Cessna 208B Grand Caravan

On 28 February 2023, the Cessna 208B Caravan (208B) aircraft (registration C-GMVB) operated by 1401380 Ontario Limited, doing business as Wilderness North Air (WNA), was scheduled for 2 cargo flights from Nakina Airport (CYQN), Ontario, to Fort Hope Airport (CYFH), Ontario. The occurrence pilot, who had recently been promoted to pilot-in-command (PIC) on the 208B aircraft, was scheduled to fly alone in daytime visual flight rules (VFR) conditions. After reviewing the weather information with his colleagues at their morning briefing, he assessed that the weather was satisfactory for the flight and noted that the winds were forecast to be gusty. A pilot who was present at the briefing but was not scheduled for flight duty that day offered to accompany him. For all flights that day, the occurrence pilot would be the PIC and occupy the left seat, and the 2nd pilot went along as an extra crew member without any assigned duties, occupying the right seat. The cargo was loaded onto the aircraft, and the 1st flight of the day departed CYQN at 1020 and landed in CYFH at 1055. After unloading the cargo, they departed CYFH at 1120 and returned to CYQN at 1156. The pilots loaded the aircraft with cargo for their 2nd flight to CYFH. According to the load sheet, there were 3320 pounds of groceries and household goods on board. The pilots refuelled the aircraft and departed from Runway 27 at approximately 1245. A few minutes after departure, it was reported that they made a radio call on the aerodrome traffic frequency, indicating their location and an estimated time of arrival at CYFH of 1330. Approximately 30 minutes after the occurrence flight departed, a 2nd 208B aircraft (registration C-FUYC) operated by WNA departed also from CYQN to CYFH, with cargo for a different customer. The flight crew encountered snow showers en route, and shortly after they arrived at CYFH at 1400, there was a snow squall, which significantly reduced visibility. At that time, 2 customers were waiting at CYFH for their cargo, and it soon became apparent that the occurrence aircraft had not yet arrived. At approximately 1430, WNA personnel at CYQN were informed that the occurrence aircraft had not arrived at 1330 as expected. At 1445, management at WNA notified the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre (JRCC), in Trenton, Ontario, that the aircraft was overdue. WNA began its own aerial search along the flight path using C-FUYC, which departed CYFH at 1510 with 2 crew members on board, flew along the direct route of flight of the missing aircraft, and returned to CYQN at 1546. They refuelled the aircraft and departed on another search flight at 1620, with 2 additional pilots in the back to act as spotters. They searched along the route of flight until 1840 and returned to CYQN. JRCC had initiated its response at 1500, and the first tasked aircraft arrived in the search area at 1700. The search continued over the following 4 days. The occurrence aircraft was found on 04 March 2023, 30.8 nautical miles north-northwest of CYQN along the direct track to CYFH. Both pilots were fatally injured. The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces. There was no post-crash fire. There was no emergency locator transmitter (ELT) on the occurrence aircraft because it had been removed for recertification.

The airplane suffered an engine failure in flight and the pilot attempted an emergency landing. The airplane crash landed, lost its undercarriage and came to rest with its left wing and fuselage bent. Both occupants were injured.

After liftoff from Nasir Airfield, the single engine airplane encountered difficulties to gain height. It rolled to the right, impacted terrain and crashed in an open field, bursting into flames. All occupants evacuated but an elderly passenger later died from injuries sustained. The airplane was totally destroyed by a post crash fire.

After landing at Mweya Airstrip located in the Queen Elizabeth National Park, the single engine airplane was unable to stop within the remaining distance. It overran and collided with a house. All five occupants escaped uninjured and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair. It just completed a charter flight with three European citizens and two pilots on board.

The single engine airplane departed Renton Airport with four people on board, apparently on a pre-delivery check flight. In unknown circumstances, it went out of control and crashed in a prairie located near Snohomish, bursting into flames. The aircraft was totally destroyed and all four occupants were killed. It is believed that the airplane suffered a wing failure in flight.

The single engine airplane was engaged in a local training flight at Puerto Ayacucho Airport, carrying five pilots. While completing a turn on approach to runway 04, the airplane went out of control and crashed in a wooded area located about 3 km south of the airport, bursting into flames. The airplane was totally destroyed by impact forces and a post crash fire and all five occupants were killed. Puerto Ayacucho Airport is named Cacique Aramare but the military side is named José Antonio Páez.
Crew:
Cpt José Castillo Tovar,
Cpt Jefferson Aular,
1st Lt Roberto Aponte,
Lt Santiago Collado,
Lt Joé Rivas.

The single engine airplane departed San Lorenzo at 0900LT on a flight to Tarapoto, carrying 10 passengers and two pilots. About 15 minutes into the flight, the crew encountered technical problems with the engine and attempted an emergency landing when the aircraft crash landed in a wooded area located some 15 km southeast of San Lorenzo. All 12 occupants were rescued and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

After takeoff from Porto Trombetas Airport, the pilot encountered engine problems and attempted an emergency landing. The airplane crashed in a wooded area and was destroyed. The pilot was killed and all four passengers were injured. They were en route to Ayaramã to provide dental assistance to locals. On board were one dentist, one assistant, one nurse and one employee of the Brazilian Institute for Geography and Statistics.

The pilots were performing skydiving flights while the right-seated pilot was training the left-seated pilot on the operation. The pilots completed six flights without incident and completed the drop of the skydivers on the accident flight normally. The right-seated pilot could not completely recollect the minutes leading up to the accident due to his injuries. He did recall that airplane was descending as expected with the power at idle. The recorded ADS-B data revealed that after turning onto final approach, the airplane then completed a right 360° turn presumably because the altitude was too high. The right-seated pilot attempted to increase the power by slightly nudging the throttle forward and thought the engine power did not increase as expected. A performance study revealed that in the last 70 seconds of recorded data, the airplane underwent a series of speed and thrust oscillations consistent with a pilot increasing and then decreasing the power lever. The right seat pilot recalls aiming for an open dirt field and observing a berm in the immediate flight path. In an effort to avoid the berm, he maneuvered the airplane into a right turn. The airplane landed short of the runway, resulting in a collision with the berm. The engine was producing power at the time of impact. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The right-seated pilot was in the process of training the left-seated pilot and stated that he took over the controls during the final approach. It is unknown when he took over the controls, so it is unknown which pilot was at the controls during the speed oscillations. The right-seated pilot likely took over the controls too late and the airplane impacted the terrain. The left-seated pilot’s ability to hear the changes in engine power might have been hindered because she was listening to music through her headset at an elevated decibel level. The airplane was modified by a Supplemental Type Certificate that replaces the original Pratt & Whitney PT-6 turbine engine with a Honeywell TPE331 turbine engine. The TPE331 engine’s characteristics are such that if the airplane is on final approach with the power near idle, the throttle sensitivity (change in thrust per unit of power lever movement) increases around the transition between the propellergoverning and underspeed-governing modes of the engine, which corresponds to a zero-thrust condition. Near this transition point, small movements of the power lever (about ¼ to ½ inch of deflection) can result in relatively large thrust changes that can surprise pilots inexperienced with this behavior and result in pilot-induced oscillations (PIO). Given the thrust oscillations observed shortly before the end of the ADS-B data, it is likely that the left-seated pilot was at the controls and experienced such a PIO on a short final approach to land.

The pilot flew two RNAV (GPS) runway 20 instrument approaches at the Burley Municipal Airport, Burley, Idaho in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The accident occurred during the second approach. For the first instrument approach, the pilot configured the airplane with flaps up and flew the final approach segment at speeds above the operator’s training standard of 120 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS).The pilot flew a low pass over the runway, most likely to assess the landing conditions in accordance with company policy, determined the conditions were acceptable, initiated the missed approach and requested to return flying the same approach. The pilot elected to not use flaps during the second approach but slowed the approach speed during the final approach leg. Reported weather had improved and visibility had increased to about 2.5 miles. During this approach, the airplane intercepted and remained on the glide path to the stepdown fix. The last automatic dependent surveillance - broadcast (ADS-B) equipment plot recorded the airplane about a mile past this fix, or about 0.6 nautical miles (nm) from the displaced threshold, on the glide path, and at an estimated 85 knots calibrated airspeed (KCAS), which was slower than the airplane’s 95-knot minimum speed for flaps up in icing conditions. Shortly afterward, the airplane descended about 130 ft below the glide path, striking an agglomerate stack atop a potato processing plant, fatally injuring the pilot and substantially damaging the airplane. A witness reported seeing the airplane come out of the clouds and immediately enter a steam cloud coming from six other stacks before striking the accident stack. A security camera at the processing plant captured the last moments of the airplane’s flight as it came into view in a wings-level, flaps-up, nose-high descent and just before it impacted the stack. While snow and visible moisture were present, the agglomerate stack was always in clear view during the Page 2 of 24 WPR22FA151 video, with only partial sections obscured. The witness’s account of hearing the engine noise increase and then the nose lift-up may have been the pilot’s attempt to avoid the obstacle. The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Aeronautical Information Manual advises pilots to avoid overflight of exhaust stacks; however, the accident stack was directly underneath the instrument approach course and overflight would be expected. Postaccident examination of the airplane, conducted hours after the accident, revealed no structural icing on the wings and empennage. Examination of the airframe and powerplant revealed no mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The flaps were up, and a review of the manifest revealed the airplane was loaded within the specifications of the manifest and within the center of gravity limits. Between 2016 and 2017, the FAA conducted two aeronautical studies regarding the stack structures. In the first study, the FAA determined that many of the stack structures were a hazard to air navigation that required mitigation by the processing plant. As an interim measure, the FAA placed the runway 20 visual approach slope indicator (VASI) out of service because the stacks penetrated the obstruction clearance surface and were deemed hazardous to aviation. After determining that they needed to increase the height of the stacks, the plant then modified their proposal; the proposed height increase necessitated a second study. The second study determined the agglomerate stack and the row-of-six stacks exceeded the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 77 standards and provided mitigating actions that included painting the stacks with high visibility white and aviation orange paint and equipping the stacks with red flashing warning lights. The control measures also included the permanent removal of the VASI. On the day of the accident, the agglomerate stack and row-of-six stacks had not been painted to the standard required by the FAA. The warning lights had been installed, and five of the row-of-six stacks were equipped with flashing red lights. The agglomerate stack warning light was stolen following the accident, so an accurate determination of its operating status could not be made. The existing paint scheme and the visible moisture emitted by the stacks provided a low contrast to the environmental background. This low contrast and the lack of a visual glide slope indicator may have caused difficulty for the pilot in maintaining a safe altitude during the visual portion of the approach to the runway. A white and aviation orange paint scheme, as identified in the regulations, may have offered a higher contrast and thus an adequate warning once the pilot transitioned to visual conditions.