Recife-Guararapes

Contributing factors.
- Control skills - undetermined
Inadequate use of aircraft controls, particularly as regards the mode of operation of the Autothrottle in use and the non-reduction of the IDLE power levers at touch down, may have led to a conflict between pilots when performing the landing and the automation logic active during approach. In addition, the use of only one reverse (on the right engine) and placing the left throttle lever at maximum takeoff power resulted in an asymmetric thrust that contributed to the loss of control on the ground.
- Attitude - undetermined
The adoption of practices different from the aircraft manual denoted an attitude of noncompliance with the procedures provided, which contributed to put the equipment in an unexpected condition: non-automatic opening of ground spoilers and asymmetric thrust of the engines. These factors required additional pilot intervention (hand control), which may have made it difficult to manage the circumstances that followed the touch and led to the runway excursion.
- Crew Resource Management - a contributor
The involvement of the PM in commanding the aircraft during the events leading up to the runway excursion to the detriment of its primary responsibility, which would be to monitor systems and assist the PF in conducting the flight, characterized an inefficiency in harnessing the human resources available for the airplane operation. Thus, the improper management of the tasks assigned to each crewmember and the non-observance of the CRM principles delayed the identification of the root cause of the aircraft abnormal behavior.
- Organizational culture - a contributor
The reliance on the crew's technical capacity, based on their previous aviation experience, has fostered an informal organizational environment. This informality contributed to the adoption of practices that differed from the anticipated procedures regarding the management and operation of the aircraft. This not compliance with the procedures highlights a lack of safety culture, as lessons learnt from previous similar accidents (such as those in Irkutsk and Congonhas involving landing using only one reverse and pushing the thrust levers forward), have apparently not been taken into account at the airline level.
- Piloting judgment - undetermined
The habit of not reducing the throttle lever to the IDLE position when passing at 20ft diverged from the procedures contained in the aircraft-operating manual and prevented the automatic opening of ground spoilers. It is possible that the consequences of this adaptation of the procedure related to the operation of the airplane were not adequately evaluated, which made it difficult to understand and manage the condition experienced.
- Perception - a contributor
Failure to perceive the position of the left lever denoted a lowering of the crew's situational awareness, as it apparently only realized the real cause of the aircraft yaw when the runway excursion was already underway.
- Decision-making process - a contributor
An inaccurate assessment of the causes that would justify the behavior of the aircraft during the landing resulted in a delay in the application of the necessary power reduction procedure, that is, repositioning the left engine power lever.

Human Factors
Medical Aspect
- Anxiety
The perception of danger especially by the first officer affected the communication between the pilots and may have inhibited a more assertive attitude, which could have led to an emergency landing on the beach, minimizing the consequences of the accident.
Psychological Aspect
- Attitude
Operational decisions during the emergency may have resulted from the high confidence level, that the captain had acquired in years of flying and experience in aviation, as well as the captain's resistance to accept opinions different to his own.
- Emotional state
According to CVR recordings there was a high level of anxiety and tension even before the abnormal situation. These components may have influenced the judgment of conditions affecting the operation of the aircraft.
- Decision making
The persistence to land on runway 36 during the emergency, even though the first officer recognized the conditions no longer permitted to reach the airport, reflects misjudgment of operational information present at the time.
- Signs of stress
The unexpected emergency at takeoff and the lack of preparation for dealing with it may have invoked a level of stress with the crew, that negatively affected the operational response.
Psychosocial Information
- Interpersonal relations
The historical differences between the two pilots possibly hindered the exchange of information and created a barrier to deal with the adverse situation.
- Dynamic team
The present diverging intentions of how to proceed clearly show cooperation and management issues in the cockpit. This prevented the choice of best alternative to achieve a safe emergency landing when there were no options left to reach the airport.
- Company Culture
The company was informally divided into two groups, whose interaction was impaired. It is possible that this problem of interaction continued into the cockpit management during the in flight emergency, with one pilot belonging to one and the other to the other group.
Organizational Information
- Education and Training
Deficiencies of training provided by the operator affected the performance of the crew, who had not been sufficiently prepared for the safe conduct of flight in case of emergency.
- Organizational culture
The actions taken by the company indicate informality, which resulted in incomplete operational training and attitudes that endangered the safety.
Operational Aspects
According to data from the flight recorder the rudder pedal inputs were inadequate to provide sufficient rudder deflection in order to compensate for asymmetric engine power.
The values of side slip reached as result of inadequate rudder pedal inputs penalized the performance of the aircraft preventing further climb or even maintaining altitude.
In the final phase of the flight, despite the airspeed decaying below Vmca, despite continuous stall warnings and despite calls by the first officer to not hold the nose up in order to not stall the captain continued pitch up control inputs until the aircraft reached 18 degrees nose up attitude and entered stall.
- Crew Coordination
The delay in retracting the landing gear after the first instruction by the captain, the instruction of the captain to feather the propeller when the propeller had already been feathered as well as the first officer's request the captain should initiate the turn back when the aircraft was already turning are indicative that the crew tasks and actions were not coordinated.
Emergency procedures provided in checklists were not executed and there was no consensus in the final moments of the flight, whether the best choice (least critical option) was to return to the runway or land on the beach.
- Oblivion
It is possible in response to the emergency and influenced by anxiety, that the crew may have forgotten to continue into the 3rd segment of the procedure provided for engine failure on takeoff at or above V1 while trying to return to the airfield shortly after completion of the 2nd segment while at 400ft.
- Pilot training
The lack of training of engine failures on takeoff at or above V1, similar as is recommended in the training program, led to an inadequate pilot response to the emergency. The pilots did not follow the recommended flight profile and did execute the checklist items to be carried out above 400 feet.
- Pilot decisions
The pilots assessed that the priority was to return to land in opposite direction of departure and began the turn back at 400 feet, which added to the difficulty of flying the aircraft. At 400 feet the aircraft maintained straight flight and a positive rate of climb requiring minor flight control inputs only, which would have favored the completion of the emergency check list items in accordance with recommendations by the training program.
After starting the turn the crew would needed to adjust all flight controls to maintain intended flight trajectory in addition to working the checklists, the turn thus increased workload. It is noteworthy that the remaining engine developed sufficient power to sustain flight.
- Supervision by Management
The supervision by management did not identify that the training program provided to pilots failed to address engine failure above V1 while still on the ground and airborne.
It was not identified that the software adopted by the company to dispatch aircraft used the maximum structural weight (6,600 kg) as maximum takeoff weight for departures from Recife.
On the day of the accident the aircraft was limited in takeoff weight due to ambient temperature. Due to the software error the aircraft took off with more than the maximum allowable takeoff weight degrading climb performance.
Mechanical Aspects
- Aircraft
Following the hypothesis that the fatigue process had already started when the turbine blade was still attached to the Russia made engine, the method used by the engine manufacturer for assessment to continue use of turbine blades was not able to ensure sufficient quality of the blade, that had been mounted into position 27 of the left hand engine's Gas Generator Turbine's disk.
- Aircraft Documentation
The documentation of the aircraft by the aircraft manufacturer translated into the English language did not support proper operation by having confusing texts with different content for the same items in separate documents as well as translation errors. This makes the documentation difficult to understand, which may have contributed to the failure to properly implement the engine failure checklists on takeoff after V1.
An especially concerning item is the "shutdown ABC (Auto Bank Control)", to be held at 200 feet height, the difference between handling instructed by the checklist and provided by the flight crew manual may have contributed to the non-performance by the pilots, aggravating performance of the aircraft.

Double engine failure caused by a fuel exhaustion. The following contributing factors were identified:
- Poor flight planning,
- The crew failed to add sufficient fuel prior to departure from Teresina Airport,
- The fuel quantity was insufficient for the required distance,
- The crew failed to follow the published procedures,
- Overconfidence from the crew,
- Poor organisational culture on part of the operator,
- Lack of discipline and poor judgment on part of the crew,
- Lack of supervision.

Double engine failure on approach caused by a fuel exhaustion. The following findings were identified:
- Poor flight preparation on part of the pilot,
- Miscalculation of fuel consumption for the flying distance (about an hour),
- The day prior to the accident, tanks were filled with a quantity of 130 liters of fuel, barely 13 liters more than the quantity theoretically necessary for the flight in the conditions existing at the time of the accident,
- No technical anomalies were found on the airplane and its equipment,
- Poor organizational culture within the operator regarding fuel policy,
- Qualitative deficiency in the instruction given to the pilot who had not acquired the basic knowledge for fuel management,
- Failure to observe the actual quantity of fuel in the tanks prior to departure,
- Shortcomings in the operator's organizational processes,
- Inadequate supervision of flight planning activities by the operator who failed to identify any flaws in the fuel management procedures by the pilots.

Double engine failure on final approach due to fuel exhaustion. The following contributing factors were identified:
- Poor flight preparation and planning,
- The crew was overconfident,
- The crew miscalculated the total fuel quantity needed for the entire mission,
- Wrong fuel consumption calculation,
- Taxing time and wind component were not taken into consideration in the fuel consumption calculation,
- Incorrect values relative to the aircraft performances,
- Poor crew resources management.

The accident was the consequence of the failure of the right engine during takeoff. It was determined that the temperature indicator for the right engine was faulty, displaying a lower than actual temperature. The engine operated for some time at high temperatures because of the faulty system. It was also found that, after completion, some maintenance and inspection tasks were just signed by the maintenance engineer. Signatures from the maintenance inspector were missing.
The following contributing factors were reported:
- Poor crew reaction to an emergency situation,
- Poor maintenance,
- Manufacturing deficiency,
- The crew failed to abort the takeoff procedure.

Due to lack of evidences, the cause of the accident could not be determined.

The accident was the consequence of the combination of the following factors:
- The crew suffered a spatial disorientation during initial climb,
- The operator was not equipped with effective systems for monitoring and training of personnel,
- Deficiencies in instruction,
- Poor crew coordination,
- The crew probably failed to follow the pre-takeoff checklist,
- Lack of crew experience on the type of aircraft,
- The inadequate assessment of certain operational aspects during the mission and the use of own piloting standards.