What happened
On September 3, 2000, at approximately 11:10 AM, an EMB 810 D, registration PT-VNS, was performing a low-altitude flight over the urban area of Picos, Piauí. The flight had originated in Teresina to transport a patient from a local hospital. The pilot intended to perform a low pass over the hospital to signal his arrival. During this maneuver, the aircraft struck an unmarked high-voltage power line at an altitude of approximately 90 feet.
The impact occurred near the lower extremity of the vertical stabilizer, causing the vertical stabilizer and rudder to be torn from the fuselage. The aircraft continued in flight for about 500 meters in an uncontrolled state, banking at an angle exceeding 80 degrees. The left wing subsequently struck a satellite dish and a residential roof, leading to the destruction of the cockpit and the aircraft's impact with the ground. The crash damaged four residences, but no individuals on the ground were injured. The pilot sustained fatal injuries.
The investigation
CENIPA's investigation established that the aircraft was operating under a private transport category but was being used for remunerated transport. While the pilot held valid commercial and instrument ratings, he had limited experience in solo flight. The investigation found that the pilot had provided incorrect flight information to air traffic control, claiming a destination of Nossa Senhora de Fátima when he was actually proceeding to Picos.
Investigators examined the aircraft's maintenance records, which were found to be adequate, and confirmed the engines were producing power at the time of impact. The investigation also looked into the operational environment, noting that the pilot had a history of performing low-altitude maneuvers and that the company's operational supervisor was aware of this behavior but had failed to take corrective action due to personal relationships.
Findings
- Improper decision-making: The pilot's choice to perform a low-altitude pass over a densely populated area was driven by immaturity and overconfidence.
- Inadequate supervision: The operator demonstrated a lack of flight safety doctrine and failed to supervise the pilot's known pattern of unsafe low-level flying.
- Flight indiscipline: The pilot violated regulations by flying at low altitudes over an urban area and providing inaccurate flight intentions to authorities.
- Poor planning: The mission was planned with insufficient regard for safety, prioritizing a visual signal over established safety procedures.
- Obstacle visibility: The high-voltage cables were unmarked and difficult to see, and the sun's position may have contributed to visual impairment.