Beechcraft 100 King Air

Findings as to causes and contributing factors:
During routine aircraft maintenance, it is likely that the left-engine oil-reservoir cap was left unsecured.
There was no complete preflight inspection of the aircraft, resulting in the unsecured engine oil-reservoir cap not being detected, and the left engine venting significant oil during operation.
A non-mandatory modification, designed to limit oil loss when the engine oil cap is left unsecure, had not been made to the engines.
Oil that leaked from the left engine while the aircraft was repositioned was pointed out to the crew, who did not determine its source before the flight departure.
On final approach, the aircraft slowed to below VREF speed. When power was applied, likely only to the right engine, the aircraft speed was below that required to maintain directional control, and it yawed and rolled left, and pitched down.
A partially effective recovery was likely initiated by reducing the right engine’s power; however, there was insufficient altitude to complete the recovery, and the aircraft collided with the ground.
Impact damage compromised the fuel system. Ignition sources resulting from metal friction, and possibly from the aircraft’s electrical system, started fires.
The damaged electrical system remained powered by the battery, resulting in arcing that may have ignited fires, including in the cockpit area.
Impact-related injuries sustained by the pilots and most of the passengers limited their ability to extricate themselves from the aircraft.
Findings as to risk:
Multi-engine−aircraft flight manuals and training programs do not include cautions and minimum control speeds for use of asymmetrical thrust in situations when an engine is at low power or the propeller is not feathered. There is a risk that pilots will not anticipate aircraft behavior when using asymmetrical thrust near or below unpublished critical speeds, and will lose control of the aircraft.
The company’s standard operating procedures lacked clear directions for how the aircraft was to be configured for the last 500 feet, or what to do if an approach is still unstable when 500 feet is reached, specifically in an abnormal situation. There is a demonstrated risk of accidents occurring as a result of unstabilized approaches below 500 feet above ground level.
Without isolation of the aircraft batteries following aircraft damage, there is a risk that an energized battery may ignite fires by electrical arcing.
Erroneous data used for weight-and-balance calculations can cause crews to inadvertently fly aircraft outside of the allowable center-of-gravity envelope.

An encounter with convectively-induced turbulence and icing, which resulted in an in-flight upset and a loss of airplane control.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The conduct of the flight crew members during the instrument approach prevented them from effectively monitoring the performance of the aircraft.
2. During the descent below the minimum descent altitude, the airspeed reduced to a point where the aircraft experienced an aerodynamic stall and loss of control. There was insufficient altitude to effect recovery prior to ground impact.
3. For unknown reasons, the stall warning horn did not activate; this may have provided the crew with an opportunity to avoid the impending stall.
Findings as to Risk:
1. The use of company standard weights and a non-current aircraft weight and balance report resulted in the flight departing at an inaccurate weight. This could result in a performance regime that may not be anticipated by the pilot.
2. Flying an instrument approach using a navigational display that is outside the normal scan of the pilot increases the workload during a critical phase of flight.
3. Flying an abbreviated approach profile without applying the proper transition altitudes increases the risk of controlled flight into obstacles or terrain.
4. Not applying cold temperature correction values to the approach altitudes decreases the built-in obstacle clearance parameters of an instrument approach.

Findings As To Causes and Contributing Factors:
The bird strike occurred on take-off at an altitude of less than 50 feet. Gulls were ingested in the left engine, which then lost power.
After the loss of engine power, the flight crew had difficulty controlling the aircraft. The aircraft touched the ground, forcing the pilot flying to abort the take-off when the runway remaining was insufficient to stop the aircraft, resulting in the runway overrun.
Findings As To Risks:
Although a cannon was in place, it was not working on the day of the accident, which increased the risk of a bird strike.
The presence of a goose and duck farm outside the airport perimeter but near a runway increases the risk of attracting gulls.
Operators subject to Canadian Aviation Regulations Subpart 703 are not prohibited from having an aircraft take off from a runway that is shorter than the accelerate-stop distance of that aircraft as determined from the performance diagrams. Consequently, travellers carried by these operators are exposed to the risks associated with a runway overrun when a take-off is aborted.
The absence of a CVR makes it harder to ascertain material facts. Consequently, investigations can take more time, resulting in delays which compromise public safety.

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.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
For undetermined reasons, the crew continued its descent prematurely below the published approach minima, leading to a controlled flight into terrain (CFIT).
Findings as to Risk:
1. The use of the step-down descent technique rather than the stabilized constant descent angle (SCDA) technique for non-precision instrument approaches increases the risk of an approach and landing accident (ALA).
2. The depiction of the RNAV (GNSS) Runway 12 approach published in the Canada Air Pilot (CAP) does not incorporate recognized visual elements for reducing ALAs, as recommended in Annex 4 to the Convention, thereby reducing awareness of the terrain.
3. The installation of a terrain awareness warning system (TAWS) is not yet a requirement under the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) for air taxi operators. Until the changes to regulations are put into effect, an important defense against ALAs is not available.
4. Most air taxi operators are unaware of and have not implemented the FSF ALAR task force recommendations, which increases the risk of a CFIT accident.
5. Approach design based primarily on obstacle clearance instead of the 3° optimum angle increases the risk of ALAs.
6. The lack of information on the SCDA technique in Transport Canada reference manuals means that crews are unfamiliar with this technique, thereby increasing the risk of ALAs.
7. Use of the step-down descent technique prolongs the time spent at minimum altitude, thereby increasing the risk of ALAs.
8. Pilots are not sufficiently educated on instrument approach procedure design criteria. Consequently, they tend to use the CAP published altitudes as targets, and place the aircraft at low altitude prematurely, thereby increasing the risk of an ALA.
9. Where pilots do not have up-to-date information on runway conditions needed to check runway contamination and landing distance performance, there is an increased risk of landing accidents.
10. Non-compliance with instrument flight rules (IFR) reporting procedures at uncontrolled airports increases the risk of collision with other aircraft or vehicles.
11. If altimeter corrections for low temperature and remote altimeter settings are not accurately applied, obstacle clearance will be reduced, thereby increasing the CFIT risk.
12. When cockpit recordings are not available to an investigation, this may preclude the identification and communication of safety deficiencies to advance transportation safety.
13. Task-induced fatigue has a negative effect on visual and cognitive performance which can diminish the ability to concentrate, operational memory, perception and visual acuity.
14. Where an emergency locator transmitter (ELT) is not registered with the Canadian Beacon Registry, the time needed to contact the owner or operator is increased which could affect occupant rescue and survival.
15. If the tracking of a call to 911 emergency services from a cell phone is not accurate, search and rescue efforts may be misdirected or delayed which could affect occupant rescue and survival.
Other Findings:
1. Weather conditions at the alternate airport did not meet CARs requirements, thereby reducing the probability of a successful approach and landing at the alternate airport if a diversion became necessary.
2. Following the accident, none of the aircraft exits were usable.

The pilot's failure to avoid severe weather, and the air traffic controller's failure to provide adverse weather avoidance assistance, as required by Federal Aviation Administration directives, both of which led to the airplane's encounter with a severe thunderstorm and the subsequent loss of control and inflight breakup of the airplane.

The loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion as a result of the pilot's inadequate fuel management.