This situation overview provides information on CFIT or near-CFIT events in absolute terms and by aviation categories and on related events. The information is produced by the Finnish Transport and Communications Agency Traficom and updated in English annually. In Finnish the information is updated twice a year.
N.B: For most up-to-date information on CFIT/near-CFIT events, change language selection to Finnish.
Controlled flight into terrain or similar near misses (CFIT/near-CFIT) 2025
In 2025, 6 CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain) or "near-CFIT" cases were reported, where an aircraft under pilot control collided with terrain or an obstacle or a near miss occurred. The number was below the 2015–2024 average (8).
3 cases occurred in drone operations and the rest in manned aviation.
The number of cases in manned aviation was below the long-term average. Indeed, in the last few years, case numbers have remained quite small. The most serious case occurred in foreign commercial air transport in Finland. It was also classified as the year's only serious incident. In previous years, CFIT situations have caused an average of 1 accident and 1 serious incident annually.
In last year's serious incident, an aircraft arriving in Rovaniemi descended below the minimum flight altitudes defined in the approach procedure during the approach. The crew performed a go-around. The case was also reported to the competent authority of the airline in question, but more detailed information on contributing factors was not obtained.
In other manned aviation cases, a helicopter hit tree branches during landing, and in the other, the separation between the aircraft and obstacles required by air traffic control was infringed.
In unmanned aviation, the number of CFIT cases was approximately at the level of the average of previous years. The cases were typical impacts with trees or other obstacles during operations.
Types of incidents that contribute to CFIT situations
Factors contributing to CFIT situations are closely monitored, and these include incorrect altimeter pressure settings, incomplete obstacle information, and errors and ambiguities in aeronautical charts. Additionally, warnings from aircraft ground warning systems (GPWS) are an indicator to monitor.
Here are a few highlights based on this monitoring:
The number of reports regarding deficiencies in flight obstacle data decreased slightly from the couple of previous years but was still slightly above the 10-year average (28.2). Typical cases were again flight obstacles without required obstacle lights and cranes erected without permission in the vicinity of airports.
On October 1, 2023, the maintenance of the flight obstacle register and the processing of statements related to flight obstacles transferred to Traficom's responsibility. At the end of 2023 and in 2024, several reports related to this process were received, which kept the total number above the average. Also in 2025, reports related to the topic were still received. You can find plenty of additional information on flight obstacles on the Traficom website (External link).
The number of reports regarding incorrect altimeter pressure settings was clearly above the average (12.1). The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has identified the topic as a growing risk, and a bulletin published on March 9, 2023 (External link), highlighted the risks caused by incorrect pressure settings and gave recommendations for reducing them. An incorrect pressure setting can lead to level busts (overshoots or undershoots of cleared altitude), which can increase the risk of airborne near misses. In the approach phase, an incorrect pressure setting can lead to the approach being performed either too high or too low, which can cause a CFIT situation.
In last year's cases, a quite typical reason for the wrong pressure setting was forgetting. In many cases, it was mentioned that this was influenced by a message arriving at the same time from, for example, air traffic control, the cabin, or another party, which caused attention to be focused on another matter.
Last year, reports of warnings given by the aircraft's Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) were multiple times higher than the average, but in practically all cases, it was a false warning. The most typical reason for a false warning was GPS interference experienced during the flight, which affected the location data of the aircraft's systems. If disturbances occurred in vertical data, it could cause an unnecessary GPWS warning.
Last year, the number of reports regarding deficiencies in aeronautical chartdata decreased from the previous year. Many of these were the aeronautical chart data provider's own reports of observed quality deviations.
Observed errors concerned many kinds of aspects, such as lateral or vertical limits of certain areas, incorrect locations of areas, inaccuracies in radio frequencies marked on charts, and chart readability problems. Reports were not limited only to Finnish charts, but were also made regarding aeronautical charts of other countries. The cases did not cause more serious consequences.