Casualties unknown

1994-11-02: Fairchild SA-227AC Metro III C-GYHD — Bearskin Lake Air Service Ltd. — and, CA

and, CA

On November 2, 1994, a Fairchild SA-227AC Metro III C-GYHD operated by Bearskin Lake Air Service Ltd. was involved in an aviation accident near and, CA. Investigators recorded the probable cause as: The first incident occurred because the crew of the Fairchild Metro III misidentified the preceding aircraft on approach. This summary draws on records from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB); 3 related events involving the same aircraft type or operator are linked below.

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

Three risk-of-collision incidents occurred within about two minutes at Winnipeg International Airport, involving a Fairchild Metro III, Fokker F-28, Cessna 152, and Cessna 414. No injuries or damage were reported.

History

Three risk-of-collision (ROC) incidents occurred within about two minutes at Winnipeg International Airport, Manitoba, involving four aircraft: a Fairchild Metro III (BLS 404), a Fokker F-28 (TAF 1328), a Cessna 152 (C-FGEK), and a Cessna 414 (C-FSAL). The incidents happened between 1625 and 1627 central standard time, approximately half an hour before sunset. All flights were conducted under visual flight rules or visual approaches. No injuries or aircraft damage were reported.

First Risk of Collision

The Fairchild Metro III, arriving from Brandon on an IFR flight, was cleared for a visual approach to runway 31, instructed to follow the F-28. The Metro crew identified a different aircraft and later, alerted by the arrival controller about the speed difference, turned right and passed 0.7 nautical miles behind the F-28 with 500 feet of vertical separation. The investigation determined this incident occurred because the Metro crew misidentified the preceding aircraft. Contributing factors included confusing visual cues, lack of separation standards for IFR aircraft on visual approaches, and the arrival controller's reluctance to intervene. Possible contributing factors were the lack of an approach sequence number, reduced staffing at the Area Control Centre, and omitted annual refresher training for controllers.

Second Risk of Collision

After the first incident, the Metro crew called the airport controller and were instructed to perform a left 360-degree turn to rejoin the approach. During the turn, the Metro passed 0.4 nautical miles horizontally and at the same altitude as a Cessna 152 that was conducting traffic observations east of the approach path. The Cessna pilot had previously arranged with the tower to reduce radio volume. The investigation determined this incident occurred when the Metro crew altered course east of the approach path to increase separation from the F-28. Contributing factors included the airport controller's delay in instructing the Metro to turn and the Cessna pilot's arrangement to turn down radio volume.

Third Risk of Collision

While the airport controller was preoccupied with the first two incidents, a Cessna 414 was cleared to hold position on runway 31. Shortly after, the F-28 was cleared to land on the same runway. The F-28 crew initiated a missed approach at about half a mile from the runway, at approximately 300 feet above ground, after visually confirming the Cessna on the runway. The investigation determined this incident occurred because the airport controller overlooked the Cessna 414 holding on the runway. A contributing factor was the controller's preoccupation with the earlier incidents.

Conclusions

The first incident was caused by the Metro crew misidentifying the preceding aircraft. The second occurred when the Metro crew altered course to increase separation. The third happened because the airport controller overlooked the Cessna on the runway.

Probable cause

The first incident occurred because the crew of the Fairchild Metro III misidentified the preceding aircraft on approach. The second incident occurred when the crew of the Fairchild Metro III altered course to the east of the approach path to increase separation from the F-28. The third incident occurred because the airport controller overlooked the Cessna 414 holding on the runway when clearing the F-28 to land.