Sorocaba

Contributing factors:
- Flight indiscipline – a contributor
The pilot failed to comply with the minimum fuel requirements laid down in the regulations, providing conditions for both engines to stop operating in flight, due to lack of fuel.
- Piloting judgment – a contributor
It was found in this flight an inadequate evaluation for certain parameters related to aircraft operation, particularly with regard to the influence of the chosen flight level on fuel consumption. This misjudgment led to the decision to proceed with the flight to the Aerodrome where it was intended to land, to the detriment of the more conservative option of finding a suitable place for an intermediate landing and a refueling, which led to the depletion of usable fuel in flight.
- Flight planning – a contributor
Inadequate flight preparation work, especially with regard to fuel calculation and cruise level selection, has degraded the safety level and also contributed to the actual accident.
- Decision-making process – undetermined
Difficulties in perceiving, analyzing, choosing alternatives, and acting appropriately due to inadequate judgment, may have resulted in poor assessment of flight parameters (available fuel, distance to destination, verified consumption, etc.), which may have favored the occurrence of lack of fuel failure.

Controlled flight into terrain after the crew descended too low in IMC conditions. The following contributing factors were identified:
- Visibility was below minimums,
- The crew continued the descent until the aircraft impacted ground and failed to initiate a go-around procedure,
- A probable crew fatigue,
- It is possible that the crew suffered optical illusions,
- Overconfidence on part of the captain,
- The captain did not request any assistance from the copilot during the approach procedure,
- Inexperienced, the copilot did not interfere despite dangerous flight conditions,
- Poor organizational culture,
- Deficiencies in crew training,
- Lack of crew discipline,
- Poor flight planning,
- Lack of supervision on part of the operator,
- The copilot was inexperienced on this type of aircraft.

Wrong approach configuration on part of the crew who completed an unstabilized approach and landed too far down the runway (about a half way down) at an excessive speed. In such conditions, the aircraft could not be stopped within the remaining distance. The following contributing factors were identified:
- The crew did not make any approach briefing,
- The crew failed to follow the approach checklist,
- The aircraft had deficiencies in maintenance, particularly with regard to the brakes systems,
- The techlogs were out of date,
- Maintenance was periodic but insufficient,
- Although the runway 36 was in use, the captain preferred to land on runway 18,
- The aircraft was unstable on short final and landed too far down the runway, reducing the landing distance available,
- The aircraft' speed upon landing was excessive, preventing the reverse thrust systems to be activated,
- The captain took over control and activated the reverse thrust system on the right engine only,
- Poor crew coordination,
- The crew was operating in a conflict environment after touchdown,
- Poor judgment of the situation,
- Poor flight planning,
- Lack of crew discipline.

Failure of the left engine that was not lubricated according to published procedures. Inappropriate engine maintenance on part of the operator. Also, it was reported that the pilot's experience on this type of aircraft was insufficient.