Country
Crash of a Dassault Falcon 10 in Toronto
Date & Time:
Jun 17, 2011 at 1506 LT
Operator:
Registration:
C-GRIS
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Toronto-Lester Bowles Pearson - Toronto-Buttonville
MSN:
02
YOM:
1973
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
0
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
0
Captain / Total hours on type:
4000.00
Copilot / Total hours on type:
475
Aircraft flight hours:
12697
Circumstances:
Aircraft was on a flight from Toronto-Lester B. Pearson International Airport to Toronto-Buttonville Municipal Airport, Ontario, with 2 pilots on board. Air traffic control cleared the aircraft for a contact approach to Runway 33. During the left turn on to final, the aircraft overshot the runway centerline. The pilot then compensated with a tight turn to the right to line up with the runway heading and touched down just beyond the threshold markings. Immediately after touchdown, the aircraft exited the runway to the right, and continued through the infield and the adjacent taxiway Bravo, striking a runway/taxiway identification sign, but avoiding aircraft that were parked on the apron. The aircraft came to a stop on the infield before Runway 21/03. The aircraft remained upright, and the landing gear did not collapse. The aircraft sustained substantial damage. There was no fire, and the flight crew was not injured. The Toronto-Buttonville tower controller observed the event as it progressed and immediately called for emergency vehicles from the nearby municipality. The accident occurred at 1506 Eastern Daylight Time.
Probable cause:
Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The crew flew an unstabilized approach with excessive airspeed.
2. The lack of adherence to company standard operating procedures and crew resource management, as well as the non-completion of checklist items by the flight crew contributed to the occurrence.
3. The captain’s commitment to landing or lack of understanding of the degree of instability of the flight path likely influenced the decision not to follow the aural GPWS alerts and the missed approach call from the first officer.
4. The non-standard wording and the tone used by the first officer were insufficient to deter the captain from continuing the approach.
5. At touchdown, directional control was lost, and the aircraft veered off the runway with sufficient speed to prevent any attempts to regain control.
Finding as to Risk
1. Companies which do not have ground proximity warning system procedures in their standard operating procedures may place crews and passengers at risk in the event that a warning is received.
1. The crew flew an unstabilized approach with excessive airspeed.
2. The lack of adherence to company standard operating procedures and crew resource management, as well as the non-completion of checklist items by the flight crew contributed to the occurrence.
3. The captain’s commitment to landing or lack of understanding of the degree of instability of the flight path likely influenced the decision not to follow the aural GPWS alerts and the missed approach call from the first officer.
4. The non-standard wording and the tone used by the first officer were insufficient to deter the captain from continuing the approach.
5. At touchdown, directional control was lost, and the aircraft veered off the runway with sufficient speed to prevent any attempts to regain control.
Finding as to Risk
1. Companies which do not have ground proximity warning system procedures in their standard operating procedures may place crews and passengers at risk in the event that a warning is received.
Final Report:
Crash of a Dassault Falcon 100 in Samedan: 2 killed
Date & Time:
Feb 12, 2009 at 1612 LT
Registration:
VP-BAF
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Vienna - Samedan
MSN:
210
YOM:
1987
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
1
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
2
Captain / Total hours on type:
739.00
Copilot / Total hours on type:
119
Aircraft flight hours:
6386
Circumstances:
On 12 February 2009, the Marcel Dassault/Bréguet Aviation Falcon 10 aircraft, registration VP-BAF, took off at 14:06 UTC from Vienna (LOWW) on a private flight under instrument flight rules (IFR) and an ATC flight plan Y, to Samedan (LSZS). Two crew members and one passenger were on board. After an uneventful flight, the IFR flight plan was cancelled at 14:56:32 UTC and the flight continued under visual flight rules (VFR). Over Samedan the crew were informed by the Samedan airport flight information service officer (FISO) that snow clearance work would be taking place on the runway and that they should expect a ten-minute delay. After approximately 15 minutes the crew initiated the approach. On landing, the aircraft made first contact with the ground by scraping the right wing on the left half of the runway and subsequently touched down with the right, and then the left main landing gear. It then drifted to the left and the left wing tip scraped a bank of snow running parallel to the runway. As a result it rotated anti-clockwise around its vertical axis and crashed into a frozen bank of snow about four metres high. The aircraft broke into two pieces as a result of the force of the impact. The two pilots suffered fatal injuries on the impact. The passenger was seriously injured. The aircraft was destroyed. Fire did not break out.
Probable cause:
The accident is attributable to the fact that the crew wanted to make a landing with inadequate visual references from an unfavorable initial position and as a result, after touchdown the aircraft collided with a snowbank running along the runway.
The following factors contributed to the accident:
• The rapidly changing weather conditions on the mountain aerodrome of Samedan were misjudged by the crew.
• A coordinated crew working method in terms of crew resource manage-ment was missing.
• The deactivation of the EGPWS, which meant that acoustic messages con-cerning the aircraft’s height above ground and bank angle were no longer available in the final phase of the approach up to the first contact with the runway.
• A snowbank up to four metres high ran along the edge of the runway.
The following factors contributed to the accident:
• The rapidly changing weather conditions on the mountain aerodrome of Samedan were misjudged by the crew.
• A coordinated crew working method in terms of crew resource manage-ment was missing.
• The deactivation of the EGPWS, which meant that acoustic messages con-cerning the aircraft’s height above ground and bank angle were no longer available in the final phase of the approach up to the first contact with the runway.
• A snowbank up to four metres high ran along the edge of the runway.
Final Report:
