Val d'Or

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
For undetermined reasons, the crew continued its descent prematurely below the published approach minima, leading to a controlled flight into terrain (CFIT).
Findings as to Risk:
1. The use of the step-down descent technique rather than the stabilized constant descent angle (SCDA) technique for non-precision instrument approaches increases the risk of an approach and landing accident (ALA).
2. The depiction of the RNAV (GNSS) Runway 12 approach published in the Canada Air Pilot (CAP) does not incorporate recognized visual elements for reducing ALAs, as recommended in Annex 4 to the Convention, thereby reducing awareness of the terrain.
3. The installation of a terrain awareness warning system (TAWS) is not yet a requirement under the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) for air taxi operators. Until the changes to regulations are put into effect, an important defense against ALAs is not available.
4. Most air taxi operators are unaware of and have not implemented the FSF ALAR task force recommendations, which increases the risk of a CFIT accident.
5. Approach design based primarily on obstacle clearance instead of the 3° optimum angle increases the risk of ALAs.
6. The lack of information on the SCDA technique in Transport Canada reference manuals means that crews are unfamiliar with this technique, thereby increasing the risk of ALAs.
7. Use of the step-down descent technique prolongs the time spent at minimum altitude, thereby increasing the risk of ALAs.
8. Pilots are not sufficiently educated on instrument approach procedure design criteria. Consequently, they tend to use the CAP published altitudes as targets, and place the aircraft at low altitude prematurely, thereby increasing the risk of an ALA.
9. Where pilots do not have up-to-date information on runway conditions needed to check runway contamination and landing distance performance, there is an increased risk of landing accidents.
10. Non-compliance with instrument flight rules (IFR) reporting procedures at uncontrolled airports increases the risk of collision with other aircraft or vehicles.
11. If altimeter corrections for low temperature and remote altimeter settings are not accurately applied, obstacle clearance will be reduced, thereby increasing the CFIT risk.
12. When cockpit recordings are not available to an investigation, this may preclude the identification and communication of safety deficiencies to advance transportation safety.
13. Task-induced fatigue has a negative effect on visual and cognitive performance which can diminish the ability to concentrate, operational memory, perception and visual acuity.
14. Where an emergency locator transmitter (ELT) is not registered with the Canadian Beacon Registry, the time needed to contact the owner or operator is increased which could affect occupant rescue and survival.
15. If the tracking of a call to 911 emergency services from a cell phone is not accurate, search and rescue efforts may be misdirected or delayed which could affect occupant rescue and survival.
Other Findings:
1. Weather conditions at the alternate airport did not meet CARs requirements, thereby reducing the probability of a successful approach and landing at the alternate airport if a diversion became necessary.
2. Following the accident, none of the aircraft exits were usable.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The aircraft was configured late for the approach, resulting in an unstable approach condition.
2. The pilot flying carried out a steep turn at a low altitude, thereby increasing the load factor. Consequently, the aircraft stalled at an altitude that was too low to allow the pilot to carry out a stall recovery procedure.
Findings as to Risk:
1. The time spent programming the global positioning system reduced the time available to manage the flight. Consequently, the crew did not make the required radio communications on the mandatory frequency, did not activate the aircraft radio control of aerodrome lighting (ARCAL), did not make the verbal calls specified in the standard operating procedures (SOPs), and configured the aircraft for the approach and landing too late.
2. During the second approach, the aircraft did a race-track pattern and descended below the safe obstacle clearance altitude, thereby increasing the risk of a controlled flight into terrain. The crew’s limited instrument flight rules (IFR) experience could have contributed to poor interpretation of the IFR procedures.
3. Non-compliance with communications procedures in a mandatory frequency area created a situation in which the pilots of both aircraft had poor knowledge of their respective positions, thereby increasing the risk of collision.
4. The pilot-in-command monitored approach (PICMA) procedure requires calls by the pilot not flying when the aircraft deviates from pre-established acceptable tolerances. However, no call is required to warn the pilot flying of an approaching steep bank.
5. The transfer of controls was not carried out as required by the PICMA procedure described in the SOPs. The transfer of controls at the co-pilot’s request could have taken the pilot-in-command by surprise, leaving little time to choose the best option.
6. Despite their limited amount of IFR experience in a multiple crew working environment, the two pilots were paired. Nothing prohibited this. Although the crew had received crew resource management (CRM) training, it still had little multiple crew experience and consequently little experience in applying the basic principles of CRM.
Other Findings:
1. The emergency locator transmitter (ELT) had activated after the impact but due to circuit board damage its transmission power was severely limited. This situation could have had serious consequences had there been any survivors.
2. The Chibougamau/Chapais airport does not have an aircraft rescue and firefighting service. Because the fire station is 23 kilometres from the airport, the firefighters arrived at the scene 26 minutes after the accident.
3. Although this accident does not meet the criteria of a controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), it nonetheless remains that a stabilized constant descent angle (SCDA) non-precision approach (NPA) would have provided an added defence tool to supplement the SOPs.
4. After the late call within the mandatory frequency (MF) area, the specialist at the Québec flight information centre asked the crew about its familiarity with the MF area while the aircraft was in a critical phase of the first approach, which was approaching the minimum descent altitude (MDA). This situation could have distracted the flight crew while they completed important tasks.
5. The standard checklist used by the flight crew made no reference to the enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS). Therefore, the crew was not prompted to check it to ensure that it was properly activated before departure.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The environmental conditions and loss of visual ground references near Val-d'Or Airport were conducive to spatial disorientation. Because of a lack of instrument flight experience, the pilot probably became disoriented during the overshoot and was unable to regain control of the situation.
2. During the approach, the pilot did not plan to and did not pull up towards the centre of the airport, thereby contributing to spatial disorientation.
3. Although the pilot-in-command received training required by Transport Canada, Aéropro did not ensure that the pilot-in-command completed the required Pilot Proficiency Check (PPC) and was adequately supervised and experienced to conduct a night IFR flight safely as pilot-in-command.

The cause of the accident was not conclusively determined. It should be noted, however, that the pilot took off in weather conditions below permissible limits, in an area sparsely served with aids to navigation, in an aircraft not equipped with de- icing equipment.