Incident Overview
An aircraft transporting express mail from Hamilton to Ottawa, Ontario, landed with its landing gear retracted on runway 25 at Ottawa/Macdonald-Cartier Airport. After skidding to a stop, a fire erupted near the right engine. The two flight crew members, the only occupants, exited via the main door and were not injured. The aircraft sustained substantial damage.
Flight Crew and Operations
Both crew members held proper licenses and certifications. The pilot had approximately 2,240 total flying hours, with 1,930 on the accident aircraft type. The co-pilot received his commercial pilot license in 1988, accumulated about 500 total hours, and completed initial training on the SA226-TC in March 1997. This was his third day of operational flying for the company, with about 55 hours on type. He had not flown for 44 days before recurrent training on June 9, 1997.
The co-pilot was flying a radar-vectored localizer/back-course approach to runway 25. Weather conditions did not necessitate a full instrument approach briefing, as the crew expected visual conditions. Air traffic control requested a speed of 180 knots or better to the Ottawa non-directional beacon (NDB), which is the final approach fix (FAF).
Approach and Landing Sequence
Approximately eight nautical miles from the airport, the aircraft cleared cloud and the crew could see the runway. The pilot, who was also a company training pilot, placed a map against the co-pilot's windscreen to simulate instrument conditions. The approach briefing was not updated to reflect this change.
The co-pilot flew the localizer to the FAF, then slowed to about 140 knots and requested ½ flap. After passing the FAF, his workload increased. On short final, the pilot removed the map. The co-pilot observed the aircraft was higher and faster than normal and attempted to correct. At the runway threshold, the aircraft was about 500 feet above ground level at relatively high speed, so the pilot took control. He tried to descend and slow the aircraft along the runway, and reported initiating an overshoot just as the first impact sounds occurred.
Runway 25 is 8,000 feet long. Propeller marks began 4,590 feet from the threshold, and the aircraft came to rest 6,770 feet from the threshold. A fire broke out near the right engine.
Checklists and Systems
Company standard operating procedures (SOPs) require that all checklists be actioned through a challenge-and-response method. The before-landing checklist's first item is "Landing gear .....Down/3 greens." The co-pilot did not recall being challenged for this item, and the pilot did not remember selecting the gear down. Neither pilot checked for three green lights. The pilot stated it was his habit to check if landing lights were on, as he turned them on only after gear extension; he remembered seeing landing lights on and assumed gear was down. The co-pilot assumed the before-landing checks had been completed because the aircraft had passed the NDB. Neither recalled hearing a gear warning horn.
Post-incident inspection found the landing gear selector in the up position. The gear warning horn was inoperative due to a faulty diode; after replacement, the system functioned. The pilot reported the horn had worked during training a week earlier.
Workload and Coordination
The combination of the co-pilot's low experience, lack of recent instrument flying, and the high speed requested by ATC created a high workload. The impromptu instrument training added to the pilot's duties, requiring him to monitor the co-pilot closely. After the FAF, the co-pilot became overwhelmed, and the pilot had to take control unexpectedly. The crew focused on reducing speed and altitude, and neglected to complete the before-landing checklist. Neither crew member related the excess speed to the retracted landing gear. The pilot continued the landing despite abnormal altitude and speed, and was surprised when the aircraft struck the runway.
Findings
The flight crew were certified and qualified. The simulated instrument training was not planned or discussed beforehand. Company SOPs were not followed. The before-landing checklist was not completed, and the landing gear was not extended. The gear warning horn failed due to a faulty diode. The aircraft contacted the runway with the gear retracted.
Probable Cause
The aircraft was landed with the landing gear retracted because the flight crew did not follow the standard operating procedures and extend the landing gear. Contributing to the occurrence were the lack of planning, coordination, and communication on the part of the crew; and the failure of the landing gear warning system.