VASP - Viação Aérea de São Paulo

Poor approach configuration on part of the flying crew who continued the approach after passing the MDA at 1,150 feet while the aircraft was not stabilized and the crew did not establish a visual contact with the obstacles on short final. The following contributing factors were identified:
- Following the first impact with trees, branches and pieces of wood entered the engines, causing a loss of power followed by a loss of speed and altitude,
- Complacency on the part of the crew,
- Pressure and stress,
- Visual perception issues,
- Violation of the standard operating procedures,
- Loss of situational awareness,
- Lack of crew resources management,
- Poor approach and landing planning,
- Poor weather conditions,
- Relative low experience of the copilot.

It was determined that the n°3 leading edge flap actuator attachment fitting on the wing front spar had fractured due to corrosion. The actuator came away and caused the failure of some hydraulic lines and damage to the thrust control cables. Some 1981 Boeing Service Bulletins had not been complied with. One of these included the replacement of the aluminium leading edge flap actuator attachment fitting with a steel one; this had not been done. The following contributing factors were reported:
- Excessive workload on approach and landing due to the emergency situation,
- Poor approach planning,
- Lack of visibility due to the night,
- Poor crew coordination,
- Poor crew resources management,
- The crew forgot to lower the flaps electrically on approach, causing the speed to be 32 knots in excess,
- Poor aircraft maintenance and supervision,
- Failures in the supervision of the Company's operating sector.

The following findings were reported:
a. Human Factor
(1) Physiological Aspect
- There was no evidence of this aspect contributing to the occurrence of the accident.
(2) Psychological Aspect - Contributed
- The psychological aspect contributed through the generation of a high level of anxiety to perform the landing and in the diversion of the focus of attention during the approach manoeuvres to land.
- The psychological aspect was influenced by the activation of the smoke alarm which generated an increase in the workload on board.
b. Material Factor
- There were no indications that this factor contributed to the accident.
c. Operational Factor
(1) Deficient Instruction
- Although the instruction was carried out in accordance with what the standards recommend, the failures that contributed to the accident are characteristic of lack of experience in facing abnormalities simultaneously with the maintenance of flight control. Such failures could be avoided with more adequate simulator instructions and training involving the cockpit management aspects.
(2) Poor Maintenance - Undetermined .
- It was not possible to determine the cause of the activation of the 'Aft Cargo Smoke' alarm and whether the maintenance services contributed to this occurrence.
(3) Deficient Cockpit Coordination
- Inadequate performance of the duties assigned to each crew member. The procedures foreseen for the execution of descent by instrument have been modified and some have been deleted depending on the appearance of a complicator element (smoke alarm).
(4) Influence of the environment
- The dark night contributed to the creation of the 'black hole' phenomenon, or 'background figure', making it difficult to perceive external references for a possible identification of the vertical distance of the aircraft from the ground.
(5) Deficient Oversight
- The supervision, at cockpit level, contributed to the accident by the inadequate management of the resources available for the flight in the cockpit.
- Company level supervision contributed to the accident by not identifying the need for cockpit management training and providing it to the crew involved.
- Supervision, at company level, was also inadequate when climbing to the same mission, two pilots unfamiliar with the airplane to be used and in night operation.
(6) Other Operational Aspects
- The failure to comply with several 'Callouts', the non-use of the radio altimeter and the inadequate use of the 'altitude alert', as an aid to the accomplishment of the descent procedure, contributed to the occurrence of the accident.

Failure of the crew to recognize that he was lined up on a taxiway and not the active runway. Poor visibility due to foggy conditions was a contributing factor.

The accident was the consequence of the combination of the following findings:
- Poor flight preparation,
- Lack of crew coordination,
- Failure to follow pre-takeoff procedures,
- Inadequate supervision on part of the instructor.

For unknown reasons, the captain continued the descent below 5,000 feet as instructed by ATC and ignored GPWS and pilot warnings.

It is believed that the crew suffered an optical illusion on short final.

Failure of the right engine after takeoff for unknown reason.