The final report by the Office for the Prevention and Investigation of Aircraft and Railway Accidents (GPIAAF) revealed that the helicopter crash was not caused by a technical failure or irregularities in the equipment, and it ruled out the involvement of birds in the accident.
These conclusions contradict previous statements by the pilot, the sole survivor, who told GPIAAF investigators that he had observed a “medium-sized bird” in the flight path before the accident, prompting a “deviation,” while his lawyer suggested a “mechanical failure” as the cause for the crash into the Douro River.
The report also indicates that the pilot of the firefighting helicopter, which crashed in Cambres, Lamego, Viseu district, resulting in the deaths of five GNR/ Emergency Protection and Rescue Unit (UEPS) soldiers, violated minimum altitude and made route deviations.
The GPIAAF claims that “the pilot’s decision on the return trajectory to the Armamar base,” following the cancellation of a firefighting mission in Baião, Porto district, while flying over the Douro River “at high speed and low altitude, considerably increased the risk of the flight,” contributing to the crash of the AS350 — Écureuil.
“Regarding the flight path, it is the same path used by all pilots from the Armamar Base to reach the reported theater of operations, with no trajectory deviation, as the report clearly states. Therefore, that was not the cause of the accident,” argued lawyer Albano Cunha in a statement.
The defender of pilot Luís Filipe Rebelo states that “the GPIAAF attempts to describe the helicopter crash as a possible failed maneuver, basing its conclusions on studies and simulations conducted by the manufacturer, Airbus.”
“This reveals the investigation’s biased nature, as it would be unlikely for the aircraft manufacturer to point out any manufacturing defect or technical failure, considering the loss of five lives, which we deeply regret,” the lawyer remarked.
For the defense, who are representing the pilot, who is also a suspect in an ongoing criminal inquiry and subject to the coercive measure of suspension from duties, “the report’s contents were not surprising due to its tendency to find human error to justify the accident.”
Albano Cunha highlights alleged flaws and inconsistencies in the investigation, concluding that “it is easier to conduct a partial investigation and suggest the culpability of the sole survivor of this accident,” questioning the work of the GPIAAF.
“According to the investigation, ‘It was not possible to test the fault panel due to extensive damage,’ which leaves us bewildered given the reported conclusions. The French Accident Investigation Office was able to test the various equipment the helicopter had, but testing the aircraft’s fault panel was deemed essential to determine the cause of the accident,” noted the pilot’s defender, Luís Filipe Rebelo.
The defense adds that “it has a team of experts in the manufacturing of the analyzed aircraft parts.”
“In contesting this report, we will request the GPIAAF to provide all contacts and damaged parts for further analysis to verify the veracity of the conclusions drawn, to prevent future tragedies like the one that took place, and to clarify the cause of the accident that claimed the lives of the six people involved,” reads the statement.
