Beechcraft 100 King Air

Controlled flight into terrain after the crew started the descent prematurely. The lack of visibility was considered as a contributing factor.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The crew conducted an Area Navigation (RNAV) approach for which they were not trained, with an aircraft that was not properly equipped nor approved for such purpose.
2. The aircraft descended 300 feet below the minimum descent altitude (MDA) as a result of a number of lapses, errors and adaptations which, when combined, resulted in the mismanaged approach.
3. The aural warning on the aircraft’s altitude alerter had been silenced prior to the approach, which precluded it from alerting the crew when the aircraft descended below minimum descent altitude.
4. The SkyNorth standard operating procedures for conducting a non-precision approach were not followed, which resulted in the aircraft descending below the minimum descent altitude. During the ensuing missed approach, the aircraft struck trees.
Findings as to Risk:
1. The lack of a more-structured training environment and the type of supervisory flying provided increased the risk that deviations from standard operating procedures (SOPs) would not be identified.
2. There are several instrument approach procedures in Canada that contain step-down fixes that are not displayed on global positioning system (GPS) units. This may increase the risk of collision with obstacles during step-downs on approaches.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. An electrical short circuit in the cockpit pedestal area produced flames and smoke, which induced the crew to take emergency action.
2. The detrimental effects of aging on the wires involved may have been a factor in this electrical arc event.
3. The crew elected to return to the airport at low level in an environment with inadequate visual references. As a result, control of the aircraft was lost at an altitude from which a recovery was not possible.
Findings as to Risk:
1. The actions specified in the standard operating procedures (SOP) do not include procedures for an electrical fire encountered at low altitude at night, which could lead to a loss of control.
2. Visual inspection procedures in accordance with normal phase inspection requirements may be inadequate to detect defects progressing within wiring bundles, increasing the risk of electrical fires.
3. In the event of an in-flight cockpit pedestal fire, the first officer does not have ready access to available fire extinguishers, reducing the likelihood of successfully fighting a fire of this nature.
4. Sealed in plastic containers and stored behind each pilot seat, the oxygen masks and goggles are time consuming to access and cumbersome to apply and activate. This could increase the probability of injury or incapacitation through extended exposure to smoke or fumes, or could deter crews from using them, especially during periods of high cockpit workload.
Other Finding:
1. A failure of the hot-mic recording function of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) had gone undetected and information that would have been helpful to the investigation was not available.

Gear up landing for undetermined reason.

The pilot’s failure to maintain terrain clearance during takeoff for undetermined reasons.

The pilot's failure to maintain a positive climb rate during an instrument takeoff. Contributing to the accident was the low visibility.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The aircraft was configured late for the approach, resulting in an unstable approach condition.
2. The pilot flying carried out a steep turn at a low altitude, thereby increasing the load factor. Consequently, the aircraft stalled at an altitude that was too low to allow the pilot to carry out a stall recovery procedure.
Findings as to Risk:
1. The time spent programming the global positioning system reduced the time available to manage the flight. Consequently, the crew did not make the required radio communications on the mandatory frequency, did not activate the aircraft radio control of aerodrome lighting (ARCAL), did not make the verbal calls specified in the standard operating procedures (SOPs), and configured the aircraft for the approach and landing too late.
2. During the second approach, the aircraft did a race-track pattern and descended below the safe obstacle clearance altitude, thereby increasing the risk of a controlled flight into terrain. The crew’s limited instrument flight rules (IFR) experience could have contributed to poor interpretation of the IFR procedures.
3. Non-compliance with communications procedures in a mandatory frequency area created a situation in which the pilots of both aircraft had poor knowledge of their respective positions, thereby increasing the risk of collision.
4. The pilot-in-command monitored approach (PICMA) procedure requires calls by the pilot not flying when the aircraft deviates from pre-established acceptable tolerances. However, no call is required to warn the pilot flying of an approaching steep bank.
5. The transfer of controls was not carried out as required by the PICMA procedure described in the SOPs. The transfer of controls at the co-pilot’s request could have taken the pilot-in-command by surprise, leaving little time to choose the best option.
6. Despite their limited amount of IFR experience in a multiple crew working environment, the two pilots were paired. Nothing prohibited this. Although the crew had received crew resource management (CRM) training, it still had little multiple crew experience and consequently little experience in applying the basic principles of CRM.
Other Findings:
1. The emergency locator transmitter (ELT) had activated after the impact but due to circuit board damage its transmission power was severely limited. This situation could have had serious consequences had there been any survivors.
2. The Chibougamau/Chapais airport does not have an aircraft rescue and firefighting service. Because the fire station is 23 kilometres from the airport, the firefighters arrived at the scene 26 minutes after the accident.
3. Although this accident does not meet the criteria of a controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), it nonetheless remains that a stabilized constant descent angle (SCDA) non-precision approach (NPA) would have provided an added defence tool to supplement the SOPs.
4. After the late call within the mandatory frequency (MF) area, the specialist at the Québec flight information centre asked the crew about its familiarity with the MF area while the aircraft was in a critical phase of the first approach, which was approaching the minimum descent altitude (MDA). This situation could have distracted the flight crew while they completed important tasks.
5. The standard checklist used by the flight crew made no reference to the enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS). Therefore, the crew was not prompted to check it to ensure that it was properly activated before departure.

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.