No fatalities

2015-08-16: Beechcraft 100 King Air (C-FDOR) — Maritime Air Charter — Margaree, Canada

Margaree, CanadaLanding (descent or approach)

On August 16, 2015, a Beechcraft 100 King Air (registration C-FDOR) operated by Maritime Air Charter was involved in an aviation accident near Margaree, Canada during landing or approach. No fatalities were reported. Investigators recorded the probable cause as: 1. Neither pilot had considered that landing on a short runway at an unfamiliar aerodrome with known high terrain nearby and joining the circuit directly on a left base were hazards that may create additional risks, all of which would increase the crew’s… This summary draws on records from the Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives (B3A).

Sourcesthe Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives (B3A)Primary reportUpdated 1781192866Data APIEditorial standards

On 16 August 2015, a Beechcraft King Air A100 experienced a hard landing at Margaree Aerodrome, collapsing the right main landing gear. No injuries occurred; the aircraft sustained substantial damage.

Accident Overview

On 16 August 2015, a Maritime Air Charter Limited Beechcraft King Air A100 (registration C-FDOR, serial number B-103) was conducting a charter flight from Halifax Stanfield International Airport, Nova Scotia, to Margaree Aerodrome, Nova Scotia. The aircraft carried two pilots and two passengers. At approximately 1616 Atlantic Daylight Time, during a visual approach to Runway 01, the aircraft touched down hard about 263 feet beyond the threshold. The right main landing gear collapsed almost immediately, and the right propeller and wing contacted the runway. The aircraft slid for approximately 1350 feet, veered right, and departed the side of the runway, coming to rest about 1850 feet beyond the threshold and 22 feet from the runway edge. There were no injuries and no post-impact fire. The aircraft was substantially damaged. The 406-megahertz emergency locator transmitter did not activate due to insufficient forward impact forces.

Findings

The investigation identified several findings. Neither pilot had considered that landing on a short runway at an unfamiliar aerodrome with known high terrain nearby and joining the circuit directly on a left base were hazards that could increase workload. The presence of the tower led the pilot not flying to focus on monitoring the aircraft's location rather than the flight or the actions of the pilot flying. Increased workload and the distraction of the tower reduced situational awareness, leading to omission of the Landing Checks checklist. During the final descent, engine power was not increased above about 400 foot-pounds of torque. Using only pitch to control the rate of descent prevented precise control of the approach. Neither pilot recognized the steep rate of descent as indicative of an unstable approach. Advancing propellers to full would have increased drag and further increased the descent rate, exacerbating the instability. The aircraft crossed the threshold with insufficient energy to arrest the descent rate in the flare, resulting in a hard landing that collapsed the right main landing gear.

Risk and Other Findings

The investigation also noted risks: lack of data recordings may preclude identification of safety deficiencies; absence of modern safety management practices increases hazard risk; passenger seats not equipped with shoulder harnesses increase injury risk; crew selection not factoring pilot experience reduces safety margins; failure to carry out checklists risks missing critical items; lack of crew resource management leaves pilots unprepared; absence of a clear go-around policy increases risk of continuing unstable approaches; unpreparedness for go-arounds may prevent appropriate responses; lack of a stable approach policy leads to continued unstable approaches; and insufficient safety culture reduces effectiveness of safety management systems. Other findings indicate that forward impact forces were too low to activate the emergency locator transmitter.

Probable cause

1. Neither pilot had considered that landing on a short runway at an unfamiliar aerodrome with known high terrain nearby and joining the circuit directly on a left base were hazards that may create additional risks, all of which would increase the crew’s workload. 2. The presence of the tower resulted in the pilot not flying focusing his attention on monitoring the aircraft’s location, rather than on monitoring the flight or the actions of the pilot flying. 3. The crew’s increased workload, together with the unexpected distraction of the presence of the tower, led to a reduced situational awareness that caused them to omit the Landing Checks checklist. 4. At no time during the final descent was the engine power increased above about 400 foot-pounds of torque. 5. Using only pitch to control the rate of descent prevented the pilot flying from precisely controlling the approach, which would have ensured that the flare occurred at the right point and at the right speed. 6. Neither pilot recognized that the steep rate of descent was indicative of an unstable approach. 7. Advancing the propellers to full would have increased the drag and further increased the rate of descent, exacerbating the already unstable approach. 8. The aircraft crossed the runway threshold with insufficient energy to arrest the rate of descent in the landing flare, resulting in a hard landing that caused the right main landing gear to collapse.