Casualties unknown

2001-11-02: Cessna 208B C-GGUH — Stage Air Ltd. — Inuvik, 4 nm N, CA

Inuvik, 4 nm N, CA

On November 2, 2001, a Cessna 208B C-GGUH operated by Stage Air Ltd. was involved in an aviation accident near Inuvik, 4 nm N, CA. Investigators recorded the probable cause as: The accident was a controlled flight into terrain caused by the pilot's failure to properly execute the instrument approach and a loss of situational awareness, exacerbated by a lack of use of available cockpit tools like the autopilot and radar altimeter. This summary draws on records from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB).

Sourcesthe Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB)Primary reportUpdated 1785068748Data APIEditorial standards

A single-engine Cessna Caravan struck a hilltop near Inuvik during a night approach in instrument meteorological conditions, resulting in substantial aircraft damage.

What happened

On a night flight from Tuktoyaktuk to Inuvik, a Cessna Caravan, registration C-GGUH, encountered instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) while operating under visual flight rules (VFR). After contacting air traffic control, the pilot received an instrument approach clearance for Runway 23. During the descent, the aircraft struck a hilltop approximately four nautical miles north of the airport, coming to rest in an upright position. The impact caused substantial damage to the aircraft, including the landing gear, wing, and belly-mounted cargo pod, though the pilot and one passenger escaped with only minor injuries.

The investigation

Investigators examined radar data from the Department of National Defense, which revealed that C-GGUH was never properly established on the published instrument approach. Instead, the aircraft overflew the required 13 DME arc position before turning southeast and then southward, eventually striking the ground on a track roughly 90 degrees offset from the final approach path.

Technical analysis showed the aircraft was flying within weight and balance limits, and all mechanical systems were functioning normally at the time of impact. The investigation also noted that while the aircraft was equipped with a radar altimeter, the pilot did not monitor it during the flight. Furthermore, the aircraft lacked a ground proximity warning system (GPWS), a feature not required for this specific class of commercial operation at the time.

Findings

  • The pilot failed to adequately plan for the transition to an IFR approach and did not execute the maneuver in a way that aligned the aircraft with the runway.
  • A lack of situational awareness regarding position and altitude led to the aircraft descending below the minimum sector altitude.
  • The pilot's limited experience with IFR procedures, combined with the short timeframe to organize the approach, contributed to the error.
  • The pilot did not utilize the autopilot or the radar altimeter to manage workload or maintain terrain awareness.
  • The absence of a GPWS or TAWS meant there was no automated alert to warn of the impending terrain strike.

Probable cause

The accident was a controlled flight into terrain caused by the pilot's failure to properly execute the instrument approach and a loss of situational awareness, exacerbated by a lack of use of available cockpit tools like the autopilot and radar altimeter.