On January 30, 2013, an aircraft (registration PTOMU) was involved in an aviation accident near RESENDE, RJ, BR. No fatalities were reported. This summary draws on records from the Brazilian Aeronautical Accident Investigation and Prevention Center (CENIPA).
On 30 January 2013, a Cessna 650 (PT-OMU) operated by TAM Aviação Executiva e Taxi Aereo S.A. overran the runway at Resende Aerodrome (SDRS), Brazil, after landing in degraded weather. All five occupants were uninjured.
Incident Overview and Aircraft Details On 30 January 2013 at 19:10 UTC, a Cessna Aircraft 650 with registration PT-OMU, operated by TAM Aviação Executiva e Taxi Aereo S.A. (TPX), experienced a serious incident at Aeródromo de Resende (SDRS) in Resende, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The aircraft was conducting an air taxi operation transporting personnel. The accident investigation was conducted by the Centro de Investigação e Prevenção de Acidentes Aeronáuticos (CENIPA) under investigation number IG-022/CENIPA/2013. ## Flight History and Operational Context The aircraft departed from Aeródromo do Galeão - Antônio Carlos Jobim (SBGL) in Rio de Janeiro at approximately 10:15 UTC, bound for Resende. The flight carried two pilots and three passengers. During the post-landing roll on runway 08/26, after traveling approximately 950 meters, the aircraft lost control and exited the runway to the right. It crossed about 200 meters of grass before coming to a stop on the taxiway leading to the runway. The aircraft sustained substantial damage, but all five occupants exited the aircraft uninjured. ## Crew Qualifications and Aircraft Status The Pilot in Command held a valid Airline Pilot License (PLA) with C650 type rating and Instrument Flight Rating (IFRA), with approximately 2,700 total hours and 2,166 hours in the C650. The Second in Command held a valid Commercial Pilot License (PCM) with C650 type rating and IFRA, with approximately 3,166 total hours and 869 hours in the C650. Both pilots held valid medical certificates. The aircraft had a valid airworthiness certificate, was within weight and balance limits, and had current technical records. ## Weather Conditions and Approach The Resende Aerodrome was a public aerodrome operating under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) during daytime. The runway was asphalt, 1,300 x 30 meters, with an elevation of 1,319 feet. The aerodrome did not have a meteorological information station. The SIGWX chart for the area showed cloud cover near the time of landing. Weather information from Guaratinguetá (SBGW), approximately 40 nautical miles away, indicated conditions at the limit for VFR operations. During the flight, the crew requested a descent to FL065 and canceled their instrument flight plan, but had to return to FL100 due to adverse weather conditions. They subsequently descended in visual conditions below the cloud layer and established for the traffic pattern and landing. ## Post-Landing Sequence The Pilot in Command, acting as Pilot Flying, reported that the approach was conducted correctly within expected speeds and that touchdown occurred with the left main gear in the center of the runway. After touchdown, he deployed the engine reversers. However, he experienced difficulty in placing the nose gear on the ground. The Second in Command reportedly said “bota no chão” (put it on the ground), referring to the nose gear. The aircraft manual warned that reverser operation was limited to ground operation only. After managing to lower the nose gear, the Pilot in Command felt the aircraft drift to the right and attempted to control it using steering, but was unsuccessful. He did not attempt to control direction using the rudder pedals. When he attempted to use the brakes, the aircraft had already crossed the runway boundaries, traversing part of the grassed area, and came to a stop on the taxiway near runway 26, where the nose gear collapsed. An external observer at the Resende Aerodrome reported that the aircraft traveled more than half the runway before touchdown and appeared to be moving at a much higher speed than normal. ## Technical Investigation Checks were performed on the nose gear and steering actuator, as well as the squat switches, after they were removed for testing. Due to damage to the assembly, it was not possible to perform an operational test of the nose gear steering system. The squat switches, which detect whether the aircraft weight is on the ground, were found to be functioning normally. Hydraulic pressure of 300 PSI was applied to the steering actuator, and after directing the pilot valve, the actuator moved normally to the left and right as selected. ## Contributing Factors The investigation inferred that due to degraded weather conditions, the crew may have encountered difficulties in performing a standard traffic pattern and stabilized approach. The fact that the aircraft had traveled nearly half the runway before touchdown suggested that the Pilot Flying may have been more forceful in attempting to place the nose gear on the ground, which may have caused damage to the assembly and made directional control difficult. The decision to proceed with landing in marginal conditions indicated failures in recognizing, analyzing, and selecting more conservative alternatives that could have avoided the accident, demonstrating failures in the decision-making process. Inadequate control inputs and incorrect evaluation of operational parameters were considered contributing factors. Additionally, the crew's actions in the face of degraded weather conditions demonstrated overconfidence and complacency in the operation, attitudes that indicated a reduction in situational awareness and also contributed to the outcome of the incident.