Formalizing the use of the word "crash"
In my work writing flight manual supplements for both fixed and rotor wing aircraft, I have had serious discussions with regulators that the word "crash" sometimes be used in at flight manual - here's why:
Much more so for rotorcraft than fixed wing, there can be situations where being on the surface as soon as possible is best. Examples of this include a uncontrolled fire, but more so, a transmission failure in a helicopter = the rotor may stop turning.
I have asserted that for such conditions, the commonly used term of "land immediately" is actually a trap for conscientious pilots. If I, as a pilot, am instructed to land an aircraft, I'll infer that I should find a place to put the aircraft where it may be reusable after I'm done. I may have to explain to someone why damage was done if I don't do a good job.
On the other hand, if for such critical conditions, like the rotor may stop turning in a minute or two, if the prevailing instruction to the pilot is to "crash" the aircraft, the pilot will clearly know that the intended outcome of their effort will be a crashed aircraft really close to the place on the flight path where that critical condition was detected. They're not going to fly onward to look for a place to "land", they'll just put it down where they are, as safely as they can. Of course, any pilot who has read and understood the instruction to crash an aircraft will still do their best to preserve life as best they can, so I'm not worried about them simply holding the nose down and closing their eyes.
If the pilots of a Cougar S-92 flight off Newfoundland were instructed to crash (ditch) the helicopter rather than "land immediately" they would be alive.
I opine that the word "crash" can be very useful, in the right circumstances. Helicopter drops onto a sports field and rolls over; news report says it "crashed". We all agree, because the pilot followed the FM instructions, and crashed it, 'cause of a transmission warning. It all lines up well....