South America

The following findings were identified:
- The condition of the runway at Cuenca airport, which at the time of the plane's landing was contaminated with water and slippery.
- The landing was made after a non-stabilized approach with a tailwind.
- During seven seconds, the crew continued the approach with an excessive rate of descent of 1,186 feet, 186 feet above the limit of 1,000 feet.
- The non-application of the Maximum Performance Landing procedure recommended by the aircraft manufacturer for landing on contaminated runways.
- The dispatch of the flight with 1,500 kg of fuel more than the amount of fuel usually used for this flight.
- Omission of the runway length calculation necessary to perform the landing using the braking efficiency information.
- The crew's decision to make the final approach with three red and one white lights, using the PAPI system, induced by the information in the Terminal Information document issued by the company, which authorized this procedure.
- The use of confusing terminology in the Terminal Information document, which used terms applicable to the Airbus fleet, instead of Embraer's.
- The crew's decision not to perform the thwarted approach maneuver after the maximum allowable vertical speed was exceeded and visibility was apparently limited after the minima were exceeded.
- Incorrect use of aircraft braking aids, in this case reverse braking aids
- The application of the emergency brake that inhibits the antiskid system.
- Lack of implementation of adequate management of crew resources, particularly within the cockpit.
- Lack of training in the use of tables for track distance calculation.
- In reference to landing conditions, the aircraft needed a runway length of 2,122 metres while the available distance was 1,900 metres.

The following factors were identified:
- Application of the commands - contributed
There was no effective action on the aircraft controls during the final approach to avoid a brutal impact with the ground prior to the runway threshold.
- Adverse weather conditions - undetermined
It is possible that the aircraft was under the effect of the phenomenon known as windshear, which affected the approach profil and the subsequent impact with the ground short of runway.
- Pilot judgement - contributed
The risks of a possible windshear during the final approach were not adequately considered by the pilot. The decision to proceed for the landing, to the detriment of the alternative recommended by experts to perform a missed approach, proved decisive for the development of the accident.

Failure of the left engine following the detachment of the head of a cylinder shortly after takeoff. Deficiencies in maintenance processes contributed to this situation. The crew failed to follow the emergency procedures when the left engine caught fire and exploded, reducing the power on the right engine. In such conditions, the aircraft was unable to maintain a safe altitude and the crew was forced to attempt an emergency landing.

Contributing factors
- Pilot judgment - undetermined
The absence of manuals and performance charts to guide the operation and actions based only on empirical knowledge about the aircraft may have taken to an inadequate evaluation of certain parameters related to its operation. In this case, the performance of the aircraft under conditions of weight, altitude and high temperatures may have provided its conduction with reduced margins of safety during takeoff that resulted in the on-screen accident.
- Flight planning - undetermined
The informality present in the field of experimental aviation, associated with the absence of support systems, may have resulted in an inadequacy in the work of flight preparation, particularly with regard to performance degradation in the face of adverse conditions (high weight, altitude and temperature), compromising the quality of the planning carried out, thus contributing to it being carried out a takeoff under marginal conditions.
- Project - undetermined
During the PR-ZRA assembly process, changes were incorporated into the Kit's original design that directly affected the airplane's take-off performance. Since the submission of documentation related to in-flight testing or performance graphics was not required by applicable law, it is possible that the experimental nature of the project has enabled the operation of the aircraft based on
empirical parameters and inadequate to their real capabilities.
- Support systems - undetermined
The absence of a support system, in the form of publications that allowed obtaining equipment performance data in order to carry out proper planning, added risk to operations and may have led to an attempt to take off under unsafe conditions.

Contributing factors:
- Application of commands - undetermined
It is possible that the pilot has not acted properly in the controls after touchdown to avoid a runway excursion.
- Flight indiscipline - contributed
Having landed on a non-approved runway, without justifiable reason, the crew member did not comply with the provisions of civil aviation regulations.
- Influence of the environment - undetermined
The wet and puddled runway may have affected directional control and aircraft braking performances during the landing roll.
- Pilot judgment - contributed
The crew member had not correctly assessed the risks involved in the operation in an unapproved runway, without justifiable reason. In addition, the pilot had no considering that the wet and puddle conditions of the runway could affect the directional control and braking performances of the aircraft.
- Decision-making process - contributed
The decision to land at an unapproved aerodrome, as well as having used a wet runway and the presence of puddles denoted an inadequate assessment of the risks present in the context. Failures related to decisions assumed by the pilot contributed to the occurrence insofar as they resulted in the entry of the aircraft into a critical condition, affecting its control.

Contributing factors:
- Application of commands – undetermined
Considering the hypothesis of spatial disorientation, of the disabling type, it is possible that the pilot has reached a situation of complete inability to operate correctly controls the aircraft in order to regain control of the flight.
- Attitude – undetermined
It is possible that the high subordination of the pilot to the requests of his boss has made it difficult for you to position yourself in relation to your limitation in flying at night and in instrument flight meteorological conditions.
- Disorientation – undetermined
Conditions favorable to disorientation, that is, the night flight over the sea, within clouds and manual operation, as well as the dynamics of the aircraft trajectory recorded by the radar, among other factors, make spatial disorientation the main hypothesis for the accident.
- Visual illusions – undetermined
It is also possible that the pilot suffered visual illusions when flying over the sea in night time. When not seeing the lighting on land, and being at night dark, with cloudiness, the pilot may have confused spatial references.
- Instruction – undetermined
It is possible that the lack of familiarity with the English language has made it difficult, in to some degree, knowledge of the resources, equipment and systems present in the aircraft, as well as in the instruction received in a flight simulator.

Contributing factors:
- Attention - undetermined
Moments before the accident, another aircraft successfully completed the landing at the Paraty aerodrome. It is possible that the pilot's attention was focused on this information, which indicated the possibility of landing, despite the critical conditions faced, leading him to take high risks to make the landing in critical conditions.
Also, the presence of a copilot not qualified to operate the aircraft may have influenced the pilot's cognitive processes, causing deconcentration or deviation of attention from the pilot.
- Attitude - contributed
Recurring attempts to make the landing indicated an excess of self-confidence on the part of the pilot, leading him to continue the flight to the Paraty aerodrome, even in adverse weather conditions.
The bold operational profile of the pilot, his past experience and the rules and values ​​adopted informally in the group of pilots are possible factors that influenced the development of this attitude of excessive self-confidence.
- Adverse weather conditions - contributed
On the day of the accident, the weather conditions were not favorable for visual flight at the Paraty aerodrome.
- Culture of the working group - contributed
Among the pilots who operated in the Paraty region, competitive behavior had been installed, valued by the social recognition attributed to those who managed to operate in critical conditions. Above all, landing under conditions adverse weather conditions in the region was considered a manifestation of proficiency and professional competence. The values ​​shared by that group of pilots favored the weakening of the collective perception about the present operational risks. The presence of other pilots who were also trying to land in the region on the day of the occurrence, as well as the landing made by one of these aircraft, moments before the accident, and also the accomplishment of two failed attempts of the PP-LMM aircraft, translates clear evidence of that behavior.
- Pilot forgetfulness - undetermined
The fact that the landing gear was not retracted during the second launch in the air indicated a failure, fueled by the possible forgetfulness of the crew, to perform the planned procedure. Maintaining the landing gear in the lowered position affected the aircraft's performance during the ascent, which may have contributed to the aircraft not reaching the height required to clear obstacles.
- Pilotage Judgment - undetermined
The possible decision not to retract the landing gear during the launch affected the aircraft's performance during the climb, which may have contributed to the aircraft not reaching the height necessary to clear the obstacles.
- Motivation - undetermined
The successful landing by the pilot of another aircraft, even under unfavorable conditions, may have increased the motivation of the pilot of the PP-LMM aircraft to complete the landing, in order to demonstrate his proficiency and professional competence.
- Perception - contributed
The occurrence of a collision with the ground, in controlled flight, indicated that the crew had a low level of situational awareness at the time of the occurrence. This inaccurate perception of the circumstances of the flight made it impossible to adopt the possible measures that could prevent the collision.
- Decision making process - contributed
The pilot chose to make two landing attempts at the Paraty aerodrome, despite adverse weather conditions, indicating an inaccurate assessment of the risks involved in the operation. This evaluation process may have been adversely affected by the competition behavior installed among the pilots. In this context, it is possible that the pilot based his decision only on the successful landing of another aircraft, a fact that limited his scope of evaluation.
- Organizational processes - undetermined
The PP-LMM aircraft was operated by a group of pilots, mostly composed of freelance professionals, who were informally managed by a hired pilot. Therefore, there was no formal system used by the operator to recruit, select, monitor and evaluate the performance of professionals. The failures related to the management of this process, possibly, caused inadequacies in the selection of pilots, in the crew scale, in untimely activations and, as in the case in question, in the choice of crew member not qualified to exercise function on board.