Takeoff (climb)

The following findings were identified:
- Takeoff from a limited area,
- Failure to take into account obstacles by the crew during takeoff,
- Incorrect selection of the take-off site;
- High outside air temperature and tailwind component.

Loss of control following an unstabilized approach. The failure of the crew to initiate a go-around procedure was considered as a contributing factor.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. After the take-off at reduced power, the aircraft performance during the initial climb was lower than that established at certification.
2. The right engine experienced a problem in flight that led to a substantial loss of thrust.
3. The right propeller was not feathered; therefore, the rate of climb was compromised by excessive drag.
4. The absence of written directives specifying which pilot was to perform which tasks may have led to errors in execution, omissions, and confusion in the cockpit.
5. Although the crew had the training required by regulation, they were not prepared to manage the emergency in a coordinated, effective manner.
6. The priority given to ATC communications indicates that the crew did not fully understand the situation and were not coordinating their tasks effectively.
7. The impact with the berm caused worse damage to the aircraft.
8. The aircraft’s upside-down position and the damage it sustained prevented the occupants from evacuating, causing them to succumb to the smoke and the rapid, intense fire.
9. The poor safety culture at Aéropro contributed to the acceptance of unsafe practices.
10. The significant measures taken by TC did not have the expected results to ensure compliance with the regulations, and consequently unsafe practices persisted.
Findings as to Risk:
1. Deactivating the flight low pitch stop system warning light or any other warning system contravenes the regulations and poses significant risks to flight safety.
2. The maintenance procedures and operating practices did not permit the determination of whether the engines could produce the maximum power of 1628 ft-lb required at take-off and during emergency procedures, posing major risks to flight safety.
3. Besides being a breach of regulations, a lack of rigour in documenting maintenance work makes it impossible to determine the exact condition of the aircraft and poses major risks to flight safety.
4. The non-compliant practice of not recording all defects in the aircraft journey log poses a safety risk because crews are unable to determine the actual condition of the aircraft at all times, and as a result could be deprived of information that may be critical in an emergency.
5. The lack of an in-depth review by TC of SOPs and checklists of 703 operators poses a safety risk because deviations from aircraft manuals are not detected.
6. Conditions of employment, such as flight hours–based remuneration, can influence pilots’ decisions, creating a safety risk.
7. The absence of an effective non-punitive and confidential voluntary reporting system means that hazards in the transportation system may not be identified.
8. The lack of recorded information significantly impedes the TSB’s ability to investigate accidents in a timely manner, which may prevent or delay the identification and communication of safety deficiencies intended to advance transportation safety.

Loss of power on the right engine for unknown reasons.

Contributing safety factors:
• While the aircraft was climbing to 9,000 feet the right engine sustained a power problem and the pilot subsequently shut down that engine.
• Following the shutdown of the right engine, the aircraft's descent profile was not optimized for one engine inoperative flight.
• The pilot conducted a descent towards Bankstown Airport that was consistent with a normal arrival profile without first verifying that the aircraft was capable of achieving adequate performance with one engine inoperative.
• Following the engine problem, the aircraft's flightpath and the pilot’s communication with air traffic control indicated that the pilot's situation awareness was less than optimal.
• The aircraft collided with a powerline support pole on the eastern side of the intersection of Sackville Street and Canley Vale Road, Canley Vale, about 6 km north-west of Bankstown Airport.
Other safety factors:
• The pilot did not broadcast a PAN following the engine shutdown and did not provide air traffic control with further information about the nature of the problem in order for the controller to positively establish the severity of the situation.
• Section 4 of Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 5.23-2(0), Multi-engine Aeroplane Operations and Training of July 2007 did not contain sufficient guidance material to support the flight standard in Appendix A subsection 1.2 of the CAAP relating to Engine Failure in the Cruise. [Minor safety issue]
Other key finding:
• Given the pilot’s extensive experience and testing in the PA-31 aircraft type, and subsequent endorsement training on a high performance turboprop multi-engine aircraft since the issue by CASA in 2008 of a safety alert in respect of the pilot’s PA-31 endorsement, it was unlikely that any deficiencies in that endorsement training contributed to the accident.

The flight instructor’s initiation of a simulated single engine scenario at or below the airplane’s minimum single engine control speed, resulting in a loss of airplane control. Contributing to the accident was the flight instructor’s failure to set full engine power during the takeoff roll and the flight instructor’s lack of recent experience in the airplane make and model.

Loss of control following the failure of the attitude indicator while climbing in IMC conditions.

The overweight condition of the airplane due to the pilot's inadequate preflight planning, resulting in the airplane's degraded climb performance. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's retraction of the flaps prior to reaching the manufacturer's recommended flap retraction speed.

Engine failure for unknown reasons.