Canada

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The linkpin plugs had not been installed in the recently overhauled engine, causing inadequate lubrication to the linkpin bushings, increased heat, and eventually an abrupt engine failure.
2. Immediately following the engine failure, while the pilot manoeuvred the aircraft for a forced landing, the aircraft entered an aerodynamic stall at a height from which recovery was not possible.
Finding as to Risk:
1. The failure to utilize available shoulder harnesses increases the risk and severity of injury.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The gyro/horizon failed due to excessive wear on bearings and other components, resulting from a lack of maintenance and due to a vacuum system that was possibly not at minimum operating requirements for the instrument.
2. The gyro/horizon was reinstalled into the aircraft to complete the occurrence flight without the benefit of the recommended overhaul.
3. The autopilot became unusable when the attitude information from the gyro/horizon was disrupted.
4. The pilot had not practised partial panel instrument flying for a number of years, was not able to transition to a partial panel situation, and lost control of the aircraft while flying in instrument meteorological conditions.
5. The aircraft was loaded in excess of its certified gross weight and had a centre of gravity (C of G) that exceeded its aft limit. These two factors made the aircraft more difficult to handle due to an increase of the aircraft’s pitch control sensitivity and a reduction of longitudinal stability.
6. The structural limitations of the aircraft were exceeded during the uncontrolled descent; this resulted in the in-flight breakup.
7. There were a number of deficiencies with the company’s safety management system (SMS), in which the hazards should have been identified and the associated risks mitigated.
8. The company did not conduct an annual risk assessment as required by its SMS; this increased the risk that a hazard could go undetected.
9. The Canadian Business Aviation Association (CBAA) audit did not identify the risks in the company’s operations.
Findings as to Risk:
1. Lack of adequate instrument redundancy increases the risk of loss of control in single-pilot instrument flight rules (IFR) aircraft operations.
2. The pilot did not reduce his airspeed while attempting to maintain control of the aircraft; a lower speed would have allowed a greater margin to maximum operating speed (Vmo) while manoeuvring.
3. There were no quick-donning oxygen masks on board and the pilot was not wearing an oxygen mask at the time of the occurrence, as required by regulation.
4. If effective oversight of private operator certificate (POC) holders is not exercised by the regulator or its delegated organization, there is an increased risk that safety deficiencies will not be identified and properly addressed.
Other Finding:
1. The approved maintenance organization (AMO) that was maintaining the aircraft did not have the approval to maintain PA-46 turbine aircraft.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. Suspended water in the fuel system precipitated out of solution and froze in the fuel distributor valve. This blocked the fuel supply to the fuel nozzles and led to the loss of engine power.
2. The aircraft was being operated without a fuel additive icing inhibiter. Use of such an additive would have inhibited ice formation in the aircraft’s fuel system and would likely have prevented the fuel system blockage.
Findings as to Risk:
1. The fuel distributor valve on the Aero Commander 500B is exposed directly to the cooling blast of the outside air, which under extremely cold conditions, can lead to the freezing of super-cooled water droplets present in the fuel stream.
2. The operator did not have procedures to describe how fuel additive icing inhibiter should be used during winter operations.

Findings as to Risk:
1. Because aircraft EWH information is not readily available to pilots, crews may continue to conduct approaches with an aircraft mismatched to the visual glide slope indicator (VGSI) system, increasing the risk of a reduced TCH safety margin.
2. Due to limited knowledge of the various VGSI systems in operation and their limitations, flight crews will continue to follow visual guidance that might not provide for safe TCH.
3. Jetport did not develop an accurate company risk profile. This precluded identification of systemic safety deficiencies and development of appropriate mitigation strategies.
4. If adequate safety oversight of POC operators is not maintained by the regulator, or the delegated organization, especially during SMS implementation, there is an increased risk that safety deficiencies will not be identified.
5. The fact that the Canadian Business Aviation Association (CBAA) did not insist that milestones for SMS implementation and development be followed may result in some POC operators never reaching full SMS compliance.
6. If Transport Canada does not ensure that the CBAA fulfills its responsibilities for adequate oversight of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) subpart 604 community, safety deficiencies will not be identified and addressed.
7. The audit of Jetport’s SMS, conducted by the CBAA–accredited auditor, did not identify the deficiencies in the program or make any suggestions for improvement. Without a comprehensive audit of an operator’s SMS, deficiencies could exist resulting in the operator’s inability to implement an effective mitigation strategy.
8. Contrary to the recommendations made in the Transport Canada/CBAA feasibility studies, the CBAA did not have a quality assurance program for its audit process. As a result, there is a risk that the CBAA will fail to identify weaknesses in the POC audit program.
9. At the time of the accident, no one at Fox Harbour (CFH4) had been assigned responsibility for regular maintenance of the APAPI, therefore preventing timely identification of APAPI equipment misalignment.
10. Jetport’s risk analysis before the introduction of the Global 5000 did not identify the incompatibility between the EWH of the aircraft and the APAPI at CFH4.
11. Not wearing shoulder harnesses during landings and take-offs increases the potential risk of passenger injuries.
12. Passengers not wearing footwear could impede evacuation, increase the risk of injury, and reduce post-crash mobility and (potentially) survival.
Other Findings:
1. A SMS integrates sound risk management policies, practices, and procedures into day-to-day operations and, properly implemented, offers great potential to reduce accidents.
2. Contrary to its own assessment protocol, Transport Canada did not document its decision to close off the CBAA assessment even though the CBAA had not submitted an acceptable corrective action plan.
3. Depiction of the different types of VGSIs differs, depending on the publication.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. An unapproved part was installed in the alternator coupling. This resulted in debris from the coupling causing a partial blockage of oil flow to the number two connecting rod bearing. This low oil flow caused overheating and failure of the bearings, connecting rod cap bolts and nuts, and the subsequent engine failure.
2. The engine failure occurred after sunset and the low-lighting conditions in the valley would have made selecting a suitable landing area difficult.
3. The engine knocking was not reported to maintenance personnel which prevented an opportunity to discover the deteriorating engine condition.
Finding as to Risk:
1. All flights on the day of the accident were carried out without the oil filler cap in place. The absence of the oil filler cap could have resulted in the loss of engine oil.
Other Findings:
1. There were no current instrument flight rules charts or approach plates on board the aircraft for the intended flight.
2. The Teledyne Continental Motors Service Bulletin M84-5 addressed only the 520 series engines and did not include other gear-driven alternator equipped engines.

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 take-off was attempted at an aircraft weight that did not meet the performance capabilities of the aircraft to clear an obstacle and, as a result, the aircraft struck a telephone pole and a telephone cable during the initial climb.
2. A take-off and climb to 50 feet performance calculation was not completed prior to take-off; therefore, the flight crew was unaware of the distance required to clear the telephone cable.
3. The southeast end of the airstrip was not clearly marked; as a result, the take-off was initiated with approximately 86 feet of usable airstrip behind the aircraft.
4. The take-off was attempted in an upslope direction and in light tailwind, both of which increased the distance necessary to clear the existing obstacles.
Findings as to Risk:
1. Operational control within the company was insufficient to reduce the risks associated with take-offs from the lodge airstrip.
2. The take-off weight limits for lodge airstrip operations were not effectively communicated to the flight crew.
3. Maximum performance short take-off and landing (MPS) techniques may have been necessary in order to accomplish higher weight Twin Otter take-offs from the lodge airstrip; however, neither the aircraft nor the company were approved for MPS operations.
4. The first officer’s shoulder harness assembly had been weakened by age and ultraviolet (UV) light exposure; as a result, it failed within the design limits at impact.
5. The SeeGeeTM calculator operating index (OI) values being used by Liard Air Twin Otter pilots was between 0.5 and 1.0 units greater than the correct SeeGeeTM OI values; therefore, whenever the SeeGeeTM calculator was used for flight planning, the actual centre of gravity (c of g) of the aircraft would have been forward of the calculated CofG.
6. There are no airworthiness standards specifically intended to contain fuel and/or to prevent fuel ignition in crash conditions in fixed-gear United States Civil Aviation Regulation 3 and United States Federal Aviation Regulation 23 aircraft.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The aircraft was loaded in a manner that resulted in the centre of gravity being aft of the rearward limit.
2. Because the cargo was not properly secured, it shifted towards the rear of the aircraft, resulting in the centre of gravity moving further aft, causing the aircraft to pitch up and stall.