Crash of a Beechcraft B200 Super King Air in Juiz de Fora: 8 killed

Date & Time: Jul 28, 2012 at 0745 LT
Operator:
Registration:
PR-DOC
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Belo Horizonte - Juiz de Fora
MSN:
BY-51
YOM:
2009
Country:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
6
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
8
Captain / Total flying hours:
14170
Captain / Total hours on type:
2170.00
Copilot / Total flying hours:
730
Copilot / Total hours on type:
415
Aircraft flight hours:
385
Aircraft flight cycles:
305
Circumstances:
The twin engine aircraft departed Belo Horizonte-Pampulha Airport at 0700LT on a flight to Juiz de Fora, carrying six passengers and two pilots. In contact with Juiz de Fora Radio, the crew learned that the weather conditions at the aerodrome were below the IFR minima due to mist, and decided to maintain the route towards the destination and perform a non-precision RNAV (GNSS) IFR approach for landing on runway 03. During the final approach, the aircraft collided first with obstacles and then with the ground, at a distance of 245 meters from the runway 03 threshold, and exploded on impact. The aircraft was totally destroyed and all 8 occupants were killed, among them both President and Vice-President of the Vilmas Alimentos Group.
Probable cause:
The following factors were identified:
- The pilot may have displayed a complacent attitude, both in relation to the operation of the aircraft in general and to the need to accommodate his employers’ demands for arriving in SBJF. It is also possible to infer a posture of excessive self-confidence and confidence in the aircraft, in spite of the elements which signaled the risks inherent to the situation.
- It is possible that the different levels of experience of the two pilots, as well as the copilot’s personal features (besides being timid, he showed an excessive respect for the captain), may have resulted in a failure of communication between the crewmembers.
- It is possible that the captain’s leadership style and the copilot’s personal features resulted in lack of assertive attitudes on the part of the crew, hindering the exchange of adequate information, generating a faulty perception in relation to all the important elements of the environment, even with the aircraft alerts functioning in a perfect manner.
- The meteorological conditions in SBJF were below the minima for IFR operations on account of mist, with a ceiling at 100ft.
- The crew did not inform Juiz de Fora Radio about their passage of the MDA and, even without visual contact with the runway, deliberately continued in their descent, not complying with the prescriptions of the items 10.4 and 15.4 of the ICA 100-12 (Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Services).
- The crew judged that it would be possible to continue descending after the MDA, even without having the runway in sight.
Final Report:

Crash of an Embraer EMB-820C Navajo in Belo Horizonte: 4 killed

Date & Time: Jun 11, 2003 at 1600 LT
Registration:
PT-EHH
Survivors:
No
Schedule:
Belo Horizonte – Juiz de Fora
MSN:
820-044
YOM:
1977
Country:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
2
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
4
Captain / Total flying hours:
180
Copilot / Total flying hours:
150
Circumstances:
The twin engine aircraft departed Belo Horizonte-Pampulha Airport at 1522LT on a taxi flight to Juiz de Fora, carrying two pilots, two passengers and a load of valuables. While cruising about 35 nm south of Belo Horizonte, the crew encountered technical problems with the engines and elected to return for an emergency landing. On approach to runway 13, the aircraft was too high and the crew was cleared to make a 360 turn to reduce his altitude. Doing so and after he completed 270° of this turn, the aircraft entered an uncontrolled descent and crashed 2 km short of runway, bursting into flames. The aircraft was totally destroyed by impact forces and a post crash fire and all four occupants were killed.
Probable cause:
The right engine suffered a oil leak in flight following the failure of a hose due to poor maintenance. The following contributing factors were identified:
- Both pilots did not have sufficient experience nor training on this type of aircraft,
- The copilot was flying for this operator for the first time,
- The operator was unable to provide any maintenance documentation nor crew training documentation to investigators,
- Both engines were running at impact but with limited power,
- The right propeller was feathered at impact.
Final Report:

Crash of a Learjet 25C in Juiz de Fora: 2 killed

Date & Time: Apr 6, 1990 at 1503 LT
Type of aircraft:
Registration:
PT-CMY
Flight Type:
Survivors:
Yes
Schedule:
Rio de Janeiro – Juiz de Fora – Belo Horizonte – Monte Carlos
MSN:
25-108
YOM:
1973
Country:
Crew on board:
2
Crew fatalities:
Pax on board:
2
Pax fatalities:
Other fatalities:
Total fatalities:
2
Copilot / Total hours on type:
9
Circumstances:
The aircraft departed Rio de Janeiro-Santos Dumont Airport on a cargo flight to Monte Carlos with intermediate stops in Juiz de Fora and Belo Horizonte, carrying two passengers, two pilots and a load of bank notes. Because the crew failed to prepare the flight according to procedures, the aircraft left Rio de Janeiro with a total weight in excess of 711 kilos. Following a poor flight and approach planning, the crew failed to make the appropriate landing calculations and upon arrival, the total weight of the aircraft was 946 kilos above the max landing weight. The aircraft landed on a wet runway and after touchdown, the spoilers did not deployed. Unable to stop within the remaining distance, the aircraft overran, went down an embankment and came to rest in a plantation, bursting into flames. A pilot and a passenger were killed while both other occupants were injured. The aircraft was destroyed.
Probable cause:
It was determined that the accident was the consequence of the following factors:
- Poor flight preparation,
- Poor flight planning,
- Poor approach planning,
- The crew failed to calculate the landing distance and performances,
- Poor crew coordination,
- Poor judgement on part of the crew about the existing flight conditions,
- Lack of supervision,
- Lack of crew training,
- Poor crew experience on such type of aircraft,
- The crew failed to initiate a go-around procedure following a wrong landing configuration.