São Paulo

Despite the fact that the aircraft sustained significant damage, CENIPA classified the event as an 'Incident' and on August 5, 2018, reported that closed the investigation with no final report being issued.

At the beginning of the descent to Campo de Marte Airport, a failure occurred in the aircraft's propeller pitch control system, which tended to feather the engine.
The following findings were identified:
a) the pilots held valid Aeronautical Medical Certificates (CMA);
b) the PIC held valid Single-Engine Land Airplane (MNTE) and Airplane IFR Flight (IFRA) ratings;
c) the SIC held valid Single-Engine Land-Airplane (MNTE) and Multi-Engine LandAirplane (MLTE) ratings;
d) the pilots had qualification and experience in the type of flight;
e) the aircraft had a valid Airworthiness Certificate (CA);
f) the aircraft was within the prescribed weight and balance limits;
g) the records of the airframe, engine, and propeller logbooks were up to date;
h) the meteorological conditions were compatible with the conduction of the flight;
i) on 02Oct2017, a modification was made in the approved type-aircraft project;
j) on 06Mar2018, the engine of the aircraft was replaced with a rental engine, on account of damage caused by FOD;
k) the aircraft returned to the maintenance organization responsible for the engine replacement, due to recurrent episodes of Engine NP Warning Light illumination;
l) the maintenance organization inspected the powerplant, washed the compressor, and performed a pre-flight, after which the aircraft returned to operation;
m) the aircraft took off from SDAG, bound for SBMT;
n) between engine start-up and takeoff from SDAG, there were two drops of the propeller rotation (NP) to values below 950 RPM;
o) after taking off from SDAG, the aircraft climbed to, and maintained, FL145;
p) moments after the aircraft started descent, and upon reduction of the PCL, the propeller rotation began to drop quickly and continuously;
q) the adoption of the procedures prescribed for the situation “ENGINE NP - In flight, If propeller is below 1640” had no effect;
r) the NP dropped to a minimum value of 266 RPM;
s) the crew decision was to land in SDUB;
t) after the touchdown, a maneuver was performed aiming at exchanging speed for altitude, and deviation of the aircraft to a swampy area located in the left-hand side of the overshoot area;
u) in the functional tests of the engine performed after the occurrence, one verified normal operating conditions and full response to control demands;
v) upon examination of the propeller, and measurement of the beta ring distance, one verified that the ring displacement was outside the limits specified by the manufacturer;
w) it was not possible to identify whether such discrepancy had resulted from a maintenance procedure or from the impact during the emergency landing;
x) analysis of the propeller-governor revealed that the internal components were in operating condition;
y) the aircraft sustained substantial damage, and
z) the PIC suffered serious injuries, the SIC and two of the passengers were slightly injured, while the other six passengers were not hurt.

Contributing factors:
- Training – undetermined.
Even though the PIC had undergone simulator training less than a year before the occurrence, his difficulty perceiving the characteristics of the emergency experienced in order to frame it in accordance with his simulated practice suggests deficiencies in the processes related to qualification and training. The SIC, in turn, was not required to undergo that type of training, since the occurrence airplane had a Class-aircraft classification bestowed by the regulatory agency. The training and qualification process available to him in face of the circumstances may have contributed
to his lack of ability to recognize and participate in the management of the failure with due proficiency, when one also considers the selection of procedures and his assisting role in relation to the speeds and configuration of the aircraft.

- Instruction – a contributor.
As for the SIC, considering the fact that the aircraft classification did not require simulator sessions or other types of specific training, it was possible to note that he was not sufficiently familiar with emergencies and abnormal situations, something that prevented him from giving a better contribution to the management of the situation.

- Piloting judgment – a contributor.
There was inadequate assessment of the flight parameters on the final approach, something that made the landing in SDUB unfeasible, when one considers the 940 meters of available runway.

- Aircraft maintenance – undetermined.
During the measurement of the distance of the beta ring performed in the analysis of the propeller components, one verified that the displacement of the ring was outside the limits specified by the manufacturer. It was not possible to identify whether such displacement was due to a maintenance action or the result of a ring-assembly event at the time of propeller replacement. However, such discrepancy may have resulted from the impact of the propeller blades during the emergency landing. Furthermore, the aircraft was subject to inspection of the failure related to the ENGINE
NP warning light illumination prior to the accident. Given the fact that such illumination was intermittent, and the investigation could not identify the reasons for the warning, the aircraft was released for return to flight without in-depth investigation as to the root cause and possible implications of a failure related to the inadvertent drop in RPM.

- Memory – undetermined.
Although the PIC had undergone training in a class D aircraft-simulator certified by the manufacturer, it was not possible to verify the necessary association between the trained procedures and his performance in joining the traffic pattern and landing with a powerless aircraft in emergency. Furthermore, since the PIC frequently landed in the location selected for the emergency landing attempt, it is likely that he sought to match such emergency approach with those normally performed, in which he could count both on the “aerodynamic brake” condition with the propeller at IDLE and on the use of the reverse.

- Perception – a contributor / undetermined.
There was not adequate recognition, organization and understanding of the stimuli related to the condition of propeller feathering, which led to a lowering of the crew’s situational awareness.
Such reduction of the situational awareness made it difficult to assess the conditions under which the emergency could be managed, as the crew settled on the idea of landing in SDUB, without observing the condition of the airfield, meteorology, distance necessary for landing without control the engine, best glide speed, approach, and aircraft configuration.

- Decision-making process – a contributor / undetermined.
Since the first decisions made for identification of the emergency condition, it was not possible to verify the existence of a well-structured decision-making process contemplating appropriate assessment of the scenario and available alternatives. Objective aspects related to the SDUB runway, such as runway length and obstacles, the actual condition of the aircraft at that time, or contingencies, were not considered.

- Support systems – a contributor.
The Aircraft Manual and the QRH did not clearly contemplate the possibility of propeller feathering in flight, making it difficult for the pilots to identify the abnormal condition, and making it impossible for them to adopt appropriate and sufficient procedures for the correct management of the emergency. Considering the possibility that the application of the “ENGINE NP - In Flight”
emergency procedure prescribed by the QRH would not achieve the desired effect, there were no further instructions as to the next actions to be taken, leaving to the crew a possible
interpretation and selection of another procedure of the same publication.

- Managerial oversight – undetermined.
As for the maintenance workshop responsible for the tasks of engine replacement, together with adjustment of the propeller and its components: in the inspection at the request of the pilots after an event of ENGINE NP warning light illumination, the maintenance staff released the aircraft for return to operation. The investigation committee raised the possibility that the supervision of the services performed, by allowing the release of the aircraft, was not sufficient to guarantee mitigation of the risks related to the aircraft operation with the possibility of an intermittent recurrence of the failure.

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.

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.

The following factors were identified:
- Considering the pronounced angle formed between the trajectory of the aircraft and the terrain, as well as the calculated speed (which by far exceeded the aircraft operating limit) moments before the impact, it is possible to infer that, from the moment the aircraft disappeared in the clouds, it could only have reached such speed and flown that trajectory if it had climbed considerably, to the point of being detected by the radar. Such condition presented by the aircraft may have been the result of an exaggerated application of controls.
- The making of an approach with a profile different from the one prescribed shows lack of adherence to procedures, which, in this case, may have been influenced by the self-confidence of the pilot on his piloting ability, given his prior experiences.
- Despite the lack of pressure on the part of the passengers to force compliance with the agenda, it is a known fact that this type of routine creates in the crew a self-pressure, most of the time unconscious, for accomplishing the flight schedule on account of the commitments undertaken by the candidate in campaign, and, therefore, the specific characteristics of this type of flight pose demands in terms of performance that may have influenced the pilots to operate with reduced safety margins.
- The meteorological conditions were close to the safety minimums for the approach and below the minimums for the circle-to-land procedure prescribed in the ECHO 1 approach. However, such conditions, by themselves, would not represent risk for the operation, if the profile of the ECHO 1 procedure was performed in accordance with the parameters established in the aeronautical publications and the flight parameters defined by the aircraft manufacturer. Upon verifying that the above mentioned parameters were not complied with, one observes that the meteorological conditions became a complicating factor for flying the aircraft, rendering it difficult to be stabilized on the final approach, and a go-around became necessary, as a result.
- In the scenario of the aircraft collision with the ground, there were aspects favorable to the occurrence of spatial disorientation, such as: reduction of the visibility on account of meteorological conditions, stress and workload increase due to the missed approach procedure, maneuvers with a G-load above 1.15G, and a possible loss of situational awareness. The large pitch-down angle, the high speed, and the power developed by the engines at the moment of impact are also evidence compatible with incapacitating disorientation, and point towards a contribution of this factor.
- The integration between the pilots may have been hindered by their little experience working together as one crew, and also by their different training background. In addition, the personal characteristics of the captain, as a more impositive and confident person, in contrast with the more passive posture of the copilot, may also have hampered the crew dynamics in the management of the flight.
- In the seven days preceding the day of the accident, the crew was in conformity with the Law 7183 of 5 April 1984 in relation to both duty time and rest periods. However, the analysis of copilot’s voice, speech, and language indicated compatibility with fatigue and somnolence, something that may have contributed to the degradation of the crew’s performance.
- Their lack of training of missed approach procedures in CE 560XLS+ aircraft may have demanded from the crew a higher cognitive effort in relation to the conditions required for the aircraft model, since they possibly did not have conditioned behaviors for controlling the flight and that could otherwise provide them with more agility with regard to the cockpit actions. Thus, they probably missed the skills, knowledge, and attitudes that would allow them to more adequately perform their activities in that operational context.
- Even though Santos Radio reported, in the first contact with the aircraft, that the aerodrome was operating IFR, the messages transmitted to the aircraft did not include the conditions of ceiling, visibility, and SIGMET information (ICA 100-37). This may have contributed to reducing the crew’s situational awareness, since the last information accessed by them was probably the 11:00 UTC SBST METAR, which reported VMC conditions for operation in the aerodrome. Thus, the pilots may have built a mental model of unreal SBST meteorological conditions more favorable to the operation.
- After coordination of the descent, the PR-AFA aircraft made a left turn and, for an unknown reason, deviated from the W6-airway profile, reporting six positions that were not compatible with the real flight path until the moment it started a final approach. This approach was different from the trajectory of the final approach defined for the ECHO 1 procedure, and was flown with speed parameters different from those recommended by the aircraft manufacturer. These aspects reduced the chances of the aircraft to align with the final approach in a stabilized manner. The fact that the aircraft made a low pass over the runway and then a left turn at low altitude in weather conditions below the minimum established in the circle-to-land procedure instead of performing the profile prescribed in the ECHO 1 approach chart also resulted in risks to the operation, and created conditions which were conducive to spatial disorientation.
- Since the captain had already conducted FMS visual approaches on other occasions, his acquired work-memory may have strengthened his confidence in performing the procedure again, even though in another scenario, on account of the human being tendency to rely on previous successful experiences.
- A poor perception on the part of the pilots relative to the real meteorological conditions on the approach may have compromised their level of situational awareness, thus leading the aircraft to a condition of operation below the safe minimums.
- The TAF/GAMET weather prognostics with validity up to 12:00 UTC, and available to the crew at the time the flight plan was filed at the AIS-RJ, indicated a possibility of degradation of the ceiling and visibility parameters on account of rain associated with mist, encompassing the duration of the aforementioned flight, especially in the area of SBST. The 11:00 UTC satellite image and the SIGMET valid from 10:30 UTC to 13:30 UTC, also showed an active cold front in the Southeast with stratiform cloud layers over SBST and a forecast of convective cells with northeasterly movement at an average speed of 12kt. Despite the availability of such information, the crew may not have made a more accurate analysis showing the swift deterioration of the weather conditions in the period between their takeoff from SBRJ and the approach to SBST, and thus may have failed to plan their conduct of the flight in accordance with the weather conditions forecast by the meteorological services.
- Despite having the C560 qualification required to operate the CE 560XLS+aircraft, the pilots were not checked by the employers as to their previous experience on this kind of equipment, or as to the need of transition training and/or specific formation to fly the PRAFA aircraft. The adoption of a formal process for the recruitment, selection, monitoring and evaluation of the performance of the professionals could have identified their training needs for that type of aircraft.
- Although the RBAC 61 requires pilots to undergo flight instruction and proficiency checks to switch between models of the CE 560XL family, the need of specific training was only clarified on 4 July 2014, with the publication of the ANAC Supplementary Instruction (IS 61-004, Revision A). Until that date, this need could only be determined by means of consultation of the FSB Report, made available only on the FAA website. In this context, the PR-AFA pilots would only be evaluated on the CE 560XLS+ aircraft on the occasion of their type revalidation, which would take place shortly before the expiration date of their C560 qualifications, which were valid until October 2014 (captain), and May 2015 (copilot). The fact that there was a qualification (C560) that was shared for the operation of C560 Citation V, C560 Encore, C560 Encore+, CE 560XL, CE 560XLS, or CE 560XLS + aircraft was not enough to make the DCERTA system refuse flight plans filed by pilots who lacked proper training to operate one of the aforementioned aircraft models. The RBAC 67 contained physical and mental health requirements which were not clear, inducing physicians to resort to other publications for guidance and support of their decisions and judgments relative to the civil aviation personnel. The absence of clear requirements to be adopted as the acceptable minimum for the exercise of the air activity, led the physicians responsible for judging the pilots’ health inspections’ to use their own discretion on the subject, opening gaps that could allow professionals not fully qualified to perform functions in flight below the minimum acceptable safety levels.
- Considering the possibility that the captain accumulated tasks as a result of a possible difficulty of the copilot in assisting him at the beginning of the missed approach procedure, such accumulation may have exceeded his ability to deal with the tasks, leading him to committing piloting errors and/or experiencing spatial disorientation.

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.