Jundiaí

The accident was the consequence of the combination of the following factors:
- Attention – undetermined.
It is likely that the pilot has experienced a lowering of his attention in relation to the available information and the stimuli of that operational context in face of the adverse conditions faced.
- Attitude – a contributor.
It was concluded that there was no reaction to the warnings of proximity to the ground (Caution Terrain) and evasive action to avoid collision (Pull Up), a fact that revealed difficulties in thinking and acting in the face of an imminent collision condition, in which the aircraft was found.
- Adverse meteorological conditions – a contributor.
The clouds height and visibility conditions did not allow the flight to be conducted, up to SBMT, under VFR rules.
- Piloting judgment – a contributor.
The attempt to continue with the visual flight, without the minimum conditions for such, revealed an inadequate assessment, by the pilot, of parameters related to the operation of the aircraft, even though he was qualified to operate it.
- Perception – a contributor
The ability to recognize and project hazards related to continuing flight under visual rules, in marginal ceiling conditions and forward visibility, was impaired, resulting in reduced pilot situational awareness, probable geographic disorientation, and the phenomenon known as " tunnel vision''.
- Decision-making process – a contributor.
The impairment of the pilot's perception in relation to the risks related to the continuation of the flight in marginal safety conditions negatively affected his ability to perceive, analyze, choose alternatives and act appropriately due to inadequate judgments and the apparent fixation on keeping the flight under visual rules, which also contributed to this occurrence.

Contributing factors.
- Control skills – a contributor
The inadequate performance of the controls led the aircraft to make a ramp that was lower than the ideal. This condition had the consequence of touching the ground before the runway’s threshold.
- Attention – undetermined
During the approach for landing, the commander divided his attention between the supervision of the copilot's activities and the performance of the aircraft's controls. Such circumstances may have impaired the flight management and limited the reaction time to correct the approach ramp.
- Attitude – undetermined
The report that the commander took two photographs of the runway and of the Aerodrome with his cell phone, during the wind leg, reflected an inadequate and complacent posture in relation to his primary tasks at that stage of the flight, which may have contributed to this occurrence.
- Communication – undetermined
As reported by the commander, the low tone and intensity of voice used by the copilot during the conduct of callouts, associated with the lack of use of the head phones, limited his ability to receive information, which may have affected his performance in management of the flight.
- Crew Resource Management – a contributor
The lack of proper use of CRM techniques, through the management of tasks on board, compromised the use of human resources available for the operation of the aircraft, to the point of preventing the adoption of an attitude (go-around procedure) that would avoid the accident, from the moment when the recommended parameters for a stabilized VFR approach are no longer present.
- Illusions – undetermined
It is possible that the width of the runway, narrower than the normal for the pilots involved in the accident, caused the illusion that the aircraft was higher than expected, for that distance from the thrashold 11 of SIRI, to the point of influence the judgment of the approach ramp. In addition, the fact that the pilot was surprised by the geography of the terrain (existence of dunes) and the coloring of the runway (asphalt and concrete), may have led to a false visual interpretation, which reflected in the evaluation of the parameters related to the approach ramp.
- Piloting judgment – a contributor
The commander's inadequate assessment of the aircraft's position in relation to the final approach ramp and landing runway contributed to the aircraft touching the ground before the thrashold.
- Perception – undetermined
It is possible that a decrease in the crew's situational awareness level resulted in a delayed perception that the approach to landing was destabilized and made it impossible to correct the flight parameters in a timely manner to avoid touching the ground before the runway.
- Flight planning – undetermined
It is possible that, during the preparation work for the flight, the pilots did not take into account the impossibility of using the perception and alarm system of proximity to the ground that equipped the aircraft, and the inexistence of a visual indicator system of approach ramp at the Aerodrome.
- Other / Physical sensory limitations – undetermined
The impairment of the hearing ability of the aircraft commander, coupled with the lack of the use of head phones, may have interfered with the internal communication of the flight cabin, in the critical phase of the flight.

The following factors were identified:
- Upon intercepting the final leg for landing, the aircraft crossed the approach axis, and the pilot, in an attempt to make the aircraft join the approach axis again, may have depressed the rudder pedal in an inadequate manner, inadvertently making the aircraft enter a Cross Control Stall.
- The pilot, intentionally, violated a number of aeronautical regulations in force in order to fly an aircraft for which he had no training and was not qualified.
- The short experience of the pilot in the aircraft model hindered the correct identification of the situation and the adoption of the necessary corrective measures.
- The DCERTA’s vulnerability allowed a non-qualified pilot to file a flight notification by making use of the code of a qualified pilot. Thus, the last barrier capable of preventing the accident flight to be initiated was easily thrown down, by making it difficult to implement a more effective supervisory action.

Loss of control during initial climb in IMC conditions after the crew suffered a spatial disorientation. The following factors were identified:
- Weather conditions were not suitable for the completion of the flight,
- The crew failed to prepare the flight according to published procedures,
- The crew failed to follow the pre-takeoff checklist,
- The copilot did not have adequate training for this type of operation,
- The captain had emotional conditions that compromised flight operations,
- The relationship between both pilots was incompatible,
- The main attitude indicator was out of service since a week and the crew referred to the emergency attitude indicator,
- Because of poor flight preparation and non observation of the pre-takeoff checklist, the captain forgot to switch on the emergency attitude indicator prior to takeoff,
- At the time of the accident, the captain had accumulated 15 hours and 22 minutes of work without rest, which is against the law,
- The captain showed overconfidence and inflexibility which weakened his performances,
- Both pilots disagreed on operations,
- The visibility was poor due to the night and the ceiling at 300 feet above ground,
- The state of complacency of the organization was characterized by a culture adaptable to internal processes, without the adoption of formal rules for the operations division and the acceptance of operating conditions incompatible with security rules and protocols, which allowed the newly hired crew to feel free to act in disagreement with the standards and regulations in force at the time of the accident,
- Performing a sharp turn to the right in IMC conditions associated with a long working day and a lack of rest,
- The level of stress of the captain due to intense fatigue generated by a high workload and an insufficient rest period,
- Poor crew discipline,
- Poor judgment of the situation,
- Poor flight planning,
- Failures in the operator's organizational processes and lack of supervision of flight operations.