What happened
At 1700 EST, a Super King Air 2-00 operated by Propair Inc. was preparing for a scheduled charter flight from Sept-Îles to Dorval, Quebec. The flight was already delayed due to poor visibility and blowing snow. During the takeoff roll on runway 09, the co-pilot was acting as the pilot flying from the left seat.
As the aircraft reached approximately 90 knots, it began to drift toward the left edge of the runway. The co-pilot attempted to correct the track using the rudder but was unsuccessful. At roughly 100 knots, the co-pilot pulled the control column back to initiate a climb. Simultaneously, the pilot-in-command, observing the aircraft heading toward a snowbank, believed a collision was unavoidable and abruptly reduced engine power to mitigate the impact.
This sudden reduction in power caused the aircraft to descend and strike the snow-covered surface north of the runway. The aircraft slid on its belly before coming to rest. The pilot-in-command sustained one injury, and the aircraft suffered considerable damage.
The investigation
The investigation focused on the lack of communication and the environmental conditions at the time of the accident. Investigators found that the runway surface was more contaminated than reported, with snow-drifts affecting the available width.
Technical analysis of the Super King Air 200 revealed no mechanical failures or system malfunctions. The aircraft's weight and center of gravity were within limits, and the engine performance was consistent with manual specifications.
Investigators also examined the crew's training and procedures. It was noted that the pilots had not received Cockpit Resource Management (CRM) training, and the company had not yet finalized its Standard Operating Procedures (S0P). Furthermore, the co-pilot had not received the specific simulator training required for takeoffs in low-visibility conditions, as the crew and the operator had incorrectly assumed the pilot-in-command's qualifications extended to the co-pilot's performance in such weather.
Findings
- The primary cause of the accident was a lack of cockpit coordination when the pilot-in-command took control of the aircraft while it was airborne.
- The loss of directional control was driven by the contaminated runway surface, a strong cross-wind, and the late application of corrective measures.
- Ineffective communication occurred during the takeoff roll; the co-pilot did not immediately report the loss of control, and the pilot-in-command did not announce his intention to reject the takeoff.
- The crew's briefing was insufficient for the existing environmental conditions.
- The decision-making process was hindered by a lack of experience with high-speed rejected takeoff procedures and the absence of CRM training.