> I always thought "controlled flight into terrain" was a good euphemism for "pilot error leading to crash".
Usually, but not always. The "controlled flight" part means the airplane wasn't either broken or outside its normal control envelope. The implication is that the crash resulted from something other than an inability to control the airplane. The usual assumption at that point is pilot error, but there are other possibilities -- malfunctioning navaids, bad charts, bad instructions from the ground such as incorrect headings or altimeter settings.
Once an airliner pilot asked for clearance into La Guardia in NYC involving a path that led across the downtown area after dark. He was given a flight level in meters but understood his assigned altitude to be in feet. He was flying between the buildings when the ATC and pilot sorted out their unit-of-measurement difficulties. The only reason ATC knew something was wrong was because the aircraft had an altitude-reporting transponder, or we might have had a 9/11 level catastrophe much earlier.
On that topic, in 1945 a B-25 flew into the Empire State Building in fog, something most people have long since forgotten:
To summarize, the aircraft model with which the crew were most familiar had a pitot heat switch that was activated by an upward movement (the ergonomic standard direction), but this aircraft required a downward movement (or the reverse, I forget which it was, but they were reversed). This meant they went through the checkist and set all the controls, but this control was set wrong through no fault of the pilots (more the fault of the manufacturer). Result: no pitot heat in winter conditions.
Next, during the after dark flight, the pitot tube froze solid in icing conditions, after which the airspeed indication became an altitude indication, at a time when the aircraft was in a climb. This made the pilots think they were overspeeding the aircraft, and they responded by pulling back on the controls. The stick shaker worked as it should have (warning of a speed approaching a stall), But the pilots interpreted this as ... get this ... mach buffet. The pitot system kept delivering seemingly higher and higher airspeeds as they climbed and (in reality) approached stall speed.
The aircraft finally stalled fully, deeply, and unrecoverably. For those who don't know this, you must not ever stall an airliner, because they are perfectly balanced front to back, to save fuel, but the side effect is if the aircraft is stalled, it cannot be recovered and will flat-spin right into the ground.
Small private planes will typically nose down in a stall, often recovering right away for an inexperienced pilot, but airliners have different priorities, one of which is economical operation. An economical airplane cannot afford to have a constant air pressure on the top of the elevator control surfaces, so this is designed out. But in trade, you must not ever stall the aircraft or you will lose it.
In the final analysis, multiple factors were involved (as usual), but the fact that the pitot heater switch had an activation direction opposite the ergonomic standard, all by itself could have prevented the crash.
It's my favorite story about the value of adopting consistent ergonomic standards -- to increase a quantity or activate something, controls should move up, or to the right, or clockwise. To deactivate or decrease a quantity, the reverse. How hard is that?
For those reading this who aren't pilots: pilots aren't ghouls, we like reading accident reports because every report teaches us something that we might use to save ourselves and/or our passengers if we encounter the same conditions.
Usually, but not always. The "controlled flight" part means the airplane wasn't either broken or outside its normal control envelope. The implication is that the crash resulted from something other than an inability to control the airplane. The usual assumption at that point is pilot error, but there are other possibilities -- malfunctioning navaids, bad charts, bad instructions from the ground such as incorrect headings or altimeter settings.
Once an airliner pilot asked for clearance into La Guardia in NYC involving a path that led across the downtown area after dark. He was given a flight level in meters but understood his assigned altitude to be in feet. He was flying between the buildings when the ATC and pilot sorted out their unit-of-measurement difficulties. The only reason ATC knew something was wrong was because the aircraft had an altitude-reporting transponder, or we might have had a 9/11 level catastrophe much earlier.
On that topic, in 1945 a B-25 flew into the Empire State Building in fog, something most people have long since forgotten:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Empire_State_Building_cras...