1 fatality

2007-01-07: Beechcraft 100 King Air (C-GFFN) — Transwest Air — Sandy Bay, Canada

Sandy Bay, CanadaLanding (descent or approach)

On January 7, 2007, a Beechcraft 100 King Air (registration C-GFFN) operated by Transwest Air was involved in an aviation accident near Sandy Bay, Canada during landing or approach. One person was killed. Investigators recorded the probable cause as: Findings as to Risk: 1. Some Canadian Air Regulations (CARs) subpart 703 air taxi and subpart 704 commuter operators are unlikely to provide initial or recurrent CRM training to pilots in the absence of a regulatory requirement to do so. This summary draws on records from the Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives (B3A); 5 related events involving the same aircraft type or operator are linked below.

Sourcesthe Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives (B3A)Primary reportUpdated 1781198375Data APIEditorial standards

A West Wind Aviation King Air struck trees during a go-around from Sandy Bay Runway 05. The captain died before rescuers arrived; two EMTs and the first officer were injured. The aircraft was destroyed by post-impact fire.

Narrative

On the evening of the accident, TW350, a twin-engine turboprop aircraft, departed La Ronge, Saskatchewan, at 1930 central standard time under instrument flight rules. The flight, operating under Canadian Aviation Regulations Part VII, Subpart 3 (Air Taxi Operations), was bound for Sandy Bay with two flight crew and two emergency medical technicians on board. At 1948, air traffic control cleared the flight out of controlled airspace via the Sandy Bay Runway 05 non-directional beacon approach. The crew flew the approach straight-in and initiated a go-around from the landing flare. During the go-around, the aircraft failed to maintain a positive rate of climb and collided with trees just beyond the departure end of the runway.

All four occupants survived the impact and evacuated the aircraft. The captain subsequently died of his injuries before rescuers arrived. Both emergency medical technicians sustained serious injuries, while the first officer received minor injuries. The aircraft was substantially damaged by impact forces and was destroyed by a post-impact fire. The accident occurred at 2002 during the hours of darkness.

Findings

The investigation documented numerous findings related to operational and regulatory factors. Among the findings, it was noted that some air taxi and commuter operators may not provide crew resource management (CRM) training without a regulatory requirement. Transport Canada's Prairie and Northern Region management practices regarding audit program replacements were found to not conform to risk management policies. The oversight system in place at the time had limitations that prevented full appreciation of supervisory deficiencies within the operator.

Additional findings addressed the use of self-dispatch systems, cold temperature altitude corrections, wind and runway condition verification, altimeter settings, and unauthorized use of GPS during IFR approaches. Crew deviations from standard operating procedures were identified, along with the impact of punitive actions on hazard reporting in a safety management system. The challenges of night approaches with limited visual cues and navigational aids were highlighted, as well as the need for objective pilot performance data in hiring.

The operator's safety management system was not yet capable of detecting and mitigating the risks underlying the occurrence. It was very likely that the captain became the pilot flying for the last 20 seconds of the flight, and the scenario that neither pilot was controlling the aircraft was considered very unlikely.

Probable cause

Findings as to Risk: 1. Some Canadian Air Regulations (CARs) subpart 703 air taxi and subpart 704 commuter operators are unlikely to provide initial or recurrent CRM training to pilots in the absence of a regulatory requirement to do so. Consequently, these commercial pilots may be unprepared to avoid, trap, or mitigate crew errors encountered during flight. 2. Transport Canada (TC) Prairie and Northern Region (PNR) management practices regarding the June 2006 replacement of the regional combined audit program, in order to manage safety management system (SMS) workload, did not conform to TC’s risk management decision-making policies. Reallocation of resources without assessment of risk could result in undetected regulatory non-compliance. 3. Although TC safety oversight processes identified the existence of supervisory deficiencies within TWA, the extent of the deficiencies was not fully appreciated by the PNR managers because of the limitations of the oversight system in place at that time. 4. It is likely that the National Aviation Company Information System (NACIS) records for other audits include inaccurate information resulting from data entry errors and wide use of the problematic audit tracking form, reducing the effectiveness of the NACIS as a management tracking system. 5. Self-dispatch systems rely on correct assessment of operational hazards by pilots, particularly in the case of unscheduled commercial service into uncertified aerodromes. Unless pilots are provided with adequate decision support tools, flights may be dispatched with defences that are less than adequate. 6. TWA King Air crews did not use any standard practice in applying cold temperature altitude corrections. Inconsistent application of temperature corrections by flight crews can result in reduction of obstacle clearance to less than the minimum required and reduced safety margins. 7. The practice of not visually verifying wind/runway conditions at aerodromes where this information is otherwise unavailable increases the risk of post-touchdown problems. 8. The company dispatched flights to Sandy Bay without a standard means for crews to deal with non-current altimeter settings. Use of non-current or inappropriate altimeter settings can reduce minimum obstacle clearance and safety margins. 9. The crew was likely unaware of their ¼ nautical mile (nm) error in the aircraft position in relation to the runway threshold resulting from use of the global positioning system (GPS). Unauthorized and informal use of the GPS by untrained crews during instrument flight rules (IFR) approaches can introduce rather than mitigate risk. 10. Widespread adaptations by the King Air pilots resulted in significant deviations from the company’s SOPs, notwithstanding the company’s disciplinary policy. 11. In a SMS environment, inappropriate use of punitive actions can result in a decrease in the number of hazards and occurrences reported, thereby reducing effectiveness of the SMS. 12. Pilot workload is increased and decision making becomes more complicated where limited visual cues are available for assessing aircraft orientation relative to runway and surrounding terrain. 13. Aerodromes with limited visual cues and navigational aids are not explicitly identified in flight information publications as hazardous for night/IFR approaches. Passengers and crews will continue to be exposed to this hazard unless aircraft and aerodrome operators carry out risk assessments to identify them and take mitigating action. 14. To properly assess applicants for pilot positions, operators need access to information on experience and performance that is factual, objective, and (preferably) standardized. Because some employers are unprepared to provide this information—fearing legal action—this may lead to the appointment of pilots to positions for which they are unsuited, thereby compromising safety. Other Findings: 1. TWA’s safety management system was not yet capable or expected to be capable of detecting, analyzing, and mitigating the risks presented by the hazards underlying this occurrence. 2. The first officer and captain met competency standards on the completion of their initial flight training before they began employment as line pilots. 3. It is very likely that the captain became the pilot flying for the remaining 20 seconds of the flight. The scenario that neither pilot was controlling the aircraft at that time is considered very unlikely.