9 aircraft accidents in Canada since 2000

The Canadair CRJ-900 operated by Endeavor Airlines on behalf of Delta Airlines took off from Minneapolis, MN, USA for a passenger flight to Toronto, ON, Canada. 76 passengers and 4 crew members were onboard. The plane crash landed on Toronto's runway 23. The CRJ-900 has been destroyed. There were no fatalities, however, one person was critically injured, 7 others received minor injuries.

The Boeing 747-400F operated by Sky Lease Cargo took off from Chicago-O'Hare International Airport, USA, for a cargo flight to Halifax International Airport, Canada. Four crewmembers were onboard. The aircraft landed on Halifax Airport but overran the runway and stopped in grass past the runway end. The four crew received minor injuries. During the approach, the tower controller reported wind from 260° at 16 knots, gusting to 21 knots and asked the flight if runway 14 was still acceptable. Runway 14 is a 2347m long asphalt runway and the 16 knots gusting at 21 knots wind from 260° would translate to an 8 knots gusting at 11 knots tailwind component. The flight crew confirmed and received authorization to land on runway 14. After landing the plane was unable to stop before the end of the runway, overran the end of the runway, went down a slope and through the localizer antenna and came to a stop about 210 meters past the runway end. The plane came to a stop less than 50 meters from a fence separating the airfield from Old Guysborough Road, a public two-lane road. The aircraft suffered substantial damage. The landing gears were ripped off, engines #2 and #3 separated, engines #1 and #4 damaged. The fuselage is severely damaged and even broken behind the wings. A fire erupted from the #2 engine that came to rest near the tail of the aircraft. However, there was no fire on the aircraft itself.

The ATR-42-300 operated by West Wind Aviation took off from Fond-du-Lac, SK, Canada, for a passenger flight to Stony Rapids, SK, Canada. 22 passengers and 3 crewmembers were onboard. The plane lost height and crashed shortly after takeoff, about 1 kilometer past the runway. All occupants survived. The West Wind Aviation turboprop crashed shortly after takeoff in the boreal forest area of northern Saskatchewan. A number of passengers and one crew member sustained serious injuries. The aircraft sustained substantial damage. The investigation report indicates that:

The Swearingen SA226-TC Metro II cargo plane, operated by Carson Air, was carrying freight from Vancouver International Airport, Canada, to Prince George Airport, British Columbia, Canada with a crew of two pilots on board. Shortly after departure, approximately 15 nautical miles north of the airport, when the aircraft was at about 2400 metres above sea level, lost altitude rapidly and crashed. Both occupants were killed. Rescue ground search crews found aircraft wreckage in steep and heavily wooded terrain southeast of Crown Mountain. More wreckage, including the cockpit, was found the next day. There was a small fire in the area of the right engine nacelle. The emergency locator transmitter activated, but did not transmit (no signal was received). The crew did not declare an emergency. The aircraft dropped from an altitude of 2,400 metres to about 900 metres — the height at which the wreckage was found — in less than 20 seconds. This with the wreckage dispersal and the lack of terrain damage is consistent with an in-flight break-up, according to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.

The Airbus A320 operated by Air Canada from Toronto, Ontario, Canada for a passenger flight to Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. There were 133 passengers and 5 crew members on board. The plane crashed on landing at Halifax airport. All the occupants exited the aircraft. 25 people were taken to hospital for treatment of injuries. Weather conditions were bad with heavy winds and snowfalls at the time of the accident. The plane collided with terrain approximately 1100 feet (335 meters) from the threshold of Runway 05, eventually coming to rest about 1100 feet (335 meters) down the runway. The initial impact was significant and caused substantial damage to the aircraft. The main landing gear separated and the underside of the aircraft was heavily damaged (fuselage and wings). During this impact, the aircraft collided with a localizer antenna array – part of the instrument landing system – and became airborne again, travelling forward on Runway 05. There is an extensive debris field between the localizer antenna location and the threshold of the runway.

The Boeing 737-210C/Adv (combi aircraft) operated by First Air took off from Yellowknife, NT, Canada, for a passenger flight to Resolute Bay, NU, Canada. 11 passengers and 4 crewmembers were onboard. The plane crashed shortly before landing at Resolute Bay. 12 occupants have been killed, and 3 survived with injuries. Fog and rain prevailed at the time of the accident. The plane crashed while approaching Resolute Bay. Its last reported communication was about 5 NM (8 kilometres) from Resolute Bay airport. The wreckage was found at around 1 NM (two kilometres) west of the Resolute Bay airport's landing strip. The Canadian Forces were conducting an exercise called Nanook 11, which includes the simulation of a major air disaster near Resolute Bay. The exercise was interrupted to allow the forces to join the search and rescue operation in progress. The First Air Boeing 737-200 had no part in any simulation exercises. The Boeing 737-210C/Adv is a combi aircraft: the plane can carry both passengers and cargo on the main deck. When it crashed, the aircraft was in a configuration with room for 34 passengers and 5 cargo palettes.

The CASA C-212-CC40 Aviocar 200 belonging to Fugro Aviation Canada took off from Saskatoon Airport, Canada, for a survey flight in the area of Saskatoon. Three people were onboard. During the flight, the plane developed engines problems and crashed while attempting to land. One person was killed, and two other injured. The twin-engine survey plane had been conducting geological survey work, usually done at an altitude of about 120 metres, near Saskatoon, when the pilots reported that one of their engines had failed. The pilots declared an emergency, and tried to return at Saskatoon Airport. They were on final approach to the airport, but it appeared they did not have enough power to reach the runway. The plane slammed into a sound proofing concrete barrier that separates a four-lane roadway from nearby homes. The plane came to abrupt stop, but no fire erupted. The plane was about 10 metres from a residential area and just across the street from a grocery store. One occupant (the technician) was killed and the pilot and co-pilot survived with light to moderate injuries. Nobody on ground was injured.

The Air France Airbus A340-313 aircraft (registration F-GLZQ, serial number 0289) departed Paris, France, at 1153 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) as Air France Flight 358 on a scheduled flight to Toronto, Ontario, with 297 passengers and 12 crew members on board. Before departure, the flight crew members obtained their arrival weather forecast, which included the possibility of thunderstorms. While approaching Toronto, the flight crew members were advised of weather-related delays. On final approach, they were advised that the crew of an aircraft landing ahead of them had reported poor braking action, and Air France Flight 358's aircraft weather radar was displaying heavy precipitation encroaching on the runway from the northwest. At about 200 feet above the runway threshold, while on the instrument landing system approach to Runway 24L with autopilot and autothrust disconnected, the aircraft deviated above the glideslope and the groundspeed began to increase. The aircraft crossed the runway threshold about 40 feet above the glideslope. During the flare, the aircraft travelled through an area of heavy rain, and visual contact with the runway environment was significantly reduced. There were numerous lightning strikes occurring, particularly at the far end of the runway. The aircraft touched down about 3800 feet down the runway, reverse thrust was selected about 12.8 seconds after landing, and full reverse was selected 16.4 seconds after touchdown. The aircraft was not able to stop on the 9000-foot runway and departed the far end at a groundspeed of about 80 knots. The aircraft stopped in a ravine at 2002 UTC (1602 eastern daylight time) and caught fire. All passengers and crew members were able to evacuate the aircraft before the fire reached the escape routes. A total of 2 crew members and 10 passengers were seriously injured during the crash and the ensuing evacuation. Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors The crew conducted an approach and landing in the midst of a severe and rapidly changing thunderstorm. There were no procedures within Air France related to distance required from thunderstorms during approaches and landing, nor were these required by regulations. After the autopilot and autothrust systems were disengaged, the pilot flying (PF) increased the thrust in reaction to a decrease in the airspeed and a perception that the aircraft was sinking. The power increase contributed to an increase in aircraft energy and the aircraft deviated above the glide path. At about 300 feet above ground level (agl), the surface wind began to shift from a headwind component to a 10-knot tailwind component, increasing the aircraft's groundspeed and effectively changing the flight path. The aircraft crossed the runway threshold about 40 feet above the normal threshold crossing height. Approaching the threshold, the aircraft entered an intense downpour, and the forward visibility became severely reduced. When the aircraft was near the threshold, the crew members became committed to the landing and believed their go-around option no longer existed. The touchdown was long because the aircraft floated due to its excess speed over the threshold and because the intense rain and lightning made visual contact with the runway very difficult. The aircraft touched down about 3800 feet from the threshold of Runway 24L, which left about 5100 feet of runway available to stop. The aircraft overran the end of Runway 24L at about 80 knots and was destroyed by fire when it entered the ravine. Selection of the thrust reversers was delayed as was the subsequent application of full reverse thrust. The pilot not flying (PNF) did not make the standard callouts concerning the spoilers and thrust reversers during the landing roll. This further contributed to the delay in the PF selecting the thrust reversers. Because the runway was contaminated by water, the strength of the crosswind at touchdown exceeded the landing limits of the aircraft. . There were no landing distances indicated on the operational flight plan for a contaminated runway condition at the Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport (CYYZ). Despite aviation routine weather reports (METARs) calling for thunderstorms at CYYZ at the expected time of landing, the crew did not calculate the landing distance required for Runway 24L. Consequently, they were not aware of the margin of error available for the landing runway nor that it was eliminated once the tailwind was experienced. Although the area up to 150 m beyond the end of Runway 24L was compliant with Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices (TP 312E), the topography of the terrain beyond this point, along the extended runway centreline, contributed to aircraft damage and to the injuries to crew and passengers. The downpour diluted the firefighting foam agent and reduced its efficiency in dousing the fuel-fed fire, which eventually destroyed most of the aircraft. Findings as to Risk In the absence of clear guidelines with respect to the conduct of approaches into convective weather, there is a greater likelihood that crews will continue to conduct approaches into such conditions, increasing the risk of an approach and landing accident. A policy where only the captain can make the decision to conduct a missed approach can increase the likelihood that an unsafe condition will not be recognized early and, therefore, increase the time it might otherwise take to initiate a missed approach. Although it could not be determined whether the use of the rain repellent system would have improved the forward visibility in the downpour, the crew did not have adequate information about the capabilities and operation of the rain repellent system and did not consider using it. The information available to flight crews on initial approach in convective weather does not optimally assist them in developing a clear idea of the weather that may be encountered later in the approach. During approaches in convective weather, crews may falsely rely on air traffic control (ATC) to provide them with suggestions and directions as to whether to land or not. Some pilots have the impression that ATC will close the airport if weather conditions make landings unsafe; ATC has no such mandate. Wind information from ground-based measuring systems (anemometers) is critical to the safe landing of aircraft. Redundancy of the system should prevent a single-point failure from causing a total loss of relevant wind information. The emergency power for both the public address (PA) and EVAC alert systems are located in the avionics bay. A less vulnerable system and/or location would reduce the risk of these systems failing during a survivable crash. Brace commands were not given by the cabin crew during this unexpected emergency condition. Although it could not be determined if some of the passengers were injured as a result, research shows that the risk of injury is reduced if passengers brace properly. Safety information cards given to passengers travelling in the flight decks of Air France Airbus A340-313 aircraft (inspectors or passengers seated on the jump-seats) do not include illustrations depicting emergency exit windows, descent ropes or the evacuation panel in the flight deck doors. There are no clear visual cues to indicate that some dual-lane slides actually have two lanes. As a result, these slides were used mostly as single-lane slides. This likely slowed the evacuation, but this fact was not seen as a contributing factor to the injuries suffered by the passengers. Although all passengers managed to evacuate, the evacuation was impeded because nearly 50 per cent of the passengers retrieved carry-on baggage. Other Findings There is no indication that the captain's medical condition or fatigue played a role in this occurrence. The crew did not request long aerodrome forecast (TAF) information while en route. This did not affect the outcome of this occurrence because the CYYZ forecast did not change appreciably from information the flight crew members received before departure, and they received updated METARs for CYYZ and Niagara Falls International Airport (KIAG). The possibility of a diversion required the flight crew to check the weather for various potential alternates and to complete fuel calculations. Although these activities consumed considerable time and energy, there is no indication that they were unusual for this type of operation or that they overtaxed the flight crew. The decision to continue with the approach was consistent with normal industry practice, in that the crew could continue with the intent to land while maintaining the option to discontinue the approach if they assessed that the conditions were becoming unsafe. There is no indication that more sophisticated ATC weather radar information, had it been available and communicated to the crew, would have altered their decision to continue to land. It could not be determined why door L2 opened before the aircraft came to a stop. There is no indication that the aircraft was struck by lightning. There is no information to indicate that the aircraft encountered windshear during its approach and landing. The flight crew seats are certified to a lower standard than the cabin seats, which may have been a factor in the injuries incurred by the captain.

The 747 was on a cargo flight from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Zaragoza, Spain with a load of fish and lobster. It crashed into a rock quarry shortly after takeoff. The aircraft's tail struck the runway for approximately the last 1,000ft of the takeoff roll, with the tail becoming separated from the fuselage upon impacting an obstacle at the end of the runway. Weather at the time of the accident was reported as good, with clear skies and unlimited visibility.