Canada

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. On final approach, the captain diverted his attention from monitoring the flight, leaving most of the decision making and control of the aircraft to the first officer, who was significantly less experienced on the aircraft type. As a result, the first officer was not fully supervised during the late stages of the approach.
2. The first officer did not adhere to the Air Canada Jazz standard operating procedures (SOPs) in the handling of the autopilot and thrust levers on short final, which left the aircraft highly susceptible to a bounce, and without the bounce protection normally provided by the ground lift dump (GLD) system.
3. Neither the aircraft operating manual nor the training that both pilots had received mentioned the importance of conducting a balked or rejected landing when the aircraft bounces. Given the low-energy state of the aircraft at the time of the bounce, the first officer attempted to salvage the landing.
4. When the thrust levers were reduced to idle after the bounce, the GLD system activated. The resultant sink rate after the GLD system deployed was beyond the certification standard for the landing gear and resulted in the landing gear trunnion fitting failures.
5. There was insufficient quality control at the landing gear overhaul facility, which allowed non-airworthy equipment to enter into service. The condition of the shock struts would have contributed to the bounce.
Findings as to Risk:
1. Several passengers took carry-on items with them as they exited the aircraft, despite being instructed not to do so.
2. The location of the stored megaphone did not allow the flight attendant to have ready access after the passengers started moving to the exit door.

Finding as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The aircraft stalled at an altitude that was too low for the pilot to recover.
Findings as to Risk:
1. The aircraft was flying at an altitude that could lead to a collision with an obstacle and that did not allow time for recovery.
2. The steep right bank of the aircraft considerably increased the aircraft’s stall speed.
3. The form used to record the pilot’s flight time, flight duty time, and rest periods had not been updated for over a month; this did not allow the company manager to monitor the pilot’s hours.
4. At the time of the occurrence, the Aéropro company operations manual did not make provision for the restrictions on daytime VFR flights prescribed in Section 703.27 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations.
Other Findings:
1. The fact that the aircraft was not equipped with a flight data recorder (FDR) or a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) limited the information available for the investigation and limited the scope of the investigation.
2. Since the aircraft was on a medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) flight, the company mistakenly advised the search and rescue centre that there were two pilots on board the aircraft when it was reported missing.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The engine stopped as a result of fuel starvation; the amount of fuel in the wings was less than the amount estimated by the pilot, the fuel senders gave an incorrect reading, and the low fuel pressure warning light could illuminate randomly.
2. The engine stopped at low altitude, which reduced the time needed to complete the emergency procedure. The pilot was unable to glide to the lake and made a forced landing on an unsuitable terrain, causing significant damage to the aircraft and injuries to the occupants.
Findings as to Risk:
1. The wing tank selection system was subject to icing in cold weather, and the pilots adopted the practice to place the wing tank selector in the middle position, which is contrary to the aircraft flight manual supplement instructions and a placard posted on the instrument panel.
2. When the change to the type design was approved through issuance of the Supplementary Type Certificate (STC), Transport Canada did not notice the fact that the fuel senders and triple fuel level gauge did not meet airworthiness standards; Transport Canada issued an STC that contained several deficiencies. 3. Storage of the shoulder harnesses underneath the aircraft interior covering made them inaccessible; since the pilot and the front seat passenger did not wear their shoulder harness, their protection was reduced.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. A late full flap selection at 300 feet above ground level (agl) likely destabilized the aircraft’s pitch attitude, descent rate and speed in the critical final stage of the precision approach, resulting in an increased descent rate before reaching the runway threshold.
2. After the approach lights were sighted at low altitude, both pilots discontinued monitoring of instruments including the glide slope indicator. A significant deviation below the optimum glide slope in low visibility went unnoticed by the crew until the aircraft descended into the approach lights.
Finding as to Risk:
1. The crew rounded the decision height (DH) figure for the instrument landing system (ILS) approach downward, and did not apply a cold temperature correction factor. The combined error could have resulted in a descent of 74 feet below the DH on an ILS approach to minimums, with a risk of undershoot.
Other Finding:
1. The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) was returned to service following an intelligibility test that indicated that the first officer’s hot boom microphone intercom channel did not record. Although the first officer voice was recorded by other means, a potential existed for loss of information, which was key to the investigation.

Findings as to Risk:
1. Some Canadian Air Regulations (CARs) subpart 703 air taxi and subpart 704 commuter operators are unlikely to provide initial or recurrent CRM training to pilots in the absence of a regulatory requirement to do so. Consequently, these commercial pilots may be unprepared to avoid, trap, or mitigate crew errors encountered during flight.
2. Transport Canada (TC) Prairie and Northern Region (PNR) management practices regarding the June 2006 replacement of the regional combined audit program, in order to manage safety management system (SMS) workload, did not conform to TC’s risk management decision-making policies. Reallocation of resources without assessment of risk could result in undetected regulatory non-compliance.
3. Although TC safety oversight processes identified the existence of supervisory deficiencies within TWA, the extent of the deficiencies was not fully appreciated by the PNR managers because of the limitations of the oversight system in place at that time.
4. It is likely that the National Aviation Company Information System (NACIS) records for other audits include inaccurate information resulting from data entry errors and wide use of the problematic audit tracking form, reducing the effectiveness of the NACIS as a management tracking system.
5. Self-dispatch systems rely on correct assessment of operational hazards by pilots, particularly in the case of unscheduled commercial service into uncertified aerodromes. Unless pilots are provided with adequate decision support tools, flights may be dispatched with defences that are less than adequate.
6. TWA King Air crews did not use any standard practice in applying cold temperature altitude corrections. Inconsistent application of temperature corrections by flight crews can result in reduction of obstacle clearance to less than the minimum required and reduced safety margins.
7. The practice of not visually verifying wind/runway conditions at aerodromes where this information is otherwise unavailable increases the risk of post-touchdown problems.
8. The company dispatched flights to Sandy Bay without a standard means for crews to deal with non-current altimeter settings. Use of non-current or inappropriate altimeter settings can reduce minimum obstacle clearance and safety margins.
9. The crew was likely unaware of their ¼ nautical mile (nm) error in the aircraft position in relation to the runway threshold resulting from use of the global positioning system (GPS). Unauthorized and informal use of the GPS by untrained crews during instrument flight rules (IFR) approaches can introduce rather than mitigate risk.
10. Widespread adaptations by the King Air pilots resulted in significant deviations from the company’s SOPs, notwithstanding the company’s disciplinary policy.
11. In a SMS environment, inappropriate use of punitive actions can result in a decrease in the number of hazards and occurrences reported, thereby reducing effectiveness of the SMS.
12. Pilot workload is increased and decision making becomes more complicated where limited visual cues are available for assessing aircraft orientation relative to runway and surrounding terrain.
13. Aerodromes with limited visual cues and navigational aids are not explicitly identified in flight information publications as hazardous for night/IFR approaches. Passengers and crews will continue to be exposed to this hazard unless aircraft and aerodrome operators carry out risk assessments to identify them and take mitigating action.
14. To properly assess applicants for pilot positions, operators need access to information on experience and performance that is factual, objective, and (preferably) standardized. Because some employers are unprepared to provide this information—fearing legal action—this may lead to the appointment of pilots to positions for which they are unsuited, thereby compromising safety.
Other Findings:
1. TWA’s safety management system was not yet capable or expected to be capable of detecting, analyzing, and mitigating the risks presented by the hazards underlying this occurrence.
2. The first officer and captain met competency standards on the completion of their initial flight training before they began employment as line pilots.
3. It is very likely that the captain became the pilot flying for the remaining 20 seconds of the flight. The scenario that neither pilot was controlling the aircraft at that time is considered very unlikely.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The left engine fuel control support assembly failed in fatigue and released one of three attachment bolts, which resulted in a slight displacement of the fuel control and changed the propeller control dimension. As a result, Beta pressure was achieved and propeller reverse was available for the left engine before it was available for the right engine.
2. The pilot selected thrust reverse without confirmation that the Beta lights were on for both engines, and the aircraft veered from the runway, most likely as a result of temporary asymmetric thrust.
Finding as to Risk:
1. There is no requirement to include the Beta light call as part of the pre-landing briefing. Briefing this item would remind the pilots of the need to confirm Beta light activation for both engines before application of thrust reverse.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The pilot entered the valley at an altitude above ground that did not provide sufficient terrain clearance given the aircraft’s performance.
2. The pilot encountered steeply rising terrain, where false horizon and relative scale illusions in the climb are likely. Realizing that the aircraft would not likely be able to out-climb the approaching terrain, he turned to reverse his course.
3. The aircraft’s configuration, relatively high weight, combined with the effects of increased drag from the equipment, density altitude, down-flowing winds, and manoeuvring resulted in the aircraft colliding with terrain during the turn.
Findings as to Risk:
1. A detailed flight plan was not filed and special equipment, such as laser radiation emitting devices and/or hazardous substances were not reported. The absence of flight plan information regarding these devices could delay search and rescue efforts and expose first responders to unknown risks.
2. Transport Canada (TC) does not issue a rating/endorsement for mountain flying training. There are no standards established to ascertain the proficiency of a pilot in this environment. Pilots who complete a mountain flying course may not acquire the required skill sets.
3. There was no emergency locator transmitter (ELT) signal received. The ELT was destroyed in the impact and subsequent fire. Present standards do not require that ELTs resist crash damage.
4. “Flight permits – specific purpose” are issued for aircraft that do not perform as per the original type design but are deemed capable of safe flight. Placards are not required; therefore, pilots and observers approved to board may be unaware of the limitations of the aircraft and the associated risks.
5. The TC approval process allowed the continued operation of this modified aircraft for sustained environmental research missions under a flight permit authority. This circumvented the requirement to meet the latest airworthiness standards and removed the risk mitigation built into the approval process for a modification to a type design.
Other Findings:
1. The fuel system obstruction found during disassembly was a result of the post-crash fire.
2. The aircraft was operated at an increased weight allowance proposed by the design approval representative (DAR). Such operation was to be approved only in accordance with a suitably worded flight permit and instructions contained in the proposed document CN-MSC-011; however, this increased weight allowance was not incorporated to any flight authority issued by TC.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The flight crew attempted a low-energy go-around after briefly touching down on the runway. The aircraft’s low-energy state contributed to its inability to accelerate to the airspeed required to accomplish a successful go-around procedure.
2. The rapid power lever advancement caused an inadvertent shutdown of the left engine, which exacerbated the aircraft’s low-energy status and contributed to the eventual loss of control.
3. The inadvertent activation of the autofeather system contributed to the crew’s loss of situational awareness, which adversely influenced the decision to go around, at a time when it may have been possible for the aircraft to safely stop and remain on the runway.
4. The shortage and ambiguity of information available on rejected landings contributed to confusion between the pilots, which resulted in a delayed retraction of the flaps. This departure from procedure prevented the aircraft from accelerating adequately.
5. Retarding the power levers after the first officer had exceeded maximum power setting resulted in an inadequate power setting on the right engine and contributed to a breakdown of crew coordination. This prevented the crew from effectively identifying and responding to the emergencies they encountered.
Findings as to Risk:
1. The design of the autofeather system is such that, when armed, the risk of an inadvertent engine shutdown is increased.
2. Rapid power movement may increase the risk of inadvertent activation of the negative torque sensing system during critical flight regimes.
Other Findings:
1. There were inconsistencies between sections of the Conair aircraft operating manual (AOM), the standard operating procedures (SOPs), and the copied AOM that the operator possessed. These inconsistencies likely created confusion between the training captain and the operator’s pilots.
2. The operator’s CV-580A checklists do not contain a specified section for circuit training. The lack of such checklist information likely increased pilot workload.