Scheduled Revenue Flight

Taking into account that the operator failed to cooperate with the investigators by sending the necessary documentation on the the anti skid system, the braking system, as well as the propellers and did not manage the reading of the flight recorders; the available evidence establishes as POSSIBLE CAUSE the failure of one or some of the related systems above; in addition to the inadequate operation during the single-engine landing, which finally produced the departure of the aircraft at the end of the runway.

It is considered highly probable that this accident occurred through the following causal chain: When the Aircraft retracted the slats after landing at Naha Airport, the track can that housed the inboard main track of the No. 5 slat on the right wing was punctured, creating a hole. Fuel leaked out through the hole, reaching the outside of the wing. A fire started when the leaked fuel came into contact with high-temperature areas on the right engine after the Aircraft stopped in its assigned spot, and the Aircraft burned out after several explosions. With regard to the cause of the puncture in the track can, it is certain that the downstop assembly having detached from the aft end of the above-mentioned inboard main track fell off into the track can, and when the slat was retracted, the assembly was pressed by the track against the track can and punctured it. With regard to the cause of the detachment of the downstop assembly, it is considered highly probable that during the maintenance works for preventing the nut from loosening, which the Company carried out on the downstop assembly about one and a half months prior to the accident based on the Service Letter from the manufacturer of the Aircraft, the washer on the nut side of the assembly fell off, following which the downstop on the nut side of the assembly fell off and then the downstop assembly eventually fell off the track. It is considered highly probable that a factor contributing to the detachment of the downstop assembly was the design of the downstop assembly, which was unable to prevent the assembly from falling off if the washer is not installed. With regard to the detachment of the washer, it is considered probable that the following factors contributed to this: Despite the fact that the nut was in a location difficult to access during the maintenance works, neither the manufacturer of the Aircraft nor the Company had paid sufficient attention to this when preparing the Service Letter and Engineering Order job card, respectively. Also, neither the maintenance operator nor the job supervisor reported the difficulty of the job to the one who had ordered the job.

The Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board determines that the cause of the runway excursion of the Flight 502 was that the rudder failure was not recognized by the pilots during flight and as well as during landing roll. Contributing to this accident was that:
1) the rudder was failing to respond to the pilots' rudder pedal input and
2) After departing from the runway, no appropriate alternative measure was taken to control the aircraft direction.

The accident was caused by the loss of airplane pitch control following the failure, at a low height, of the elevator pitch-up control cable at the time the flaps were retracted. This failure was due to the following series of phenomena:
- Significant wear on the cable in line with a cable guide;
- An external phenomenon, most likely jet blast, which caused the failure of several strands;
- The failure of the last strand or strands under in-flight loads on the elevator control system.
The following factors may have contributed to the accident:
- The absence of information and training for pilots on a loss of pitch control;
- The operator’s failure to carry out some special inspections;
- The failure by the manufacturer and the airworthiness authority to fully take into account the wear phenomenon;
- The failure by the airworthiness authorities, airport authorities and operators to fully take into account the risks associated with jet blast;
- The rules for replacement of stainless steel cables on a calendar basis, without taking into account the activity of the airplane in relation to its type of operation.

Loss of control and subsequent crash on takeoff following a bird strike.

Human factors
1.1 Medical aspect
a. Pain - Undetermined
At a certain moment, during the approach, the PIC reported having a mild headache. Although it was not possible to verify which type of headache it was, or even to evaluate its intensity, it is possible that this trouble may have influenced his cognitive and psychomotor capabilities during the final moments of the flight, when the unpredictability of the situation demanded a higher effectiveness of performance. This factor was considered undetermined due to the impossibility of confirming its contribution in factual terms.

1.2 Operational aspect
a. Training - A contributor
The theoretical qualification of their pilots was founded on the exclusive use of computer interactive courses (CBT), which allowed a massive training, but did not ensure the quality of the training received. In addition, the formation of the SIC was restricted to the “Right Seat Certification”, something that proved insufficient for him to deal with the critical situation experienced after the landing. Lastly, there was a perception among the crews interviewed that the training through the years and on account of the high demand resulting from the company’s growth was being abbreviated.

b. Application of the commands - Undetermined
One of the hypotheses considered in this investigation was that the pilot may have attempted to perform a procedure no longer in force at the time of the accident for the landing with a pinned reverser. This procedure consisted in the receding of both levers to the “IDLE” position during the flare at about a 10-foot altitude, and, after touching down, in activating the only reverser available, maintaining the thrust lever of the other engine in the “IDLE” position.
This procedure, though being more efficient from a braking perspective, could induce the crew to making mistakes, as there were several reports of occurrences in which there was a wrong setting of the levers, motivating the manufacturer to establish a new procedure, months before the accident. Thus, there is a high probability that the PIC inadvertently left one of the thrust levers in the “CL” position, placing the other one first in “IDLE” and later in the “REV” position. This factor was considered undetermined due to the impossibility of confirming its contribution in factual terms.

c. Cockpit coordination - A contributor
Independently of the hypothesis considered, the monitoring of the flight at the landing was not appropriate, since the crew did not have perception of what was happening in the moments that preceded the impact. This loss of situational awareness hindered the adoption of an efficient and timely corrective action.

d. Forgetfulness by the pilot - Undetermined
It is possible that the pilot has inadvertently left one of the levers at the “CL” position, while trying to perform a procedure no longer in force for the operation with a pinned reverser. This factor was considered undetermined due to the impossibility of confirming its contribution in factual terms.

e. Flight indiscipline - Undetermined
The procedure prescribed for the operation with a pinned reverser had been modified by the manufacturer and, according to the FDR recordings, the procedure in force was known to the crew and executed by them on the leg that preceded the accident. However, as this procedure imposed an increase of up to 55 meters in the calculations of runway distance required for landing, it is possible that the PIC deliberately tried to perform adoption of a procedure no longer in force would characterize flight indiscipline. This factor was considered undetermined due to the impossibility of confirming its contribution in factual terms.

f. Influence from the environment - Undetermined
The operating conditions of the Congonhas runway, may have affected the crew’s performance from a psychological perspective, considering the state of anxiety that was present in the cockpit.
In addition, the lack of luminosity resulting from the operation at night time, associated with the size and color of the thrust levers may have hindered the verification of a contingent inappropriate positioning of those controls during the landing. This factor was considered undetermined due to the impossibility of confirming, in factual terms, the psychological influence of the runway operating conditions and/or lack of luminosity on the performance of the crew.

g. Judgment of pilotage - Undetermined
In view of all the operation scenario - the 55 meters added on account of the reverser procedure, the 2.4 extra tons of fuel on account of the tankering, the crowded aircraft, the pressure to proceed to Congonhas, the PIC’s physiological condition (headache), a SIC with little experience in the A-320 and in its autothrust system, the wet and slippery runway, the occurrences of the preceding days - there is a high probability that the PIC deliberately tried to perform the procedure no longer in force for the operation with a pinned reverser, in order to increase the braking efficiency, inadvertently leaving the number 2 engine thrust lever in the “CL” position. Considering this hypothesis, the diversion to an alternate airport would be desirable, instead of trying to perform a procedure that was not prescribed. This factor was considered undetermined due to the impossibility of confirming its contribution in factual terms.

h. Management planning - A contributor
At the time of the accident, the operator had a disproportional number of captains in comparison with the number of co-pilots, a fact that obliged the scheduling sector to form crews with 2 captains. Thus, although complying with the minimum requirements of the regulation in force, such a practice may have contributed to the creation of a climate of complacency in the cockpit of the JJ3054. Besides, the long experience of the SIC as a captain was not a guarantee of his competence in the co-pilot function - for which he had done only the “Right Seat Certification” training - and, added to his little experience in that aircraft, it contributed to the loss of situational awareness in the most critical moments of the flight.

i. Flight planning - Undetermined
Thus, considering the hypothesis that the PIC deliberately tried to perform the old procedure for a landing with a pinned reverser to increase the braking efficiency, it is possible that the use of that procedure was not appropriately prepared, something that could have favored the wrong positioning of the levers (according to the hypothesis mentioned above, it is possible that the PIC inadvertently left the nº2 engine thrust lever in the “CL” position.). The lack of a briefing for the descent in the CVR recording hindered the confirmation of a possible intention of applying the old procedure, no longer in force at the time. This factor was considered undetermined due to the impossibility of confirming its contribution in factual terms.

j. Little experience of the pilot - A contributor
Despite his long experience in commercial jets, the SIC possessed only about 200 flight hours in aircraft of the A320 type. Besides, his experience in the function of co-pilot was restricted to the “Right Seat Certification” training, which proved insufficient to deal with the emergency situation.

k. Management oversight - A contributor
The operator allowed the crew to be composed of two captains, with the occupant of the right-hand seat having done only the “Right Seat Certification” training. Besides, the lack of coordination between the several sectors of the company, especially between the sectors of operation and training, determined the lack of an appropriate monitoring of the processes and of the quality of the pilots’ professional formation.

Psychological aspect
a. Anxiety - Undetermined
The CVR recording allows to perceive that the PIC was showing anxiety in relation to the runway conditions for landing, and on two different occasions he asked the SIC to request from the TWR-SP the rain and runway conditions, and on one of them specifically, whether the runway was slippery. It is possible that the state of anxiety present in the PIC may have influenced the performance of the crew to some extent. This factor was considered undetermined due to the impossibility to confirm that this anxiety has effectively influenced the performance of the crew.

b. Perception error - A contributor
Although perceiving that the ground spoilers had not deflected, the pilots were not able to associate the non-deflection with the positioning of the thrust levers. In addition, there is a high probability that the pilots were led to believe that the lack of the expected deceleration after landing was a result of the conditions of operation with a wet runway, the influence of which, from a psychological aspect perspective in the field of individual variables, was perceived along the investigation.

c. Stress - Undetermined
The stress has effect on the cognitive level (diminution of the concentration, diminution of the response speed, degradation of the memory, etc.), emotional level (alteration of the characteristics of personality, weakening of the emotional control, lowering of the self-esteem, etc.), behavioral level (alterations of the sleep pattern, diminution of interests, verbal articulation problems, etc.), and physiological level (sudoresis, tachycardia, sleep pattern alterations, gastric and dermatologic symptoms, etc.). The presence of stress triggering stimuli was perceived, such as the state of anxiety on the part of the pilots, especially regarding the runway conditions, the cephalalgia of the PIC, the issues concerning the operation in Congonhas with a wet runway, the crowded aircraft and the inoperative reverser. However, it was not possible to determine whether those stimuli effectively led any of the two pilots to a high level of stress. This factor was considered undetermined due to the impossibility to confirm its contribution in factual terms.

d. Lack of perception - A contributor
Considering the hypothesis of a failure in the thrust control system, the contingent stimulus generated from the loss of resistance to the movement of the thrust levers may not have been perceived by the pilot(s), according to the CVR recordings. On the other hand, if one considers the hypothesis that the nº 2 engine thrust lever was inadvertently left in the “CL” position, while the pilots were trying to perform a procedure no longer in force, the characteristics of the autothrust system, which keep the levers motionless during the variations of thrust, in addition to the size and color of those control levers, hard to be observed on a night flight, were not sufficiently evident to be perceived by the pilots. This situation was aggravated by the lack of a warning device relative to the conflicting positioning of the thrust levers.

e. Loss of situational awareness - A contributor
Thus, no matter which hypothesis is considered, the loss of the situational awareness emerged as a result of the very lack of perception on the part of the pilots. In this sense, the automation of the aircraft, however complex, was not capable of providing the pilots with sufficiently clear and accurate stimuli, to the point of favoring their understanding of what was happening in the moments just after the landing in Congonhas.

f. Organizational climate - Undetermined
In relation to the crews of the company, the investigation identified the perception that there was a pressure on the part of the management against diversions, on account of the inconvenience they could arise for the passengers and for the company itself. If the pilots of the JJ3054 shared that perception, it is possible that this factor could have some influence on the pilot’s decision to proceed for the landing in Congonhas, in spite of his concern with the runway operating conditions. This factor was considered undetermined due to the impossibility to confirm its contribution in factual terms.

g. Regulation - A contributor
The regulatory organization, although having already considered the availability of the reversers as a requirement for the operation in Congonhas, at least since April 2006, such a requirement was only formalized as a norm in May 2008. The opportune regulation of this requisite would have prevented the aircraft from operating in Congonhas with a wet runway condition.

h. Training - Undetermined
In relation to the training, the investigation identified in the crews a perception that the company seemed to have reduced the contact hours applied to it, although in formal terms those contact hours had remained unaltered. In relation to crew professional formation, the investigation identified a tendency on the part of the company to reduce the number of hours assigned to training, which remained unaltered in formal terms. Moreover, the FDR recordings showed that, during the period in which the aircraft operated with the pinned reverser, 5 different types of landing procedures were performed by the various crews who operated it. This factor was considered undetermined due to the impossibility to confirm, in factual terms, that the crews’ perception of a shortening in the training processes being applied was consistent with reality and/or whether such alleged shortening effectively influenced the performance of the crew, contributing to the accident.

2 Material factors
a. Design - A contributor
It was verified that, for an A320 airplane proceeding to land, it is possible to place one of the thrust levers at the “REV” position and the other at “CL”, and no alerting device will advise the pilots in an efficient way. This situation may put the aircraft in a critical condition and, depending on the time it takes the crew to identify this configuration, and on the runway parameters, a catastrophic situation may occur. In the specific case of this accident, even with the aircraft on the ground (Weight on Wheels - WOW), with the number 1 engine thrust lever at the “REV” position, with the ground spoilers armed, with the autobrake selected, and with application of maximum braking pressure on the pedals, the power control system gave priority to the information that one of the levers was at “CL”, and this lever did not have any safety devices regarding a possible inadvertent setting.

 Continuation of the approach and landing without being stabilized on finals with an excessive speed caused the aircraft to cross the threshold of the runway with an additional 41 knots during a low angle approach, which caused the aircraft wheels to touch down positively when there were only 490 meters of runway available, an insufficient distance to stop the aircraft within the runway.
The following contributing factors were identified:
- Lack of situational awareness regarding the approach and landing speed, after having disconnected the automated systems of the aircraft.
- Omission of call outs by the Pilot Monitoring to warn the pilot in control of speeding in order to persuade him to execute a missed approach.
- The delay in initiating a missed approach procedure / interrupted landing in circumstances that indicated the desirability to take such a measure during a destabilized approach.
- Misperception to believe that the aircraft could be stopped within the limited remaining available runway without analyzing the status and distance without having positive contact due to speeding.

Loss of control upon landing after the aircraft suffered aquaplaning. The following contributing factors were identified:
- A light rain caused the presence of water on the runway, enabling the occurrence of hydroplaning.
- The accumulation of water on the surface of the runway, as a result of inadequate drainage, lack of "grooving", enabled the hydroplaning.
- The pilot applied full pressure on the right pedal, generating a force to the left that contributed to the departure off the runway.
- During hydroplaning, the pilot should not apply pedal to the opposite side to which the aircraft slides; this fact was not covered during the instruction of the pilot.
- In the face of hydroplaning, the pilot applied the right pedal, aggravating the departure of the aircraft to the left.

The pilot-in-command in absence of bounce recovery guidance adopted self-perceived technique and kept on adding engine power along with aircraft pitch manipulations to salvage the aircraft from the bounce on landing, and gravely damaged the aircraft structure.

It is believed that the aircraft landed too far down the runway, reducing the landing distance available.