| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Air Canada Flight 624 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a vehicle diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. |
 | It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Nova Scotia may be able to help! |
redirects
edit- TJP should link here
- C-FTJP ,
CF-TJP , CFTJP , FTJP - AC624 , ACA624 , AC 624 , ACA 624 , AC-624 , ACA-624
- AC0624 , ACA0624 , AC 0624 , ACA 0624 , AC-0624 , ACA-0624
- AIR CANADA 624 , AIRCANADA 624 , Air Canada 624
should redirect here -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- @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'. 220 of Borg 07:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- "624" is a typo, I've corrected it -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've created a redirect from the correct registration. Mjroots (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- "624" is a typo, I've corrected it -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
CFIT
editDoes this event not fit the classic definition of CFIT? 68.144.194.164 (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Landing short of the runway is not really CFIT in my opinion. YSSYguy (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agree that it is not CFIT. Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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
- Agree that it is not CFIT. Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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]
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)
- 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)
Cause
editHow should we describe the cause of this accident?
- Globalnews cites "multiple factors".
- 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.