ASN logo
ASN Wikibase Occurrence # 240551
Last updated: 25 November 2021
This information is added by users of ASN. Neither ASN nor the Flight Safety Foundation are responsible for the completeness or correctness of this information. If you feel this information is incomplete or incorrect, you can submit corrected information.

Date:21-SEP-2017
Time:18:40 UTC
Type:Silhouette image of generic BE40 model; specific model in this crash may look slightly different
Beechcraft 400A Beechjet
Owner/operator:Líder Táxi-Aéreo
Registration: PT-WHE
MSN: RK-81
Fatalities:Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 2
Other fatalities:0
Aircraft damage: Minor
Category:Serious incident
Location:Mucuri Airport, BA (MVS/SNMU) -   Brazil
Phase: Landing
Nature:Ferry/positioning
Departure airport:Vitória-Goiabeiras Airport, ES (VIX/SBVT)
Destination airport:Mucuri Airport, BA (MVS/SNMU)
Investigating agency: CENIPA
Narrative:
The aircraft took off from Aguiar Salles Eurico Aerodrome (SBVT), Vitoria, ES, to Mucuri Aerodrome (SNMU), BA, at 18:10 (UTC), in order to make a transfer flight, with two pilots on board.
During the landing run the pilots believed that there were problems with the normal brake system and with the engine reversers. They decided to activate the emergency brake and the wheels of the main landing gear were locked.
The plane drifted to the left and stopped outside the lateral and longitudinal limits of the runway, in an area of low vegetation.
The aircraft had slight damage. The crew left unharmed.

Contributing factors:
- Attitude - undetermined.
It is likely that the failure to comply with the parameters set forth in the operator's SOP and Operations Manual, in relation to the criteria that defined a stabilized approach and the speed at which the runway threshold in use crossed, contributed to an unstable approach and a long landing.
- Cockpit coordination - undetermined.
The decision to proceed with the landing may have been a consequence of an inefficient use of human resources available for the aircraft operation, since the landing was being conducted with different parameters from those recommended in the company's SOP and Operations Manual and, according to reports, the option to go around was not suggested by any of the crew members at any time of the landing.
- Airport infrastructure - undetermined.
It is possible that the absence of the 1,000ft marks has hindered the pilots' assessment of the position in which the touchdown occurred and influenced their decision to proceed with landing.
- Pilot judgement - contributed.
By deciding to make the final approach using a higher than expected threshold crossing speed, the crew failed to adequately assess the reflexes of this aspect on the distance traveled by the aircraft after touching the runway.
Moreover, the decision to proceed with landing, to the detriment of the more conservative option that would be to execute the rejected approach procedure, characterized an inadequate evaluation of the parameters involved in that operation.
- Decision making process - contributed.
The adoption of a higher speed than foreseen in the short final, despite the rules established in SOP and Operations Manual, reflected an unstructured decision, based on scenario analysis and the choice of inappropriate actions to safely carry out the landing.

Sources:

CENIPA

Accident investigation:
cover
  
Investigating agency: CENIPA
Status: Investigation completed
Duration: 2 years and 11 months
Download report: Final report


Revision history:

Date/timeContributorUpdates
27-Aug-2020 17:44 harro Added
27-Aug-2020 17:49 harro Updated [Aircraft type, Cn, Operator, Location, Narrative, Accident report, ]

Corrections or additions? ... Edit this accident description