Goose Bay

Controlled flight into terrain.

Findings as to causes and contributing factors:
1. Neither pilot had considered that the combination of landing at night, in reduced visibility, with a crosswind and blowing snow, on a runway with no centreline lighting, was a hazard that may create additional risks.
2. The blowing snow made it difficult to identify the runway centreline markings, thereby reducing visual cues available to the captain. This situation was exacerbated by the absence of centreline lighting and a possible visual illusion caused by blowing snow.
3. Due to the gusty crosswind conditions, the aircraft drifted to the right during the landing flare, which was not recognized by the crew.
4. It is likely that the captain had difficulty determining aircraft position during the landing flare.
5. The flight crew’s decision to continue with the landing was consistent with plan continuation bias.
6. During landing, the nosewheel struck the compacted snow windrow on the runway, causing the nose landing gear to collapse.

Findings as to risk:
1. If aircraft are not equipped with a 406 MHz-capable emergency locator transmitter, flight crews and passengers are at increased risk of injury or death following an accident because search-and-rescue assistance may be delayed.
2. If operators do not have defined crosswind limits, there is a risk that pilots may land in crosswinds that exceed their abilities, which could jeopardize the safety of flight.
3. If composite propeller blades contact objects and separate, and then strike or penetrate the cabin, there is a risk of injury or death to occupants seated in the propeller’s plane of rotation.
4. If modern crew resource management training is not a regulatory requirement, then it is less likely to be introduced by operators and, as a result, pilots may not be fully prepared to recognize and mitigate hazards encountered during flight.
5. If organizations do not use modern safety management practices and do not have a robust safety culture, then there is an increased risk that hazards will not be identified and mitigated.
6. When testing an emergency locator transmitter’s (ELT) automatic activation system, a sticking g-switch may go undetected if more than 1 football throw is necessary to activate the ELT. As a result, the ELT might not activate during an accident, and search-and-rescue assistance may be delayed, placing flight crews and passenger at an increased risk for injury or death.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The pilot conducted a visual flight rules (VFR) flight into deteriorating weather in a mountainous region.
2. The pilot lost visual reference with the ground and the aircraft struck the rising terrain in level, controlled flight.
Findings as to Risk:
1. When an aircraft is not equipped with a functioning emergency locator transmitter (ELT), the ability to locate the aircraft in a timely manner is hindered.
2. Not applying current altimeter settings along a flight route, particularly from an area of high to low pressure, may result in reduced obstacle clearance.
3. Without a requirement for terrain awareness warning systems, there will be a continued risk of accidents of this type.

Findings as to Cause and Contributing Factors:
1. Aircraft directional control was lost, likely because of negative castering of the nosewheel when snow piled up in front of the nosewheel assembly.
Findings as to Risk:
1. The crew members were not aware of negative castering; the aircraft flight manual and emergency checklists do not address negative castering.
2. The emergency response to the occurrence was delayed by four minutes because of the lack of communication from the aircraft to the tower.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The captain decided to descend below the minimum descent altitude (MDA) without the required visual references.
2. After descending below MDA, both pilots were preoccupied with acquiring and maintaining visual contact with the ground and did not adequately monitor the flight instruments; thus, the aircraft flew into the ice.
Findings as to Risk:
1. The flight crew did not follow company standard operating procedures.
2. Portions of the flight were conducted in areas where the minimum visual meteorological conditions required for visual flight rules flight were not present.
3. Although both pilots recently attended crew resource management (CRM) training, important CRM concepts were not applied during the flight.
4. The cargo was not adequately secured before departure, which increased the risk of injury to the crew.
5. The company manager and the pilot-in-command did not ensure that safe aircraft loading procedures were followed for the occurrence flight.
6. There were lapses in the company's management of the Goose Bay operation; these lapses were not detected by Transport Canada's safety oversight activities.
7. The aircraft was not equipped with a ground proximity warning system, nor was one required by regulation.
8. Records establish that the aircraft departed approximately 500 pounds overweight.
Other Findings:
1. The flight crew were certified, trained, and qualified to operate the flight in accordance with existing regulations and had recently attended CRM training.
2. During both instrument approaches, the aircraft was operating in instrument meteorological conditions and icing conditions.
3. There was no airframe failure or system malfunction prior to or during the flight. In particular, the airframe de-icing system was serviceable and in operation during both approaches.
4. It was determined that an ice-contaminated tailplane stall did not occur.
5. The fuel weight was not properly recorded in the journey logbook.
6. The wreckage pattern was consistent with a controlled, shallow descent.
7. The emergency locator transmitter was damaged due to impact forces during the accident, rendering it inoperable.

The pilot did not follow the prescribed emergency procedure for low oil pressure, and the engine failed before he could land safely. The pilot's decision making was influenced by his belief that the low oil pressure indications were not valid. The engine failed as a result of an interruption of oil flow to the first-stage planet gear assembly; the cause of the oil flow interruption could not be determined.

The exact cause of the engine failure could not be determined. Except the fact that a hinge pin was missing in the injector air heating system, no technical malfunction was found. It was reported that the pilot was not certified to perform such flight and the passenger was not allowed to take part to such mission according to the provisional airworthiness certificate that was valid till the day of the occurrence. The possible presence of windshear on final approach was not ruled out and it was also reported that the approach was completed with a speed that was approximately 10 to 15 knots below the prescribed approach speed.