British Columbia

There was no indication that an aircraft system malfunction contributed to this occurrence. There were no drastic changes in the aircraft’s flight path, and no emergency calls from the pilot to indicate that an in-flight emergency was experienced. The constant ground speed and flight path would also suggest that the aircraft was under the control of the pilot. As a result, this analysis will focus on the phenomenon of controlled flight into terrain (CFIT).
Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The combination of relatively high weight, effects of density altitude, and down-flowing air likely reduced the climb performance of the aircraft, resulting in the aircraft’s altitude being lower than anticipated at that stage in the flight.
2. The pilot’s vision was likely impaired by the sun, and the pilot may have been exposed to visual illusions; both were factors that contributed to the pilot not noticing the trees and the rising terrain, and colliding with them.
Findings as to Risk:
1. Visual illusions cause false impressions or misconceptions of actual conditions. Unrecognized and uncorrected spatial disorientation, caused by illusions, carries a high risk of incident or accident.
2. When there are no special departure procedures published for airports in mountainous regions surrounded by high terrain, there is a risk of pilots departing the valley at an altitude too low for terrain clearance.
Other Findings:
1. Information from the Wide Area Multilateration system was not preserved following the occurrence, as local NAV CANADA personnel were not aware that unfiltered data were only available for a limited time.

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.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. It could not be determined to what extent the initial collision with trees caused damage to the aircraft which may have affected its controllability.
2. Visual illusion may have precluded recognition, or an accurate assessment, of the flight path profile in sufficient time to avoid the trees on rising terrain.
3. Visual illusion may have contributed to the development of a low energy condition which impaired the aircraft performance when overshoot action was initiated.
4. The aircraft entered an aerodynamic stall and spin from which recovery was not possible at such a low altitude.
Findings as to Risk:
1. Visual illusions give false impressions or misconceptions of actual conditions. Unrecognized and uncorrected spatial disorientation, caused by illusions, carries a high risk of incident or accident.
2. Flight operations outside the approved weight and balance envelope increase the risk of unanticipated aircraft behaviour.
3. The recommended maintenance check of the emergency drop (E-drop) system may not be performed and there is no requirement for flight crews to test the E-drop system, thereby increasing the risk that an unserviceable system will go undetected.
4. The location of the E-drop selector requires crews to divert significant time and attention to identify and confirm the correct switch before operating it. This increases the risk of collision with terrain while attention is distracted.
5. The location of the angle-of-attack indicator on the instrument panel makes it difficult to see from the right seat, reducing its effectiveness.
6. When cockpit recordings are not available to an investigation, this may preclude the identification and communication of safety deficiencies to advance transportation safety.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The combined effects of the atmospheric conditions and bank angle increased the load factor, causing an aerodynamic stall.
2. Due to the absence of a functioning stall warning system, in addition to the benign stalling characteristics of the Beaver, the pilot was not warned of the impending stall.
3. Because the aircraft was loaded in a manner that exceeded the aft CG limit, full stall recovery was compromised.
4. The altitude from which recovery was attempted was insufficient to arrest descent, causing the aircraft to strike the water.
5. Impact damage jammed 2 of the 4 doors, restricting egress from the sinking aircraft.
6. The pilot’s seat failed and he was unrestrained, contributing to the seriousness of his injuries and limiting his ability to assist passengers.
Findings as to Risk:
1. There is a risk that pilots will inadvertently stall aircraft if the stall warning system is unserviceable or if the audio warnings have been modified to reduce noise levels.
2. Pilots who do not undergo underwater egress training are at greater risk of not escaping submerged aircraft.
3. The lack of alternate emergency exits, such as jettisonable windows, increases the risk that passengers and pilots will be unable to escape a submerged aircraft due to structural damage to primary exits following an impact with the water.
4. If passengers are not provided with explicit safety briefings on how to egress the aircraft when submerged, there is increased risk that they will be unable to escape following an impact with the water.
5. Passengers and pilots not wearing some type of flotation device prior to an impact with the water are at increased risk of drowning once they have escaped the aircraft.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. APEX 511 turned onto the final approach course within the wake turbulence area behind and below the heavier aircraft and encountered its wake, resulting in an upset and loss of control at an altitude that precluded recovery.
2. The proximity of the faster trailing traffic limited the space available for APEX 511 to join the final approach course, requiring APEX 511 not to lag too far behind the preceding aircraft.
Findings as to Risk:
1. The current wake turbulence separation standards may be inadequate. As air traffic volume continues to grow, there is a risk that wake turbulence encounters will increase.
2. Visual separation may not be an adequate defence to ensure that appropriate spacing for wake turbulence can be established or maintained, particularly in darkness.
3. Neither the pilots nor Canadian Air Charters (CAC) were required by regulation to account for employee duty time acquired at other non-aviation related places of employment. As a result, there was increased risk that pilots were operating while fatigued.
4. Not maintaining engine accessories in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations can lead to failure of systems critical to safety.
Other Finding:
1. APEX 511 was not equipped with any type of cockpit recording devices, nor was it required to be. As a result, the level of collaboration and decision making discussion between the 2 pilots remains unknown.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors
1. The pilot likely departed and continued flight in conditions that were below visual
flight rules (VFR) weather minima.
2. The pilot continued his VFR flight into instrument meteorological conditions (IMC),
and did not recognize his proximity to terrain until seconds before colliding with
Thormanby Island, British Columbia.
3. The indication of a marginal weather improvement at Powell River, British Columbia,
and incorrect information from Merry Island, British Columbia, may have
contributed to the pilot’s conclusion that weather along the route would be sufficient
for a low-level flight.
Findings as to Risk:
1. The reliance on a single VHF-AM radio for commercial operations, particularly in congested airspace, increases the risk that important information is not received.
2. Flights conducted at low altitude greatly decrease VHF radio reception range, making it difficult to obtain route-related information that could affect safety.
3. The lack of pilot decision making (PDM) training for VFR air taxi operators exposes pilots and passengers to increased risk when faced with adverse weather conditions.
4. Some operators and pilots intentionally skirt VFR weather minima, which increases risk to passengers and pilots travelling on air taxi aircraft in adverse weather conditions.
5. Customers who apply pressure to complete flights despite adverse weather can negatively influence pilot and operator decisions.
6. Incremental growth in Pacific Coastal’s support to Kiewit did not trigger further risk analysis by either company. As a result, pilots and passengers were exposed to increased risks that went undetected.
7. Transport Canada’s guidance on risk assessment does not address incremental growth for air operators. As a result, there is increased risk that operators will not conduct the appropriate risk analysis as their operation grows.
8. Previous discussions between Pacific Coastal and the pilot about his weather decision making were not documented under the company’s safety management system (SMS). If hazards are not documented, a formal risk analysis may not be prompted to define and mitigate the risk.
9. There were no company procedures or decision aids (that is, decision tree, second pilot input, dispatcher co-authority) in place to augment a pilot’s decision to depart.
10. Because the aircraft’s emergency locator transmitter (ELT) failed to operate after the crash, determining that a crash had occurred and locating the aircraft were delayed.
11. On a number of flights, pilots on the Vancouver–Toba Inlet route, British Columbia, departed over maximum gross weight due to incorrectly calculated weight and balances. Risks to pilots and passengers are increased when the aircraft is operating outside approved limits.
12. The over-reliance on global positioning system (GPS) in conditions of low visibility and ceilings presents a significant safety risk to pilots and passengers.
Other Finding:
1. The SPOT Satellite Messenger data transmitted before the crash helped to narrow the search area and reduce the search time to find the aircraft. The fact that the wrong data were consulted caused an initial delay in reporting the missing aircraft.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The general condition of the aircraft, the engine time before overhaul (TBO) over-run and the missed inspection items demonstrated inadequate maintenance that was not detected by regulatory oversight.
2. The TBO over-run and missed inspections resulted in excessive spline wear in the left engine-driven fuel pump going undetected.
3. The left engine lost power due to mechanical failure of the engine fuel pump drive splines.
4. The horizontal engine instrument arrangement and the lack of recent emergency training made quick engine malfunction identification difficult. This resulted in the pilot shutting down the wrong engine, causing a dual-engine power loss and a forced landing.
5. Not using the restraint devices contributed to the seriousness of injuries to some passengers.
Finding as to Risk:
1. There is a risk to passengers if Transport Canada does not verify that holders of Canadian Foreign Air Operator Certificates-Free Trade Agreement meet airworthiness and operational requirements.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. While likely climbing to fly above a cloud-covered ridge and below the overcast ceiling, the aircraft stalled aerodynamically at a height from which full recovery could not be made before striking the trees.
2. The aircraft broke apart upon impact, and electrical arcing from exposed wires in the presence of spilled fuel caused a fire that consumed most of the aircraft.
Findings as to Risk:
1. While the company’s established communications procedures and infrastructure met the regulatory requirements, they were not effective in ascertaining an aircraft’s position and flight progress, which delayed critical search and rescue (SAR) action.
2. The emergency locator transmitter was destroyed in the crash and failed to operate, making it difficult for SAR to find the aircraft. This prolonged the time the injured survivors had to wait for rescue and medical attention.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. An unapproved part was installed in the alternator coupling. This resulted in debris from the coupling causing a partial blockage of oil flow to the number two connecting rod bearing. This low oil flow caused overheating and failure of the bearings, connecting rod cap bolts and nuts, and the subsequent engine failure.
2. The engine failure occurred after sunset and the low-lighting conditions in the valley would have made selecting a suitable landing area difficult.
3. The engine knocking was not reported to maintenance personnel which prevented an opportunity to discover the deteriorating engine condition.
Finding as to Risk:
1. All flights on the day of the accident were carried out without the oil filler cap in place. The absence of the oil filler cap could have resulted in the loss of engine oil.
Other Findings:
1. There were no current instrument flight rules charts or approach plates on board the aircraft for the intended flight.
2. The Teledyne Continental Motors Service Bulletin M84-5 addressed only the 520 series engines and did not include other gear-driven alternator equipped engines.