Canada

Findings as to causes and contributing factors:
1. Although the aircraft was prohibited from flying in known or forecast icing conditions, Wasaya Airways Limited Partnership (Wasaya) flight 127 (WSG127) was dispatched into forecast icing conditions.
2. The high take-off weight of WSG127 increased the severity of degraded performance when the flight encountered icing conditions.
3. The pilot of WSG127 continued the flight in icing conditions for about 6 minutes, resulting in progressively degraded performance.
4. WSG127 experienced substantially degraded aircraft performance as a result of ice accumulation, resulting in aerodynamic stall, loss of control, and collision with terrain.
5. The Type C pilot self-dispatch procedures and practices in use at Wasaya at the time of the occurrence did not ensure that operational risk was managed to an acceptable level.
6. Wasaya had not implemented all of the mitigation strategies from its January 2015 risk assessment of Cessna 208B operations in known or forecast icing conditions, and the company remained exposed to some unmitigated hazards that had been identified in the risk assessment.
7. There was a company norm of dispatching Cessna 208B flights into forecast icing conditions, although 4 of Wasaya’s 5 Cessna 208B aircraft were prohibited from operating in these conditions.

Findings as to risk:
1. Without effective risk-management processes, aircraft may continue to be dispatched into forecast or known icing conditions that exceed the operating capabilities of the aircraft, increasing the risk of degraded aircraft performance or loss of control.
2. If pilots operating under self-dispatch do not have adequate tools to complete an operational risk assessment before releasing a flight, there is an increased likelihood that hazards will not be identified or adequately mitigated.
3. If aircraft that are not certified for flight in known or forecast icing conditions are dispatched into, and encounter, such conditions, there is an increased risk of degraded performance or loss of control.
4. If aircraft that are certified for flight in known or forecast icing conditions are dispatched into, and encounter, such conditions, at weights exceeding limitations, there is an increased risk of loss of control.
5. If flights are continued in known icing conditions in aircraft that are not certified to do so, there is an increased risk of degraded aircraft performance and loss of control.
6. If operators exceed aircraft manufacturers’ recommended ICEX II servicing intervals, there is an increased risk of degraded aircraft performance or loss of control resulting from greater accretion of ice on the leading-edge de-icing and propeller blade anti-icing boots.
7. If pilots do not receive the minimum required training, there is an increased risk that they will lack the necessary technical knowledge to operate aircraft safely.
8. If pilots are not provided with the information they need to calculate the aircraft’s centre of gravity accurately, they risk departing with their aircraft’s centre of gravity outside the limits, which can lead to loss of control.
9. If emergency locator transmitter antennas and cable connections are not robust enough to survive impact forces, potentially life-saving search-and-rescue operations may be impaired by the absence of a usable signal.

Other findings:
1. Wasaya’s use of a satellite aircraft flight-following system provided early warning of WSG127’s abnormal status and an accurate last known position for search-and-rescue operations.
2. The investigation could not determine whether the autopilot had been used by the pilot of WSG127 at any time during the flight.

Buffalo Airways’ initial investigation revealed the engine oil scavenge pump had failed. No TSB-BST investigation was conducted on the event.

Findings as to causes and contributing factors:
1. Delivery of the incorrect type of aircraft fuel caused loss of power from both engines, necessitating a forced landing.
2. The fueling operation was not adequately supervised by the flight crew.
3. A reduced-diameter spout was installed that enabled the delivery of Jet-A1 fuel into the AVGAS fuel filler openings.
4. The fuel slip indicating that Jet-A1 fuel had been delivered was not available for scrutiny by the crew.

Findings as to risk:
1. If administrative and physical defences against errors in aviation fuel operations are circumvented or disabled, there is a risk that the incorrect type of fuel will be delivered.
2. If a reduced-diameter spout is available to accommodate non-standard fuel filler openings, there is an increased risk that Jet-A1 fuel can be dispensed into an aircraft that requires AVGAS.

Other findings:
1. Aircraft that were manufactured prior to the current airworthiness standards, or that have been modified by the installation of turbine engines, may have fuel filler openings that do not meet the dimension requirements.
2. The airworthiness standards for rotorcraft do not specify the size of fuel filler openings.
3. The use of all of the available restraint systems in the aircraft contributed to the survival of the occupants.
4. There was no post-crash fire, likely due to the separation of the battery from the aircraft and to the rain-saturated crash site.
5. The absence of a post-impact fire contributed to the survival of all of the aircraft's occupants.

Findings as to causes and contributing factors:
1. The pilot performed manoeuvres with a reduced safety margin at low altitudes. As a result, these flights involved a level of risk that was unnecessary to attain the objectives of sightseeing flights.
2. With no restrictions on manoeuvres and no minimum altitude prescribed by the company prior to flight, the pilot flew according to his own limits and made a steep turn at approximately 110 feet above ground level.
3. When the pilot made a steep left turn, aerodynamic stalling ensued, causing an incipient spin at an altitude insufficient to allow control of the aircraft to be regained prior to vertical collision with the terrain.
4. The absence of an angle-of-attack indicator system and an impending stall warning device deprived the pilot of the last line of defence against loss of control of the aircraft.

Findings as to risk:
1. If lightweight flight data recording systems are not used to closely monitor flight operations, there is a risk that pilots will deviate from established procedures and limits, thereby reducing safety margins.
2. If Transport Canada does not take concrete measures to facilitate the use of lightweight flight data recording systems and flight data monitoring, operators may not be able to proactively identify safety deficiencies before they cause an accident.
3. If pilots do not obtain at least the regulatory rest periods, there is a risk that flights will be conducted when pilots are fatigued.
4. Unless all flights made are recorded in the pilot’s logbook and monitored by the company, it is possible that the pilot will not receive the required rest periods, which increases the risk of flights being conducted when the pilot is fatigued.
5. If flights made are not recorded in the aircraft’s journey logbook, it is possible that inspection and maintenance schedules and component lifetimes will be exceeded, increasing the risk of failure.
6. Unless safety management systems are required, assessed, and monitored by Transport Canada in order to ensure continual improvement, there is an increased risk that companies will not be able to identify and effectively mitigate the hazards involved in their operations.
7. If pilots do not receive stall training that demonstrates the aircraft’s actual behaviour in a steep turn under power, there is a high risk of loss of control.

Other findings:
1. The replacement of the ventral fin with Seafins on C-FKRJ was in compliance with the requirements of Kenmore Air Harbor Inc.’s supplemental type certificate.
2. The control wheel was in the left-hand position (pilot side) at the moment of impact.
3. Angle-of-attack indicator systems have been recognized as contributing to flight safety by improving pilot awareness of the stall margin at all times, thereby allowing pilots to react in order to prevent loss of control of the aircraft.
4. Stall warning systems have been recognized as a means of improving flight safety by providing a clear, unambiguous warning of an impending stall.

Findings:
Findings as to causes and contributing factors:
1. Neither pilot had considered that landing on a short runway at an unfamiliar aerodrome with known high terrain nearby and joining the circuit directly on a left base were hazards that may create additional risks, all of which would increase the crew’s workload.
2. The presence of the tower resulted in the pilot not flying focusing his attention on monitoring the aircraft’s location, rather than on monitoring the flight or the actions of the pilot flying.
3. The crew’s increased workload, together with the unexpected distraction of the presence of the tower, led to a reduced situational awareness that caused them to omit the Landing Checks checklist.
4. At no time during the final descent was the engine power increased above about 400 foot-pounds of torque.
5. Using only pitch to control the rate of descent prevented the pilot flying from precisely controlling the approach, which would have ensured that the flare occurred at the right point and at the right speed.
6. Neither pilot recognized that the steep rate of descent was indicative of an unstable approach.
7. Advancing the propellers to full would have increased the drag and further increased the rate of descent, exacerbating the already unstable approach.
8. The aircraft crossed the runway threshold with insufficient energy to arrest the rate of descent in the landing flare, resulting in a hard landing that caused the right main landing gear to collapse.
Findings as to risk:
1. If data recordings are not available to an investigation, then the identification and communication of safety deficiencies to advance transportation safety may be precluded.
2. If organizations do not use modern safety management practices, then there is an increased risk that hazards will not be identified and risks will not be mitigated.
3. If passenger seats installed in light aircraft are not equipped with shoulder harnesses, then there is an increased risk of passenger injury or death in the event of an accident.
4. If the experience and proficiency of pilots are not factored into crew selection, then there is a risk of suboptimal crew pairing, resulting in a reduction of safety margins.
5. If pilots do not carry out checklists in accordance with the company’s and manufacturer’s instructions, then there is a risk that a critical item may be missed, which could jeopardize the safety of the flight.
6. If crew resource management is not used and continuously fostered, then there is a risk that pilots will be unprepared to avoid or mitigate crew errors encountered during flight.
7. If organizations do not have a clearly defined go-around policy, then there is a risk that flight crews will continue an unstable approach, increasing the risk of an approach-and-landing accident.
8. If pilots are not prepared to conduct a go-around on every approach, then there is a risk that they may not respond to situations that require a go-around.
9. If operators do not have a stable approach policy, then there is a risk that an unstable approach will be continued to a landing, increasing the risk of an approach-andlanding accident.
10. If an organization’s safety culture does not fully promote the goals of a safety management system, then it is unlikely that it will be effective in reducing risk.
Other findings:
1. There were insufficient forward impact forces to automatically activate the emergency locator transmitter.

Findings as to causes and contributing factors:
1. For unknown reasons, the aircraft descended in the direction of flight at high speed until it exceeded its structural limits, leading to an in-flight breakup.
2. Based on the captain’s blood alcohol content, alcohol intoxication almost certainly played a role in the events leading up to the accident.

Findings as to risk:
1. If cockpit or data recordings are not available to an investigation, the identification and communication of safety deficiencies to advance transportation safety may be precluded.
2. If Canadian Aviation Regulations Subpart 703 operators are not required to have a Transport Canada–approved safety management system, which is assessed on a regular basis, there is a risk that those companies will not have the necessary processes in place to manage safety effectively.
3. If safety issues, such as concerns related to drug or alcohol abuse, are not reported formally through a company’s safety reporting system, there is a risk that hazards will not be managed effectively.
4. Transport Canada’s Handbook for Civil Aviation Medical Examiners(TP 13312) does not address the complete range of conditions that may be affected by drug or alcohol dependence. As a result, there is an increased risk that undisclosed cases of drug or alcohol dependence in commercial aviation will go undetected, placing the travelling public at risk.
5. If there is no regulated drug- and alcohol-testing requirement in place to reduce the risk of impairment of persons while engaged in safety-sensitive functions, employees may undertake these duties while impaired, posing a risk to public safety.

Findings as to causes and contributing factors:

1. Air Canada’s standard operating procedure (SOP) and practice when flying in flight path angle guidance mode was that, once the aircraft was past the final approach fix, the flight crews were not required to monitor the aircraft’s altitude and distance from the threshold or to make any adjustments to the flight path angle. This practice was not in accordance with the flight crew operating manuals of Air Canada or Airbus.
2. As per Air Canada’s practice, once the flight path angle was selected and the aircraft began to descend, the flight crew did not monitor the altitude and distance from the threshold, nor did they make any adjustments to the flight path angle.
3. The flight crew did not notice that the aircraft had drifted below and diverged from the planned vertical descent angle flight profile, nor were they aware that the aircraft had crossed the minimum descent altitude further back from the threshold.
4. Considering the challenging conditions to acquire and maintain the visual cues, it is likely the flight crew delayed disconnecting the autopilot until beyond the minimum descent altitude because of their reliance on the autopilot system.
5. The approach and runway lights were not changed from setting 4 to setting 5; therefore, these lights were not at their maximum brightness setting during the approach.
6. The system to control the airfield lighting’s preset selections for brightness setting 4 was not in accordance with the NAV CANADA Air Traffic Control Manual of Operations requirement for the omnidirectional approach lighting system to be at its brightest settings.
7. The limited number of visual cues and the short time that they were available to the flight crew, combined with potential visual illusions and the reduced brightness of the approach and runway lights, diminished the flight crew’s ability to detect that the aircraft’s approach path was taking it short of the runway.
8. The flight crew’s recognition that the aircraft was too low during the approach would have been delayed because of plan continuation bias.
9. The aircraft struck terrain approximately 740 feet short of the runway threshold, bounced twice, and then slid along the runway before coming to a rest approximately 1900 feet beyond the runway threshold.
10. At some time during the impact sequence, the captain’s head struck the glare shield because there were insufficient acceleration forces to lock the shoulder harness and prevent movement of his upper body.
11. The first officer sustained a head injury and serious injury to the right eye as a result of striking the glare shield because the automatic locking feature of the right-side shoulder-harness inertia reel was unserviceable.
12. A flight attendant was injured by a coffee brewer that came free of its mounting base because its locking system was not correctly engaged.
13. Because no emergency was expected, the passengers and cabin crew were not in a brace position at the time of the initial impact.
14. Most of the injuries sustained by the passengers were consistent with not adopting a brace position.

Findings as to risk:

1. If aircraft cockpit voice recorder installations do not have an independent power supply, additional, potentially valuable information will not be available for an investigation.
2. If Transport Canada does not consistently follow its protocol for the assessment of aeromedical risk and ongoing surveillance in applicants who suffer from obstructive sleep apnea, some of the safety benefit of medical examinations will be lost, increasing the risk that pilots will fly with a medical condition that poses a risk to safety.
3. If new regulations on the use of child-restraint systems are not implemented, lap-held infants and young children are exposed to undue risk and are not provided with a level of safety equivalent to that for adult passengers.
4. If passengers do not dress appropriately for safe travel, they risk being unprepared for adverse weather conditions during an emergency evacuation.
5. If the type of approach lighting system on a runway is not factored into the minimum visibility required to carry out an approach, in conditions of reduced visibility, the lighting available risks being less than adequate for flight crews to assess the aircraft’s position and decide whether or not to continue the approach to a safe landing.
6. If they do not incorporate a means of absorbing forces along their longitudinal axis, vertically mounted, non-structural beams (channels, tubes, etc.) in cargo compartments could penetrate the cabin floor when the fuselage strikes the water or ground, increasing the risk of aircraft occupants being injured or emergency egress being impaired.
7. If an aircraft manufacturer’s maintenance instructions do not include the component manufacturer’s safety-critical test criteria, the component risks not being maintained in an airworthy condition.
8. If there is a complete loss of electrical and battery power and the passenger address system does not have an independent emergency power supply, the passenger address system will be inoperable, and the initial command to evacuate or to convey other emergency instructions may be delayed, putting the safety of passengers and crew at risk.
9. If passengers retrieve or attempt to retrieve their carry-on baggage during an evacuation, they are putting themselves and other passengers at a greater risk of injury or death.
10. If passengers do not pay attention to the pre-departure safety briefings or review the safety-features cards, they may be unprepared to react appropriately in an accident, increasing their risk of injury or death.
11. If an organization’s emergency response plan does not identify all available transportation resources, there is an increased risk that evacuated passengers and crew will not be moved from an accident site in a timely manner.
12. If organizations do not practise transporting persons from an on-airport accident site, they may be insufficiently prepared to react appropriately to an actual accident, which may increase the time required to evacuate the passengers and crew.

Other findings:

1. The service director assessed the evacuation flow as good and determined that there was therefore no need to open the R1 door.
2. The flight attendants stationed in the rear of the aircraft noted no life-threatening hazards. Because no evacuation order had been given, and deplaned passengers and firefighters were observed walking near the rear of the aircraft in an area where the deployment of the rear slides may have created additional hazards or risks, the flight attendants determined that there was no requirement to open the L2 and R2 doors.
3. Although Transport Canada required the dual-exit drill to be implemented in training, it did not require all cabin crew to receive the training before an organization implemented the 1:50 ratio.
4. At the time of the accident, neither the service director nor the flight attendants had received the dual-exit training, nor were they aware of the requirement for such training in order for Air Canada to operate with the exemption allowing 1 flight attendant for each unit of 50 passengers.
5. Although Transport Canada had reviewed and approved Air Canada’s aircraft operating manual and the standard operating procedures (SOPs), it had not identified the discrepancy between the Air Canada SOPs and the Airbus flight crew operating manual regarding the requirement to monitor the aircraft’s vertical flight path beyond the final approach fix when the flight path angle guidance mode is engaged.
6. A discrepancy in the Halifax International Airport Authority’s standby generators’ control circuitry caused the 2 standby generators to stop producing power.
7. Air Canada’s emergency response plan for Halifax/Stanfield International Airport indicated that the airline was responsible for the transportation of passengers from an accident site.
8. Air Canada’s emergency response plan did not identify the airport’s Park’N Fly minibuses as transportation resources. 9. The Halifax International Airport Authority’s emergency response plan did not identify that the airport Park’N Fly mini-buses could be used to transport the uninjured passengers, nor did it provide instructions on when and how to request and dispatch any transportation resources available at the airport.
10. The Air Canada Flight Operations Manual did not identify that the required visual reference should enable the pilot to assess aircraft position and rate of change of position in order to continue the approach to a landing.
11. In Canada, the minimum visibility that is authorized by the operations specification for non-precision approaches does not take into account the type of approach lighting system installed on the runway.
12. It is likely that, during the emergency, a passenger activated the L1 door gust lock release pushbutton while trying to expedite his or her exit, which allowed the door to move freely.
13. The passenger seatbacks were dislodged because the shear pins had sheared, likely as a result of contact with passengers during the impact sequence or emergency egress.
14. Recovery of the uninjured passengers from the accident site was delayed owing to a number of factors, including the severe weather conditions; the failure of the airport’s 2 standby generators to provide backup power after the loss of utility power; the loss of the airport operations radio network; and the lack of arrangements for the dispatch of transportation vehicles until after emergency response services had advised that all passengers were evacuated and the site was all clear.
15. Given that the captain rarely used continuous positive airway pressure therapy, he would have been at risk of experiencing fatigue related to chronic sleep disruption caused by obstructive sleep apnea. However, there was no indication that fatigue played a causal or contributory role in this occurrence.

Findings as to causes and contributing factors:
1. Not using all enroute information led the pilot to underestimate the severity and duration of the icing conditions that would be encountered.
2. Inadequate awareness of aircraft limitations in icing conditions and incomplete weight-and-balance calculations led to the aircraft being dispatched in an overweight state for the forecast icing conditions. The aircraft centre of gravity was not within limits, and this led to a condition that increased stall speed and reduced aircraft climb performance.
3. The pilot’s expectation that the flight was being undertaken at altitudes where it should have been possible to avoid icing or to move quickly to an altitude without icing conditions led to his decision to continue operation of the aircraft in icing conditions that exceeded the aircraft’s performance capabilities.
4. The severity of the icing conditions encountered and the duration of the exposure resulted in reductions in aerodynamic performance, making it impossible to prevent descent of the aircraft.
5. The inability to arrest descent of the aircraft resulted in the forced landing on the surface of Great Slave Lake and the collision with terrain.
6. The Type C pilot self-dispatch system employed by Air Tindi did not have quality assurance oversight or adequate support systems. This contributed to the aircraft being dispatched in conditions not suitable for safe flight.
Findings as to risk:
1. If passenger briefings on cabin door operations are ineffective, there is a risk of passenger egress in an accident being compromised, affecting survivability.
2. If survival equipment is stowed in a location that may be inaccessible following an accident, such as the belly pod, there is a risk of survival being compromised if search and rescue is delayed.
Other findings:
1. The aircraft was under control and in a level attitude when it contacted the ice. This minimized structural damage and increased survivability for the aircraft’s occupants.
2. The survival skills of the crew and passengers were indispensable in a situation in which access to the survival equipment on the aircraft was limited.

Findings as to causes and contributing factors:
1. During the extension of the landing gear, a wire bundle became entangled around the landing-gear rotating torque shaft, preventing full extension of the landing gear.
2. The entanglement by the wire bundle also prevented the alternate landing-gear extension system from working. The crew was required to conduct a landing with only the nose gear partially extended.
Other findings:
1. The wire bundle consisted of wiring for the generator control circuits, and when damaged, disabled both generators. The battery became the only source of electrical power until the aircraft landed.