Talk:Controlled flight into terrain

Suggest to remove two accidents

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)[reply]

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

Picture

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)[reply]

911

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)[reply]

One of the planes did land in a field. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Damnit, someone beat me to this joke. 86.166.56.224 (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thunderbird Diamond Crash

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 389

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)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 965

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Cummulo"

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)[reply]

Life expectancy in clouds

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)[reply]