Brazil

Collision with a tapir during takeoff, causing severe damages to the right main gear.
The following findings were identified:
- The lack of isolation of the operational area allowed the land animal to enter the runway for landings and takeoffs, contributing to the accident.
- The crew did not notice the presence of the land animal on the runway early enough to abort the takeoff without extrapolating the runway limits and avoiding collision.
- The presence of the land animal (Tapirus terrestris) interfered with the operation and led to the collision of the right main landing gear.

The following findings were identified:
- It was found that there was a restriction on the articulation movement of the right nose landing gear door and that the weight of this landing gear was not sufficient to overcome such restriction.
Upon inspecting the hinges, it was found that there were no signs of recent lubrication, allowing the hypothesis of occurrence of any deviation or non-adherence to the inspection and lubrication requirements established by the manufacturer leading to a the scenario favorable to the right door movement restriction. The issue of the maintenance could also be related to some deviation, or nonadherence to the requirements established for the service of widening the holes of the hinges concerning the coating and corrosion protection of the worked surface. As a result, the area could have been more susceptible to corrosive processes.
- The maintenance program, established by the manufacturer, may have contributed to the occurrence by not establishing adequate preventive maintenance parameters for the landing gear doors that were modified by reworking the hinges, incorporating larger radial pins and widening the lobe holes.
- It was not possible to determine the causal root of the EDP1 gasket extrusion, which caused the leakage of hydraulic oil that caused the hydraulic system 1 to fail.

The following factors were identified:
- The utilization of an aircraft not included in the Operating Specifications and of a runway neither registered nor approved, with a pilot who did not have the amount of hours necessary nor specific training, disclose a culture based on informal practices, which led to operation below the minimum safety requirements.
- It is possible that the pilot forgot to verify the quantity of fuel in the tanks of the aircraft before takeoff.
- The lack of specific training for the pilot and for the coordinator who, possibly, assumed the function of instructor may have compromised their operational performance during the preparation and conduction of the flight, since they were not effectively prepared for the activity.
- It is possible that the pilot failed to comply with the prescriptions of the legislation relatively to the minimum amount of fuel required for the flight leg. The operation of the aircraft by a pilot with expired qualifications and without the required training goes against the prescriptions at the time, but it was not determined whether this pilot (coordinator) was in the aircraft controls at the moment of the accident. The transport of a cylinder onboard the aircraft also configures flight indiscipline, since it goes against the legislation which prohibits the transport of such material.
- The lack of training of the differences may have contributed to the forgetting to verify the fuel tanks, a procedure that is prescribed in the aircraft manual. Likewise, lack of training may have deprived the pilots from acquiring proficiency for the operation of the aircraft in a single engine condition.
- The fact of conducting a flight to provide assistance in an emergency situation may have contributed to the pilot having forgotten to check safety parameters, such as the amount of fuel necessary.
- The pilot’s intention to earn his operational promotion may have stimulated him excessively, to the point of disregarding the minimum safety requirements for the operation. In addition, the emergency nature of the flight request possibly added to the motivation of the pilot and the coordinator.
- It is possible that, due to having little total experience either both of flight and in the aircraft, the pilot lost control of the aircraft when faced with the situation of in-flight engine failure after the takeoff.
- It is possible that the pilot and the coordinator prioritized the emergency requirement of the situation, failing to evaluate other aspects relevant for the safety of the flight, such as planning, for example.
- The lack of control on the part of the company’s management in relation to the flights operating outside of the main base allowed the pilot and the base manager to conduct a flight without the operating sector authorization. The lack of supervision of the air transport service provision by the contracting organizations allowed the company to provide services without the minimum conditions required by the legislation. Such conditions exposed the passengers to the risks of an irregular operation.

The following findings were identified:
- The pilot took the risks inherent to that flight when he accepted to be the only crewmember on a night-time flight with an aircraft in which he lacked enough experience. It is therefore considered that the pilot was complacent when he accepted to fly the aircraft under those circumstances, taking the risks associated with the operation.
- The fact that the pilot made a phone call to his father, to tell that he was feeling insecure for conducting the flight, may be considered an indication that he was not confident, and this condition may have influenced negatively his operational performance during the descent procedure.
- It is possible that the motivation of the pilot in making a fast progress in his career contributed to his acceptance of the challenge to operate the flight, even if he was not feeling fully confident.
- It is possible that the characteristics related to the type of flight, regions, time of the day, in addition to the fact that the pilot was flying the aircraft alone for the first time, contributed to an unclear perception of the relevant elements around him, leading him to a mistaken comprehension, which resulted in the deterioration of his ability to foresee the events.
- The operational progress of the pilot in the company was expedited and, therefore, it is possible that for this reason he did not gather the necessary experience for conducting that type of flight.
- It is possible that the way the work was organized within the company, with designation of pilots not readapted in the aircraft for night-time flights without artificial horizon, and for takeoffs with an aircraft weight above the one prescribed in the manual contributed to the event that resulted in the accident.
- It is possible that the prioritization of the financial sector, in detriment of operational safety, contributed to the designation of a single pilot with short experience for transporting nine passengers.
- It is probable that the pilot, during the preparation of the aircraft for landing, allowed the its speed and power to drop to a value below the minima required for maintenance of level flight on the downwind leg.
- It is possible that the location of the runway in an isolated area of the Amazonian jungle region, without visual references in a night-time flight, contributed to the pilot’s difficulty maintaining a sustained flight.
- It is possible that the training done by the pilot in a shortened manner deprived him from the knowledge and other technical abilities necessary for flying the aircraft.
- The decisions of the company operation sector to designate a short-experienced pilot without a copilot for a night flight destined for an aerodrome located in a jungle region without visual reference with the terrain increased the risk of the operation. Therefore, the risk management process was probably inappropriate.
- It was the first time the pilot was flying the aircraft on a night-time flight without a copilot. Since he had only little experience in the aircraft, it is possible that his operational performance was hindered in the management of tasks, weakening his situational awareness.
- It was not possible to determine whether the company chose to dispense with the copilot on account of the need to transport a ninth passenger and, thus, did not consider in a conservative manner the prescription contained in the aircraft airworthiness certificate by designating just one pilot for the flight.

The following findings were identified:
- The lack of a prompt identification of the aircraft stall by the captain may have deprived him of handling the controls in accordance with the prescriptions of the aircraft emergency procedures, contributing to the aircraft entry in an abnormal attitude.
- The captain’s attention was focused on the passengers sitting in the rear seats, in detriment of the flight conditions under which the aircraft was flying. This had a direct influence on the maintenance of a poor situational awareness, which may have made it difficult for the captain to immediately identify that the aircraft was stalling.
- There was complacency when the copilot functions were assumed by a person lacking due professional formation and qualification for such. Even under an adverse condition, the prescribed procedure was not performed, namely, the use of the aircraft checklist.
- The fact that the aircraft was flying under icing conditions was confirmed by a statement of the female passenger in the cockpit (CVR). The FL210 (selected and maintained by the captain) gave rise to conditions favorable to severe icing on the aircraft structure. If the prevailing weather conditions are correlated with reduction of speed (attested by the radar rerun), the connection between loss of control in flight and degraded aircraft performance is duly established.
- The rotation of the aircraft after stalling may have contributed to the loss of references of the captain’s balance organs (vestibular system), making it impossible for him to associate the side of the turn made by the aircraft with the necessary corrective actions.
- The non-adherence to the aircraft checklists on the part of the captain, in addition to the deliberate adoption of non-prescribed procedures (disarmament of the starter and “seven killers”) raised doubts on the quality of the instruction delivered by the captain.
- The captain made an inappropriate flight level selection for his flight destined for São Paulo. Even after a higher flight level was offered to him, he decided to maintain FL 210. Also, after being informed about icing on the aircraft, he did not activate the Ice Protection System, as is expressly determined by the flight manual.
- The captain had the habit of making use of a checklist not prescribed for the aircraft, and this may have influenced his actions in response to the situation he was experiencing in flight.
- His recently earned technical qualification in the aircraft type; his inattention and distraction in flight; his attitude of non-compliance with operations and procedures prescribed in manuals; all of this contributed to the captain’s poor situational awareness.
- The flight plan was submitted via telephone. Therefore, it was not possible to determine the captain’s level of awareness of the real conditions along the route, since he did not report to the AIS office in SBMG. In any event, the selection of a freezing level for the flight, considering that the front was moving along the same proposed route, was indication of inappropriate planning.
- The investigation could neither determine the whole experience of the aircraft captain, nor whether his IFR flight experience was sufficient for conducting the proposed flight, since he made decisions which went against the best practices, such as, for example, selecting a flight level with known icing.
- With a compromised situational awareness, the pilot failed to correctly interpret the information available in the aircraft, as well as the information provided by the female passenger sitting in the cockpit, and he chose to maintain the flight level under inadequate weather conditions.
- The lack of monitoring/supervision of the activities performed by the captain allowed that behaviors and attitudes contrary to flight safety could be adopted in flight, as can be observed in this occurrence.
- Apparently, there was lack of an effective managerial supervision on the part of the aircraft operator, with regard to both the actions performed by the captain and the correction of the aircraft problems.

The following findings were identified:
- The commander was overconfident in himself and the aircraft which led him to lose the critical capacity to discern the risks involved in the procedure that was adopting. Corroborating was the fact that the pilot judged he had much knowledge in this operation and knew exactly how the aircraft responded. It can be inferred there was complacency by the copilot on the actions of the commander, during the approach at high speed, because even feeling uncomfortable, he did not make an incisive interference because he believed in the idea that the commander had done this kind of approach, with high speed, and so knowing what he was doing.
- The pilot failed to identify the location of touch down during landing and not knowing how much runway was remaining, he decided he should not rush, thus demonstrating low situational awareness and lack of awareness, impacting the proper reaction time for the situation (Rush), which was not performed , leading the occurrence in question.
- The crew failed to properly assess the information available like speed and the runway length for the realization of a safe landing, which led to a poor judgment of the situation at hand, making the decision not to adopt the missed approach procedure.
- The distance between the crew, caused unconsciously by the commander's position with excess knowledge in the operation and the aircraft, and the insecurity of the copilot in considering new and inexperienced, resulted in a lack of assertiveness of the copilot to inform, with little emphasis, the commander of his perception of excessive airspeed.
- The crew did not adopt good crew resource management, failing to communicate with assertiveness and share critical information in time prior to landing, allowing the speeding remained present until the touchdown.
- Despite having adequate experience and training, the commander did not use the resources available, such as speed brakes to reduce the aircraft approach speed.
- The variable wind direction and predominantly tail intensity equal to or greater than 10 knots, allowed excessive speed during landing.
- The crew did not adopt good crew resource management, allowing the high speed to remain present until the touchdown.
- The commander thought he would be able to perform the approach and landing with the speed above the expected.

The following findings were identified:
- Fatigue is likely to have occurred, since there are reports of high workload, capable of affecting the perception, judgment, and decision making of the crew.
- In view of the fact that the captain displayed an attitude of gratefulness toward the company which hired him, working for consecutive hours and many times more than was prescribed for his daily routine, it is possible that such high motivation may have been present in the accident flight, harming his capacity to evaluate the conditions required for a safe flight.
- The crew neither gathered nor properly evaluated the available pieces of information for the correct refueling of the aircraft, something that led to their decision of not refueling the aircraft in SBDO.
- The company crews did not usually keep fuel records, and made approximate calculations based on the fuel remaining from previous flights, whose control parameters were not dependable. Such attitudes reflected a work-group culture that became apparent in this accident.
- The pilots were presumably undergoing a condition of stress on account of the company flight routine, in which they flew every day, with little time dedicated to rest or even holidays. Under such condition, the pilots may have had their cognitive processes affected, weakening their performance in flight.
- The flights had the objective of transporting valuables, causing concern in relation to security issues involving the aircraft on the ground. Thus, it is suspected that decisions made by the pilots may have been affected by this complexity, such as, for example, deciding not to refuel the aircraft on certain locations.
- The way the work was structured in the company was giving rise to overload due to the routine of many flights and few periods of rest or holidays. This situation may have affected the crew’s performance, interfering in the analysis of the conditions necessary for a safe flight.
- The company did not monitor the performance of its pilots for the identification of contingent deviations from standard procedures, such as non-compliance with the MGO.
- Failures in the application of operational norms, as well as in the communication between the crew members, may have occurred on account of inadequate management of tasks by each individual, such as, for example, the use of the checklist and the filling out of control forms relative to fuel consumption contained in the company MGO.
- The crew judged that the amount of fuel existing in the aircraft was sufficient for the flight in question.
- The fact that the fuel gauges were not indicating the correct quantity of fuel had direct influence on the flight outcome, since the planning factors and the pilots’ situational awareness were affected.
- The crew did not analyze appropriately the amount of fuel necessary for the flight leg between SBDO and SBBI. The Mission Order did not establish the minimum amount of fuel necessary for the flight legs, and the crew had to take responsibility for the decision.
- The company was not rigorous with the filling out of aircraft logbooks and cargo manifestos, resulting that it did not have control over the operational procedures performed by the crews, and this may have contributed to the aircraft taking off with an amount of fuel that was insufficient for the flight. Although the MGO had parameters established for calculating the endurance necessary for VFR/IFR flights, the company did not define the fuel necessary in the Mission Orders, transferring the responsibility for the decision to the aircraft captain.

It was determined that the “the landing gear failed due to overload in the cylinder structure”. The fracture started in the rear section of the cylinder in a connection hole which served as a tension concentration point, and ended in the front part of the cylinder with its breakage into two parts. Following a failure of the right main gear upon landing in Montevideo on 20 October 2009, the right main landing gear was replaced by VARIG Engineering & Maintenance (VEM), but the organization responsible for the research of damage, the specification of the services necessary for the restoration of airworthiness, and the provision of the services that enabled the restoration of the aircraft to an airworthy condition was not identified. The same aircraft parts were subjected to metallurgical analysis at the Boeing Long Beach Materials, Processing and Physics [MP&P] Laboratories, in Huntington Beach, California, USA; and the technical report issued by Boeing highlighted that in one of the points of origin of the failure, the analysis had identified characteristics similar to a pre-crack point, which would have begun earlier, probably due to overload. In the tasks that led to the restoration of the aircraft airworthiness after the accident in Uruguay in 2009 (Hard-Landing), and also in subsequent periodic inspections, the existence of pre-crack traces resulting from a previous overload condition may not have been identified, something that could have resulted in a point of stress concentration.