Talk:United Airlines Flight 169

Notability tag

This incident could've resulted in a major crash. Although it didn't, it almost did. Its an unusual incident that has sustained strong coverage so far. The article also isn't a stub and has more than 15 citations. Lastly, it is to early to rule out that it won't result in changes or reveal a serious safety failure. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Rosbif73 Bloxzge 025 (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree that a wide-body airliner colliding with an active highway (vehicle and light pole, causing crashes and an injury) is inherently notable. The NTSB has also classified it as an accident due to the damage to the aircraft; this usually results in recommendations from the NTSB which would be the "lasting effect." Alpacaaviator (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Bloxzge, its basically Air Canada Flight 759, a near catastrophe, though didn't happen, it sustained strong coverage and there were some injuries. The damage and the pilots being relieved from their duty temporarily also can cover for future coverage. ~2026-27175-56 (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Almost all aircraft accidents and incidents sustain strong coverage in the initial news cycle, but notability requires more than that: per WP:NEVENT it requires secondary sources with in-depth analysis and/or lasting effects. It is clearly too soon to predict whether there will be lasting effects, and probably also too soon for proper analysis. In other words, we don't yet know whether the event will be notable, hence the tag. That's not the same as starting a deletion discussion; it is too soon for that. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

this incident reminds me of the Cargolux flight 7933 accident, though that article got deleted ~2026-26495-58 (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

i think this was on the news. (i really cant remember) ~2026-27635-42 (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

It's incredible this accident didn't cause more fatalities, and extremely fortunate. Regarding notability, I think this article is safe from deletion. We have decent coverage from NJ.com and The Independent among many others. 11WB (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

References and copyright

@Jahndah, please stop making bad citations. Also, I'm 99% sure you are copy and pasting stuff from the articles mentioned, which is against the rules. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bloxzge 025 Okay, but things I'm needed to say, I will add better cautious correctly. But for the copy and paste, I read sources and used it in my words (See Wikipedia:Use our own words) so secondary sources and coverages be added to the articles. For example, United Airlines Flight 169, needing it to have WP:GNG, WP:EVENTCRIT and require meeting WP:LASTING, and understand it is against the rules. Jahndah (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You can barely write semi-coherent English. -- Veggies (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Changing Infobox Summary

If the flight had actually crashed upon landing, the accident would have likely been recorded as a controlled flight into terrain(CFIT). We know of no major technical faults(like a dual engine failure) at this time, so CFIT looks to be the appropriate category.

As such, I suggest the summary of the inforbox be changed to: "Near Controlled Flight into Terrain; under investigation". Declan Newton (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

The current summary in the infobox is a bit wordy, perhaps, but I don't think your suggestion would be an improvement. While CFIT is indeed defined to include collision with man-made obstacles as well as terrain per se, the term isn't generally used to refer to accidents on landing. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree, I wouldn't use CFIT unless we see it used in sources such as news or NTSB investigation. Striking a manmade object but still landing safely is not what CFIT generally refers to, it often denotes fatal crashes into the ground or mountains. Alpacaaviator (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC). (Edited to fix typo) Alpacaaviator (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Since this is before the threshold, I would argue it is in a separate category from a hard landing causing crash for instance.

PIA flight 268 and Air Inter flight 148 both crashed while landing and are recorded as CFIT. Declan Newton (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

sorry to say this, but i have absolutely no idea what CFIT means ~2026-27635-42 (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

sorry ~2026-27635-42 (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Controlled flight into terrain, meaning for example the plane didn't have a mechanical issue or stall. For example, an airplane crashing into a mountainside in the fog because the pilot couldn't see it. Alpacaaviator (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

thanks, man ~2026-27635-42 (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

and im supposed to be a plane expert ~2026-27635-42 (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)