Russia

The accident was the result of the destruction of the right main landing gear strut upon landing.
The following contributing factors were identified:
- Unsatisfactory performance of the welded joint in the manufacture of the strut with the formation of welding cracks in one of the most stressed zones of the strut,
- Pilot errors, which led to an early landing of the aircraft, possibly rough, on an unprepared (uncleared) area with possible obstacles.

The reason for the accident with the Gulfstream G200 4K-AZ88 was the stowing of the right-engine reverser by the pilot KVS from maximum thrust reversal while maintaining maximum thrust reversal on the left engine, which led to the appearance of a significant turning moment to the left. The aircraft turning to the left in the presence of a cross wind to the right, as well as turbulence of the airflow near the rudder due to the open thrust reversal mechanism of the left engine and possible ice deposition on the outer surfaces of the aircraft, which led to the development of a significant swing moment on the rudder. The development of a significant articulated moment on the rudder, in the absence of power steering in the rudder control system, led to its deviation to the leftmost position despite significant (up to 82 kg or 180 pounds) forces exerted by the crew on the pedals. The deviation of the rudder (pedals) to the left also led to the deviation of the nose wheel to the left. The total moment from the running reverse of the left engine, from the right engine in direct draft mode, and from the rudder and nose wheel deflection to the left, led to the aircraft rolling out of the runway and its damage. Separate braking applied by the crew could not prevent the aircraft from rolling out.

The following contributing factors were identified:
- The crew did not take into account the provisions of the AOM about the possible "destabilizing" effect of the thrust reverse when landing with a cross wind on the runway with a reduced braking coefficient;
- Increased psycho-emotional tension of the crew members due to long dissatisfaction and emotional discussion of instructions and actions of ATC controllers. At the same time, the instructions and actions of the ATC service controllers were in line with established procedures.

The accident with the An-2 RA-84674 aircraft occurred during a forced landing in the forest, the need for which was due to the impossibility of continuing the flight due to the effect of icing on the aerodynamic and traction characteristics of the aircraft (the inability to maintain altitude and speed even with the takeoff engine operating mode). The contributing factor, most likely, was the decision of the crew to climb over 150 m from the ground level, where the presence of stratus clouds and icing was predicted.

The cause of the aviation accident with the RRJ 95B RA-89011 aircraft when landing at night with one deactivated thrust reverser was the transfer to the crew of incorrect information about the value of the friction coefficient, which led to the landing on an icy runway, the average normative friction coefficient which was less than 0.3, which did not allow landing in accordance with current regulations. This led to a significant increase in landing distance, rolling the aircraft out of the runway and collision with the junction of the reconstructed section of the runway with a height of about 0.4 m, which led to the destruction of the main landing gear supports and damage to the engines with fuel leakage without causing a fire.
The contributing factors were the following:
- Absence of a connecting ramp (which was not envisaged by the reconstruction project) between the current and the part of the runway being reconstructed;
- inefficiency of the SMS of Yakutsk Airport JSC in terms of identification and control of risks associated with the possibility of ice formation at the runway, and insufficient control over the implementation of the SMS by aviation authorities;
- erroneous determination of the Xc value at the last measurement;
- inefficiency of ice removal procedure during runway cleaning due to lack of chemical reagents for ice removal and/or thermal machines at the airfield;
- lack of information from the RRJ-95LR-100 RA 89038 aircraft crew about actual rolling out of the runway, which was an aviation incident and was subject to investigation;
- failure by airport and ATC officials to take appropriate action after receiving the RRJ-95LR-100 RA-89038 low friction report from the aircraft crew.

The aircraft overrun, destroying and damage by fire were caused by the following factors:
- repeated disregarding of the windshear warnings which when entered a horizontal windshear (changing from the head wind to tail one) at low altitude resulted in landing at distance of 1285 m from the RWY threshold (overrunning the landing zone by 385 m) with the increased IAS and tail wind;
- landing to the runway, when its normative friction coefficient was less than 0.3 that according to the regulations in force, did not allow to land.
The factors contributed the accident:
- the crew violation of the AFM and Operator's OM requirements in regards to the actions required a forecasted or actual wind shear warning;
- use of the automatic flight mode (autopilot, autothrottle) in the flight under the windshear conditions which resulted in the aircraft being unstable (excess thrust) when turning to the manual control;
- lack of prevention measures taken by the Operator when the previous cases of poor crew response to windshear warning were found;
- insufficient crew training in regards to CRM and TEM that did not allow to identify committed mistakes and/or violations in good time;
- the crew members' high psychoemotional state caused by inconsistency between the actual landing conditions and the received training as well as the psychological limit which was determined by the individual psychological constitution of each member;
- insufficient braking both in auto and manual mode during the aircraft rollout caused by the insufficient tyre-to-ground friction aiming to achieve the specified rate of braking. Most probably the insufficient tyre-to-ground friction was caused by the significant amount of water on the RWY surface;
- the aerodrome services' noncompliance of Sochi International Aerodrome Manual requirements related to the RWY after heavy showers inspection which resulted in the crew provision of wrong normative friction coefficients. In obtaining of the increased overrun speed of about ≈75 kt (≈140 km/h) the later setting of engines into reverse mode was contributed (the engines were set into reverse mode 16 s later than the aircraft landed at distance of about ≈200 m from the runway end).

Failure of the exhaust manifold tube due to fatigue cracks, which caused a loss of engine power after hot gases went through the carburetor that was open at 30%.

The accident was the consequence of a total engine failure during initial climb for reasons that could not be determined. The fact that the field was waterlogged and did not permit a safe landing was considered as a contributing factor.

The failure of the right engine is most likely due to an interruption in the fuel supply due to the presence of dirt in the fuel filter. The left engine lost power presumably due to wear on the cylinders and pistons that had exceeded their life limit. A lack of an effective check of the fuel filters and the life of the various components of the left engines remains contributing factors.

The accident was the consequence of erroneous actions on part of the crew while climbing in instrument meteorological conditions at unreliable readings of instrument speed caused by icing (blockage with ice) of all three Pitot tubes. This caused the aircraft to become uncontrollable, enter a dive and eventually collide with the ground. The accident was then considered as a loss of control in flight (LOC-I). The investigation revealed systemic weaknesses in the identification of hazards and risk control, the inoperability of the airline's flight safety management system and the lack of control over the level of training of crew members by aviation authorities at all levels, which led to the issuance of certificates of aviation personnel and the admission to the flights of the crew, which did not fully meet the qualification requirements. The following contributing factors were reported:
- Hurry of the crew in preparation for the flight due to the late arrival of the aircraft from the previous flight and attempts to "catch up" with the time,
- Skipping by the crew of the operation to switch on the Pitot tube heating before takeoff and failing to comply with the section of the check list "BEFORE TAKE-OFF", which provides for the control of this action,
- Design features of the An-148 aircraft in terms of the restrictions on the duration of Pitot tube heating operation on the ground, which led to the need to carry out operations to control the inclusion of Pitot tube heating and compliance with the principle of "dark cockpit" in a separate section of the "BEFORE THE FLIGHT" check list, which is performed immediately before the start of the takeoff run, which creates additional risks of missing these operations. These actions are provided in the section "ON THE RUNWAY START",
- Systematic failure of the airline's crews to comply with the "dark cockpit" principle and the requirements of the radar, which contributed to "getting used" to the takeoff with the presence of emergency and warning messages on the Integrated system and alarm indicator (KISS) and did not allow to identify the fact that the Pitot tube heating was not included. In the accident flight before takeoff, six warning messages were displayed on the KISS, including three messages about the absence of Pitot tube heating,
- Design features of the An-148 aircraft, connected with the impossibility to disable the display of a number of warning messages on the KISS even when performing the whole range of works provided for by the MMEL while ensuring the flight with delayed defects,
- Low safety culture in the airline, which was manifested in: systematic failure to record in the flight log the failures detected during the flight, as well as in the performance of flights with the failures not eliminated and/or not included in the list of delayed failures, accompanied by the corresponding messages on the KISS,
- Failure to take necessary measures in case of detection of previous facts of untimely activation of Pitot tube heating by crews based on the results of express analysis of flight information,
- Unreadiness of the crew to take actions in case of triggering the alarm "Speed of Emergency" due to the lack of appropriate theoretical training in the airline and the impossibility to work out this special situation on the flight simulation device and / or during airfield training and, as a consequence, failure to comply with the procedures provided for after triggering of this alarm,
- Absence of federal aviation regulations for certification of flight simulators, the development of which is provided for by the Air Code of the Russian Federation,
- Approval for the existing AN-148 flight simulators of the IFC Training LLC and the CTC of the Saint-Petersburg State University of Civil Aviation without taking into account their actual capabilities to reproduce special flight cases, as well as the provisions of FAR-128,
- Absence of specific values of flight parameters (engine operation mode, pitch and roll angles, etc.) in the aircraft's flight manual, which must be maintained by the crew of the airspeed alarm system, as well as absence of the situation with unreliable instrument speed readings (Unreliable Airspeed Procedure) in the list of special flight cases,
- Increased psycho-emotional tension of crew members at the final stage of the flight due to inability to understand the causes of speed fluctuations and, as a consequence, the captain falling under the influence of the "tunnel effect" with the formation of the dominating factor of speed control according to the "own" (left) airspeed indicator without a comprehensive assessment of flight parameters,
- Insufficient training of pilots in the field of human factor, methods of threat and error control and management of crew resources,
- Individual psychological peculiarities of pilots (for the captain - reduction of intellectual and behavioral flexibility, fixation on their own position with the inability (impossibility) to "hear" prompts from the second pilot; for the second pilot - violation of the organization and sequence of actions), which in a stressful situation in the absence of proper level of management of the crew resources came to the fore; loss of the captain's psychological performance (psychological stupor, psychological incapacitation), which resulted in complete loss of spatial orientation and did not allow reacting to correct prompts and actions of the co-pilot, including when triggering the PULL UP warning of the EGPWS system,
- Absence of psychological incapacitation criteria in the airline's AFM, which prevented the second pilot from taking more drastic measures,
- High annual leave arrears for special conditions, which could lead to fatigue and negatively affect the performance of the captain,
- Operation of the aircraft control system in the longitudinal channel in the reconfiguration mode with unreliable signals of instrument speed, not described in the operational documentation, related to a double increase in the transfer coefficient from the hand wheel to the steering wheel in the flight configuration and constant deviation of the steering wheel for diving (without deviation of the steering wheel) for about 60 seconds, which reduced the time required for the crew to recognize the situation.