Boeing 737-200

Factors Leading to the Accident:
- The aircraft accident took place as a result of combination of various factors which directly and indirectly contributed towards the causation of accident. The primary causes of accident include, ineffective management of the basic flight parameters such as airspeed, altitude, descent rate attitude, as well as thrust management. The contributory factors include the crew’s decision to continue the flight through significant changing winds associated with the prevailing weather conditions and the lack of experience of the crew to the airplane’s automated flight deck.
- The reasons of ineffective management of the automated flight deck also include Bhoja Air’s incorrect induction of cockpit crew having experience of semi automated aircraft, inadequate cockpit crew simulator training and absence of organizational cockpit crew professional competence and monitoring system.
- The incorrect decision to continue for the destination and not diverting to the alternate aerodrome despite the presence of squall line and very small gaps observed by the Captain between the active weather cells is also considered a contributory factor in causation of the accident.
- The operator’s Ops Manual (CAA Pakistan approved) clearly states to avoid active weather cells by 5 to 10 nm which was violated by the cockpit crew is also considered a contributory factor in causation of the accident.
- FO possessed average professional competence level and was due for his six monthly recurrent simulator training for Boeing 737-200 aircraft (equipped with a semi-automated flight deck). Bhoja Air requested an extension for his recurrent simulator training on 07th March, 2012. As per the existing laid down procedures of CAA Pakistan, two months extension was granted for recurrent simulator training on 09th March, 2012. The extension was granted for Boeing 737-200 aircraft, whereas the newly inducted Boeing 737-236A aircraft was equipped with automated flight deck. It is important to note that Bhoja Air did not know this vital piece of information till their cockpit crew went for simulator training to South Africa. This critical information regarding automation of the newly inducted Boeing 737-236A was not available with Flight Standard Directorate CAA, Pakistan as the information was not provided by the Bhoja Air Management.
- Therefore it is observed that due to the ignorance of Bhoja Air Management and CAA Pakistan, the said extension in respect of FO for simulator training was initially requested by former and subsequently approved by the latter. This resulted in absence of variance type training conformance of FO because of which he did not contribute positively in recovering the aircraft out of unsafe set of conditions primarily due to lack of automation knowledge, proper training and relying on captain to take remedial actions. This is also considered as one of the contributory factors in causation of accident.
- The Captain’s airline flying experience on semi automated flight deck aircraft and his selection for automated aircraft without subsequent training and monitoring to enhance his professional competence and skill, is one of the factors in causation of the accident.
- None of the cockpit crew member challenged the decision of each other to continue for the destination despite violation of Ops Manual instructions which is against the essence of CRM training.
- After experiencing the extremely adverse weather conditions, the cockpit crew neither knew nor carried out the Boeing recommended QRH and FCOM / Ops Manual procedures to handle the abnormal set of conditions / situations due to non availability of customized Boeing documents for Boeing 737-236A (advanced version of Boeing 737-200 series).

Finalization:
- The ineffective automated flight deck management in extreme adverse weather conditions by cockpit crew caused the accident. The ineffective automated flight deck management was due to various factors including; incorrect selection of cockpit crew on account of their inadequate flying experience, training and competence level for Boeing 737-236A (advanced version of Boeing 737-200 series), absence of formal simulator training in respect of FO for handling an automated flight deck, non-existence of cockpit crew professional competence / skill level monitoring system at operator level (Bhoja Air).
- The cockpit crew incorrect decision to continue the flight for destination and non- adherence to Boeing recommended QRH and FCOM remedial actions / procedures due to non-availability of customized aircraft documents (at Bhoja Air) for Boeing 737-236A (advanced version of Boeing 737-200 series) contributed towards the causation of accident. The inability of CAA Pakistan to ensure automated flight deck variance type training and monitoring requirements primarily due to incorrect information provided by the Bhoja Air Management was also a contributory factor in causation of the accident.

Findings as to causes and contributing factors:
1. The late initiation and subsequent management of the descent resulted in the aircraft turning onto final approach 600 feet above the glideslope, increasing the crew’s workload and reducing their capacity to assess and resolve the navigational issues during the remainder of the approach.
2. When the heading reference from the compass systems was set during initial descent, there was an error of −8°. For undetermined reasons, further compass drift during the arrival and approach resulted in compass errors of at least −17° on final approach.
3. As the aircraft rolled out of the turn onto final approach to the right of the localizer, the captain likely made a control wheel roll input that caused the autopilot to revert from VOR/LOC capture to MAN and HDG HOLD mode. The mode change was not detected by the crew.
4. On rolling out of the turn, the captain’s horizontal situation indicator displayed a heading of 330°, providing a perceived initial intercept angle of 17° to the inbound localizer track of 347°. However, due to the compass error, the aircraft’s true heading was 346°. With 3° of wind drift to the right, the aircraft diverged further right of the localizer.
5. The crew’s workload increased as they attempted to understand and resolve the ambiguity of the track divergence, which was incongruent with the perceived intercept angle and expected results.
6. Undetected by the pilots, the flight directors likely reverted to AUTO APP intercept mode as the aircraft passed through 2.5° right of the localizer, providing roll guidance to the selected heading (wings-level command) rather than to the localizer (left-turn command).
7. A divergence in mental models degraded the crew’s ability to resolve the navigational issues. The wings-level command on the flight director likely assured the captain that the intercept angle was sufficient to return the aircraft to the selected course; however, the first officer likely put more weight on the positional information of the track bar and GPS.
8. The crew’s attention was devoted to solving the navigational problem, which delayed the configuration of the aircraft for landing. This problem solving was an additional task, not normally associated with this critical phase of flight, which escalated the workload.
9. The first officer indicated to the captain that they had full localizer deflection. In the absence of standard phraseology applicable to his current situation, he had to improvise the go-around suggestion. Although full deflection is an undesired aircraft state requiring a go-around, the captain continued the approach.
10. The crew did not maintain a shared situational awareness. As the approach continued, the pilots did not effectively communicate their respective perception, understanding, and future projection of the aircraft state.
11. Although the company had a policy that required an immediate go-around in the event that an approach was unstable below 1000 feet above field elevation, no go-around was initiated. This policy had not been operationalized with any procedural guidance in the standard operating procedures.
12. The captain did not interpret the first officer’s statement of “3 mile and not configured” as guidance to initiate a go-around. The captain continued the approach and called for additional steps to configure the aircraft.
13. The first officer was task-saturated, and he thus had less time and cognitive capacity to develop and execute a communication strategy that would result in the captain changing his course of action.
14. Due to attentional narrowing and task saturation, the captain likely did not have a high- level overview of the situation. This lack of overview compromised his ability to identify and manage risk.
15. The crew initiated a go-around after the ground proximity warning system “sink rate” alert occurred, but there was insufficient altitude and time to execute the manoeuvre and avoid collision with terrain.
16. The first officer made many attempts to communicate his concerns and suggest a go-around. Outside of the two-communication rule, there was no guidance provided to address a situation in which the pilot flying is responsive but is not changing an unsafe course of action. In the absence of clear policies or procedures allowing a first officer to escalate from an advisory role to taking control, this first officer likely felt inhibited from doing so.
17. The crew’s crew resource management was ineffective. First Air’s initial and recurrent crew resource management training did not provide the crew with sufficient practical strategies to assist with decision making and problem solving, communication, and workload management.
18. Standard operating procedure adaptations on FAB6560 resulted in ineffective crew communication, escalated workload leading to task saturation, and breakdown in shared situational awareness. First Air’s supervisory activities did not detect the standard operating procedure adaptations within the Yellowknife B737 crew base.

Findings as to risk:
1. If standard operating procedures do not include specific guidance regarding where and how the transition from en route to final approach navigation occurs, pilots will adopt non-standard practices, which may introduce a hazard to safe completion of the approach.
2. Adaptations of standard operating procedures can impair shared situational awareness and crew resource management effectiveness.
3. Without policies and procedures clearly authorizing escalation of intervention to the point of taking aircraft control, some first officers may feel inhibited from doing so.
4. If hazardous situations are not reported, they are unlikely to be identified or investigated by a company’s safety management system; consequently, corrective action may not be taken.
5. Current Transport Canada crew resource management training standards and guidance material have not been updated to reflect advances in crew resource management training, and there is no requirement for accreditation of crew resource management facilitators/instructors in Canada. This situation increases the risk that flight crews will not receive effective crew resource management training.
6. If initial crew resource management training does not develop effective crew resource management skills, and if there is inadequate reinforcement of these skills during recurrent training, flight crews may not adequately manage risk on the flight deck.
7. If operators do not take steps to ensure that flight crews routinely apply effective crew resource management practices during flight operations, risk to aviation safety will persist.
8. Transport Canada’s flight data recorder maintenance guidance (CAR Standard 625, Appendix C) does not refer to the current flight recorder maintenance specification, and therefore provides insufficient guidance to ensure the serviceability of flight data recorders. This insufficiency increases the risk that information needed to identify and communicate safety deficiencies will not be available.
9. If aircraft are not equipped with newer-generation terrain awareness and warning systems, there is a risk that a warning will not alert crews in time to avoid terrain.
10. If air carriers do not monitor flight data to identify and correct problems, there is a risk that adaptations of standard operating procedures will not be detected.
11. Unless further action is taken to reduce the incidence of unstable approaches that continue to a landing, the risk of controlled flight into terrain and of approach and landing accidents will persist.

Other findings:
1. It is likely that both pilots switched from GPS to VHF NAV during the final portion of the in-range check before the turn at MUSAT.
2. The flight crew of FAB6560 were not navigating using the YRB VOR or intentionally tracking toward the VOR.
3. There was no interference with the normal functionality of the instrument landing system for Runway 35T at CYRB.
4. Neither the military tower nor the military terminal controller at CYRB had sufficient valid information available to cause them to issue a position advisory to FAB6560.
5. The temporary Class D control zone established by the military at CYRB was operating without any capability to provide instrument flight rules separation.
6. The delay in notification of the joint rescue coordination centre did not delay the emergency response to the crash site.
7. The NOTAMs issued concerning the establishment of the military terminal control area did not succeed in communicating the information needed by the airspace users.
8. The ceiling at the airport at the time of the accident could not be determined. The visibility at the airport at the time of the accident likely did not decrease below approach minimums at any time during the arrival of FAB6560. The cloud layer at the crash site was surface-based less than 200 feet above the airport elevation.

Inappropriate decision by the captain to reverse the aircraft at night without external guidance.