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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
@
65.94.43.89: I think that list is a bit excessive. Even if you don't get the search term right for a re-direct, the right page is very likely to be listed in the search results.
624 is already 'taken'.
220ofBorg 07:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)reply
"624" is a typo, I've corrected it --
65.94.43.89 (
talk) 08:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)reply
I've created a redirect from the correct registration.
Mjroots (
talk) 15:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)reply
CFIT
Does this event not fit the classic definition of CFIT?
68.144.194.164 (
talk) 16:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Landing short of the runway is not really CFIT in my opinion.
YSSYguy (
talk) 18:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Agree that it is not CFIT.
Mjroots (
talk) 19:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Changed my opinion as well - We dont know (at this point) if it flew into the ground on its own (mechanical failure, eg) however if it WAS flown by the pilots (or A/P) then it does actually quality as a
CFIT
" CFIT...describes an accident in which an airworthy aircraft, under pilot control, is unintentionally flown into the ground, a mountain, water, or an obstacle.[2] The pilots are generally unaware of the danger until it is too late."' ---->>
CFIT (
talk) 22:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Under your conditions, a bounce landing is CFIT, since it is unintentional to fly twice into the ground. Or a hard landing with landing gear collapse, since the collapse renders additional contact with ground. --
65.94.43.89 (
talk) 05:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)reply
The conditions for CFIT imply that the landing was-off runway. Ground does not mean runway. Please refer to the WIKI link posted for more details. I cite another WIKI example that was similar in nature where the aircraft struck the ground before landing, and was ruled as CFIT - but AFTER the investigation concluded no mechanical errors ocurred.
UPS Airlines Flight 135468.144.194.164 (
talk) 17:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)reply
I never said runway. Bounce landings can bounce the plane off the runway (or after landing gear failure), and there are still runway overruns, which end up with planes off runway. If your condition is contact with a non-runway area before landing is completed, there are plenty of incidences of running off the runway. --
65.94.43.89 (
talk) 07:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Running off the runway after landing is considered a Runway Excursion. This aircraft ended up on the runway, no thanks to the flight crew (purely by accident). Right now the TSB is calling this a "collision with terrain". Not hard or crash landing. Until they can establish that control was with the pilots (and not mechanical for eg.) it wont be ruled as CFIT.
68.144.194.164 (
talk) 17:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
[1]reply
So the TSB investigation revealed that the pilots FLEW the aircraft into the ground. I am adjusting the article to reflect this.
174.0.57.37 (
talk) 16:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Why was this reverted? This accident is the very definition of CFIT which can happen during landing events as well - see UPS flight in Alabama. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Leeveraction (
talk •
contribs) 17:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Cause
How should we describe the cause of this accident?
The Canadian Federal Pilots Association, quoted in
NewsWire focuses on "non-compliant SOPs"
The TSB final report lists 14 "causes and contributory factors" without assigning priority or even distinguishing between causes and contributory factors.