---

---

---

---

---

---

---

At 1229, 2.7 nm from Runway 07, the aircraft landing gear was lowered and approach flaps were selected. Shortly after that, the autopilot was disconnected, and almost immediately the aircraft departed from controlled flight. It rolled quickly into a steep right bank and descended rapidly. The aircraft continued its rapid descent and impacted the ground in a near-level attitude.

---

---

• On the MU-2 instrument-approach profile, the standard speed prior to the initial approach fix is 150 knots, slowing to a final approach speed of 125 knots past the final approach fix.
• In this instance, the aircraft's speed prior to the initial approach fix was 240 knots, and past the final approach fix the speed decreased below 175 knots, only 2.7 nm from Runway 07—much later than prescribed (Figure 1). The aircraft landing gear was lowered and approach flaps were selected at this point.

---

---

• The pilot-passenger occupying the right-hand cockpit seat was a commercial pilot and flight instructor.
• The pilot-passenger was not qualified to fly the MU-2.
• A second crew member was not required to fly the MU-2.
• The pilot-passenger was invited to come on the flight to help with some basic piloting functions.

---

---

• Although not required by regulation, the occurrence aircraft was equipped with a lightweight recording system.
• It was recovered in good condition from the wreckage.
• TSB specialists at the Lab have extracted and continue to analyze data from the recorder.
• The recorder will provide information critical to understanding the circumstances and events that led to the departure from controlled flight—information that would not have been available to the investigation if the aircraft had not been equipped with a recording system.

---

---

2.2 Approach planning

While in cruise flight, the pilot recognized there would be a strong tailwind during the descent. The pilot developed his approach plan, which included starting a 1500-feet-per-minute (fpm) descent when prompted to do so by the aircraft's global positioning system (GPS) in order to cross the initial approach waypoint (DAVAK) at 3000 feet above sea level (ASL). The minimum descent altitude (MDA) of 620 feet ASL was set on the radio altimeter, and the missed-approach altitude of 1900 feet ASL was noted. Other than the briefing on the minimum descent and missed approach altitudes, there was no briefing of when or under what conditions a go-around would be performed.

The pilot subsequently decided to delay the descent to reduce fuel consumption and to minimize the time spent in cloud by adopting a higher airspeed and rate of descent. This led the pilot to further revise the plan to carry out the descent at 250 knots indicated airspeed and at a rate of 2000 fpm. This new plan would still have enabled the aircraft to reach DAVAK at or near 3000 feet. However, the faster and steeper descent would cause the aircraft to be in a high-energy condition, which would require more vigilant monitoring by the pilot.

The broken ceiling at 200 feet was approximately 400 feet lower than the MDA; however, there was no discussion of the potential risks associated with continuing the approach. No contingency plan, such as performing a go-around if circumstances dictated, was discussed. The pilot continued with his original plan to land at CYGR.

If pilots are not prepared to conduct a go-around on every approach, they risk not responding appropriately to situations that require one.

---

---

3.1 Findings as to causes and contributing factors

The pilot's inability to effectively manage the aircraft's energy condition led to an unstable approach.
The pilot "got behind" the aircraft by allowing events to control his actions, and cognitive biases led him to continue the unstable approach.

A loss of control occurred when the pilot rapidly added full power at low airspeed while at low altitude, which caused a power-induced upset and resulted in the aircraft rolling sharply to the right and descending rapidly.

It is likely that the pilot was not prepared for the resulting power-induced upset and, although he managed to level the wings, the aircraft was too low to recover before striking the ground.

The pilot's high workload and reduced time available resulted in a task-saturated condition, which decreased his situational awareness and impaired his decision making.

It is unlikely that the pilot's flight skills and procedures were sufficiently practised to ensure his proficiency as the pilot-in-command for single-pilot operation on the MU-2B for the conditions experienced during the occurrence flight.

---