Winnipeg

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The pilot did not correctly calculate the amount of fuel required to accomplish the flight from Winnipeg to Gunisao Lake and return, and did not ensure that the aircraft carried sufficient fuel for the flight.
2. The ILS approach was flown above the glideslope and beyond the missed approach point, which reduced the possibility of a safe landing at Winnipeg, and increased the risk of collision with terrain.
3. During the missed approach, the aircraft's engines lost power as a result of fuel exhaustion, and the pilot conducted a forced landing at a major city intersection.
4. The pilot did not ensure that the aircraft was equipped with an autopilot as specified by CARs.
Findings as to Risk:
1. The company did not provide an adequate level of supervision and allowed the flight to depart without an autopilot.
2. The company operations manual did not reflect current company procedures.
3. The company did not provide an adequate level of supervision and allowed the flight to depart without adequate fuel reserves. The company did not have a safety system in place to prevent a fuel exhaustion situation developing.
Other Findings:
1. The pilot did not advise air traffic control of his critical situation in a timely fashion.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. At the time of the occurrence, the base of the cloud at Little Grand Rapids was between 100 and 300 feet agl, with fog to the east of the airport, and the visibility was one to two miles.
2. The aircraft was flown in marginal weather at low level, below the minimum en route altitude for commuter operations and below the MDA for the NDB A approach at Little Grand Rapids. The MDA for the approach was 1 560 feet asl, 555 feet above the airport elevation.
3. While the aircraft was being manoeuvred at very low level in marginal weather, it descended after an abrupt turn, and flew, in controlled flight, into the terrain.
Other Findings:
1. At both take-off and landing, the aircraft was about 1 000 pounds heavier than the relevant maximum allowable weight.
2. The GPS installed in C-GVRO was not approved as a primary navigational aid. The available information indicates that the flight crew used the GPS as a primary navigational aid during the last approach to Little Grand Rapids.
3. The aircraft was not equipped with a GPWS, nor was it required to be by regulation.
4. The weight and balance report that was submitted to Transport Canada, required for the importation of C-GVRO, contained numerous discrepancies; the report was not reviewed for accuracy by Transport Canada.
5. The emergency locator transmitter (ELT) produced a very weak signal because the antenna cable had been installed with little slack, and it pulled out of the antenna fitting during impact.
6. It could not be determined whether the presence of carbon monoxide and diphenhydramine in the captain's body affected his decision making and level of alertness.
7. The company, which had been an air taxi operator, did not effectively manage either the addition of the more complex commuter operations or the introduction of the larger Bandeirante aircraft.
8. The difficulty that the company had in the transition to commuter operations and in the introduction of the Bandeirante aircraft was underestimated by Transport Canada.
9. There were inadequacies in TC=s oversight, whereby the post-certification audit of the company was not conducted, thus eliminating an important mechanism by which TC could have found, and addressed, the inadequate safety management practices, non-conformance with pilot training requirements, and related operating irregularities.
10. The pilots had passed their flying proficiency and medical tests, but they had not completed elements of pilot training requirements with respect to servicing and operational control and right seat conversion as prescribed by TC. Also, no company pilot had received required training in the use of onboard survival or emergency equipment.
11. There was no indication found of any pre-impact failure or malfunction of the airframe, flight controls, or engines.
12. The aircraft was not equipped with either a CVR or an FDR; TC had given the company an exemption to operate without a CVR until 01 August 1998, and the aircraft was not required to be equipped with an FDR.
13. The absence of recorders on this aircraft, which was configured to carry 20 people, left many of the otherwise ascertainable facts associated with the accident unknown and reduced the opportunity of uncovering risks to safety associated with the flight.
14. Conditions were conducive to the pilot experiencing a false sensation that the aircraft was climbing (somatogravic illusion) after increasing the engine power, and he may have been manoeuvring to avoid an abandoned fire tower.

The left main gear drag links may have failed in overload.

Failure of the pilot to maintain adequate airspeed (VMC), which resulted in a loss of aircraft control. A factor related to the accident was: fatigue failure of a coupling shaft in the #1 engine, which resulted in loss of power in that engine.

The captain, as the pilot-in-command, must bear responsibility for the decision to land and take off in Dryden on the day in question. However, it is equally clear that the air transportation system failed him by allowing him to be placed in a situation where he did not have all the necessary tools that should have supported him in making the proper decision.

Occurrence #1: loss of engine power (total) - nonmechanical
Phase of operation: cruise - normal
Findings
1. (c) aircraft preflight - inadequate - pilot in command
2. (c) fluid, fuel - exhaustion
3. (c) fuel supply - inadequate - pilot in command
4. Aircraft performance, two or more engines - inoperative
----------
Occurrence #2: forced landing
Phase of operation: descent - emergency
----------
Occurrence #3: in flight collision with object
Phase of operation: landing - flare/touchdown
Findings
5. (f) object - tree(s)
----------
Occurrence #4: in flight collision with terrain/water
Phase of operation: landing

It was determined that the tire n°3 located on the right main gear burst during takeoff, probably due to wear. Few rubber debris damaged various elements of the main gear while other rubber debris were thrown into the right engine, causing it to lose power and the thrust reverser system to malfunction. The decision of the captain to abandon the takeoff procedure was correct but taken too late, more than four seconds after the warning light illuminated in the cockpit. A lack of crew training in emergency situations and a lack of increased monitoring of tire wear were considered as contributing factors. It was also determined that a period of 65,7 seconds elapsed between the brake release and the immobilization of the aircraft.