Quebec

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The steering control valve lever was not reassembled in accordance with the specifications and the drawings in the overhaul manual and the maintenance manual: the lever was assembled with two washers instead of one, and the circumference of the bushing was 0.0005 inch greater than the circumference of the hole in the lever. These two deficiencies created additional resistance that
impeded the pivoting of the aircraft steering wheel.
2. The nylon locknuts were reinstalled during the repair of the steering control valve, contrary to the recommendation that they be used only once. The locknuts then came loose in service, creating play in the parts of the valve.
3. Incorrect interpretation of the problem and the influence of previous experience using the nose-gear steering wheel led the crew to make the flight despite their concern about the aircraft's nose-gear steering system.
Findings as to Risk:
1. The maintenance personnel of Precision Aero Components Inc. used the (incomplete) maintenance manual instead of the overhaul manual to overhaul and repair the steering control valve,
contributing to the incorrect reassembly of the valve.
2. The steering control valve lever was not fitted with a grease fitting, and the outside of the bushing was not grooved to allow adequate lubrication, thereby risking corrosion and seizure of the bushing inside the lever.
3. The limited experience and the lack of formal training of the maintenance personnel concerning the repair and the overhaul on the steering control valve might have contributed to the incorrect
reassembly of the steering control valve.
4. The pilot flying cut the electrical power, as required by the hard landing procedure. The left engine could therefore not be shut down, causing a risk of injury when the passengers evacuated.
5. The pilot flying cut the electrical power after the aircraft exited the runway, as required by the hard landing procedure. The electrical power required to operate the public address and alarm systems was thereby lost, and the evacuation could not be ordered promptly.
6. The evacuation slide automatic deployment system was inadvertently deactivated, which could have delayed the evacuation and compromised passenger safety.
7. After separating from the engine, the left propeller blades entered the fuselage and damaged an unoccupied seat.
Other Findings:
1. The numerous changes in ownership of the Convair type certificate and the lack of technical support from the current holder caused maintenance problems for Convair operators and approved
maintenance organizations (AMOs), particularly for recently established AMOs.

Preliminary investigation revealed that an apprentice AME moved a line in the landing gear well prior to the flight. The work was neither scheduled nor required. The apprentice left the work unfinished when he went to do something else, then forgot that a fastener was not in place. There was no flag or note to inform the other technicians or the crew that the aircraft was not in an airworthy state. The apprentice has two years experience with this company. The management was satisfied with the quality of his work. Two other licensed AMEs were working in the hangar with the apprentice. He was the only apprentice they had to supervise. The apprentice attended a type training course for this aircraft.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The aircraft probably stalled with insufficient altitude for the pilot to execute a recovery.
2. The prevailing conditions were conducive to optical illusions associated with low-altitude flight over rising terrain.
3. The aircraft was not equipped with a stall warning system, nor was it required by regulation.
4. The pilot's decision to fly at low altitude and probably use cutback power for the climb did not allow for safe obstacle clearance.
5. The pre-flight safety briefing did not inform passengers where to find the survival equipment on board the aircraft. Consequently, they could not use the sleeping bags to protect themselves from exposure and thereby delay hypothermia.
6. Rescue was late because the mostly white aircraft blended into the snowy ground, making it difficult to locate, and the ELT antenna was broken, reducing the range of the signal. Consequently, the survivors' exposure time was increased.
Other Findings:
1. The pilot was certified and qualified for the flight.
2. The autopsy and toxicological test results revealed no indication that physiological factors affected the pilot's performance.
3. Records indicate that the aircraft was certified, equipped, and maintained in accordance with existing regulations and approved procedures.
4. The aircraft's weight and centre of gravity were within the limits specified in the aircraft fight manual.
5. There is no indication that there was an emergency situation or that the aircraft experienced problems prior to impact.
6. The ready-to-use weight and balance calculation form is not consistent with the standard. Transport Canada reported this irregularity in 1992, but no change was made in the form, which is still part of the company operations manual approved by Transport Canada on 23 October 1999.
7. The weather conditions were suitable for visual flight.

Findings as to causes and contributing factors:
1. The pilot flying did not establish a maximum performance climb profile, although required by the company's standard operating procedures (SOPs), when the ground proximity warning system (GPWS) "Terrain, Terrain" warning sounded during the descent, in cloud, to the non-directional beacon (NDB).
2. The pilot flying did not fly a stabilized approach, although required by the company's SOPs. The crew did not carry out a go-around when it was clear that the approach was not stabilized.
3. The crew descended the aircraft well below safe minimum altitude while in instrument meteorological conditions.
4. Throughout the approach, even at 100 feet above ground level (agl), the captain asked the pilot flying to continue the descent without having established any visual contact with the runway environment.
5. After the GPWS "Minimums, Minimums" voice activation at 100 feet agl, the aircraft's rate of descent continued at 850 feet per minute until impact.
6. The crew planned and conducted, in cloud and low visibility, a user-defined global positioning system approach to Runway 31, contrary to regulations and safe practices.
Findings as to risk:
1. At the time of the approach, the reported ceiling and visibility were well below the minima published on the approach chart.
2. Because the runway was not equipped with a reporting runway visual range system, flying the NDB approach was allowable under the existing regulations.
3. The crew did not follow company SOPs for the approach and missed-approach briefings.
4. Both crew members had surpassed their maximum monthly and quarterly flight times and maximum daily flight duty times. They were thus at increased risk of fatigue, which leads to judgement and performance errors.
5. The first officer likely suffered from chronic fatigue, having worked an average of 14 hours a day for the last 30 days, with only 1 day of rest.
6. Transport Canada was not aware that the company's pilots were exceeding the flight and duty times.
7. The company operations manager did not effectively supervise the flight and duty times of company pilots.
8. The captain had not received the mandatory training in pilot decision making or crew resource management.
Other findings:
1. The emergency locator transmitter activated on initial impact but ceased to transmit shortly thereafter when its antenna cable was severed.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The crew did not follow the company's SOPs for the briefing preceding the approach and for a missed approach.
2. In the approach briefing, the captain did not specify the MDA or the MAP, and the first officer did not notice these oversights, which shows a lack of coordination within the crew.
3. The captain continued descent below the MDA without establishing visual contact with the required references.
4. The first officer probably had difficulty perceiving depth because of the whiteout.
5. The captain did not effectively monitor the flight parameters because he was trying to establish visual contact with the runway.
6. The chief pilot (the captain of C-FGOI) set a bad example to the pilots under him by using a dangerous method, that is, descending below the MDA without establishing visual contact with the required references and using the GPWS to approach the ground.
Findings as to Risks:
1. The operations manager did not effectively supervise air operations.
2. Transport Canada did not detect the irregularities that compromised the safety of the flight before the occurrence.
3. Régionnair had not developed GPWS SOPs for non-precision approaches.
Other Findings:
1. The GPWS 'MINIMUMS' alarm sounded at a height that did not leave the captain time to initiate pull-up and avoid striking the ground because of the aircraft=s rate of descent and other flight
parameters.
2. Neither the captain nor the first officer had received PDM training or CRM training.
3. At the time of the approach, the ceiling and visibility unofficially reported by the AAU were below the minima published on the approach chart.
4. The decision to make the approach was consistent with existing regulations because runway 02/20 was not under an approach ban.
5. Some Régionnair pilots would descend below the MDA and use the GPWS to approach the ground if conditions made it impossible to establish visual contact with the required references.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The aircraft took off with contaminated surfaces, without an inspection by the pilot-in-command. This contamination contributed to reducing the aircraft' performance and to the subsequent stall.
2. At take-off, the aircraft was more than 200 pounds over the maximum allowable take-off weight. This added weight contributed to reducing the aircraft's performance.
3. During the initial climbout, the pilot-in-command did not follow the recommended procedure when he entered an area of wind shear. Consequently, the aircraft lost more speed, contributing to the stall.
4. Insufficient altitude was available for the pilot to recover from the stall and avoid striking the water.
5. The co-pilot's shoulder harness was not installed properly. The co-pilot received serious head injuries because she was not restrained.
Findings as to Risk
1. The crew's lack of experience in the existing conditions was not conducive to effective decision making during the pre-flight planning and the flight.
2. The stall warning system was defective and, in other circumstances, could not have alerted the crew of an impending stall.
3. The crew did not transmit an emergency message after the pilot-in-command decided to return to Baie-Comeau for landing. This lack of a message delayed the rescue operation.
4. The emergency signal was not received by the Mont-Joli Flight Service Station because the Baie-Comeau remote communications outlet (RCO) was not equipped with the 121.5 MHz emergency frequency. The RCO was not required to be equipped with the emergency frequency.
5. The emergency locator transmitter (ELT) was not installed in accordance with Britten-Norman's instructions. The ELT's installation on the floor of the aircraft increased the risk of damage.
6. Transport Canada did not comply with its established audit standards for regulatory audits of the operator, thus increasing the risk that training and operational deficiencies would not be identified.
7. The emergency signal probably ceased after the ELT was ejected from its mounting plate and the antenna connection contacted the water. The ejection contributed to reducing the signal and
prevented the SARSAT (search and rescue satellite-aided tracking) system from validating the
8. One of the occupants might have had a greater chance of survival had lifejackets been on-board the aircraft. Existing regulations did not require life jackets to be carried on board.
9. The aircraft had numerous mechanical deficiencies that should have been detected by Air Satellite's staff.
10. According to the Baie-Comeau airport emergency plan, a helicopter could be used only after confirmation of a crash in water. The emergency response time was therefore longer than it could
have been.
11. The configuration of the instrument panel made it difficult to read and interpret the flight instruments from the co-pilot's seat.
12. Air Satellite's manual of standard operating procedures did not promote effective crew coordination.
13. The pilot-in-command and the co-pilot had not taken courses in crew resource management or pilot decision making. These courses would have promoted effective crew coordination but were not required under existing regulations.
14. The high turnover of flight personnel and the repeated changes in the position of company chief pilot did not allow adequate supervision of operations.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
- The crew did not realize that the pull to the left and the extended take-off run were due to the left brakes' dragging, which led to overheating of the brake components.
- Dragging of the left brakes was most probably caused by an unidentified pressure locking factor upstream of the brakes on take-off. The dragging caused overheating and leakage, probably at one of the piston seals that retain the brake hydraulic fluid.
- When hydraulic fluid leaked onto the hot brake components, the fluid caught fire and initiated an intense fire in the left nacelle, leading to failure of the main hydraulic system.
- When the L WING OVHT light went out, the overheating problem appeared corrected; however, the fire continued to burn.
- The crew never realized that all of the problems were associated with a fire in the wheel well, and they did not realize how serious the situation was.
- The left wing was weakened by the wing/engine fire and failed, rendering the aircraft uncontrollable.
Findings as to Risk:
- Numerous previous instances of brake overheating or fire on SA226 and SA227 aircraft had the potential for equally tragic consequences. Not all crews flying this type of aircraft are aware of its history of numerous brake overheating or fire problems.
- The aircraft flight manual and the emergency procedures checklist provide no information on the possibility of brake overheating, precautions to prevent brake overheating, the symptoms that could indicate brake problems, or actions to take if overheated brakes are suspected.
- More stringent fire-blocking requirements would have retarded combustion of the seats, reducing the fire risk to the aircraft occupants.
- A mixture of the two types of hydraulic fluid lowered the temperature at which the fluid would ignite, that is, below the flashpoint of pure MIL-H-83282 fluid.
- The aircraft maintenance manual indicated that the two hydraulic fluids were compatible but did not mention that mixing them would reduce the fire resistance of the fluid.
Other Findings:
- The master cylinders were not all of the same part number, resulting in complex linkage and master cylinder adjustments, complicated overall brake system functioning, and difficult troubleshooting of the braking system. However, there was no indication that this circumstance caused residual brake pressure.
- The latest recommended master cylinders are required to be used only with specific brake assembly part numbers, thereby simplifying adjustments, functioning, and troubleshooting.
- Although the emergency checklist for overheating in the wing required extending the landing gear, the crew did not do this because the wing overheat light went out before the crew initiated the checklist.
- The effect of the fire in the wheel well made it difficult to move the ailerons, but the exact cause of the difficulty was not determined.

The crew did not refuel at Rouyn as planned, and did not have sufficient fuel to complete the segment. Contributing to the accident were the following: the crew did not fully understand the flight plan documents and did not calculate fuel consumption en route.