed the plane upon losing control. So none of the September 11 crashes are CFITs. 49giantsharks (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Damnit, someone beat me to this joke. 86.166.56.224 (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This article should explain what category an intentional flight into terrain or other fixed object (such as the 9/11 hijackings) falls in to. Bonus Onus (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What did the NTSB rule? Or did they leave the investigation to the FBI? (In my opinion flt 93 was not cfit. As a thought point, even though af af447 was not ruled cfit, it would be closer to cfit that flt 93.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.241.250 (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thunderbird Diamond Crash[edit]

According to the USAF Thunderbirds air demonstration team article, there was a crash of four of their planes following the malfunction of the lead pilot's controls; the three planes following him were paying attention to him and not to the ground coming up at them. Is this a notable enough instance to have a brief mention added to this article? --BlueNight 06:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the notability standard applied to the list of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft. If the instance is notable enough to have its own dedicated article, not just a mention in USAF Thunderbirds' entry, then the crash could be included here. plmoknijb 22:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 389[edit]

Could someone familiar with this type of aviation accident or this crash in particular review the article on United Airlines Flight 389, linked from this page. An alternate, but apparently not widely accepted, theory that the plane was blown up by an explosive device is included. This seems to be drawn primarily from a first-hand account and qualifies itself with this sentence: "This is a question that has seldom even been asked." -- jqubed (Talk | Contributions) 20:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 965[edit]

The article states that "Statistics show that no aircraft fitted with a terrain awareness and warning system has ever suffered a CFIT accident." But what about American Airlines Flight 965? [[1]] This aircraft had a terrain awareness system fitted and yet crashed unintentionally into a mountain near Buga in Columbia, so this statement would appear to be incorrect. --Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out; text has been corrected. The TAWS term is sometimes used to refer to EGPWS rather than older GPWS systems, which is a confusing usage. PolarYukon (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Cummulo"[edit]

This page is, for some reason, accessible as "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cummulogranite" but not the proper spelling of "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulogranite". I have no idea how to fix this, so I figured I'd point it out. 71.113.73.25 (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Life expectancy in clouds[edit]

It is stated in the article that "Pilots who enter cloud without navigational instruments–flying blind–have a life expectancy of somewhere around 19 seconds,[1]." Reference [1] almost literally makes the same statement without further explanation on how this number was obtained. In my opinion it is therefore not a reliable and traceable source, but this is not the point I want to make here. I rather find that, regardless of the source, this number must be wrong. I assume that it is rather meant that those pilots who die after entering a cloud do so after on average 19 seconds. If this is not what is meant, then a single pilot living until his natural death (potentially many years) after having flown through a cloud would catapult the average number well into the range of minutes or hours unless absolutely vast numbers of pilots have died in clouds in the past. Does anyone feel like makeing a more precise statement in the article or find a more meaningful source? Thanks, 88.152.4.45 (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It is very misleading, I'm going to remove it. The stat is saying that pilots withint equipment to determine their orientation (right side up, upside down, etc) or without the proper training (new solo student pilot, etc) will have a poor outcome. However, this is *NOT* CFIT, this is spacial disorientation. I'm going to correct this. -robert, FAA Certified Flight Instructor, FAA Certified Commercial Pilot --RobertGary1 (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I've correct this. The original statement was misplaced because it deals with spacial disorientation which is very much NOT controlled. --RobertGary1 (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Cheers, mate. btw: It's "spatial", not "spacial". Funny grammar, isn't it? :-) 88.152.4.45 (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Inexperienced Pilots in the clouds[edit]

I believe the 19-second figure refers to the time from disappearance of visual clues to departure from controlled flight. One can see that even if loss of control is instantaneous, any aircraft flying above a couple of thousand feet would take more than 19 seconds to strike the ground. However, I agree it does not belong in a CFIT article, since we are talking here about aircraft striking the ground while the pilot was in control.74.239.2.104 (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't hitting the ground, it is overstressing the airframe so the wings are ripped off. During experiments (NASA maybe?), on average, when a person untrained in instrument flight lost outside references, they would misinterpret the effects of flight on their bodies and would erroneously attempt to correct it, usually causing the aircraft to go into a spiral dive, which very quickly escalated into ripping the wings off the aircraft. During the tests it took on average just 19 seconds for this to happen. Buddy Holly (the day the music died) died in one such incident, as did John F. Kennedy, Jr. when he crashed near Martha's Vineyard.NiD.29 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
One of the most time-consuming aspects of blind flying training, i.e., for IFR, is teaching the student pilot to ignore the physical sensations and rely on the instruments to the exclusion of all else. This is very difficult for the student at first and takes practice.
FWIW, the RAF in the 1930s found that it took as long again to train a pilot for instrument flying as it did to train him to fly in visual conditions in the first place. In other words, it doubled the time needed to train a new pilot.
They also found that without proper instrument training a pilot, any pilot, flying into IFR conditions will eventually kill himself. The only difference between pilots was the length of time it took them to do so.
If you don't have an instrument rating then if your journey is delayed and likely to extend into the evening with poor light you cancel the flight and stay on the ground - if you are already in the air then you find somewhere to land, even if it means putting it down in a field or other safe open area. You can always resume your journey later, even if it means spending an uncomfortable night in a cramped cold and unheated aircraft in the middle of nowhere. Same if the weather is suspect. And you stay clear of clouds.
As they say; "Better late than never", as "never" is a very long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.31 (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Notable incidents -> table?[edit]

Maybe the growing list of notable incidents should be moved into a table, with columns for date, nb of casualties, notabilities, etc. AugustinMa (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Over 9000 usage, meme takes over article respect[edit]

Maybe it's just me, but I suggest you remove "over 9000 deaths", as this can cause corruption in article because people see internet memes and probably want to troll. If you don't like this, just remove this suggestion. I don't have any trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.204.28.101 (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Air New Zealand Flight 901.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Air New Zealand Flight 901.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Dogfighting[edit]

Would pilots who crash during dogfights (or otherwise performing evasive manoeuvres) count as CFIT? Is it at least worth a mention? Jellyfish dave (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

In this document: [2], "Page 7" there are some definitions of CFIT. `a5b (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

computerized flight into terrain[edit]

Some pilots, convinced that advanced electronic navigation systems coupled with flight management system computers, 
or over-reliance on them, are partially responsible for these accidents, have called CFIT accidents 
"computerized flight into terrain".[citation needed]

Original research? Added here at 6 September 2011 [3]; moved from Aviation_safety; added originally: [4] at 19 December 2004 by User:4.64.65.225. No citation for more than year. `a5b (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it. Superm401 - Talk 01:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


ASIANA 214 CFIT ??[edit]

My understanding is that Asiana 214 flew into the ground on a clear and calm day because the 3 crew members did not monitor their airspeed properly (they thought the auto throttles were engaged, which they were not). 70.75.236.3 (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, the asiana accident is not a CFIT, i removed the accident. Reference this document: [5], "Page 7" definitions of CFIT Regards Saschaporsche (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Asiana 214 should be listed as an "undershoot" accident 174.0.188.173 (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, one might call it an "undershoot" accident, but that too would be misleading. The plane crashed because it stalled close to the ground and that happened because they allowed the airspeed to fall way below the required and safe 1.3 Vref speed.
While they attempted a go-around at the last few seconds, it didn't work because the wings had stalled. When a stall occurs, the only way to get out of it is to push the engine thrust to MAX, AND to LOWER the nose so that the angle of attack is reduced. That is essential because the air will not begin to flow smoothly over the wings again, if that high angle of attack is maintained. Of course, to do that, the plane must have sufficient altitude above the ground to make that kind of recovery, which in this case it did not.
This was NOT a CFIT accident, precisely because their failure to maintain the required 1.3 Vref speed, led to a loss of control. That is what a stall amounts to: A loss of control, i.e., the plane continues to descend even though the pilot is trying to make it climb (the pitch was about 12 degrees ANU and the control column was in the full aft position). EditorASC (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Aeroflot 821?[edit]

Why is Aeroflot 821 included? The official investigation said that the pilots actually lost control due to their failure to notice and correct an excessive left bank.76.6.152.65 (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree I have removed it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Controlled flight into terrain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)