South America

The flight was undertaken with an airplane whose center of gravity was beyond the rear center of gravity limits and a mass greater than the maximum take-off mass. The load was not secured. As a result, the performance of the aircraft was degraded and piloting made more difficult. The BEA investigation did not reveal any major failure that could explain a loss of power. Engine performance may have been lower than the manufacturer's standards, due in particular to improper adjustment of the mechanical fuel pump, probably resulting from unsuitable maintenance. This defect was most likely already present on previous flights. It is likely that the power required for the initial climb was greater than what the engine could deliver. This brought the aircraft into a situation where the speed gradually decreased. When the pilot turned, the stall warning sounded and the pilot sensed the engine was losing power.

The following factors were identified:
- Airport infrastructure – a contributor.
It was found that the irrigation pivot, at the point where the collision took place, was impairing the gauge of the approach surface as described in Ordinance 957/GC3, of 09JUL2015, which provided for restrictions on objects projected into the airspace that could adversely affect the safety or regularity of air operations.
- Piloting judgment – a contributor.
The final approach was carried out below the ideal approach ramp, allowing the collision against the pivot, located in the alignment of the runway.
- Perception – undetermined.
It is possible that the PIC, when approaching for the landing, did not notice the irrigation pivot and, therefore, collided with the obstacle.
- Flight planning – a contributor.
There was no prior coordination with the farm employees, in a timely manner so that the irrigation pivot could be repositioned to a safe location in relation to the flight trajectory on the final landing approach.

The following findings were identified:
- The approach was considered stabilized;
- The required landing distance of 6,431t (1,960m) was compatible for the operation, since the LDA of runway 32 at SBFI was 7,201ft (2,195m);
- There was no evidence of malfunction of the aircraft brake system that could have caused the runway excursion;
- At the time of landing, the runway was wet with a significant amount of water on the pavement;
- The estimated deceleration corresponded to what would be expected on a very wet runway (> 3mm of water) with hydroplaning of the tires at higher speeds;
- The friction and macrotexture measurements had normal parameters and did not contribute to the aircraft's poor deceleration;
- The characteristics of the precipitation over threshold 14 associated with the large variations in wind direction and intensity were consistent with the windshear phenomenon, resulting from a microburst;
- The PR-TLZ sensors did not detect the occurrence of windshear during the landing approach;
- A sudden increase in the calibrated speed that peaked at 32kt altered the aircraft's lift and, consequently, reduced the tires' grip on the ground, resulting in poor braking in the parts where the ground speed was lower;
- The speedbrakes were not extended during the run after landing, contrary to what was prevised in the AFM;
- The aircraft ran the full length of the runway, overpassed its limits and crashed into a ravine;
- There was a windshear alert issued about 30 seconds after the landing of the PRTLZ by an aircraft that was at the threshold 32;
- The aircraft had substantial damage; and
- The crewmembers and the passenger left unharmed.
Contributing factors:
- Control skills – undetermined
Despite the low contribution of the speedbrakes to the reduction of the landing distance, this device represents a deceleration resource through aerodynamic drag that should not be neglected, especially during landing on wet runways, and could have contributed to avoiding runway excursion.
- Adverse meteorological conditions – a contributor
The large variation in wind intensity peaked at 32 kt. This variation lasted 13 seconds and raised the indicated speed from 76 kt to 108 kt. Considering that the speed of 108 kt was very close to the VREF (111 KCAS), it can be stated that this phenomenon altered the aircraft's lift and, consequently, reduced the tires' grip on the ground, leading to poor braking.

Controlled flight into terrain.
Contributing factors.
- Attitude - contributed
The fact that the pilot continued the descent visually, not performing the instrument approach according to the IFR flight plan, denoted disregard of the real risks of this action. Thus, his attitude contributed to the inappropriate approach that culminated in the collision with the ground.
- Adverse weather conditions - contributed
Despite the aerodrome presenting ceiling and visibility conditions favorable for visual flight at the time of the accident, it was verified that there was dense fog covering the entire region near the impact site and, therefore, the IFR rules, which determined a minimum altitude of 5,000 ft, should have been observed.
- Emotional state - undetermined
Some events in the pilot's personal life were negatively affecting his emotional state. In addition, the pilot appeared to be more introspective in the period leading up to the accident.
Thus, it is possible that his performance was impaired due to his emotional state.
- External influences - undetermined
The pilot was possibly experiencing difficult events in his personal life. These events could have negatively affected his emotional state.
Thus, the pilot's way of thinking, reacting and performance at work may have been impacted by factors external to work.
- Motivation - undetermined
The pilot intended to return home because he would be celebrating his birthday and that of his stepdaughter.
The audio recording of the pilot's telephony with the GND-FL, shows that he insisted to accelerate his take-off, denoting a possible high motivation focused on fulfilling his eagerness to accomplish the flight. This condition may have influenced the flight performance.
- Decision making process - contributed
The choice to continue the descent without considering the IFR rules, based on an inadequate judgment of the meteorological conditions, revealed the pilot's difficulties to perceive, analyze, choose alternatives and act adequately in that situation.

The pilot intentionally changed his routing for Itapaci where the landing zone was not approved for flight operations. During the landing, the plane struck the ground before the planned zone and crashed. The pilot violated the rules established by the authority.

The pilot descended too low on approach to an umprepared terrain.
Contributing Factors:
- Attitude,
- Command application,
- Pilot judgment,
- Decision making process,
- Lack of adherence to regulations established by the authority of Brazilian civil aviation.