The situation in the article can be very well explained in layman's terms. Most people know enough of the ground-world and air-world to understand how things hit and what's important about hits.

However, the article uses an overly specific term, and on top of that, it overloads it with a meaning which is not the one found in literature. Notice that Wikipedia's diagram of "ILS" shows it as an airport-sized system made of several components, none of which is called "ILS".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ILS_diagramsimplified.png

This doesn't make understanding possible, unless you know what "ILS" means in the lingo.

In IT terms, this is akin to saying "A sysadmin tripped over a CISC and fell". To someone familiar to the terms, this translates to "someone tripped over a silicon chip with a CPU, most likely an Intel".

Meanwhile, a layman would look up "CISC" on Wikipedia and be confused about whether someone trippped over a computer box, an instruction set, or a processor. All of this is confusing and irrelevant to the point, which can be understood by anyone: someone tripped over a few cm wide piece of silicon.

Back to the aviation article: "A plane hit a few meter high tower housing an ILS antenna." conveys all the information, but doesn't leave anyone in the cold.

I stand by my initial complaint: any speech that obscures the actual topic behind lingo available only to a small group of people should stay in that small group or improve.