Talk:Controlled flight into terrain

message: 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)
thread_title:  EGPWS vs. TAWS

message: 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)
replies: text: removed these 2 accidents --Saschaporsche (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest to remove two accidents

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picture 

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  911 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thunderbird Diamond Crash 

message: 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)
thread_title:  United Airlines Flight 389 

message: 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? []
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)
thread_title:  American Airlines Flight 965 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Cummulo" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Cheers, mate. btw: It's "spatial", not "spacial". Funny grammar, isn't it? :-) 88.152.4.45 (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life expectancy in clouds 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Notable incidents -> table? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Over 9000 usage, meme takes over article respect 

message: An image used in this article, , 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)
thread_title: File:Air New Zealand Flight 901.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: 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)
replies: text: In this document: , "Page 7" there are some definitions of CFIT. `a5b (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dogfighting 

message: 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 ; moved from Aviation_safety; added originally:  at 19 December 2004 by User:4.64.65.225. No citation for more than year. `a5b (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I've removed it. Superm401 - Talk 01:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  computerized flight into terrain 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree I have removed it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aeroflot 821? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Controlled flight into terrain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120306010038/http://www.flighttrainingnews.co.uk/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76:uncontrolled-flight-into-terrain-ufit&catid=13:james-mcbride&Itemid=14 to http://www.flighttrainingnews.co.uk/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76:uncontrolled-flight-into-terrain-ufit&catid=13:james-mcbride&Itemid=14
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please note that WP:SOURCELIST stipulates that "Lists, whether they are stand-alone lists (also called list articles) or embedded lists, are encyclopedic content just as paragraph-only articles or sections are. Therefore, all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well." Additionally, WP:CIRCULAR makes it clear that Wikipedia articles are not in and of themselves reliable sources.
My reading of this suggests that for the Notable accidents table we should be provided sources establishing not just that these are notable accidents but that they are also considered CFIT accidents. Currently few of the entries are sourced, which means there's no in-article way to readily verify that the accidents listed are CFIT. It should not be incumbent on readers to have to refer to other articles to confirm the information published at this one.
Other opinions are welcome. DonIago (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish slapping a Refimprove template on an article was as time consuming as it is to add all the references it complains about. Duplicating all those refs for this kind of largely uncontroversial articles is a massive waste of editors' time. I'm certainly not wasting mine, and you have not improved the article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on your rather knee-jerk response, you don't care enough about the article to bring it up to Wikipedia standards then, and I'm guessing you're not especially interested in discussing the matter further either. So be it. If nobody else weighs in I'll give it some time before taking further action. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

text: I'm amenable to this approach. I think ideally we'd have a listing of more "notable" CFIT accidents, but I have no idea how we could objectively distinguish those, as plane accidents tend to attract news coverage in general. Morbidly speaking, we could just list the "top" accidents in terms of casualties, but... In any case, a concern with the table is that well-meaning editors are likely to continue to add entries without sourcing, so we'd end up having to police the table for those. Thanks for your thoughts on this! DonIago (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: MilborneOne, what DonIago says is the opposite to what you said: even if the big table was "just a list of accidents with linked articles", his point is that it would still need references, which to me it's just pedantic. I too thought about ditching the big table before, because it does indeed overwhelm the article. However, a proper list article of CFIT accidents would definitely add value. The existing CFIT category is not very easy to navigate, with all the articles dumped in alphabetical order; a proper list article would have them sorted chronologically and maybe grouped in some meaningful way. It's quite some work though, especially if we have to copy all the references from the articles to their respective entry in the list. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not object to a seperate List of controlled flight into terrain accidents, as you said if it was properly organised it would help the reader. Need to be clear on the grouping of causes like weather related etc. MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be okay with "outsourcing" the current list from this article, and taking it as an opportunity to improve matters. DonIago (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable accidents and sourcing 

message: Moving this here until we have consensus about how to dispense with it and resolve sourcing concerns, and what makes a CFIT accident "notable" (are there even CFIT accidents that don't meet the standard WP definition of "notable"?). DonIago (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable accidents table 

message: This article's tone is reminiscent of a personal essay about CFITs, not an authoritative encyclopedic entry on the subject. I think this article should draw more from instructional materials for private pilots for background. Also glaringly absent is a list of CFIT accidents. I cannot tackle all of this immediately, but I plan to return to this article in the coming weeks.
@pdxgimlet Pdxgimlet (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There's that notable accidents table above, which was in the article, but was exiled here pending consensus – which might have been done in good faith, but which move also often effectively amounts to a putting-out-to-pasture of the relevant info. That you possibly hadn't seen it would seem to tend to prove the point. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone adjustments and list of CFIT accidents needed