Page:CAB Aircraft Accident Report, Panagra Flight 9.pdf/13

 company procedure from Arequipa to Lima, Peru, and departed at 2:09 p.m.

6. There was no evidence of failure or malfunctioning of any part of the aircraft.

7. The weather was not severe enough to be considered a contributing factor to the accident, had company flight procedure been followed.

8. The operation of Trip No. 9 was normal until it encountered weather which, on the course the pilot elected to take, necessitated instrument flying; the flight was continued on instruments, contrary to company policy.

9. On account of the SSW wind (approximately 20 m.p.h.) the flight had drifted off course ENE over the higher terrain.

10. Even though the CAA had on at least two occasions expressed to Panagra the advisability of Panagra's publishing a flight route manual for guidance of its pilots and dispatchers, this had never been accomplished and instructions concerning flight procedures were given orally to new pilots.

11. Evidence indicates that Captain Gardner was familiar with company policy against "en route instrument flying" between Arequipa and Lima.

The evidence disclosed by investigation leaves little doubt that this accident would have been prevented had the pilot followed normal operating procedure. When departing from Arequipa, Peru, for Lima, Peru, company procedure calls for a normal heading of 290° when the flight be made contact or above the overcast. When weather conditions; exist which necessitate a continuance of flight on instruments,