Ontario

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.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The crew conducted an approach and landing in the midst of a severe and rapidly changing thunderstorm. There were no procedures within Air France related to distance required from thunderstorms during approaches and landing, nor were these required by regulations.
2. After the autopilot and autothrust systems were disengaged, the pilot flying (PF) increased the thrust in reaction to a decrease in the airspeed and a perception that the aircraft was sinking. The power increase contributed to an increase in aircraft energy and the aircraft deviated above the glide path.
3. At about 300 feet above ground level (agl), the surface wind began to shift from a headwind component to a 10-knot tailwind component, increasing the aircraft’s groundspeed and effectively changing the flight path. The aircraft crossed the runway threshold about 40 feet above the normal threshold crossing height.
4. Approaching the threshold, the aircraft entered an intense downpour, and the forward visibility became severely reduced.
5. When the aircraft was near the threshold, the crew members became committed to the landing and believed their go-around option no longer existed.
6. The touchdown was long because the aircraft floated due to its excess speed over the threshold and because the intense rain and lightning made visual contact with the runway very difficult.
7. The aircraft touched down about 3800 feet from the threshold of Runway 24L, which left about 5100 feet of runway available to stop. The aircraft overran the end of Runway 24L at about 80 knots and was destroyed by fire when it entered the ravine.
8. Selection of the thrust reversers was delayed as was the subsequent application of full reverse thrust.
9. The pilot not flying (PNF) did not make the standard callouts concerning the spoilers and thrust reversers during the landing roll. This further contributed to the delay in the PF selecting the thrust reversers.
10. Because the runway was contaminated by water, the strength of the crosswind at touchdown exceeded the landing limits of the aircraft.
11. There were no landing distances indicated on the operational flight plan for a contaminated runway condition at the Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport (CYYZ).
12. Despite aviation routine weather reports (METARs) calling for thunderstorms at CYYZ at the expected time of landing, the crew did not calculate the landing distance required for Runway 24L. Consequently, they were not aware of the margin of error available for the landing runway nor that it was eliminated once the tailwind was experienced.
13. Although the area up to 150 m beyond the end of Runway 24L was compliant with Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices (TP 312E), the topography of the terrain beyond this point, along the extended runway centreline, contributed to aircraft damage and to the injuries to crew and passengers.
14. The downpour diluted the firefighting foam agent and reduced its efficiency in dousing the fuel-fed fire, which eventually destroyed most of the aircraft.
Findings as to Risk :
1. In the absence of clear guidelines with respect to the conduct of approaches into convective weather, there is a greater likelihood that crews will continue to conduct approaches into such conditions, increasing the risk of an approach and landing accident.
2. A policy where only the captain can make the decision to conduct a missed approach can increase the likelihood that an unsafe condition will not be recognized early and, therefore, increase the time it might otherwise take to initiate a missed approach.
3. Although it could not be determined whether the use of the rain repellent system would have improved the forward visibility in the downpour, the crew did not have adequate information about the capabilities and operation of the rain repellent system and did not consider using it.
4. The information available to flight crews on initial approach in convective weather does not optimally assist them in developing a clear idea of the weather that may be encountered later in the approach.
5. During approaches in convective weather, crews may falsely rely on air traffic control (ATC) to provide them with suggestions and directions as to whether to land or not.
6. Some pilots have the impression that ATC will close the airport if weather conditions make landings unsafe; ATC has no such mandate.
7. Wind information from ground-based measuring systems (anemometers) is critical to the safe landing of aircraft. Redundancy of the system should prevent a single-point failure from causing a total loss of relevant wind information.
8. The emergency power for both the public address (PA) and EVAC alert systems are located in the avionics bay. A less vulnerable system and/or location would reduce the risk of these systems failing during a survivable crash.
9. Brace commands were not given by the cabin crew during this unexpected emergency condition. Although it could not be determined if some of the passengers were injured as a result, research shows that the risk of injury is reduced if passengers brace properly.
10. Safety information cards given to passengers travelling in the flight decks of Air France Airbus A340-313 aircraft do not include illustrations depicting emergency exit windows, descent ropes or the evacuation panel in the flight deck doors.
11. There are no clear visual cues to indicate that some dual-lane slides actually have two lanes. As a result, these slides were used mostly as single-lane slides. This likely slowed the evacuation, but this fact was not seen as a contributing factor to the injuries suffered by the passengers.
12. Although all passengers managed to evacuate, the evacuation was impeded because nearly 50 per cent of the passengers retrieved carry-on baggage.
Other Findings:
1. There is no indication that the captain’s medical condition or fatigue played a role in this occurrence.
2. The crew did not request long aerodrome forecast (TAF) information while en route. This did not affect the outcome of this occurrence because the CYYZ forecast did not change appreciably from information the flight crew members received before departure, and they received updated METARs for CYYZ and Niagara Falls International Airport (KIAG).
3. The possibility of a diversion required the flight crew to check the weather for various potential alternates and to complete fuel calculations. Although these activities consumed considerable time and energy, there is no indication that they were unusual for this type of operation or that they overtaxed the flight crew.
4. The decision to continue with the approach was consistent with normal industry practice, in that the crew could continue with the intent to land while maintaining the option to discontinue the approach if they assessed that the conditions were becoming unsafe.
5. There is no indication that more sophisticated ATC weather radar information, had it been available and communicated to the crew, would have altered their decision to continue to land.
6. It could not be determined why door L2 opened before the aircraft came to a stop.
7. There is no indication that the aircraft was struck by lightning.
8. There is no information to indicate that the aircraft encountered windshear during its approach and landing.
9. The flight crew seats are certified to a lower standard than the cabin seats, which may have been a factor in the injuries incurred by the captain.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The crew planned and executed a landing on a runway that did not provide the required landing distance.
2. The flight crew most likely did not reference the Aircraft Flight Manual performance chart “Effect of a Slippery Surface on Landing Distance Required” to determine that landing the aircraft on the 4000-foot, snow-covered runway with flap-15 was inappropriate.
3. After landing long on the snow-covered runway and applying full reverse thrust, the captain attempted a go-around. He rotated the aircraft to a take-off attitude and the aircraft became airborne in ground effect at a slower-than-normal speed.
4. The aircraft had insufficient power and airspeed to climb and remained in ground effect until striking the airport perimeter fence, rising terrain, and a line of large cedar trees.
5. The flight crew conducted a flap-15 approach, based on company advice in accordance with an All Operator Message (AOM) issued by the aircraft manufacturer to not use flap-30. This AOM was superseded on 20 October 2004 by AOM No. SD006/04, which cancelled any potential flap-setting prohibition.
Other Finding:
1. The flight crew members were not advised that the potential Airworthiness Directive announced in the original AOM was not going into effect and that the use of flap-30 was acceptable, as relayed in the follow-up AOM.

Failure of the right float on landing that was leaking probably due to a crack located in the second compartment.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The pilot flew a high-drag approach configuration for which his proficiency was not established.
2. The pilot most likely allowed the airspeed to decrease to the point that the aircraft stalled on approach at an altitude at which recovery was unlikely.
3. The impact was non-survivable because of the high impact forces.
Findings as to Risk:
1. The emergency locator transmitter (ELT) airframe antenna was broken off above the fuselage; however, the flight was within the 30-day period allowed by regulation for flight with an unserviceable ELT.
2. The pilot did not secure the cargo prior to flight, which allowed the cargo to shift forward on impact.
3. The weight and centre of gravity (C of G) were not indicated in the operational flight plan and load record, and the aircraft’s weight and C of G could only be estimated.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. At take-off, the weight of the aircraft exceeded the maximum allowable gross take-off weight by at least 15 per cent, and the aircraft was contaminated with ice. Therefore, the aircraft was being flown significantly outside the limitations under which it was certified for safe flight.
2. The aircraft stalled, most likely when the flaps were retracted, at an altitude or under flight conditions that precluded recovery before it struck the ice surface of the lake.
3. On this flight, the pilotís lack of appreciation for the known hazards associated with the overweight condition of the aircraft, ice contamination, and the weather conditions was inconsistent with his previous practices. His decision to take off was likely adversely affected by some combination of stress and fatigue.
Findings as to Risk:
1. Despite the abbreviated nature of the September 2001 audit, the next audit of Georgian Express Ltd. was not scheduled until September 2004, at the end of the 36-month window.
2. The internal communications at Transport Canada did not ensure that the principal operations inspector responsible for the air operator was aware of the Pelee Island operation.
3. The standard passenger weights available in the Aeronautical Information Publication at the time of the accident did not reflect the increased average weight of passengers and carry-on baggage resulting from changes in societal-wide lifestyles and in travelling trends.
4. The use of standard passenger weights presents greater risks for aircraft under 12 500 pounds than for larger aircraft due to the smaller sample size (nine passengers or less) and the greater percentage of overall aircraft weight represented by the passengers. The use of standard passenger weights could result in an overweight condition that adversely affects the safety of flight.
5. The Cessna Caravan de-icing boot covers up to a maximum of 5% of the wing chord. Research on this wing has shown that ice accumulation beyond 5% of the chord can result in degradation of aircraft performance.
6. At the Pelee Island Airport, the air operator did not provide the equipment that would allow an adequate inspection of the aircraft for ice during the pre-flight inspection and did not provide adequate equipment for aircraft de-icing.
7. Repetitive charter operators are not considered to be scheduled air operators under current Transport Canada regulations, and, therefore, even though the charter air operator may provide a service with many of the same features as a scheduled service, Transport Canada does not provide the same degree of oversight as it does for a scheduled air operator.
8. A review of the Canadian Aviation Regulations regarding simulator training requirements indicates that there is no requirement to conduct recurrent simulator training if currency and/or pilot proficiency checks do not lapse.
9. Commercial Air Service Standard 723.91(2) does not clearly indicate whether there is a requirement for simulator training following expiration of a pilot proficiency check.
10. Incorrect information on the passenger door placards, an incomplete safety features card, and the fact that the operating mechanisms and operating instructions for the emergency exits were not visible in darkness could have compromised passenger egress in the event of a survivable accident.
11. The dogs being carried on the aircraft were not restrained, creating a hazard for the flight and its occupants.

A NOTAM stated that there were windrows four feet high, 10 feet inside the runway lights on both sides of the runway. This NOTAM also stated that the cleared portion of the runway was covered with ¼ inch of loose snow over 60 percent compacted snow and 40 percent ice patches and that braking action was fair to poor. The take-off was being conducted at dusk in conditions of poor lighting and contrast. Crosswind was not a factor.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The pilot attempted to take off from an airstrip that was covered with approximately 18 inches of snow, and the aircraft did not accelerate to take-off speed because of the drag; the aircraft was forced into the air and was unable to climb out of ground effect and clear the obstacles.
2. The pilot did not abort the take-off when it became apparent that the aircraft was not accelerating normally and before the aircraft became airborne.
Findings as to Risk:
1. Unidirectional G switches, which are found on many types of ELTs, do not always activate the unit when impact forces are not aligned with the usual direction of flight.
Other Findings:
1. The validity of the aircraft’s certificate of airworthiness was affected while it flew more flights than allowed by the ferry permit issued by Transport Canada.
2. The rear passenger seat was found to be installed incorrectly, contrary to de Havilland Alert Service Bulletin A3/49, dated 19 July 1991.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
The aircraft departed controlled flight and struck terrain for undetermined reasons.
Findings as to Risk:
The company's flight-following procedures for flights operating in remote areas were impractical and were not consistently applied; this could compromise timely search and rescue operations following an accident.
Other Findings:
The aircraft did not carry flight recorders. Lack of information about the cause of this accident affects TSB's ability to identify related safety deficiencies and to issue safety communications intended to prevent accidents that could occur under similar circumstances.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. Ministry of Natural Resources DHC-6 SOPs were not followed, and the Vital Action checklist was not fully completed during the approach. As a result, the bomb door armed switch on the centre panel was not selected Off after the previous water bombing run and prior to the scooping operation.
2. After completing the water scooping operation, the pilot unintentionally selected the bomb door push button switch instead of the adjacent probe switch. Because the bomb door armed switch on the centre panel was left On, the bomb doors extended into the water. Drag from the doors and the water rushing into the door openings resulted in the aircraft nosing over in the water.
3. The hinged cover plate for the bomb door push button switch was not re-installed following maintenance to replace the push button switch. The push button was exposed, making an inadvertent selection more likely.